interesting moment yesterday on final

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
landing at same:

How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
end below:


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...A?OpenDocument
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers

9. SELF-ANNOUNCE POSITION AND/OR INTENTIONS.
a. General. ‘Self-announce” is a procedure whereby pilots
broadcast their position, intended flight activity or ground
operation on the designated CTAF. This procedure is used primarily
at airports which do not have a control tower or an FSS on the
airport.
...
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES. It should be noted
that aircraft operating to or from another nearby airport may be
making self-announce broadcasts on the same UNICOM or MULTICOM
frequency. To help identify one airport from another, the airport
name should be spoken at the beginning and end of each
self-announce transmission.

(1) Inbound:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, APACHE TWO TWO FIVE ZULU, (POSITION), (ALTITUDE),
(DESCENDING) OR ENTERING DOWNWIND/BASE/FINAL (AS APPROPRIATE)
RUNWAY ONE SEVEN FULL STOP,
TOUCH-AND-GO, STRAWN.

* STRAWN TRAFFIC APACHE TWO IWO FIVE ZULU CLEAR OF RUNWAY ONE
SEVEN STRAWN. *

(2) outbound:
$TRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FIVE FIVE BRAVO (LOCATION ON
AIRPORT) TAXIING TO RUNWAY TWO SIX STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, QUEENAIRE SEVEN ONE FCVE FIVE BRAVO DEPARTING
RUNWAY TWO SIX, DEPARTING THE PATTERN TO THE (DIRECTION),
CLIMBING TO (ALTITUDE) STRAWN.

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC PRACTICE (TYPE)
APPROACH COMPLETED OR TERMINATED RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.


12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED COMMUNCATIONS PROCEDURES.
...

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports
when landing at same:

How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
end below:
....
AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports without Operating
Control Towers
....
11. EXAMPLES OF SELF-ANNOUNCE PHRASEOLOGIES.
....
(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME - FINAL
APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE
(TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

To paraphrase Walt Whitman:
It is the FAA. It is large, it contains multitudes. It contradicts itself.



"Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself (I am large, I
contain multitudes)."
--Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

To paraphrase Walt Whitman:
It is the FAA. It is large, it contains multitudes. It contradicts itself.


So which practice should be followed? The one in AC 90-66A which provides
reliable information to none or the one in AC 90-42F which provides reliable
information to some?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
So which practice should be followed? The one in AC 90-66A which
provides reliable information to none or the one in AC 90-42F which
provides reliable information to some?

I've found a very helpful AOPA document that provides useful guidance on
this subject (and provides me an answer to your questions):

"Safety Advisor
Operations & Proficiency No. 3
Operations at Nontowered Airports":

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf

It states:

"Pilots practicing instrument approaches at nontowered airports on a
VFR day should announce their position in both IFR and VFR terms,

"Frederick traffic, Seminole Three-Six Lima, RICKE inbound, four-mile
final, Runway Two-Three, Frederick."

VFR pilots will benefit from a little education about instrument
operations at a nontowered airport. Learn if the airport has IFR
approaches and, if so, to which runways by referencing the A/FD. Have
an instrumentrated pilot or instructor describe the approach
procedures and explain the phraseology IFR pilots use to announce
their positions and intentions.
....
If you know where the missed approach holding fixes are and how
instrument traffic navigates to those fixes, you’ll know where IFR
pilots are headed when they announce on the CTAF they are executing a
practice missed approach."

There is more relevant material (including advice on when a straight-in
approach is not recommended) but the document's recommendations appear to
be (to me at least) better than the too-brief recommendations in the two
FAA ACs referenced above. So my answer to your questions would be
"neither," and would follow the practice recommended by the AOPA document.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports
when landing at same:

How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
end below:

I really don't see a conflict. Considering the *intent* of these regs, it
is obvious that clear communications are required. In an IFR-only
environment, the communication in that paragraph is clear and concise. In
a mixed environment, it is inadequate, which is why the other examples and
regs are given. This seems so obvious that it makes me wonder how this
thread has gone on for so long.

Neil

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 23:03:15 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Your citation of AC90-66A [1] appears to
clearly indicate that the FAA prefers that IFR pilots report their
positions by transmitting their distance from uncontrolled airports when
landing at same:

How do you resolve that conclusion with the third paragraph from the
end below:


It seems clear to me that most VFR pilots, as well as many IFR pilots flying
VFR in unfamiluar areas, an not going to be aware of all IFR reporting
points. Therefore, if someone wants to convey their position to all pilots
on CTAF, IFR reporting points will never be completely reliable. It also
seems the FAA understands this, or they wouldn't have clearly mentioned it
in the AC.

So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
when the example in 90-42 was written. I don't see how any reasonable person
could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:04:36 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :
So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
when the example in was written.

AC90-42 clearly states:

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME -
FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE)
PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

Practice instrument approaches are conducted in VMC, so the FAA wasn't
thinking of "an IFR situation when the example in was written."

I don't see how any reasonable person
could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.

Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
AC90-42.

Larry Dighera wrote:
Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
AC90-42.

I'm pretty sure they are advising, not instructing, otherwise wouldn't the
documents be ICs, not ACs? :-)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:04:36 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :
So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
when the example in was written.

AC90-42 clearly states:

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME -
FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE)
PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

Practice instrument approaches are conducted in VMC, so the FAA wasn't
thinking of "an IFR situation when the example in was written."

I don't see how any reasonable person
could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.

Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
AC90-42.


But they clearly change that recommendation three years later in AC 90-66a,
7f.

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow
of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and
direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
completion of the approach."

I would suppose a pilot could claim to be within the FAA recommendations
while using either method. But using IFR fixes only, would not be consistent
with the latest recommendations, and would not be conveying their position
to all pilots.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:44:25 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:04:36 -0500, "Maxwell"
wrote in :
So I would think we could assume the FAA was thinking of an IFR situation
when the example in was written.

AC90-42 clearly states:

(3) Practice Instrument Approach:
STRAWN TRAFFIC, CESSNA TWO THREE FOUR THREE QUEBEC (NAME -
FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING THROUGH (ALTITUDE)
PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY THREE FIVE STRAWN.

Practice instrument approaches are conducted in VMC, so the FAA wasn't
thinking of "an IFR situation when the example in was written."

I don't see how any reasonable person
could report himself in reference to an IFR reporting point, in VFR
conditions, and expect all others to understand. Right or wrong, someone
doing so doesn't seem to be making his reporting position clear.

Be that as it may, the FAA is clearly instructing pilots to do so in
AC90-42.


But they clearly change that recommendation three years later in AC 90-66a,
7f.

"Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly
alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow
of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and
direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon
completion of the approach."

You'll notice that that excerpt from AC 90-66a relates to instrument
approaches presumably conducted under IFR, while the seemingly
contradictory information in AC 90-42F is in reference to PRACTICE
instrument approaches which are conducted under VFR. So it seems that
the drafters of one AC were probably unaware of the information in the
other, because it would seem that the opposite recommendations would
be more appropriate.


I would suppose a pilot could claim to be within the FAA recommendations
while using either method.

The way I see it, the seemingly contradictory information in the two
ACs creates a "Catch 22" situation, that the pilot only resolve by
using both reporting procedures concurrently, the FAF AND the distance
from the airport.

But using IFR fixes only, would not be consistent with the latest
recommendations,

It would be for _PRACTICE_ IFR approaches, but not actual IFR
approaches.

and would not be conveying their position to all pilots.


I understand your concern. But if the VFR pilot on downwind hears an
aircraft report being inbound on a practice approach, he should know
that the pilot broadcasting that is about five miles out on a
straight-in, regardless of the name of the FAF.