interesting moment yesterday on final

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

I think you've made your point. 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 reconcile that with AC 90-42F?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

I think you've made your point. 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 reconcile that with AC 90-42F?


It doesn't have to reconcile Steven. Clearly you can use either method for
reporting, and still be within the FAA's recommendations. But if you want to
increase your chances of being seen and understood by all, including those
operation without a radio, you might want to strongly consider the
references in AC 90-66. It does outline recommendations made about 3 years
later than 90-42.

On Jun 10, 2:55 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:

It doesn't have to reconcile Steven. Clearly you can use either method for
reporting, and still be within the FAA's recommendations. But if you want to
increase your chances of being seen and understood by all, including those
operation without a radio, you might want to strongly consider the
references in AC 90-66. It does outline recommendations made about 3 years
later than 90-42.


Right. Pilots operating without radios would understand the format of
AC 90-66A far better than that of AC 90-42F.