Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...

So do you disagree that the IFR pilot was wrong to use language that
other pilots may not understand? The IFR pilot would certainly be
foolish if he relied on all VFR pilots knowing the IFR waypoints and
approach fixes at each airport.


From Advisory Circular 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without
Operating
Control Towers:

Examples of self-announce phraseologies:

Strawn traffic, Cessna 2143Q, (Name - Final Approach Fix) inbound,
descending through (altitude), practice (type) approach runway 35 Strawn.


Is the IFR pilot wrong to use FAA recommended phraseology?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
From Advisory Circular 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports
Without Operating
Control Towers:

Examples of self-announce phraseologies:

Strawn traffic, Cessna 2143Q, (Name - Final Approach Fix) inbound,
descending through (altitude), practice (type) approach runway 35
Strawn.

This issue has come up before back in June of 2007. I posted back then the
reference to Advisory Circular 90-66A (which was published about 3 years
after AC 90-42F) in which it states this recommended practice for airports
without operating control towers:

"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."

Is the IFR pilot wrong to use FAA recommended phraseology?

I wouldn't think so - irrespective of whether the IFR pilot followed AC 90-
42F or AC 90-66A. But that is just my opinion.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

This issue has come up before back in June of 2007. I posted back then the
reference to Advisory Circular 90-66A (which was published about 3 years
after AC 90-42F) in which it states this recommended practice for airports
without operating control towers:


If you're suggesting that AC 90-66A superseded AC 90-42F, that is not the
case. When older ACs are cancelled by the publication of a new AC it is so
stated in the new AC. From AC 90-66A:

2. CANCELLATION.
AC 90-66, Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns for Airplane Operations at
Uncontrolled Airports, dated February 27,1975, is cancelled.

Note also that paragraph 5 of AC 90-66A lists the latest "addition" of AC
90-42 as related reading material. AC 90-42F and AC 90-66A are both listed
in the latest edition of the Advisory Circular Checklist.



"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."


Well, a position report over a known fix does provide distance and direction
from the airport, so the ACs are not in conflict. I see no downside in
stating the distance in miles along with the name of the fix. That would
report position in terms that should be understood by all and also indicate
that it's a reliable report.