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

kontiki wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

Yea, we teach (or are suppose to teach) IFR pilots not to do that. Its
not very helpful for the intended purpose (to let everyone know where
you are).

-Robert, CFII

Flight instructors should at least tell their students
about what IFR fixes are and where they are (at that airport).
Its not rocket science and it will help the student in the long run.


Better to give CTAF fixes in some universally recognized form...
5 miles out straight in for 22 beats the hell out of NAILR even
if the guys in the pattern are instrument rated. If their flying
VFR at some non-familiar airport you think they've studied all the
approach charts for the airport to understand what fix you might
be reporting.

Robert M. Gary wrote:

Yea, we teach (or are suppose to teach) IFR pilots not to do that. Its
not very helpful for the intended purpose (to let everyone know where
you are).

I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
direction over waypoints.

If you think about it, it's not difficult to do, as the distance from
the named point to the airport is usually right on the plate. Also,
since most of us have at least a VFR GPS onboard, we have another
reference for distance out in between fixes.

On Jan 15, 11:41*am, B A R R Y wrote:

I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
direction over waypoints.

That's good but just make sure you use waypoints that a VFR pilot
would know (like VORs, etc). Remember the point is for traffic to know
where you are so you don't want to use references that some pilots may
not know. Personally I prefer using relative location to the airport,
since you're only about 10 miles out anyway.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:41 am, B A R R Y wrote:
I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
direction over waypoints.

That's good but just make sure you use waypoints that a VFR pilot
would know (like VORs, etc). Remember the point is for traffic to know
where you are so you don't want to use references that some pilots may
not know. Personally I prefer using relative location to the airport,
since you're only about 10 miles out anyway.

I only use ONE waypoint for airport calls, the airport. G

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
. net...

I was taught, and it was reinforced by the DE, to use distance and
direction over waypoints.

If you think about it, it's not difficult to do, as the distance from the
named point to the airport is usually right on the plate.


But unless you state that your position was determined by GPS other pilots
cannot be confident of the accuracy of your report.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 11:02 am, wrote:

I had NO CLUE where the planes actually were in relation to the
airport. I didn't know if they were two minutes out or ten. A bit
disconcerting when you want to take the active and fly the pattern. If
wishes were horses this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their
positions (during VFR conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons
could understand.


Yea, we teach (or are suppose to teach) IFR pilots not to do that. Its
not very helpful for the intended purpose (to let everyone know where
you are).


From 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 ONE FOUR THREE QUEBEC
(NAME - FINAL APPROACH FIX) INBOUND DESCENDING
THROUGH (ALTITUDE) PRACTICE (TYPE) APPROACH RUNWAY
THREE FIVE STRAWN.

wrote:

I had NO CLUE where the planes actually were in relation to the
airport. I didn't know if they were two minutes out or ten. A bit
disconcerting when you want to take the active and fly the pattern. If
wishes were horses this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their
positions (during VFR conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons
could understand.

Might be safer for all ... maybe might maybe ...


Well perhaps you might take the time to gain a bit of knowledge
regarding IFR approach terminology.... might be safer for all... maybe.

The fact is that it may be VFR at pattern altitude but there
may very well be aircraft flying an real instrument approach
above an overcast layer. Approach control will do their best
to release them to advisory so they can hear and talk to folks
in the pattern but it behooves all pilots to become versed in
the locations of local fixes or navaids in the area for safety
reasons.

wrote in message
...

ON a (barely) related aside regarding my ignorance of IFR terminology:
I checked out in a 172 on Sunday, and while doing some landings at a
non-towered local airport that had some published IFR approaches I'd
hear planes calling their positions using IFR terminology.

I had NO CLUE where the planes actually were in relation to the
airport. I didn't know if they were two minutes out or ten. A bit
disconcerting when you want to take the active and fly the pattern. If
wishes were horses this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their
positions (during VFR conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons
could understand.

Might be safer for all ... maybe might maybe ...


By "this beggar would ask that IFR pilots report their positions (during VFR
conditions) in a way us poor VFR only morons could understand" you probably
mean distance in miles and the direction from the airport. The problem with
that is you don't know how the other pilot determined his distance from the
airport. Maybe he determined it with GPS or DME and the distance is quite
accurate, but maybe it's just a guess.

Here's an example. I'm an air traffic controller, I recall observing a 1200
code approach the Class C boundary as I was vectoring a Skyhawk for a
practice ILS. Right after I called that traffic to the Skyhawk I get a call
from an inbound VFR aircraft stating he's nineteen miles southwest of the
field. I issue a beacon code and watch as the unknown VFR changes to that
code, he's now a mile inside the Class C boundary, nine miles from the
field. This is not an unusual occurrence, happens with all types of
operators, this guy was even a local.

When I'm flying at an uncontrolled field and I hear another pilot use "IFR
terminology" to describe his position I know exactly where he is. When I
hear another pilot use a direction and distance from the field without
knowing how he determined his position I know where he THINKS he is, but not
where he ACTUALLY is. They may be the same point or they may be far apart.
There's no way to know.

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

[...]

When I'm flying at an uncontrolled field and I hear another pilot use "IFR
terminology" to describe his position I know exactly where he is.

No -- you know where he says he is. That may not even be where he thinks
he is, let alone where he actually is (said from personal experience).

When I
hear another pilot use a direction and distance from the field without
knowing how he determined his position I know where he THINKS he is, but not
where he ACTUALLY is. They may be the same point or they may be far apart.
There's no way to know.

Ditto for the IFR case.

Hamish

"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...

No -- you know where he says he is. That may not even be where he thinks
he is, let alone where he actually is (said from personal experience).


He will be and say where his instruments indicate him to be.



Ditto for the IFR case.


Wrong.