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?

"kontiki" wrote in message
...

If you could see that far the Vis was better than 1/8 SM. Maybe
the AWOS visibility sensor needs to be recalibrated.


AWOS does not detect visibility less than 1/4 mile. If a station is
reporting visibility of 1/8 mile the observation was augmented by a human
observer.

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

I think part of the problem is that the FAA defines visibility during
the day as the ability to see an unlit object but we're looking at
high intensity lights in this case. You may only be able to see
something w/o lights 1/8mile away but may be able to see a strobe
light 1/2 mile away.


Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest distance that can be seen
throughout at least half the horizon circle, not necessarily continuous.
The definition does not change at night. Dark or nearly dark objects viewed
against the horizon sky are to be used as visibility markers during the day,
and unfocused lights of moderate intensity (about 25 candela) are to be used
during the night. This applies only to human observers, of course.
AWOS/ASOS doesn't care if it's day or night.

"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.

"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.

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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.

How so?



Ditto for the IFR case.


Wrong.

How so?

Hamish

"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.

"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...

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


How so?


Read FAA-H-8083-15 and FAA-H-8261-1A

In article ,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Hamish Reid" wrote in message
...

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


How so?


Read FAA-H-8083-15 and FAA-H-8261-1A

I'll take that as a tacit admission that you know as well as I do that
*any* position report at an uncontrolled field should be regarded with
skepticism, regardless of whether it's done using instruments or
estimated visually.

Rather than knowing "exactly where he is" when you "hear another pilot
use 'IFR terminology' to describe his position (your words), given the
mistakes pilots (even instrumented-rated pilots) and / or controllers
make, and the various errors possible in any instrument system, you
really only have some idea where he says he is. Having more than once
heard confident and wrong position reports on CTAF from (presumably)
instrument-rated pilots on practice approaches, maybe I'm just a little
less credulous than you...

Hamish