That probably is the most aggravating for me, and I don't even fly in their airspace. I've suggested this before - every time they "can't hear you", file an ASRS report.
Never. There is nothing in the pre-solo or PP training requirements to learn to read and interpret IFR charts.
The real question is whether the pilot of the inbound aircraft should expect pilots in the pattern to know where GALEY is, and there is absolutely no basis in any FAA publication to expect a non-IR PP or Student to have the slightest idea where GALEY is. I put this on a par with Tower controllers asking you to report, or people in a nontowerd airport pattern reporting, the Bongo building or Lake Smedley or "the gravel pit" (especially when there's more than one, but only one which is the locally-known point) when it isn't on the sectional. Local folks may know these local reporting points, but transient pilots.
What difference does that make? Are you saying that we should automatically assume that pilots who say where they are aren't really there?
Based on my experience, that is an unjustified assumption -- doveryai, no proveryai.
Prefer all you want, but if it's gonna be one or the other, you're only sure the SP/PP will understand it if you give distance and direction, not a fix name. Also, what's the point of saying "ILS approach"? Wasted bandwidth, and nothing more. Does it matter whether the inbound aircraft is using the ILS vs GPS vs RNAV vs Mk1/Mod0 eyeball to find the runway? Not to the VFR traffic in the pattern.
After the first couple posts between Jesse and Felix, I figured out their game.......
I can see the point of saying which approach is being flown: a precision approach will have the inbound aircraft flying a glideslope, while a nonprecision approach may well have the inbound aircraft dropping down low just past the FAF and staying there until the runway (or other missed approach point).
Are Advisory Circulars included in the pre-solo or PP training requirements?
But GALEY is on the sectional. In a previous message you wrote, "I don't think it's reasonable to expect a non-IR PP, no less a Student Pilot, to know where any IFR fixes are." Do you believe things depicted on the sectional are fair game as long as they aren't IFR fixes?
I'm saying a reported distance is unreliable unless the pilot states how he determined it.
It's not an assumption, it's an observation.
I don't think an unreliable report in a more readily understood format is particularly useful, so if it's gonna be one or the other I'll go with stating the fix.
I don't know, you'll have to ask the folks that wrote the AC. As I said, the report was posted using that format. I see no reason to state the IAP.
Perhaps not, but it is additional information that would actually be useful to a nonzero subset of pilots, and takes little enough time to say that it's worth including.
Even IFR fixes that happen to appear on the sectional?
Okkay, how about this one: "Worthington traffic, Zodiac 55ZC, WONDD inbound descending through 3300, practice ILS 29 approach, Worthington." WONDD isn't on the sectional, even though it's an LOM.
+1 yep
I'd make it even more explicit: "Worthington traffic, Zodiac 55ZC, WONDD inbound, 5 mile final, descending through 3300, practice ILS 29 approach, Worthington." That way, the IFR pilot has the extra information (that you're at the FAF), but the VFR pilot still knows where you are.
I am an IFR pilot and that extra would not mean anything to me unless I was very familiar with the approach or had the plate open and was lookiing at it. As an IFR pilot I would recognize that most FAFs seem to be about 5 NM out and would assume that you were at the FAF, but even then it would not change what I would be planning on doing based on your 5 mile report. IOW it would not hurt to add it but I would question how usefull it would really be.
I assume it's useful for some purpose...otherwise, why would the AIM say to include it?
My point is that just stating the fix is often insufficient to tell the VFR pilot where the aircraft making the call is. Since many, if not the majority, of FAFs aren't on sectionals, why shouldn't the IFR pilot get in the habit of saying where he is with a direction and distance, instead of just a fix name?
I agree. While Steven's right that some fixes are depicted on the Sectional, I find it unlikely in the extreme that an IFR pilot is going to look at the Sectional to verify that the fix is depicted prior to making the position call. MUCH easier to give a distance. And, while Steven's also right that it would help to know how they're getting their distance, if it's not Mk 1 eyeball it'll be within a mile or two.
Not at all... but, answer me this...
14 CFR Part 91 said:
I refer to the AIM as it establishes many standards that are not specifically stated in the FARs.
I wasn't referring to regulations... only established standards and practices.Yes, but as you know "The AIM is not regulatory" while this particular thing (left turns in the pattern) is. Just tryin' ta help ya out here.
Why would they need to? They're explained in the legend.
Stating the fix is better than a guess on the distance.
Sorry, Steven, but I (and, from the sound of it, most of the others here) disagree. A guess on the distance at least gives non-instrument pilots some direction to start looking in. A fix that's not depicted on the sectional (and I strongly suspect that the vast majority are not) is useless to the non-instrument pilot. What purpose does it serve to give someone information he can't use?
