Commercial Aviation question - LAX

[Tuno]

My wife and I recently relocated to Manhattan Beach, CA, a few miles
south of LAX. Having flown in and out of LAX dozens of times in the
last few years, I'm familiar with the pattern for east-bound aircraft
-- take off to the west over the ocean, turn south out over the water,
parallel the beach about 10 miles, turn inland south of Long Beach and
by then at 15 or 20 thousand feet and who cares about your noise.

Monday night at 40 minutes past midnight, we were awoken by what
sounded like a 747 in military throttle right outside our window. I
half expected to see a fireball.

So what transpired? Do the heavies bend the rules after midnight when
nobody's looking?

-ted

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Tuno" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> My wife and I recently relocated to Manhattan Beach, CA, a few miles
> south of LAX. Having flown in and out of LAX dozens of times in the
> last few years, I'm familiar with the pattern for east-bound aircraft
> -- take off to the west over the ocean, turn south out over the water,

Take off into the wind. There's a good chance the prevailing winds are from
the west, so most take-offs would be toward the west. If the wind was from
the south on Monday night, they would have taken off to the south.

[Tuno]

<snip> If the wind was from the south on Monday night, they would have
taken off to the south. </snip>

There is no such runway at LAX. And I doubt they would have been using
Aviation Blvd.

They only take off to the east when the winds are strong out of the
east. 95% of the time, it's straight out to the west, even with
tailwinds up to ~12 knots.

[Mxsmanic]

Tuno writes:

> My wife and I recently relocated to Manhattan Beach, CA, a few miles
> south of LAX. Having flown in and out of LAX dozens of times in the
> last few years, I'm familiar with the pattern for east-bound aircraft
> -- take off to the west over the ocean, turn south out over the water,
> parallel the beach about 10 miles, turn inland south of Long Beach and
> by then at 15 or 20 thousand feet and who cares about your noise.
>
> Monday night at 40 minutes past midnight, we were awoken by what
> sounded like a 747 in military throttle right outside our window. I
> half expected to see a fireball.
>
> So what transpired? Do the heavies bend the rules after midnight when
> nobody's looking?

During the night (midnight to 6:30 AM), LAX normally routes both arriving and
departing traffic over the ocean, unless there is a strong wind from the east
(I think "strong" means above 11 knots). Some people refer to this as
"suicide ops," because it requires traffic moving in opposite direction on the
same or parallel runways. It is done to spare local residents a bit of
noise--so the next time you fly into or out of LAX, keep in mind that your
safety is being compromised to some extent in the interest of political
correctness.

If you are south of the airport, you're going to hear aircraft no matter which
way they take off or land. Since 747s are the largest aircraft around and are
usually flying long routes with heavy loads into and out of LAX, they make the
biggest rumble when they wind up for take off. For the longest routes, these
aircraft will sit in position on the runway and stand on the brakes until they
reach full take-off thrust, and then release the brakes, ensuring that they
get the longest possible take-off roll at full thrust; they need it. Also,
the only runway that can handle a 747 loaded to the hilt is 25R/7L, on the
south side of the airport (25L/7R is temporarily closed).

I've taken long flights out of LAX like this and you can't avoid mentally
calculating the length of the runway and wondering if the pilot ever plans to
rotate. But they have no trouble getting into the air; despite the 747's
size, it likes to fly, even fully loaded.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Take off into the wind. There's a good chance the prevailing winds are from
> the west, so most take-offs would be toward the west. If the wind was from
> the south on Monday night, they would have taken off to the south.

All of the runways at LAX are east-west. At night aircraft are directed over
the water for both arrivals and departures unless there's quite a strong wind
from the west. Heavies don't care much about light winds.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mxsmanic writes:

> ... unless there is a strong wind from the east ...

Sorry, I should have said from the west.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[BT]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Take off into the wind. There's a good chance the prevailing winds are
>> from
>> the west, so most take-offs would be toward the west. If the wind was
>> from
>> the south on Monday night, they would have taken off to the south.
>
> All of the runways at LAX are east-west. At night aircraft are directed
> over
> the water for both arrivals and departures unless there's quite a strong
> wind
> from the west. Heavies don't care much about light winds.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Says the man who never flies and lives in France?
B

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> Says the man who never flies and lives in France?

Everything I said is correct, irrespective of whether or not I fly or where I
live.

One of the key principles of debate is that you must address the issue under
discussion, not the person discussing it. The latter is considered ad
hominem, and it is very bad form (not to mention very ineffective).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Riley writes:

> They fly a long straight in from the east unless there are strong
> Santa Ana winds blowing. Even after midnight.

That's not what their standard operations say. Maybe you were special.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

You are from time to time correct. but frequently in error. In real
life, not formal debate, we consider the source of the information as
one parameter in judging its credibility. Your standing has been badly
eroded.


On Feb 22, 5:49 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BT writes:
> > Says the man who never flies and lives in France?
>
> Everything I said is correct, irrespective of whether or not I fly or where I
> live.
>
> One of the key principles of debate is that you must address the issue under
> discussion, not the person discussing it. The latter is considered ad
> hominem, and it is very bad form (not to mention very ineffective).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Flying in the back as one of the pax does not qualify one to make expert
pronouncements about routine procedures by major air carriers.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Having visited LAX Tower, I can answer this with certainty.

Normal Operations at LAX are as follows: Calm wind runways are
the 24s/25s. For most large aircraft, they will depart out to the
ocean, turn back northeast towards LAX, then on course. For those
heading east/southeast, they will fly out towards the ocean, turn
southwest to avoid noise over the Palos Verdes Peninsula, then back
east towards Seal Beach, then on course. For north departures, aircraft
will make a right turnout on the LAX R-323 towards Gorman, then on
course. Northwest departures fly out runway heading, get a vector to
San Marcos, then on course.

Starting at 9pm, the Loop departure back towards LAX isn't
used, as per noise abatement procedures. So all aircraft flying
northeast/east/southeast will use the LAXX departure, which takes them
around Palos Verdes towards Seal Beach. For North depatures, the Gorman
departure isn't used, per noise abatement. They get vectored alongside
the Ventura departure towards San Marcos, then turned on course. No
change for the Ventura departure to San Marcos.

From Midnight to 6:30am local, assuming calm winds (winds <
10kts from any direction), "suicide ops" are used. They will land 6L,
depart 25R (25L, when it reopens in the next couple months). Think of
how sorties went out from an air craft carrier in a war or conflict,
They would fly out one way, then return from that direction. The same
LAXX departure is used going out towards Palos Verdes.

Of course, if winds are greater than 10 kts, arrivals and
departures are aligned with the wind.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3eUTyBkZmuMZ8L8RAiquAJ9GDDAxmRbLXc0yeiuKTv 0LeC+B4gCfXl10
LdyF8JrGQY79QgYWB8hDk6k=
=W5Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> You are from time to time correct. but frequently in error. In real
> life, not formal debate, we consider the source of the information as
> one parameter in judging its credibility.

You speak only for yourself. I'm familiar with the technique of forced
teaming, and it doesn't work with me.

> Your standing has been badly eroded.

See above. In my experience, nothing does more damage to a person's position
in debate than personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> Neither does pretending to fly in the front seat, while pretending
> to talk to someone who is pretending to be ATC.

Neither does flying tin cans out of tiny airports.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Having visited LAX Tower, I can answer this with certainty.

Do you get a free copy of their procedures manual when you visit?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> I have no reason to believe that you have ever flown out of LAX, therefore I have no reason to believe
> you are qualified to write this.

So?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Flying in the back as one of the pax does not qualify one to make expert
> pronouncements about routine procedures by major air carriers.

But reading the documentations on the airports procedures does.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> Having visited LAX Tower, I can answer this with certainty.
>
> Do you get a free copy of their procedures manual when you visit?

No. but is it required, when the information is freely and
publically available?

In my case when my friends and I toured, we asked the person
conducting the tour about their noise abatement procedures. We took
very detailed notes on them, because should any of us have been
assigned to that tower as ATC, we wanted to already be aware of those
situations.

Also, noise abatement procedures for a given field have to be
published, as pilots are requested to comply with them. So a simple
call to the field, or a listing of them can be found online. Once
again, a simple search provides all you need. for example:

KOAK: http://www.oaklandairport.com/noise/noise.shtml
KTEX: http://www.tellurideairport.com/noise.html
KMSY: http://www.flymsy.com/noise_mitigation.htm
KLAX: http://www.lawa.org/airops/pdf/Section_5-Noise_Abatement.pdf

If you were a pilot, you would know that such procedures had to
be available.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3f6fyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlKuAJ0eE6IIYxaDR9QM9GxbRB ncdt9VYQCgxPbQ
dVF2C4Eu5MH1sNxpFSu156c=
=yiOm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> No. but is it required, when the information is freely and
> publically available?

No more so than a visit to the tower gives you any special certainty of the
procedures.

> Also, noise abatement procedures for a given field have to be
> published, as pilots are requested to comply with them. So a simple
> call to the field, or a listing of them can be found online. Once
> again, a simple search provides all you need. for example:
>
> KOAK: http://www.oaklandairport.com/noise/noise.shtml
> KTEX: http://www.tellurideairport.com/noise.html
> KMSY: http://www.flymsy.com/noise_mitigation.htm
> KLAX: http://www.lawa.org/airops/pdf/Section_5-Noise_Abatement.pdf
>
> If you were a pilot, you would know that such procedures had to
> be available.

I'm a UNIX administrator, which apparently qualifies me even more than being a
pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Tony]

You blithering idiot, what I wrote was not a personal attack but a
scholarly observation. The first phrase of this reply may come close
to the edge of scholarly observation, but probably does not qualify as
a personal attack: Blithering "senselessly talkative", idiot "an utter
fool, (in the context of aviation newsgroups see also pest and
Mxmanic)".



y talkative rise to the level of persnoal attackOn Feb 22, 3:15 pm,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tony writes:
> > You are from time to time correct. but frequently in error. In real
> > life, not formal debate, we consider the source of the information as
> > one parameter in judging its credibility.
>
> You speak only for yourself. I'm familiar with the technique of forced
> teaming, and it doesn't work with me.
>
> > Your standing has been badly eroded.
>
> See above. In my experience, nothing does more damage to a person's position
> in debate than personal attacks.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> No. but is it required, when the information is freely and
>> publically available?
>
> No more so than a visit to the tower gives you any special certainty of the
> procedures.

When you hear it from the controller who has put it to
practical use, and has the qualifications and certifications to operate
that position, and reference it from the same source, that gives one
the certainty.

If Steven or Newps told you the same exact thing, and knowing
that their qualifications can be validated, would you refuse to believe
them? Wait, don't answer that. You wouldn't believe your own mother if
she came up to you, slapped you in the face, and shouted the answer in
your ear.

>> Also, noise abatement procedures for a given field have to be
>> published, as pilots are requested to comply with them. So a simple
>> call to the field, or a listing of them can be found online. Once
>> again, a simple search provides all you need. for example:
>>
>> KOAK: http://www.oaklandairport.com/noise/noise.shtml
>> KTEX: http://www.tellurideairport.com/noise.html
>> KMSY: http://www.flymsy.com/noise_mitigation.htm
>> KLAX: http://www.lawa.org/airops/pdf/Section_5-Noise_Abatement.pdf
>>
>> If you were a pilot, you would know that such procedures had to
>> be available.
>
> I'm a UNIX administrator, which apparently qualifies me even more than being a
> pilot.

If you are who you say you are, you would know more than well
enough to RTFM. Don't let your profession be an excuse for your
misgivings. Oh wait... I forget who I'm talking to here...

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3ipNyBkZmuMZ8L8RArKjAJwIq/HxZa4fQmbliqNBs+mviwztMgCfWH5h
lpQYnXmBp6YxLyfhAsnMG9E=
=0+l+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> You blithering idiot, what I wrote was not a personal attack but a
> scholarly observation.

You're doing it again.

> The first phrase of this reply may come close
> to the edge of scholarly observation, but probably does not qualify as
> a personal attack: Blithering "senselessly talkative", idiot "an utter
> fool, (in the context of aviation newsgroups see also pest and
> Mxmanic)".

When you are prepared to discuss the topic of the thread, let me know.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> When you hear it from the controller who has put it to
> practical use, and has the qualifications and certifications to operate
> that position, and reference it from the same source, that gives one
> the certainty.

Certainty comes from seeing it on paper.

But even if you were right, then your claim that it is publicly available
would be wrong. You can't have it both ways.

> If Steven or Newps told you the same exact thing, and knowing
> that their qualifications can be validated, would you refuse to believe
> them?

Yes. They are just names on a screen; and even if they proved to be
controllers, unless all controllers are perfect, that isn't sufficient to make
them sources of certainty.

> Wait, don't answer that. You wouldn't believe your own mother if
> she came up to you, slapped you in the face, and shouted the answer in
> your ear.

She's not a controller, either, nor is she an official document.

> If you are who you say you are, you would know more than well
> enough to RTFM.

But that wouldn't help, if I need to talk to a controller to be certain.

Which is the final authority? Written documentation or the words of a
controller? If it's a controller, RTFM won't do. If it's RTFM, controller
talk doesn't matter.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

> So, shut the **** up!

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Guy Called Tyketto writes:
>
>> When you hear it from the controller who has put it to
>> practical use, and has the qualifications and certifications to operate
>> that position, and reference it from the same source, that gives one
>> the certainty.
>
> Certainty comes from seeing it on paper.

You have it. The URLs I posted here come from the airports
websites, let alone the Airport Authority. If you can't believe those,
then you don't even need to be in this thread, let alone in this group,
let alone having anything to do with aviation.

> But even if you were right, then your claim that it is publicly available
> would be wrong. You can't have it both ways.

But I can, and do. See below for why.

>> If Steven or Newps told you the same exact thing, and knowing
>> that their qualifications can be validated, would you refuse to believe
>> them?
>
> Yes. They are just names on a screen; and even if they proved to be
> controllers, unless all controllers are perfect, that isn't sufficient to make
> them sources of certainty.

They work to ensure your safety in the sky. And their
certifications/qualifications are also available. If you would only use
your brain to find that information, you would see that. But then
again, my asking you to use your brain is like trying to clap with one
hand. Can't, nor ever will happen.

>> Wait, don't answer that. You wouldn't believe your own mother if
>> she came up to you, slapped you in the face, and shouted the answer in
>> your ear.
>
> She's not a controller, either, nor is she an official document.
>
>> If you are who you say you are, you would know more than well
>> enough to RTFM.
>
> But that wouldn't help, if I need to talk to a controller to be certain.
>
> Which is the final authority? Written documentation or the words of a
> controller? If it's a controller, RTFM won't do. If it's RTFM, controller
> talk doesn't matter.

Simple. BOTH are final authority. Standard operations are what
controllers have to follow. Standard operations, such as the noise
abatement procedures, are written and publically available. Controllers
execute those operations on a daily basis. They follow what is on
paper. That paper is the final authority. Therefore, those controllers
and paper are final authority, and both are right. so once again, RTFM.

Heh. The Dilbert Rule is definitely applying to you.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3mwEyBkZmuMZ8L8RAjZQAKCW3yVcKoXzDmR86n6z/RHqqZHFCACfQjd6
5ROUJU6J8SSODELQnhASC+Q=
=ikYV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Chris Curtis]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Riley writes:
>
>> They fly a long straight in from the east unless there are strong
>> Santa Ana winds blowing. Even after midnight.
>
> That's not what their standard operations say. Maybe you were special.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I must have been special as well.
I've only flown into LAX once (from Heathrow) and that was straight in from
the east.
An extraordinary view of an extraordinary place!

Chris