A tower-induced go-round

The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
crosswind.

This is not an example of noise abatement. It is not an example of a
procedure being dangerous =solely= =because= it differs from a different
procedure. It does not support the idea that everyone should do the
same thing, and it does not support the idea that everyone should do a
locally created noise abatement procedure for safety reasons.

Instead, this is an example of a procedure that is (perhaps) dangerous
due to local air traffic conditions.

You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
at most airports?

There is? That's news to me.

At the high-rise where I used to live, they have two elevators. One for
going up, and the other for going down.

Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

That's not what I am advocating.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

The part about what the pilot does between the time he enters the
airspace and the time the unsafe procedure is changed.

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.

.... under political pressure from influential neighbors and sympathetic
press. I consider such procedures to be advisory, not mandatory. The
pilot in command makes a decision as to whether to follow them or not.
It might be a good idea to follow them, no doubt. However, sometimes it
might not.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Note the use of quotation marks to denote the fact that it is not an
established, official procedure, but an agreed-upon and accepted modus of
operation while at the airport.


Agreed upon by whom?



It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me.


Wouldn't that be true regardless which way he left the area? Wouldn't
leaving the area in a different direction make it less likely that he'd go
through you?



It's a problem
when he doesn't announce his departure vector.


Why?



It's a problem when he
doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports.


What's the benefit in acknowledging position reports?



It's a problem when he
disrupts the nominally formed traffic pattern.


How does departing via the upwind disrupt the pattern?


It's a problem when he
flies directly opposite the approach and likely descent vectors (following
the Paradise VOR) of other aircraft. It's a REAL problem when he does it
at 140 knots.


What's a descent vector?



Did you not actually read my responses?


I read all of them. I ask questions in order to make sense of them?



It seems likely, after the way you
treated Jay.


I asked him questions too.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".


How foolish of them to expect pattern traffic to abide by the FARs.



You *do* realize that you're wasting your time arguing with Steven,
right? Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
prose is simply not in his nature.


Interesting how a misstatement becomes "subtle or nuanced prose" after
you're called on it.

These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".

Does this happen often at Class-D airports?

Worse. At Class D they report that they're on a 3-mile final, when
they're still 10 miles out...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

You're just trolling, now.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Agreed upon by whom?

The pilots in the pattern and on the tarmac. Duh.

Wouldn't that be true regardless which way he left the area? Wouldn't
leaving the area in a different direction make it less likely that he'd go
through you?

Yes, and to the second, no. Not in this particular instance.

Why?

BECAUSE I HAVE NO BLOODY ****ING IDEA WHERE HE IS OR WHERE HE'S GOING.
My god, are you dense.

What's the benefit in acknowledging position reports?

Acknowledging a report involves making your own report, ergo someone
could have figured out where he is.

How does departing via the upwind disrupt the pattern?

Because after departing crosswind and climbing south, most traffic
leaves by turning back north and following a radial along the mountain
ridge. Now, they have non-announcing traffic from an unexpected
direction, flying much faster than they do.

Alternately, aircraft are approaching the area in the same manner (but
at different altitudes). Now _THEY_ have traffic in unexpected
directions without knowledge of location or intention.

What's a descent vector?

If you have to ask, you haven't used one.

I read all of them. I ask questions in order to make sense of them?

No, you ask questions like a two-year-old asks "Why"; to annoy and
frustrate.

I asked him questions too.

You accosted him and then used ad hominem attacks on his intelligence
and piloting skill.

**** off, dear.

TheSmokingGnu

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
might have picked up on it as well.

Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
in black and white, it's wrong.

That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
sense.

This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.

In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.



Ahh, so it's all a misunderstanding, caused by my inability to understand
nuanced prose, a result of my linear thinking.

What a load of crap.

Jay, you said you had plenty of room when you said you were 1/2 mile out
when the 172 touched down 1500 feet from the threshold. Minimum separation
in the "normal world of controlled airspace" is 3000 feet, Oshkosh has
nothing to do with it. If you're uncomfortable with minimum separation just
tell the controller you'd like more room. I'm sure he'll happily
accommodate you, but you'll probably have to wait for the more experienced
pilots to land first.

wrote in message
news

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


A dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it?



The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
conflict.


A perfectly reasonable procedure does not conflict with an ODP.



There is no difference in practice between a local noise abatement
procedure and an established ATC procedure. The only difference is
in the legal fine print.


Established ATC procedures do not conflict with ODPs. That seems like a
rather significant difference.



Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.

If a departing (or arriving, CCB has procedures for both) aircraft comes
to grief following the noise abatement procedures, it will only be because
some anal legal eagle such as yourself chose to ignore them and caused
havoc in an otherwise peaceful pattern full of students expecting the
rest of the traffic to be following the same procedures.


I can think of other reasons, you're short on imagination.

A departing aircraft attempts to follow the flood control channel in poor
visibility and crashes, the pilot's estate sues the airport citing the noise
abatement procedure as the cause.



As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
who would rather be right than safe.


Since I prefer to be right and safe I would not comply with the CCB noise
abatement procedure.

wrote in message
...

Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.


Having some local yahoo publish a "mandatory" noise abatement procedure is
not safe.



If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

This isn't rocket science.


Agreed. As the procedure conflicts with the ODP it is clearly unsafe and
needs to be changed.




Yeah, so what?

That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
abatement procedures in general.

There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
they were deemed to be dangerous.

How would this be any different?

Look at the procedures for CCB:

http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif

See anything unsafe there?


Yes.

wrote in message
...

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.


The airport manager appears to be no more qualified than the neighbors.
Does he have any aviation background at all?

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

You're just trolling, now.


Never.



The pilots in the pattern and on the tarmac. Duh.


So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".



Yes, and to the second, no. Not in this particular instance.


Why not in this particular instance?



BECAUSE I HAVE NO BLOODY ****ING IDEA WHERE HE IS OR
WHERE HE'S GOING.


SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU. IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.



Acknowledging a report involves making your own report, ergo someone could
have figured out where he is.


No, acknowledging a report involves just making receipt known. By itself
it's just unnecessary chatter.



Because after departing crosswind and climbing south, most traffic leaves
by turning back north and following a radial along the mountain ridge.
Now, they have non-announcing traffic from an unexpected direction, flying
much faster than they do.


But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor. You seem rather new to
the flying game. Student?




If you have to ask, you haven't used one.


I have to ask because it's not standard terminology.



No, you ask questions like a two-year-old asks "Why"; to annoy and
frustrate.


You're wrong. Believe me, I am the worlds foremost authority on why I do
anything.



You accosted him and then used ad hominem attacks on his intelligence and
piloting skill.


You might want to look up those terms.

I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill. I said Jay holds an
incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
responsible for pilot's actions. His statements in this thread prove that
to be true.