A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
...

An estimation based on long observation.

If it were a formal measurment, there would be error bars on the number.


It's an unreliable number.



You know, this whole thing started out rather simply.

The original issue is, is it more prudent to follow the actions of the
rest of the VFR traffic in the pattern of a non-towered airport, or does
one do what they want, no matter the consequences, just because it is
legal to do and you want to do it?

So far, you have tried to side track the issue into:

The ODP, AF/D, Part 150, and the CFR.

IFR procedures.

Whether or not I know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary.

How long I've known voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary.

Whether or not all pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are
voluntary.

What percentage of pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are
voluntary.

The qualifications and job history of an airport manager.

How I know something with decades of no accident history has no
accident history.

Scud running.

What you think local ATC would do as opposed to what I've seen local
ATC do.

And probably several others that, mercifully, I can't remember at
the moment.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you.

You provide no usefull information and constantly attempt to side
track things into non-related issues or into issues which have, at
best, a tenuous relationship to the discussion at hand.

You are a total, absolute, worthless, waste of time.


You're not going to learn anything with that attitude.

wrote in message
...

Exactly what I just said.


You said a dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it.
That is an idiotic comment.



Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.


I don't think so. I don't think you were aware it was for VFR operations
only when you first posted it.

wrote in message
...

BTW, you do realize, that all else, such as terrain, obstructions,
other runways, etc., being equal, the choice of left or right traffic
at an airport is usually based on minimizing noise to "sensitive" areas
and those are mandatory?


Yes, and that information is published in the A/FD, where pilots expect to
find such information.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between your
ears once in a while.


That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.



Jim's message, posted Mar 27:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9fc06a96c2e42f

Not only are the procedure images named VFR, the cards themselves SAY
they're VFR procedures.


Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted:

"Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for
noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav
is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB.
To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn
north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right
departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this."

On Mar 24 he posted:

"Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point."

That was the one that in response to I pointed out the conflict with the
ODP.

Earlier on Mar 27 he posted:

"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."

and

"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."


Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't
mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that
fact even then.



And a Cessna at best rate has 40 seconds closing time at that visibility,
what's your point? (Best angle's got a whole 53!)


See my previous message with links to scud running.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotati...28incorrect.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks#Irony

You've got it backward. I'm explaining these things to help you understand
them.

Ad hominem. I'll keep pointing them out, so you can get an idea of what
they are.

I can only work with what you write.

No common sense inference?

The sky is red, Steven. Red.

As I recall, your complaint was that his failure to depart from the downwind
was the cause of the incident. That clearly was not the case.

My complaint was that he didn't follow local procedures, that he didn't
inform anyone of his actions, and that he put himself on a collision
course with my aircraft such that I was the one forced to take
corrective action.

And that he departed the upwind, not the crosswind as he should have,
and definitely not the downwind.

Yes, and that is not an example.

Heh.

If you weren't assuming that he'd be adhering to a non-required "standard"
practice why are you complaining?

Expect != assume.

CTAF is a frequency, not a faculty.

CTAF is a faculty of the airport. It's arbitrary definition anyway.

Good question. Let's get back to "standard". Please provide an official
FAA definition of "standard" before we move on.

Please provide an official FAA definition of "unecessary" before we move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man

Why do they assume traffic won't be there, in that direction, at that
altitude, at that speed? Didn't you say assuming was bad?

Expect != assume. That's two strikes.

How does one make a snide inference?

I couldn't explain it to you with three linguistics professors, a jar of
peanut butter and a hungry badger.

Such as?

"Then you should have quoted him the right-of way rules (planes below
have right over those above, planes on approach have right over those in
the pattern), and told him that you were taking your CLEARANCE and using
the RUNWAY."

Nothing wrong with reminding him of the rules.


"You'll get lots of people that, for example, won't depart the pattern on
the
downwind..."

Will you?


And there was that cryptic reference to "descent vectors".

I already explained that one.

Yes, we're relying on Jay's statements about the spacing. If the spacing
was as he reported then there was sufficient spacing.

Which report are you using? The initial? The revised? Or the one you
coerced with ad hominem attacks on his piloting skill?

The problem is his anecdote does not support his conclusion.

Then if it is false as a premise in one argument, how can you turn it
around and use it as a pillar of truth in yours?

Logic begs the question.

That was an unreasonable expectation on Jay's part. I can easily make the
argument that the controller does not share the bulk of the responsibility
in this case to by demonstrating that the controller did not make an error.

Please by all means do so. I would like to see the physical proof you
have no doubt obtained in this case, the objective and nonpartisan fact
which will prove the correct spacing and correct actions taken by both
parties.

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I'm pretty sure all of those incidents involved pilots. How many of them
involved controllers?

None, as it's very hard to achieve best rate in a control tower.

How many of them are caused by ATC?

I can't say, the statistics don't get more granular than that.


What is your source for these statistics?

The NTSB 2002 Accident Statistics report, available on their website.

TheSmokingGnu

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.

Hurrah, another ad hominem (although I give this one to you, since it's
answered in kind).

Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted:

"Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for
noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav
is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB.
To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn
north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right
departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.


On Mar 24 he posted:

"Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

Earlier on Mar 27 he posted:

"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."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.


and

"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."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't
mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that
fact even then.

He expected you to be more observant and use common sense. It was an
unfortunate choice.

He knew they were VFR procedures, he was quoting from the damned cards
in the first place.

See my previous message with links to scud running.

That's not a point, nor is it applicable.

TheSmokingGnu

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

And that he departed the upwind, not the crosswind as he should have, and
definitely not the downwind.


By itself, there's nothing wrong with departing upwind.



CTAF is a faculty of the airport. It's arbitrary definition anyway.


CTAF is not a faculty of the airport. It is a frequency, nothing more.
There may be a UNICOM at the airport that operates on CTAF. CTAF is defined
in the P/CG as:
COMMON TRAFFIC ADVISORY FREQUENCY (CTAF)? A frequency designed for the
purpose of carrying out airport advisory practices while operating to or
from an airport without an operating control tower. The CTAF may be a
UNICOM, Multicom, FSS, or tower frequency and is identified in appropriate
aeronautical publications.



Nothing wrong with reminding him of the rules.


You got the rule wrong.



Will you?


Sure.



I already explained that one.


You didn't.



Which report are you using? The initial? The revised?


The one where Jay says he was 1/2 mile from the threshold when the 172
landed 25% down the 6000' runway.



Please by all means do so. I would like to see the physical proof you have
no doubt obtained in this case, the objective and nonpartisan fact which
will prove the correct spacing and correct actions taken by both parties.


I have no physical proof, I'm relying on Jay's statements. Jay's statements
indicate there was sufficient spacing and do not suggest any controller
error.

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

None, as it's very hard to achieve best rate in a control tower.


So pilots experience ten mid-airs, two NMACs, and six ground collisions
each year without any controller involvement. Good point, well taken.



I can't say, the statistics don't get more granular than that.


What point were you trying to make?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So pilots experience ten mid-airs, two NMACs, and six ground collisions
each year without any controller involvement. Good point, well taken.

No, no, no. With and without controllers available. If your
prognostication that the Godly controllers save all we pitiful pilots
from slamming into each other, then there should be a comiserate
increase in the number of such events. That it is so low is a testament
of how little controller involvement A): exists, and B): is necessary to
safe separation of traffic.

What point were you trying to make?

That communication and/or ATC causes at least as many accidents as there
are mid-airs and NMACs. If it's included as a header title, there is at
least one directly-attributable accident to ATC, which soundly disproves
that said Godly controllers are A): infallible, as you seem to think
them, and B): that they always give proper instruction in a situation,
disproving your absolutes.

TheSmokingGnu