Commercial Aviation question - LAX

-----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/Secti..._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-----

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.

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.

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

So, shut the **** up!

No.

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

-----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-----

"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