A tower-induced go-round

Jose wrote:
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.

No, it is an example of a local procedure where it is possible, and
likely, to cause a conflict if some cowboy decides no one is going
to tell him what to do and ignores it just because he has a legal right
to do so.

The reason the procedure is as it is is to minimize noise over the
housing area to the North, the college to the West, and facilitate
no-radio VFR traffic in and out avoiding the surrounding class D
and class C airspaces.

It has been in place for decades and no one, except maybe you, has
any problem with.

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.

It most certainly is.

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.

Egotistical nonsense; you have a certificate that says you can be pilot
in command, and by god, you are going to be in command and no local
is going to have any say in that.

The part you are lacking is that to be in command of anything, whether
it be an airplane, an army, or your own life, you not only have to
follow whatever regulations exist, you also have to have the maturity
to understand that not everything is covered by a black and white
regulation and that your decisions and actions also require other
inputs besides those regulations to avoid unintended consequences.

In the case of ignoring the CCB procedure and departing to the North
on downwind, even though such is allowed by regulation, the unintended
consequence could well be a midair with an arriving student following
the local procedure which has been drummed into him by his CFI.

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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?

About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
CCB.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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.

Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
and been in existance for decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


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.

That isn't clear to the pilots who have been safely following it for
decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


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.

Like what that has escaped the observation of thousands of pilots for
the past several decades?

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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?

An idiotic comment.


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.

Where's the conflict?

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.

Ledalistic backpeddling.

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.

Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.

How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


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.

Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
So it's strictly a matter of choice then, it's not "standard".

I suggest you look up the use of quotation marks to denote items which
are understood to be agreed upon but are not strictly law.

For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction. It's not The Letter of His Lord's Most Highest Dread
Sovereign Law, but it's a generally recognized practice performed and
expected of pilots within the vicinity.

Why not in this particular instance?

Factors contributing included wind drift, distraction, and a very busy
section of sky.

SO WHAT? IT'S ASSUMED THAT SINCE HE DEPARTED AFTER YOU HE KNOWS WHERE YOU
ARE AND IS PROPERLY AVOIDING YOU.

Assume? You're asking a pilot to /ASSUME/ traffic sees and avoids me?
The only things I assume are that the Earth will still turn and that
gravity will still work. Everything else is out the window until I see
it happening.

Where in the FARs, pray tell, does it say I should "assume" that traffic
sees and avoids me?

Where does it say he can ignore the use of a clearly functioning CTAF
facility?

IF YOU TURN CROSSWIND AND HE STAYS UPWIND
YOU'RE DIVERGING. DIVERGING TRAFFIC IS NOT A FACTOR.

See the twice above.

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

The FARs do not qualify what constitutes "unnecessary" chatter. Care to
cite a source for that?

It's one of those darn "standard" procedures again.

But by then above the pattern and thus not a factor.

Not to the pattern traffic, no. A gigantic factor to the departing and
arriving area traffic, though.

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

I hear it used all the time. The "areas of likely traffic ingress or
egress".

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

Heh. Freud would be proud.

(I, of course, know better)

You might want to look up those terms.

I know what they mean. Do you?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accost

Especially:

1. to confront boldly.
2. to approach ... aggressively, as with a demand or request.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

Especially:

1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather
than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


I attacked nobody's intelligence or piloting skill.

Bull****. Just in this post:

You seem rather new to the flying game. Student?

And, to your inquiry, no. I hold a full PPL, unlike certain individuals.


I said Jay holds an
incorrect understanding of Class D airspace and ATC and he hold controllers
responsible for pilot's actions.

You first questioned the objectivity of a stated subjective, and then
proceeded to /accost/ Jay with incessant babble about the logic of said
statement (of which there was none stated in the first).

After which, you used words to the effect that he was not qualified to
use controlled airspace and that he should avoid such, that his piloting
skill was not up to snuff, and that the situation was entirely of his
own creation.

You attacked him for the articulation of the situation, not the
situation itself. Grammatical prowess is not a condition for holding a
pilot's license, nor ever will be.

You, sir, are the very definition of a pedantic ass, and may go fold
your attitude until it's all pointy corners and shove it where ever a
troll procreates from. I'll have no more to do with you or this
absolutely silly line of inquiry.

TheSmokingGnu

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:05:04 GMT, wrote in
:

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...426456ad1724f2

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
From: (Mike Godwin)
Date: 18 Aug 91 21:50:29 GMT
Local: Sun, Aug 18 1991 2:50 pm
Subject: Nazis (was Card's Article on Homosexuality

In article
(J Eric Townsend) writes:

Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis
on USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."? (Or
something to that effect.)


I said it.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one.

--Mike

--
Mike Godwin, | "Someday, some way."
|
(617) 864-1550 | --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

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.

You know, for a linear thinker, you can't seem to keep on the track
with your train of thought.

The controller told ME to go around, remember? I would have landed
behind the student pilot ahead of me -- or over him, if need be -- if
the controller hadn't given the order to go around.

Obviously by sending me around the controller was admitting his
failure to maintain what he judged to be proper spacing between us.

This situation had nothing to do with my comfort, and everything to do
with a Class D'oh! controller who was looking through the wrong end of
his binoculars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

No, it is an example of a local procedure where it is possible, and
likely, to cause a conflict if some cowboy decides no one is going
to tell him what to do and ignores it just because he has a legal right
to do so.

The reason the procedure is as it is is to minimize noise over the
housing area to the North, the college to the West, and facilitate
no-radio VFR traffic in and out avoiding the surrounding class D
and class C airspaces.

It has been in place for decades and no one, except maybe you, has
any problem with.

I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I
have" isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals
can dummy up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted
flying procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like
an ODP if it applies).

That's not what I am advocating.

It most certainly is.

No it isn't. Is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full
half hour?

...you also have to have the maturity
to understand that not everything is covered by a black and white
regulation and that your decisions and actions also require other
inputs besides those regulations to avoid unintended consequences.

I certainly understand that. It seems that you don't. Perhaps this is
just an artifact of Usenet discussion, but your posts are also black and
white - "the local yokels came up with this procedure because they don't
like noise, and you claim it is unsafe to differ from it, no matter what
the FAA says".

the unintended
consequence could well be a midair with an arriving student following
the local procedure which has been drummed into him by his CFI.

A local procedure that causes an unsafe condition (such as a midair with
an aircraft on a standard procedure) should probably be reconsidered.

There may be situations where nonstandard procedures are warranted.
They should be publicized where pilots would look for them. That would
be the AF/D. To make up a nonstandard procedure which is dangerous when
mixed with standard procedures, and not promulgate it via NOTAM or AF/D
is a problem. It's more than just "legal words".

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

("TheSmokingGnu" wrote)
For example, if all the boats in the pond drove in one direction
(clockwise, say), it would be "standard" practice to also drive in that
direction.


(Pg. 52+53)
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/boa****er/boatingguide.pdf
Beware ..."The Circle of Death," ...driving your boat around that pond.

Drive ...boats? g


Montblack (landof10klakes)
On "the river" it's Red-Right-Returning

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I have"
isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals can dummy
up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted flying
procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like an ODP if
it applies).


TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES

SW-3
07074


UPLAND, CA
CABLE

TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 6, 300-1 or std. with a min. climb of 240' per NM to
1900.

DEPARTURE PROCEDU Rwy 6, climbing right turn. Rwy 24, climbing left turn.
All aircraft climb direct PDZ VORTAC. Aircraft departing PDZ R-091 CW R-140
and R-231 CW R-280 climb on course. All others continue climb in PDZ holding
pattern (E, right turns, 258° inbound) to cross PDZ VORTAC at or above:
R-281 CW R-090, 6700; R-141 CW R-230, 4000.