A tower-induced go-round

Larry Dighera wrote:
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 |

Yeah, I know.

I hesitated to use that line just because of Godwin's Rule, but it
seems so appropriate for the anal retentive types that insist that
all they have to follow is the CFAR's and their actions are justifiable
irregardless of the consequence of their acts because they are in
command.

I'm open to other analogies, how about:

Just because the law allows you a cell phone doesn't mean it is OK
to carry on a loud conversation in a restaurant/theater.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:05:02 GMT, wrote in
:

irregardless

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:irregardless
Pronunciation:*ir-i-*g*rd-l*s
Function:adverb
Etymologyrobably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it
to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such
word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily
in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited
prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is
still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Jose wrote:
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).

Nonsense.

Local procedures aren't a "dummy up" process by "a few locals", they
are based on the known conditions of the airport in question and done
by the airport management.

Also, they are not in conflict with anything, as, as several have
noted, they are not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination.

Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
of aviation.

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".

Your repeated disparagement of the airport management, which in most
cases has many decades of experience, is noted.

Your inablility to understand that local procedures are formulated
by the airport management and not a mob is noted.

Your inabliity to realize such things have been around since the
beginning of aviation and that the FAA has no objection to it is
noted.

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".

This is probably the only thing we can agree on.

While you are required to obtain all relevant information to a flight
before takeoff, a lot of local procedures are not in the AF/D which
makes it difficult for everyone to find them.

But, since common sense, and I do believe a regulation somewhere,
requires you to observe the existing traffic and blend in with it
at none-towered airports, there is not much of an excuse not to
follow what everyone else is doing.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

.... as is the "local procedure"

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

Ditto AIM.

If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
of aviation.

I have no problem playing nicely with others. I have a problem with
others telling me deciding for me what I should do, rather than letting
me decide for myself how I want to play nicely with others.

Or not.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"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.

Yep, those are the IFR procedures.

Which part of the local procedures being for VFR are you having trouble
understanding?

The 24 IFR departure is identical to the 24 VFR departure to the South
except the IFR departure references a VORTAC while the VFR departure
references a VFR landmark. The path in the area of the airport is the
same in both cases.

The 6 IFR departure does not conflict with any VFR procedure.

The 6 IFR departure takes you immediately into class C airspace, while
the 6 VFR departure takes you away from it.

The 6 IFR departure would be illegal to do without a radio, and if
you did it with a radio, while legal, it would **** of the class C
tower which is expecting you to use the VFR procedure and call them
when you get close to midfield if you intend to cross their airspace.

The tower would direct you to follow a path that is roughly the same
as the VFR departure path though perhaps inside their airspace while
the VFR path keeps you out of it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:05:02 GMT, wrote in
:

irregardless

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:irregardless
Pronunciation:*ir-i-*g*rd-l*s
Function:adverb
Etymologyrobably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the
early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it
to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such
word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily
in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited
prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is
still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Language changes; adapt or die.

Have you had a gay time lately?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jose wrote:
Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

... as is the "local procedure"

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

Ditto AIM.

If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
of aviation.

I have no problem playing nicely with others. I have a problem with
others telling me deciding for me what I should do, rather than letting
me decide for myself how I want to play nicely with others.

Or not.

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Doing what you want just because it isn't illegal without any regard
for how it effects others is the definition of arrogance.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Except that in this case "The rest of the world" is just you.

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

Jose wrote:
Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Except that in this case "The rest of the world" is just you.

In this case, "the rest of the world" is thousands of other pilots
over several decades, and that is just at one, small, airport.

If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

It appears most people don't have a problem with the concept.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

Tens of thousands of pilots have subscribed to your local noise
procedure? They also subscribe to the idea that everyone must follow it
or unsafe conditions result?

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