A tower-induced go-round

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

The point is, Jay, you lack a proper understanding of Class D airspace and
ATC. In the interest of safety you should avoid all controlled fields
until you can gain that understanding.

It is possible for a person to understand, but not agree with it, or you.

D'uoh!
--
Jim in NC

On Mar 23, 1:44 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...



ha ha. This gettin fun.

You find amusement in appearing stupid?



You have posted 28 times to this silly thread.
Real controllers are taught to be short and to the point with their
answers.

That is amusing. In the past others have complained about my brevity.



What we have here folks is a MX Mc Nicoll..... I bet he
doesn't even have a Pilots cert.

Is a pilot's certificate required to post here?

I guess I will contact you directly at your email address
.

This will keep others from laughing too loud......

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

It is possible for a person to understand, but not agree with it, or you.

D'uoh!


That would be true if this was a matter of opinion. It isn't.

wrote in message
...

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.


Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.



Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.

wrote)
I guess I will contact you directly at your email address

[e-mail addy snipped!!!!!]


That was sooooooo WRONG!

Your apology is already past due - DUDE


Montblack :-(

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and influential)
housing developments some wonderful person decided needed to be direct off
the end of a GA airport.


The A/FD says:

"All departures.noise sensitive areas to N and S, best rate of climb to TPA
before departing the pattern. Calm wind.use Rwy 18."

Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure.



Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining a
civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to flying
off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't going to
tell anyone first.


So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

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.


Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.



Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

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

It appears the system is broken.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.

And if they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?

Yep, sure sounds like the way to go to me.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Nothing there about crosswind being the "standard" departure.

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.

So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem?

It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a
problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem
when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem
when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic 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.

Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way
you treated Jay.

TheSmokingGnu

So he leaves the area in a different direction than everyone else. Why is
that a problem?

It's a problem when he tries to leave by going through me. It's a
problem when he doesn't announce his departure vector. It's a problem
when he doesn't respond or acknowledge position reports. It's a problem
when he disrupts the nominally formed traffic 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.

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".

I know most of the charter pilots in our area, and they are invariably
good about announcing their intentions (some even apologize for
barging in) -- but there are always those select few SOBs who have
just been handed off from approach and simply can't be bothered with
such mundane duties as making position reports on Unicom. They are
truly menaces of the air, in my humble opinion.

Did you not actually read my responses? It seems likely, after the way
you treated Jay.

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

On 24 Mar 2007 15:00:43 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

Understanding and properly reacting to subtle or nuanced
prose is simply not in his nature.

The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
inference is that intended by the author.

While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
have little place in aviation, IMO.