-----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-----