Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.


Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
downwind.

It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
about departing in a direction different from other departures.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
just because "somebody" came up with it.

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