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.

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.

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.

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