Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

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


Having some local yahoo publish a "mandatory" noise abatement procedure is
not safe.

Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
and been in existance for decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


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

This isn't rocket science.


Agreed. As the procedure conflicts with the ODP it is clearly unsafe and
needs to be changed.

That isn't clear to the pilots who have been safely following it for
decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


Yeah, so what?

That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
abatement procedures in general.

There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
they were deemed to be dangerous.

How would this be any different?

Look at the procedures for CCB:

http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif

See anything unsafe there?


Yes.

Like what that has escaped the observation of thousands of pilots for
the past several decades?

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.