A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
news

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


A dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it?



The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
conflict.


A perfectly reasonable procedure does not conflict with an ODP.



There is no difference in practice between a local noise abatement
procedure and an established ATC procedure. The only difference is
in the legal fine print.


Established ATC procedures do not conflict with ODPs. That seems like a
rather significant difference.



Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.

If a departing (or arriving, CCB has procedures for both) aircraft comes
to grief following the noise abatement procedures, it will only be because
some anal legal eagle such as yourself chose to ignore them and caused
havoc in an otherwise peaceful pattern full of students expecting the
rest of the traffic to be following the same procedures.


I can think of other reasons, you're short on imagination.

A departing aircraft attempts to follow the flood control channel in poor
visibility and crashes, the pilot's estate sues the airport citing the noise
abatement procedure as the cause.



As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
who would rather be right than safe.


Since I prefer to be right and safe I would not comply with the CCB noise
abatement procedure.