A tower-induced go-round

Jose wrote:
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.

No, it is an example of a local procedure where it is possible, and
likely, to cause a conflict if some cowboy decides no one is going
to tell him what to do and ignores it just because he has a legal right
to do so.

The reason the procedure is as it is is to minimize noise over the
housing area to the North, the college to the West, and facilitate
no-radio VFR traffic in and out avoiding the surrounding class D
and class C airspaces.

It has been in place for decades and no one, except maybe you, has
any problem with.

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.

It most certainly is.

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.

Egotistical nonsense; you have a certificate that says you can be pilot
in command, and by god, you are going to be in command and no local
is going to have any say in that.

The part you are lacking is that to be in command of anything, whether
it be an airplane, an army, or your own life, you not only have to
follow whatever regulations exist, you also have to have the maturity
to understand that not everything is covered by a black and white
regulation and that your decisions and actions also require other
inputs besides those regulations to avoid unintended consequences.

In the case of ignoring the CCB procedure and departing to the North
on downwind, even though such is allowed by regulation, the unintended
consequence could well be a midair with an arriving student following
the local procedure which has been drummed into him by his CFI.

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.