![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. I haven't looked over the procedure in question, and the "problem I have" isn't with the procedure, it's with the =idea= that a few locals can dummy up a procedure that is in conflict with generally accepted flying procedures (like the AIM) and with FAA mandated procedures (like an ODP if it applies). That's not what I am advocating. It most certainly is. No it isn't. Is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full half hour? ...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. I certainly understand that. It seems that you don't. Perhaps this is just an artifact of Usenet discussion, but your posts are also black and white - "the local yokels came up with this procedure because they don't like noise, and you claim it is unsafe to differ from it, no matter what the FAA says". 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. A local procedure that causes an unsafe condition (such as a midair with an aircraft on a standard procedure) should probably be reconsidered. There may be situations where nonstandard procedures are warranted. They should be publicized where pilots would look for them. That would be the AF/D. To make up a nonstandard procedure which is dangerous when mixed with standard procedures, and not promulgate it via NOTAM or AF/D is a problem. It's more than just "legal words". Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Round Engines | john smith | Piloting | 20 | February 15th 07 03:31 AM |
induced airflow | buttman | Piloting | 3 | February 19th 06 04:36 AM |
Round Engines | Voxpopuli | Naval Aviation | 16 | May 31st 05 06:48 PM |
Source of Induced Drag | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 2 | January 10th 04 12:18 AM |
Predicting ground effects on induced power | Marc Shorten | Soaring | 0 | October 28th 03 11:18 AM |