A tower-induced go-round

Jose wrote:
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).

Nonsense.

Local procedures aren't a "dummy up" process by "a few locals", they
are based on the known conditions of the airport in question and done
by the airport management.

Also, they are not in conflict with anything, as, as several have
noted, they are not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination.

Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

If you have a problem with the concept, you need to grow up and learn
to play nicely with others as this has been around since the beginning
of aviation.

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".

Your repeated disparagement of the airport management, which in most
cases has many decades of experience, is noted.

Your inablility to understand that local procedures are formulated
by the airport management and not a mob is noted.

Your inabliity to realize such things have been around since the
beginning of aviation and that the FAA has no objection to it is
noted.

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".

This is probably the only thing we can agree on.

While you are required to obtain all relevant information to a flight
before takeoff, a lot of local procedures are not in the AF/D which
makes it difficult for everyone to find them.

But, since common sense, and I do believe a regulation somewhere,
requires you to observe the existing traffic and blend in with it
at none-towered airports, there is not much of an excuse not to
follow what everyone else is doing.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.