![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message ... Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between your ears once in a while. That's good advice, you should heed it yourself. Jim's message, posted Mar 27: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9fc06a96c2e42f Not only are the procedure images named VFR, the cards themselves SAY they're VFR procedures. Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted: "Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB. To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this." On Mar 24 he posted: "Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point." That was the one that in response to I pointed out the conflict with the ODP. Earlier on Mar 27 he posted: "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." and "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." Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that fact even then. And a Cessna at best rate has 40 seconds closing time at that visibility, what's your point? (Best angle's got a whole 53!) See my previous message with links to scud running. |
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 |