Commercial Aviation question - LAX

Flying in the back as one of the pax does not qualify one to make expert
pronouncements about routine procedures by major air carriers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Having visited LAX Tower, I can answer this with certainty.

Normal Operations at LAX are as follows: Calm wind runways are
the 24s/25s. For most large aircraft, they will depart out to the
ocean, turn back northeast towards LAX, then on course. For those
heading east/southeast, they will fly out towards the ocean, turn
southwest to avoid noise over the Palos Verdes Peninsula, then back
east towards Seal Beach, then on course. For north departures, aircraft
will make a right turnout on the LAX R-323 towards Gorman, then on
course. Northwest departures fly out runway heading, get a vector to
San Marcos, then on course.

Starting at 9pm, the Loop departure back towards LAX isn't
used, as per noise abatement procedures. So all aircraft flying
northeast/east/southeast will use the LAXX departure, which takes them
around Palos Verdes towards Seal Beach. For North depatures, the Gorman
departure isn't used, per noise abatement. They get vectored alongside
the Ventura departure towards San Marcos, then turned on course. No
change for the Ventura departure to San Marcos.

From Midnight to 6:30am local, assuming calm winds (winds
10kts from any direction), "suicide ops" are used. They will land 6L,
depart 25R (25L, when it reopens in the next couple months). Think of
how sorties went out from an air craft carrier in a war or conflict,
They would fly out one way, then return from that direction. The same
LAXX departure is used going out towards Palos Verdes.

Of course, if winds are greater than 10 kts, arrivals and
departures are aligned with the wind.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3eUTyBkZmuMZ8L8RAiquAJ9GDDAxmRbLXc0yeiuKTv 0LeC+B4gCfXl10
LdyF8JrGQY79QgYWB8hDk6k=
=W5Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tony writes:

You are from time to time correct. but frequently in error. In real
life, not formal debate, we consider the source of the information as
one parameter in judging its credibility.

You speak only for yourself. I'm familiar with the technique of forced
teaming, and it doesn't work with me.

Your standing has been badly eroded.

See above. In my experience, nothing does more damage to a person's position
in debate than personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

Neither does pretending to fly in the front seat, while pretending
to talk to someone who is pretending to be ATC.

Neither does flying tin cans out of tiny airports.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Having visited LAX Tower, I can answer this with certainty.

Do you get a free copy of their procedures manual when you visit?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Not as Arrogant as Mxsmanic writes:

I have no reason to believe that you have ever flown out of LAX, therefore I have no reason to believe
you are qualified to write this.

So?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Viperdoc writes:

Flying in the back as one of the pax does not qualify one to make expert
pronouncements about routine procedures by major air carriers.

But reading the documentations on the airports procedures does.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Having visited LAX Tower, I can answer this with certainty.

Do you get a free copy of their procedures manual when you visit?

No. but is it required, when the information is freely and
publically available?

In my case when my friends and I toured, we asked the person
conducting the tour about their noise abatement procedures. We took
very detailed notes on them, because should any of us have been
assigned to that tower as ATC, we wanted to already be aware of those
situations.

Also, noise abatement procedures for a given field have to be
published, as pilots are requested to comply with them. So a simple
call to the field, or a listing of them can be found online. Once
again, a simple search provides all you need. for example:

KOAK: http://www.oaklandairport.com/noise/noise.shtml
KTEX: http://www.tellurideairport.com/noise.html
KMSY: http://www.flymsy.com/noise_mitigation.htm
KLAX: http://www.lawa.org/airops/pdf/Secti..._Abatement.pdf

If you were a pilot, you would know that such procedures had to
be available.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF3f6fyBkZmuMZ8L8RAlKuAJ0eE6IIYxaDR9QM9GxbRB ncdt9VYQCgxPbQ
dVF2C4Eu5MH1sNxpFSu156c=
=yiOm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

No. but is it required, when the information is freely and
publically available?

No more so than a visit to the tower gives you any special certainty of the
procedures.

Also, noise abatement procedures for a given field have to be
published, as pilots are requested to comply with them. So a simple
call to the field, or a listing of them can be found online. Once
again, a simple search provides all you need. for example:

KOAK: http://www.oaklandairport.com/noise/noise.shtml
KTEX: http://www.tellurideairport.com/noise.html
KMSY: http://www.flymsy.com/noise_mitigation.htm
KLAX: http://www.lawa.org/airops/pdf/Secti..._Abatement.pdf

If you were a pilot, you would know that such procedures had to
be available.

I'm a UNIX administrator, which apparently qualifies me even more than being a
pilot.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You blithering idiot, what I wrote was not a personal attack but a
scholarly observation. The first phrase of this reply may come close
to the edge of scholarly observation, but probably does not qualify as
a personal attack: Blithering "senselessly talkative", idiot "an utter
fool, (in the context of aviation newsgroups see also pest and
Mxmanic)".



y talkative rise to the level of persnoal attackOn Feb 22, 3:15 pm,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Tony writes:
You are from time to time correct. but frequently in error. In real
life, not formal debate, we consider the source of the information as
one parameter in judging its credibility.

You speak only for yourself. I'm familiar with the technique of forced
teaming, and it doesn't work with me.

Your standing has been badly eroded.

See above. In my experience, nothing does more damage to a person's position
in debate than personal attacks.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.