A tower-induced go-round

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.


What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

The pilot in question had previously been practicing closed traffic, and
only announced that he was departing (but not in what direction); the
"standard" departure for the airport would have been a crosswind.


What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

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.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

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.


Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.



Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

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.


Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.



Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point.

It appears the system is broken.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.

And if they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?

Yep, sure sounds like the way to go to me.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point.

It appears the system is broken.


What "system" would that be?

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.



And if they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?


No, what I'm saying is local actions cannot regulate routes, altitudes, or
any other flight procedures. Do you really think the CCB "noise abatement"
procedure limits exposure to lawsuits? It conflicts with the ODP. What if
a departing aircraft comes to grief while following the noise abatement
procedure?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point.

It appears the system is broken.


What "system" would that be?

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.

The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
conflict.

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 they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?


No, what I'm saying is local actions cannot regulate routes, altitudes, or
any other flight procedures. Do you really think the CCB "noise abatement"
procedure limits exposure to lawsuits? It conflicts with the ODP. What if
a departing aircraft comes to grief while following the noise abatement
procedure?

Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.

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.

As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
who would rather be right than safe.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official"

It's not always a perfectly reasonable procedure. Sometimes it's
downright dangerous.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

wrote in message
news

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


A dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it?



The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
conflict.


A perfectly reasonable procedure does not conflict with an ODP.



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.


Established ATC procedures do not conflict with ODPs. That seems like a
rather significant difference.



Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.

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.


I can think of other reasons, you're short on imagination.

A departing aircraft attempts to follow the flood control channel in poor
visibility and crashes, the pilot's estate sues the airport citing the noise
abatement procedure as the cause.



As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
who would rather be right than safe.


Since I prefer to be right and safe I would not comply with the CCB noise
abatement procedure.

On Mar 24, 8:21 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote in message

...







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.

Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is this the same administrator that wanted to forbid controllers from
wearing shorts.?????

Flame suit on Scotty.. G

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
What airport is that and what makes crosswind the "standard" departure?

French Valley (F70), we were using 18 that day for winds. The "standard"
crosswind takes you away from the sizable (and expensive, and
influential) housing developments some wonderful person decided needed
to be direct off the end of a GA airport.

Besides of which, everyone else was departing crosswind, and maintaining
a civil and orderly line of traffic is almost always preferable to
flying off the handle and doing your own thing, especially if you aren't
going to tell anyone first.

TheSmokingGnu