A tower-induced go-round

Jose wrote:
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.

Non sequitur.

Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

This isn't rocket science.

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.

Yeah, so what?

That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
abatement procedures in general.

There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
they were deemed to be dangerous.

How would this be any different?

Look at the procedures for CCB:

http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif

See anything unsafe there?

Oh, I'm sure there are some idiotic and unsafe procedures out there
that need to be changed, but that is a totally different issue.


--
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.

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.


Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
downwind.

It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
about departing in a direction different from other departures.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
just because "somebody" came up with it.

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

Jose wrote:
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.

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.


Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
downwind.

The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
crosswind.

It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
about departing in a direction different from other departures.

You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
at most airports?

Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
just because "somebody" came up with it.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
crosswind.

This is not an example of noise abatement. It is not an example of a
procedure being dangerous =solely= =because= it differs from a different
procedure. It does not support the idea that everyone should do the
same thing, and it does not support the idea that everyone should do a
locally created noise abatement procedure for safety reasons.

Instead, this is an example of a procedure that is (perhaps) dangerous
due to local air traffic conditions.

You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
at most airports?

There is? That's news to me.

At the high-rise where I used to live, they have two elevators. One for
going up, and the other for going down.

Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

That's not what I am advocating.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

The part about what the pilot does between the time he enters the
airspace and the time the unsafe procedure is changed.

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.

.... under political pressure from influential neighbors and sympathetic
press. I consider such procedures to be advisory, not mandatory. The
pilot in command makes a decision as to whether to follow them or not.
It might be a good idea to follow them, no doubt. However, sometimes it
might not.

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

Jose wrote:
The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
crosswind.

This is not an example of noise abatement. It is not an example of a
procedure being dangerous =solely= =because= it differs from a different
procedure. It does not support the idea that everyone should do the
same thing, and it does not support the idea that everyone should do a
locally created noise abatement procedure for safety reasons.

Instead, this is an example of a procedure that is (perhaps) dangerous
due to local air traffic conditions.

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.

You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
at most airports?

There is? That's news to me.

At the high-rise where I used to live, they have two elevators. One for
going up, and the other for going down.

Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

That's not what I am advocating.

It most certainly is.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

The part about what the pilot does between the time he enters the
airspace and the time the unsafe procedure is changed.

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.

... under political pressure from influential neighbors and sympathetic
press. I consider such procedures to be advisory, not mandatory. The
pilot in command makes a decision as to whether to follow them or not.
It might be a good idea to follow them, no doubt. However, sometimes it
might not.

Egotistical nonsense; you have a certificate that says you can be pilot
in command, and by god, you are going to be in command and no local
is going to have any say in that.

The part you are lacking is that to be in command of anything, whether
it be an airplane, an army, or your own life, you not only have to
follow whatever regulations exist, 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.

In the case of ignoring the CCB procedure and departing to the North
on downwind, even though such is allowed by regulation, 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.

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:05:04 GMT, wrote in
:

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...426456ad1724f2

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
From: (Mike Godwin)
Date: 18 Aug 91 21:50:29 GMT
Local: Sun, Aug 18 1991 2:50 pm
Subject: Nazis (was Card's Article on Homosexuality

In article
(J Eric Townsend) writes:

Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis
on USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."? (Or
something to that effect.)


I said it.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one.

--Mike

--
Mike Godwin, | "Someday, some way."
|
(617) 864-1550 | --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:05:04 GMT, wrote in
:

I was only following orders was decided to be a non-defense for the
actions of those in command back in 1945.



http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...426456ad1724f2

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers
From: (Mike Godwin)
Date: 18 Aug 91 21:50:29 GMT
Local: Sun, Aug 18 1991 2:50 pm
Subject: Nazis (was Card's Article on Homosexuality

In article
(J Eric Townsend) writes:

Who was it that said: "Whenver somebody starts mentioning Nazis
on USENET, you know the discussion has gone on too long."? (Or
something to that effect.)


I said it.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies: As a Usenet discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one.

--Mike

--
Mike Godwin, | "Someday, some way."
|
(617) 864-1550 | --Marshall Crenshaw
EFF, Cambridge, MA |

Yeah, I know.

I hesitated to use that line just because of Godwin's Rule, but it
seems so appropriate for the anal retentive types that insist that
all they have to follow is the CFAR's and their actions are justifiable
irregardless of the consequence of their acts because they are in
command.

I'm open to other analogies, how about:

Just because the law allows you a cell phone doesn't mean it is OK
to carry on a loud conversation in a restaurant/theater.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

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).


TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES

SW-3
07074


UPLAND, CA
CABLE

TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 6, 300-1 or std. with a min. climb of 240' per NM to
1900.

DEPARTURE PROCEDU Rwy 6, climbing right turn. Rwy 24, climbing left turn.
All aircraft climb direct PDZ VORTAC. Aircraft departing PDZ R-091 CW R-140
and R-231 CW R-280 climb on course. All others continue climb in PDZ holding
pattern (E, right turns, 258° inbound) to cross PDZ VORTAC at or above:
R-281 CW R-090, 6700; R-141 CW R-230, 4000.

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.