A tower-induced go-round

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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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?

An idiotic comment.


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.

Where's the 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.


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

Ledalistic backpeddling.

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.

Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.

How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


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.

Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

An idiotic comment.


A question, actually, seeking clarification of your previous statement.



Where's the conflict?


The ODP calls for a climbing right turn off of runway 6, the CCB noise
abatement procedure says "left turns only" and "no right departures".



Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.


Is that because only VFR operations generate noise?



How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


Apparently I assumed you were a more experienced pilot than is the case. My
bad. Visiting a few of these sites should answer your question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...Sear ch&gbv=2



Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


What is the proof?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

An idiotic comment.


A question, actually, seeking clarification of your previous statement.

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


Where's the conflict?


The ODP calls for a climbing right turn off of runway 6, the CCB noise
abatement procedure says "left turns only" and "no right departures".

One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.

The IFR procedure does not cause a safety conflict with any VFR
procedure. VFR traffic turns left, IFR right.

Runway 6 is designated left traffic in ALL official publications
including the AF/D.

Babbling nonsense.

The procedures are for VFR operations.


Is that because only VFR operations generate noise?

No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.

Under IFR conditions, you couldn't see the mountains and going North
would take you away from your first fix, i.e. the VORTAC the IFR
procedure turns you towards.

All the VFR traffic in the area that is not going through the class C
airspace follows a path about 2 miles South of the mountains, whether
they are going to CCB or not.

How can following a VFR landmark cause a crash?

The terrain to the South is downhill BTW.


Apparently I assumed you were a more experienced pilot than is the case. My
bad. Visiting a few of these sites should answer your question:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...Sear ch&gbv=2

I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.

You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.

In any case, you aren't going to be able to scud run through the
rising terrain to the north as eventually you get to a mountain
range that averages 8-9 thousand feet.

And before you even try to bring it up, that mountain range is many
miles away and well out of the airport area.

Egotisical barracks lawyer crap.

The procedures at CCB have been proven to be safe by decades of use.


What is the proof?

Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.

Are you really that dense?

QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


So what did you intend to say?



One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.


I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.




No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.


VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.



I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.


Yes it does.



You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.


Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?



Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.


How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
contributing factor?



Are you really that dense?


I'm not at all dense.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


So what did you intend to say?

Exactly what I just said.


One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.


I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.

Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.


No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.


VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.

Another attempt to side track the issue; this time you are ignoring
the part about adjacent airspace, which has been flogged to death.

I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.


Yes it does.

No, it doesn't and you are just trying to side track the issue once
again.


You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.


Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into why didn't I state
the obvious.

Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.


How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
contributing factor?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into how I know there have
been no contributing factors when I already said there have been no
incidents.

Are you really that dense?


I'm not at all dense.

Maybe not; it could be you just want to argue for the sake of
arguement and not to ever reach a conclusion.

Your constant effort to side track the issue seems to point to that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Exactly what I just said.


You said a dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it.
That is an idiotic comment.



Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.


I don't think so. I don't think you were aware it was for VFR operations
only when you first posted it.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.

Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between
your ears once in a while.

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.

VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.

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!)

Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?

Jim has not yet come quite to the realization of how far your fantasy
land extends.

Are you really that dense?

I'm not at all dense.

Oh, then how come you haven't floated away yet?

:P

I'm sorry, this really needed to be posted. I'm not usually this
venomous. Take your head out of your ass, man!

TheSmokingGnu

"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.