A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
...

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


Having some local yahoo publish a "mandatory" noise abatement procedure is
not safe.



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

This isn't rocket science.


Agreed. As the procedure conflicts with the ODP it is clearly unsafe and
needs to be changed.




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?


Yes.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

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


Having some local yahoo publish a "mandatory" noise abatement procedure is
not safe.

Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
and been in existance for decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


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

This isn't rocket science.


Agreed. As the procedure conflicts with the ODP it is clearly unsafe and
needs to be changed.

That isn't clear to the pilots who have been safely following it for
decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


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?


Yes.

Like what that has escaped the observation of thousands of pilots for
the past several decades?

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
and been in existance for decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Well, first, as you and the other anal legal eagles have pointed out,
it is not "mandatory", but it works, everyone follows it, it is safe,
and been in existance for decades.

To paraphrase, results talks, barracks lawyer bull**** walks.


How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?

Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
damn?

FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.

The signs in the runup area say "Please".

Any more nits to pick?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?


Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
damn?


It matters to me. You can answer at least one of those questions, please
do.



FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.

The signs in the runup area say "Please".


I haven't been to the FBO or the runup area, but that's not what's on the
web site. The online procedures state at the top:

Cable Airport VFR Noise Abatement
Arrival and Departures


The runway 24 procedure has "suggested phraseology for flying in and out of
Cable Airport", and beneath a separator the runway 6 procedure has
"suggested VFR procedures for departures to the south or entries from the
south".

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

How many people know it's not mandatory? Did you know it's not mandatory
before joining this thread? Does the airport manager know it's not
mandatory? Why was it written to appear as though it is mandatory?


Oh for Christ's sake, what the hell does it matter and who gives a
damn?


It matters to me. You can answer at least one of those questions, please
do.

Actually, if you are no-radio, they are the only ways you can get in and
out legally, but I digress.

I have no idea what percentage of all pilots know that local VFR procedures
are not mandatory nor what percentage of all pilots know that part 150
procedures are, and it makes no difference to the arguement of whether or
not following local VFR procedures are safe.

Yes.

Yes.

It is not.

FYI, the CCB procedure, both on the web site and on the printed copy
at the FBO say "suggested VFR" at the top.

The signs in the runup area say "Please".

I haven't been to the FBO or the runup area, but that's not what's on the
web site. The online procedures state at the top:

Cable Airport VFR Noise Abatement
Arrival and Departures


The runway 24 procedure has "suggested phraseology for flying in and out of
Cable Airport", and beneath a separator the runway 6 procedure has
"suggested VFR procedures for departures to the south or entries from the
south".

Oh, my God, you caught CCB managment in an oversight!!

Let's have them hung from the highest tree.

The 6 procedure has "SUGGESTED VFR PROCEDURES...", but they left it off
on the 24 procedure.

Call the FAA immediately!

The world is coming to an end!

Chaos reigns!

Oh, the humanity!

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

I have no idea what percentage of all pilots know that local VFR
procedures are not mandatory nor what percentage of all pilots know
that part 150 procedures are, and it makes no difference to the
arguement of whether or not following local VFR procedures are safe.

Yes.

Yes.

It is not.


Yes it is. It says, "LEFT TURNS ONLY, NO STRAIGHT-OUT DEPARTURES, NO RIGHT
DEPARTURES, NO DOWN-WIND DEPARTURES, NO STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES". A bit
further down it says, "NOTE: There are no downwind, straight-out, or right
departures." The only part that is actually mandatory is "left turns only",
and then only on approach. Nothing at all that says compliance is strictly
voluntary.