A tower-induced go-round

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

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


The airport manager appears to be no more qualified than the neighbors.
Does he have any aviation background at all?

About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
CCB.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
CCB.


Just as an airport manager? Nothing that might qualify him to create a
proper procedure?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

About 40 years worth, all at the same airport, if you are referring to
CCB.


Just as an airport manager? Nothing that might qualify him to create a
proper procedure?

He started as a kid being a gopher for the airport owner, founder, and
builder and worked his way up.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

Since it is a privately owned airport, I would imagine he has to pass
major decisions past the owners, who also have decades of experience
and have been around since shortly after the first dirt was moved to
build the runway, but since I'm not part of the airport management
I can't say for sure.

The towers at the adjacent class D and class C airports are also
expecting pilots to follow the local VFR procedure.

The class C tower is expecting departing traffic that will transition
their airspace to be departing following the local procedure.

Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.

For traffic between the class D, the class D tower expects arriving
traffic to be coming from the local departure area and vectors
departing traffic towards the local arrival area.

So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.

Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.


I think that unlikely.



So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.


How do you know there have been no safety issues?



Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.


That's fine, you're free to follow them if you choose. Just as anyone is
free to decline to participate. The problem is that many pilots may not
know that they're strictly voluntary.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Arriving traffic that transitions the class C will be vectored to
the start of the local arrival procedure and nowhere else.

I think that unlikely.

You can think anything you like.

That is what happens.

If you are so sure of yourself, try going through the Class C and
tell them you want to turn for a straight in to CCB 24 and see what
happens.

So, to sum it up, we have a local VFR procedure that has been in
existance for decades, has had no safety issues, has been willingly
followed by thousands of pilots without complaint, and is implicitly
endorsed by the actions of ATC at two towers.

How do you know there have been no safety issues?

Don't be a childish, petulant, ass.

Because no one has ever claimed there was.

Because there are no incident or accident reports.

Sounds OK to me and I think I will continue to follow the procedures.

That's fine, you're free to follow them if you choose. Just as anyone is
free to decline to participate. The problem is that many pilots may not
know that they're strictly voluntary.

Not knowing they are voluntary is totally irrelevant and hardly a
problem.

Any pilot that doesn't know they are voluntary is ignorant, which is
a totally separate issue.

BTW, here's a web site you might want to visit:

http://www.faa.gov

This organization encourages and supports the concept of local noise
abatement procedures and pilots following them as long as:

They are not discriminitory.

They don't produce a special right.

They are safe.

They don't conflict with law.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

That is what happens.


Doubtful.



Because no one has ever claimed there was.

Because there are no incident or accident reports.


That wouldn't mean there haven't been any, that would just mean nobody's
reported any. And you can't even be sure nobody's reported any.



Not knowing they are voluntary is totally irrelevant and hardly a
problem.


I've already explained the relevance and how it can be a problem. Review
the thread.



Any pilot that doesn't know they are voluntary is ignorant, which is
a totally separate issue.


There are many ignorant pilots.



BTW, here's a web site you might want to visit:

http://www.faa.gov

This organization encourages and supports the concept of local noise
abatement procedures and pilots following them as long as:

They are not discriminitory.

They don't produce a special right.

They are safe.

They don't conflict with law.


You should encourage the CCB airport manager to develop procedures like
that.