A tower-induced go-round

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.

Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

.... as is the "local procedure"

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

Ditto AIM.

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.

I have no problem playing nicely with others. I have a problem with
others telling me deciding for me what I should do, rather than letting
me decide for myself how I want to play nicely with others.

Or not.

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

Jose wrote:
Further, if you actually read the AIM, you see the patterns in 4-3-3
are recomnended, not mandatory.

... as is the "local procedure"

Not following the local procedure, while not illegal, is at the
minimum discourteous, and at the worst, dangerous.

Ditto AIM.

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.

I have no problem playing nicely with others. I have a problem with
others telling me deciding for me what I should do, rather than letting
me decide for myself how I want to play nicely with others.

Or not.

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Doing what you want just because it isn't illegal without any regard
for how it effects others is the definition of arrogance.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Except that in this case "The rest of the world" is just you.

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

Jose wrote:
Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.

Except that in this case "The rest of the world" is just you.

In this case, "the rest of the world" is thousands of other pilots
over several decades, and that is just at one, small, airport.

If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

It appears most people don't have a problem with the concept.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

Tens of thousands of pilots have subscribed to your local noise
procedure? They also subscribe to the idea that everyone must follow it
or unsafe conditions result?

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

Jose wrote:
If you expand that radius to 50 KM, you are now talking about tens
of thousands of pilots and a cumulative time of centuries.

Tens of thousands of pilots have subscribed to your local noise
procedure? They also subscribe to the idea that everyone must follow it
or unsafe conditions result?

They aren't "my" procedures, nor are they the procedures of some mob of
home owners, they are the procedures established by the airport
management.

Airport management is the person or group responsible for the operation
of an airport.

What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

And yes, the vast majority of pilots follow the local airport procedures
because most pilots aren't arrogant, pig-headed, assholes.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

jimp@specsol. wrote

Doing what you want just because it isn't illegal without any regard
for how it effects others is the definition of arrogance.

Funny how that definition fits a few of the posters in this group... to a
"T."
--
Jim in NC

wrote in message
...

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.


The rest of the world? The local CCB procedures have had very limited
distribution. You should expect most of the worlds pilots would not be
following them.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

Doing what the rest of the world expects you to do if there is no
overriding reason not to is the definition of playing nicely with
others.


The rest of the world? The local CCB procedures have had very limited
distribution. You should expect most of the worlds pilots would not be
following them.

So now you are down to nit picking the symantics?

The above text is about life in general, not about any particular
procedure or airport, or even aviation in particular.

As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.

And of course, pilots don't follow the CCB VFR procedures at other
airports.

This is you most childish rebuttal to date.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.