A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
...

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.


What qualifies airport management to create these procedures?



Also, they are not in conflict with anything, as, as several have
noted, they are not mandatory by any stretch of the imagination.


No, they're not, but how many people know they're not mandatory? The
procedure at CCB does not indicate it's not mandatory. Did you know it was
not mandatory before participating in this discussion?



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


But the AIM states up front that it is not mandatory, the CCB procedures do
not do that.



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


How so?



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.


What do you consider to be the beginning of aviation and what are you
referring to that has been around since that time?



Your repeated disparagement of the airport management, which in most
cases has many decades of experience, is noted.


Decades of experience in airport management does not alone qualify anyone to
create noise abatement procedures.



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.


So it would be a mistake to expect anyone to follow a procedure that is not
in the A/FD.



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.


There is no such regulation.