![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures. How did you make that determination? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message ... As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures. How did you make that determination? An estimation based on long observation. If it were a formal measurment, there would be error bars on the number. You know, this whole thing started out rather simply. The original issue is, is it more prudent to follow the actions of the rest of the VFR traffic in the pattern of a non-towered airport, or does one do what they want, no matter the consequences, just because it is legal to do and you want to do it? So far, you have tried to side track the issue into: The ODP, AF/D, Part 150, and the CFR. IFR procedures. Whether or not I know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. How long I've known voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. Whether or not all pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. What percentage of pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. The qualifications and job history of an airport manager. How I know something with decades of no accident history has no accident history. Scud running. What you think local ATC would do as opposed to what I've seen local ATC do. And probably several others that, mercifully, I can't remember at the moment. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you. You provide no usefull information and constantly attempt to side track things into non-related issues or into issues which have, at best, a tenuous relationship to the discussion at hand. You are a total, absolute, worthless, waste of time. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The original issue is, is it more prudent to follow the actions of the
rest of the VFR traffic in the pattern of a non-towered airport, or does one do what they want, no matter the consequences, just because it is legal to do and you want to do it? No, the original issue was, is it =inherently= unsafe to follow standard AIM procedures just because some local guy invented a local procedure? I say no. That is all. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jose wrote:
The original issue is, is it more prudent to follow the actions of the rest of the VFR traffic in the pattern of a non-towered airport, or does one do what they want, no matter the consequences, just because it is legal to do and you want to do it? No, the original issue was, is it =inherently= unsafe to follow standard AIM procedures just because some local guy invented a local procedure? I say no. That is all. I disagree. If the preponderance of existing traffic is following some procedure, it is an important part of the question. If there is no existing traffic, it doesn't really matter what you do as long as it isn't illegal, nor does it matter where the procedure came from when the question is, is this prudent to do from a safety standpoint. I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in the pattern are not expecting someone to do. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If the preponderance of existing traffic is following some procedure...
Then it may be a good idea to mesh with that procedure. It is not however =inherently= unsafe to not follow it, as you had intimated. I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in the pattern are not expecting someone to do. I agree. But that statement is not the one that got me going. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... An estimation based on long observation. If it were a formal measurment, there would be error bars on the number. It's an unreliable number. You know, this whole thing started out rather simply. The original issue is, is it more prudent to follow the actions of the rest of the VFR traffic in the pattern of a non-towered airport, or does one do what they want, no matter the consequences, just because it is legal to do and you want to do it? So far, you have tried to side track the issue into: The ODP, AF/D, Part 150, and the CFR. IFR procedures. Whether or not I know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. How long I've known voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. Whether or not all pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. What percentage of pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary. The qualifications and job history of an airport manager. How I know something with decades of no accident history has no accident history. Scud running. What you think local ATC would do as opposed to what I've seen local ATC do. And probably several others that, mercifully, I can't remember at the moment. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you. You provide no usefull information and constantly attempt to side track things into non-related issues or into issues which have, at best, a tenuous relationship to the discussion at hand. You are a total, absolute, worthless, waste of time. You're not going to learn anything with that attitude. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Round Engines | john smith | Piloting | 20 | February 15th 07 03:31 AM |
induced airflow | buttman | Piloting | 3 | February 19th 06 04:36 AM |
Round Engines | Voxpopuli | Naval Aviation | 16 | May 31st 05 06:48 PM |
Source of Induced Drag | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 2 | January 10th 04 12:18 AM |
Predicting ground effects on induced power | Marc Shorten | Soaring | 0 | October 28th 03 11:18 AM |