A tower-induced go-round

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:35:02 GMT, wrote in
:


I say it is most prudent not to doing something the other people in
the pattern are not expecting someone to do.

Oh, you mean like Mr. Honeck's suggestion of a 360 instead of a
go-around? :-)

Or don't you think any of the other pilots in the pattern would
possibly expect to find others, perhaps not familiar with the local
noise abatement procedures (that are unpublished in official
publications), who are merely complying with the FAA documented
traffic pattern procedures? (I believe Mr. McNicoll has referenced
them earlier in this message thread.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for flying as quietly as possible without
compromising safety. But one of the strengths of our nation's
internationally exemplary NAS is its uniformity throughout, from shore
to shore.

It's unreasonable to require, indeed expect, airmen planning to
operate at a given airport, with informal noise abatement procedures,
to have to search unofficial documents for that information. However
courteous and thoughtful pilots may make an effort to comply. At
least, that's the way I see it.

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.