A tower-induced go-round

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.

Jose wrote:
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 thought it was obvious I meant when the other traffic was following
whatever the procedure is, but maybe not.

I also thought it was obvious I meant when not following whatever
procedure you do something that surprises the other traffic, but, again,
maybe not.


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.

BTW, you do realize, that all else, such as terrain, obstructions,
other runways, etc., being equal, the choice of left or right traffic
at an airport is usually based on minimizing noise to "sensitive" areas
and those are mandatory?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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? :-)

Apples, oranges.

I believe he was talking about a towered airport, in which case the
question is whether or not you should do something the controller
isn't expecting you to do.

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.)

At any non-towered airport, the vast majority of users are locals, and
all the locals are most likely following the local procedures.

This is probably true for towered airports, but irrelevant as ATC is
telling you what to do.

One of the things you are supposed to do at a non-towered airport
is monitor the other traffic.

If all the local traffic is announcing, 3 to the north entering on
the crosswind for left 24, or 3 to the south, entering on the 45 for
left 24, what do you think the appropriate action is?

I think the appropriate action is to join the crowd and do what they
are doing even if it takes me a mile or two to do it.

And there is that little thing about obtaining all pertinent information
before flight.

I have never had any problem finding noise abatement procedures, but
then again, I popped the extra bucks for a Flight Guide subscription
which has a hell of a lot more usefull information than the AF/D.

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.

There is little to nothing uniform about the VFR approach and
departure procedures at either non-towered, or towered airports.

Some towered airports do straight ins and straight outs, others
may do one but not the other, some do neither in normal operation.

Ditto for non-towered airports.

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.

Well, while Flight Guide isn't an "official document", it sure is
handy, lists the noise abatement procedures, and is damn handy to
have if for nothing else than the noise abatement procedures and
whether or not there is a restaurant on the airport.

I think we basically agree.

I have a problem with people that put forth no effort and plow
through an otherwise peaceful pattern with the excuse that they
are legal and everyone else can just get the hell out of the way..

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.