![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |