A tower-induced go-round

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


So what did you intend to say?

Exactly what I just said.


One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.


I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.

Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.


No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.


VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.

Another attempt to side track the issue; this time you are ignoring
the part about adjacent airspace, which has been flogged to death.

I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.


Yes it does.

No, it doesn't and you are just trying to side track the issue once
again.


You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.


Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into why didn't I state
the obvious.

Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.


How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
contributing factor?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into how I know there have
been no contributing factors when I already said there have been no
incidents.

Are you really that dense?


I'm not at all dense.

Maybe not; it could be you just want to argue for the sake of
arguement and not to ever reach a conclusion.

Your constant effort to side track the issue seems to point to that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Exactly what I just said.


You said a dangerous procedure is rendered safe if everyone follows it.
That is an idiotic comment.



Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.


I don't think so. I don't think you were aware it was for VFR operations
only when you first posted it.