![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I thought it was obvious I meant when the other traffic was following
whatever the procedure is, but maybe not. It was not obvious. You stated it as a universal. It doesn't matter however. 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. Flying inherently includes surprises. Some are dangerous, some are not. You stated as a categorical imperative that all traffic MUST do the same thing or insane danger will result. I disagree. There are many things that are not part of "what everyone is doing" that are not going to cause insand danger, or even any significant danger. 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? Actually, that just boils down to "noise is a consideration". Things are rarely equal. And the mandatory left/right pattern rules are in the AF/D and FAA approved. You were talking about homegrown procedures that are not necessarily FAA approved, not mandatory, and not necessarily well publicized. You made a big deal out of something small. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's a big deal to try to make it a big deal. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jose wrote:
I thought it was obvious I meant when the other traffic was following whatever the procedure is, but maybe not. It was not obvious. You stated it as a universal. It doesn't matter however. 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. Flying inherently includes surprises. Some are dangerous, some are not. You stated as a categorical imperative that all traffic MUST do the same thing or insane danger will result. I disagree. There are many things that are not part of "what everyone is doing" that are not going to cause insand danger, or even any significant danger. I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of the other participants? You never know if the other guy has 20,000 hours with nerves of steel or a student 5 minutes into his first solo and on the verge of wetting his pants. Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5 minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin. 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? Actually, that just boils down to "noise is a consideration". Things are rarely equal. And the mandatory left/right pattern rules are in the AF/D and FAA approved. You were talking about homegrown procedures that are not necessarily FAA approved, not mandatory, and not necessarily well publicized. I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people, though most specific details of an airports operation are in fact "home grown", including the mandatory, FAA approved, ones. You made a big deal out of something small. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's a big deal to try to make it a big deal. I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone to be coming from like the genius this morning who decided to do a go around and turn cross wind mid field in front of downwind traffic which included me. I guess he didn't want to spend the gas money to go where everyone else was turning crosswind. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't
you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of the other participants? Well, you did imply something that dramatic, and that's what set me off. If you merely mean it's nice to follow noise abatement procedures, and it's generally a good idea to follow the local procedures, then I heartily (but not stridently) agree. Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5 minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin. Several well known "five minute students" flew with a turbin. They had a turbine too. (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know "turban" is misspelled too) I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people, Not the "home grown" part, but the "imposed as a mandatory procedure by some local yokel who has no authority to do so" part which was implied by the stridency of your original advocacy. I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone to be coming from... No, that's not a big deal. That's just life. You're not in the cockpit with him, and it's your job to watch for that kind of thing. I will agree though that what he did did not appear to be too bright or considerate, but this has little to do with a noise abatement procedure. Or maybe it does. Maybe he was "avoiding" the "noise sensitive area" where his great aunt lives, right under the approach end. How's that for a local procedure? ![]() -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jose wrote:
I never meant to imply anything that dramatic, but in any case, don't you think it prudent to minimize the surprises in an activity such as aviation especially when you have no way to know the skill level of the other participants? Well, you did imply something that dramatic, and that's what set me off. If you merely mean it's nice to follow noise abatement procedures, and it's generally a good idea to follow the local procedures, then I heartily (but not stridently) agree. Personally, I always fly under the assumption the other guy is a 5 minute student unless he has multiple engines or a turbin. Several well known "five minute students" flew with a turbin. They had a turbine too. (sorry, I couldn't resist, and I know "turban" is misspelled too) I think "home grown" is a sticking point with some people, Not the "home grown" part, but the "imposed as a mandatory procedure by some local yokel who has no authority to do so" part which was implied by the stridency of your original advocacy. If you think I was strident, you should be around when I do get worked up over something... Locals can't impose a mandatory procedure in any form unless the FAA approves it, but all those mandatory procedures were formulated by the locals. If you run across procedure a local trys to make mandatory without going through the approval process, complain to the FAA. I only think it is a big deal when some inconsiderate yahoo comes charging in out of nowhere from a direction I don't expect anyone to be coming from... No, that's not a big deal. That's just life. You're not in the cockpit with him, and it's your job to watch for that kind of thing. As well as morons that cruise through stop lights and stop signs and turn right from the left lane. I have (perhaps unrealistic) higher expectations of pilots. I will agree though that what he did did not appear to be too bright or considerate, but this has little to do with a noise abatement procedure. It is just an example of doing the unexpected. Or maybe it does. Maybe he was "avoiding" the "noise sensitive area" where his great aunt lives, right under the approach end. How's that for a local procedure? No, just another self centered moron that doesn't think the "rules", whether they be mandatory or simple courtesy, apply to him. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... 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? Yes, and that information is published in the A/FD, where pilots expect to find such information. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
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 |