A tower-induced go-round

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.

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.

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.

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?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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.

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.

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.