A tower-induced go-round

"TheSmokingGnu" wrote in message
...

Hey, smacktard. You might want to use the grey squishy stuff between your
ears once in a while.


That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.



Jim's message, posted Mar 27:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9fc06a96c2e42f

Not only are the procedure images named VFR, the cards themselves SAY
they're VFR procedures.


Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted:

"Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for
noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav
is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB.
To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn
north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right
departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this."

On Mar 24 he posted:

"Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point."

That was the one that in response to I pointed out the conflict with the
ODP.

Earlier on Mar 27 he posted:

"There is no difference in practice between a local noise abatement
procedure and an established ATC procedure. The only difference is
in the legal fine print."

and

"If a departing (or arriving, CCB has procedures for both) aircraft comes
to grief following the noise abatement procedures, it will only be because
some anal legal eagle such as yourself chose to ignore them and caused
havoc in an otherwise peaceful pattern full of students expecting the
rest of the traffic to be following the same procedures."


Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't
mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that
fact even then.



And a Cessna at best rate has 40 seconds closing time at that visibility,
what's your point? (Best angle's got a whole 53!)


See my previous message with links to scud running.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.

Hurrah, another ad hominem (although I give this one to you, since it's
answered in kind).

Yup, he posted that on Mar 27 at 12:15 PM. On Mar 21 he posted:

"Lots of places have specific 'standard' arrivals and departures for
noise abatement. Unfortunately, the AFD rarely lists these, AirNav
is spotty, but Flight Guide is pretty good. An example is KCCB.
To depart 24 to the south, turn south crosswind and follow the flood
control channel. To depart 24 to the north, left downwind and turn
north over the 24. There are no downwind, straight-out or right
departures. And there is a big sign at the runup area telling you this."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.


On Mar 24 he posted:

"Lots of airports have perfectly reasonable noise abatement procedures that
don't appear in the A/FD. KCCB specifically is a case in point."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

Earlier on Mar 27 he posted:

"There is no difference in practice between a local noise abatement
procedure and an established ATC procedure. The only difference is
in the legal fine print."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.


and

"If a departing (or arriving, CCB has procedures for both) aircraft comes
to grief following the noise abatement procedures, it will only be because
some anal legal eagle such as yourself chose to ignore them and caused
havoc in an otherwise peaceful pattern full of students expecting the
rest of the traffic to be following the same procedures."

In which he does not state that it is either VFR, IFR, or applicable to
both.

Even in the message that included the links to the procedure he doesn't
mention they're for VFR operations only. I don't think he was aware of that
fact even then.

He expected you to be more observant and use common sense. It was an
unfortunate choice.

He knew they were VFR procedures, he was quoting from the damned cards
in the first place.

See my previous message with links to scud running.

That's not a point, nor is it applicable.

TheSmokingGnu