No touch and go's?

On Sep 4, 12:48 am, John Jones wrote:
In many airports out there, you'll find in the AFD in the comments
section, "No touch and go landings", and/or "no practice approaches".
A few examples off the top of my head:

http://airnav.com/airport/ksachttp:/...m/airport/kcpm

What exactly is meant by this? No touch and go landings period, or
just don't do multiple touch and go's, as in buzzing around the

just ignore it
If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
on its use.
you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
own airplanes.
Joe

"joe" wrote

just ignore it
If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
on its use.
you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
own airplanes.

THAT is a totally different issue. I would assume (dangerous, I know) that
the FAA has approved the no T&G restrictions. Once that has happened, they
are part of the regulations, and a violation may be enforced.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 4, 6:54 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"joe" wrote

just ignore it
If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
on its use.
you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
own airplanes.

THAT is a totally different issue. I would assume (dangerous, I know) that
the FAA has approved the no T&G restrictions. Once that has happened, they
are part of the regulations, and a violation may be enforced.
--
Jim in NC

How is THAT a totally different issue? Is the town restricting it's
use? And no, the FAA most likley hasn't approved it.

So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
me from doing it? what could they violate me with?
Have you ever heard of some one getting violated for a touch and go?
ahh of course not.

Most likely the town is trying to cut down on noise.
joe

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:04:02 -0700, joe wrote:

On Sep 4, 6:54 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"joe" wrote

just ignore it
If the airport is a public use airport and receives federal money then
the local town/ city cannot place restrictions
on its use.
you as the PIC decide if you want to stop do a touch and go....
Our local airport tried that with some of the mechanic owners who were
servicing their own aircraft, telling them they can't work on their
own airplanes.

THAT is a totally different issue. I would assume (dangerous, I know) that
the FAA has approved the no T&G restrictions. Once that has happened, they
are part of the regulations, and a violation may be enforced.
--
Jim in NC

How is THAT a totally different issue? Is the town restricting it's
use? And no, the FAA most likley hasn't approved it.

Is it in the AFD?


So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
me from doing it? what could they violate me with?

A city can pass laws contrary to what they are supposed to. They can
violate you for any of them. Now, you would probably win after going
to court, and spending $20,000 or so. Then they appeal, which is going
to cost you the time to appear and maybe another $50,000. You may
need to be present for each hearing. If you work for a living this can
get both inconvenient and expensive.

Have you ever heard of some one getting violated for a touch and go?
ahh of course not.

IIRC It seems like there's also a stipulation for unpaid bills and
fines that allows them to take your airplane as collateral.


Most likely the town is trying to cut down on noise.
joe

joe wrote:

So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
me from doing it? what could they violate me with?

Whatever happened to respect for others?

If I'm not intimately familiar with the local politics and inner
workings of a field, I can't claim to know exactly why they don't want
T&G's. The statement can be a _request_ as much as it can be a rule,
but we don't know that.

Maybe there have been accidents. Maybe it's noise sensitivity. Maybe
it's some totally inane reason none of us would agree with.

If it's posted, shouldn't we respect it?

On Sep 5, 4:50 am, B A R R Y wrote:
joe wrote:

So, say I go to that airport and do touch and go's? What FAR prevents
me from doing it? what could they violate me with?

Whatever happened to respect for others?

If I'm not intimately familiar with the local politics and inner
workings of a field, I can't claim to know exactly why they don't want
T&G's. The statement can be a _request_ as much as it can be a rule,
but we don't know that.

Maybe there have been accidents. Maybe it's noise sensitivity. Maybe
it's some totally inane reason none of us would agree with.

If it's posted, shouldn't we respect it?

The reason I brought the issue up is because just about every night I
fly cross country with one of my students to this airport that has a
24 hour cafe. We leave at sundown, since it's relatively easy to get a
plane scheduled for such a long flight. Over the weeks, I've kind of
developed a routine of instrument approaches to have my students do.

Theres this one approach that I want to add to my routine (ILS 2 @
SAC), but they have a noise abatement policy that states "no touch and
go's, no practice approaches". All I want to do is shoot the ILS, put
the wheels down, add power, then depart somewhere else. I'll even do a
full stop

When I first read it, I thought they just meant they didn't want
people buzzing around in the pattern multiple times, nor did they not
want people constantly jamming in the throttle at DA multiple times,
for hours on end. When I asked other pilots that they thought, they
all agreed that it meant simply "don't land here at all at night"

The way I see it, if they didn't want anybody landing there at all
after dark, they'd bluntly state in the noise abatement policy "no
transient activity after such and such local time". The way it's
worded now, you can land and do a full stop/taxi back without any
trouble. So why would they allow you to do one full stop, but not one
touch and go? Even if you want to argue that one touch and go creates
more noise than one full stop/taxi back, it is enough to justify
banning them all together?

So would I be in accordance with the noise abatement policy if I just
did one ILS, land, then quietly depart? The way I see it, I'm not
making any more noise than a transient that decides to land there,
taxi off to get fuel, then departs again.

John Jones wrote:

So would I be in accordance with the noise abatement policy if I just
did one ILS, land, then quietly depart? The way I see it, I'm not
making any more noise than a transient that decides to land there,
taxi off to get fuel, then departs again.

Yes, you would be acting in accordance with the policy. And you are right
you are not, but come on John this isn't your first rodeo is it? Since when
did rules have to be logical?

There is probably some group near the airport that wants to shut the place
down completely. There are those that don't want it shut down. There was a
probably some negotiation and this was the outcome.

With that in mind if you start doing this every evening they might go back
into negotiation and the outcome might be a worse rule.

"John Jones" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 5, 4:50 am, B A R R Y wrote:


So would I be in accordance with the noise abatement policy if I just
did one ILS, land, then quietly depart? The way I see it, I'm not
making any more noise than a transient that decides to land there,
taxi off to get fuel, then departs again.

so why not call the airport and find out exactly what they mean? Surely a
better option than everyone here trying to guess.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:06:26 +0100, "S Green"
wrote:
so why not call the airport and find out exactly what they mean? Surely a
better option than everyone here trying to guess.

I suggested that @ 0735 on 9/4, but it got shot down as "too much
bother to sit on hold." G