A tower-induced go-round

The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
inference is that intended by the author.

While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
have little place in aviation, IMO.

I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full
of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to
have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a
savant?

:-)

As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
might have picked up on it as well.

Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
in black and white, it's wrong.

That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
sense.

This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.

In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The issue of reacting to implied, as opposed to stated, prose is that
the reader has no positive way of knowing if his own subjective
inference is that intended by the author.

While it such may be marginally useful in affairs of the heart, they
have little place in aviation, IMO.

I have dealt with folks like Steven my whole life; the world is full
of them. You are very much like Steven, but -- on occasion -- seem to
have breakthroughs into understanding. I guess that makes you a
savant?

:-)

As but one example of the phenomenon that plagues guys like Steven, he
did not understand that my phrase about "having flown into Oshkosh, I
knew we had plenty of room" meant that we had damned little spacing
between us, in the normal world of controlled airspace. Any Oshkosh-
experienced pilot would have immediately understood that subtle
remark, and pilots with any knowledge of Oshkosh arrival procedures
might have picked up on it as well.

Without understanding this nuanced prose, Steven launched into a
diatribe about how "You said you had plenty of room." It's simply
not in him to understand this sort of thing, because he's neither
experienced enough as a pilot, nor is he capable of anything but
linear thought. Colored prose and creative writing are anathema to
guys like Steven, because it "clouds the issue" for them. If it's not
in black and white, it's wrong.

That's why guys like him are so good at quoting chapter and verse of
the rules. The codification becomes an end in itself, lending
structure and meaning to their lives, without which nothing makes
sense.

This trait probably makes him a good controller, by the way.

In the end, though, I believe this is why Steven continually butts
heads with many of us here. Pilots tend to be non-linear thinkers.

The guy reminds me of a cartoon I saw once.

Picture two guys in a sailboat about 6 feet long and an aircraft carrier
is bearing down on them full steam.

One guy says to the other, "Don't worry, we have the right of way."

For the boating impaired, change the sailboat to sailplane and the
aircraft carrier to 747.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mar 24, 8:21 am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
wrote in message

...







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.

Title 49 US Code, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Chapter 401, section
401.3 states:

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.-

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of
Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation
or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the
accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for
handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of Airspace.-

(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by
regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety
of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify
or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

(2) The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the
flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for-

(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;

(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;

(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and

(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and
land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.

Local actions cannot regulate such things as maximum noise levels of
aircraft in flight, routes, altitudes, or any other flight procedures.
Airport operators do have responsibility for initiating local aviation noise
control procedures. They may propose specific noise abatement plans to the
FAA, and if approved, those plans will be applied in the form of informal or
formal runway use programs, or departure and arrival procedures. These
procedures are published in the A/FD and/or TPP.

An airport operator can post a big sign in a runup area regarding how he'd
like pilots to operate their aircraft, but that alone does not a make it a
"standard" procedure. It is just a request and pilots are free to decline.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is this the same administrator that wanted to forbid controllers from
wearing shorts.?????

Flame suit on Scotty.. G

Jay Honeck wrote [about operations at uncontrolled fields]
These are probably the same guys who come blasting into a full pattern
on a long straight-in approach, expecting everyone else to move aside
because they're "charter captains".

Does this happen often at Class-D airports?

wrote in message
...

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

It appears the system is broken.


What "system" would that be?

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.



And if they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?


No, what I'm saying is local actions cannot regulate routes, altitudes, or
any other flight procedures. Do you really think the CCB "noise abatement"
procedure limits exposure to lawsuits? It conflicts with the ODP. What if
a departing aircraft comes to grief while following the noise abatement
procedure?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

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

It appears the system is broken.


What "system" would that be?

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.

The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official" to the lawyer types like you, who would then ignore it
because they are within their legal rights to do so and cause a
conflict.

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 they do, the noise complaints, lawsuits and pressure on local
authority mounts to turn that noisy, worthless airport into a WalMart
and stand a good chance of being in conflict with the existing traffic.

So, what you are saying is, if the procedure isn't in the A/FD for
whatever reason, just ignore it, no matter the consequences to the
airport and despite the fact that the rest of the traffic is following
those procedures and doing so invites a conflict because the law is
on your side?


No, what I'm saying is local actions cannot regulate routes, altitudes, or
any other flight procedures. Do you really think the CCB "noise abatement"
procedure limits exposure to lawsuits? It conflicts with the ODP. What if
a departing aircraft comes to grief while following the noise abatement
procedure?

Of course it limits lawsuits; it limits noise lawsuits.

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.

As much as I hate to say it, I think a rule is needed along the lines
of "unless deviation is required for safety, all local noise abatement
procedures at non-towered airports shall be followed" and that they
all get published in the A/FD just to take care of people like you
who would rather be right than safe.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official"

It's not always a perfectly reasonable procedure. Sometimes it's
downright dangerous.

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

Jose wrote:
Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.


Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

Non sequitur.

Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

This isn't rocket science.

The system is broken because a perfectly reasonable procedure is not
"official"

It's not always a perfectly reasonable procedure. Sometimes it's
downright dangerous.

Yeah, so what?

That just means that a specific procedure needs to be modified and
says absolutely nothing about the desirablity of following noise
abatement procedures in general.

There have been established ATC procedures that were changed because
they were deemed to be dangerous.

How would this be any different?

Look at the procedures for CCB:

http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr24.gif
http://www.cableairport.com/images/vfr6.gif

See anything unsafe there?

Oh, I'm sure there are some idiotic and unsafe procedures out there
that need to be changed, but that is a totally different issue.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.


Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
downwind.

It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
about departing in a direction different from other departures.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
just because "somebody" came up with it.

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

Jose wrote:
Locally created noise abatement procedures are fine when they simply
identify noise sensitive areas and ask pilots to avoid them. They can be
dangerous when they tell pilots where to fly in a way that appears
mandatory.

Not if everyone is following them, which is the whole point.
Having "everyone" is following local noise abatement procedures does not
make them safe.

Non sequitur.

Sequitur.


Having one yahoo not following the same procedure as everyone else
no matter where the procedure comes from is not safe.

That's not only not true, it is laughable. Not everyone has to depart
right downwind, and having somebody depart straight out or left
crosswind is not unsafe =just= because everyone else is going out right
downwind.

The standard North departure for CCB, for example, is downwind
and turn North over the approach end. If you depart upwind and turn
North, which is a "standard" AIM departure, you are flying directly
into arriving traffic from the North which enters the patten on the
crosswind.

It could be unsafe because there is a mountain in the way. It could be
unsafe because it crosses another arrival path. But if everyone is
excercising normal vigilance, there is nothing intrinsically unsafe
about departing in a direction different from other departures.

You do understand that there is both arriving and departing traffic
at most airports?

Ignoring the established procedures and departing head on into
arriving traffic just because it is "legal" to do so is idiocy.

If the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed.

That is true. But if two different procedures are safe, the pilot gets
to choose which to execute. And if one procedure (say, the noise
abatement one) is not safe under some circumstances, the pilot gets to
use a different procedure. That's what "pilot in command" means.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

And as to the alleged safety of a noise abatement procedure, I won't
trust the yahoos who live under a flight path and don't like airplane
noise to decide for me what is safe and what is not. They may well come
up with a safe procedure. They might not. I don't assume it's safe
just because "somebody" came up with it.

What part of "if the procedure itself is not safe, it needs to be changed"
are you incapable of understanding?

The neighbors don't write the noise abatement procedures, that is
normally done by the airport manager.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.