A tower-induced go-round

wrote in message
...

As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.


How did you make that determination?

wrote in message
...

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


So what did you intend to say?



One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.


I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.




No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.


VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.



I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.


Yes it does.



You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.


Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?



Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.


How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
contributing factor?



Are you really that dense?


I'm not at all dense.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

As for CCB in particular, better than 99% of the pilots using CCB
for the past several decades follow the CCB VFR procedures.


How did you make that determination?

An estimation based on long observation.

If it were a formal measurment, there would be error bars on the number.

You know, this whole thing started out rather simply.

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?

So far, you have tried to side track the issue into:

The ODP, AF/D, Part 150, and the CFR.

IFR procedures.

Whether or not I know voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary.

How long I've known voluntary noise abatement procedures are voluntary.

Whether or not all pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are
voluntary.

What percentage of pilots know voluntary noise abatement procedures are
voluntary.

The qualifications and job history of an airport manager.

How I know something with decades of no accident history has no
accident history.

Scud running.

What you think local ATC would do as opposed to what I've seen local
ATC do.

And probably several others that, mercifully, I can't remember at
the moment.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you.

You provide no usefull information and constantly attempt to side
track things into non-related issues or into issues which have, at
best, a tenuous relationship to the discussion at hand.

You are a total, absolute, worthless, waste of time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

wrote in message
...

It is still idiotic.

No one is going to follow any procedure that is basically unsafe.


So what did you intend to say?

Exactly what I just said.


One more time, the procedure you are talking about is the IFR
procedure. The CCB procedures are for VFR traffic.


I pointed out the conflict between the ODP and the noise abatement procedure
before you identified it as being for VFR operations only. Initially you
did not differentiate between IFR and VFR.

Another attempt to side track the issue; that a local noise abatement
procedure doesn't apply when IFR is obvious to the most casual observer.


No, that is because, as someone pointed out, safety has a higher
priority than noise abatement.

The VFR procedure turns you towards slowly rising terrain and mountains
about 4 miles away.

If you are VFR, that is a non-issue since in VFR conditions you can
see the terrain and the mountains and make your East or West turn
miles before you get to them.


VFR operations can be conducted with as little as one mile visibility.

Another attempt to side track the issue; this time you are ignoring
the part about adjacent airspace, which has been flogged to death.

I know all about scud running and it has nothing to do with what we
are talking about.


Yes it does.

No, it doesn't and you are just trying to side track the issue once
again.


You are mearly trying to redirect the discussion because you have
nothing valid to say about the discussion topic, i.e. the VFR
procedures at CCB.


Why did you not identify them as VFR procedures initially?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into why didn't I state
the obvious.

Decades of safe operation by thousands of pilots.


How do you know there have been no incidents where the procedure was a
contributing factor?

Now you are trying to side track the issue into how I know there have
been no contributing factors when I already said there have been no
incidents.

Are you really that dense?


I'm not at all dense.

Maybe not; it could be you just want to argue for the sake of
arguement and not to ever reach a conclusion.

Your constant effort to side track the issue seems to point to that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.

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

In article .com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Anyway, the controllers were clear that their job
was to visually seperate traffic and didn't like the controllers that stared
at the DBRITE instead of looking out the window.

Wooo boy. I used to work with guys like that, back in the '80s. They
didn't trust us kids who were looking at a computer screen, instead of
writing the newspaper draws on clear plastic sheets with a grease
pencil. After all, it had worked for them for 50 years....

Well, at KBED looking at the DBRITE isn't all that useful given the radar
coverage, especially to the southwest.

btw - these controllers were all years younger than we are, hardly old
farts set in their ways (I know, I know, I'm repeating myself).

--
Bob Noel
(gave up looking for a particular sig the lawyer will hate)

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:
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.

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.