noise abatement and practice landings

[butt]

When noise abatement procedures say "no touch and go landings", or "no practice approaches" do they really mean NO touch and go's or approaches at all, or just not multiple touch and go's or approaches?

Theres this airport in my area that has the following under "remarks" on airnav:

- NO TOUCH & GO LNDGS, LOW APPCHS OR PRACTICE INST APPCHS BTN HRS 2100-0600 LOCAL; FOR MORE INFO CALL (916) 874-0359.

If I wanted to do one practice ILS, with a touch and go then depart the area, would that not be allowed? What if I did the practice approach, did a full stop, taxi'd back, then departed?

What I can't understand, is how "practice approach" is any different than just "approach"...

The way I've already read those, was they just didn't want people doing multiple patterns and low passes along the runway, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking just one landing and one takeoff isn't going to cause much disturbance...

 

[BobDDuck]

The difference between a practice approach and an approach is the practice approach you are doing because you are practicing approaches and the approach is because you need to go to that airport and the only way you can get in is by shooting an approach.

Interestingly enough you could do pattern work if you wanted, but would have to do full stop and taxi back take offs.

 

[drummerboy]

Normally when they list restrictions like this it is because people live near the airport and don't want lots of A/C buzzing around late at night while they are trying to sleep. The airport that I trained at had the same understanding that people wouldn't fly circuits after 2300.

Now there are ways to get around it like doing full stop landings but come on show some courtesy. Yes the airport was there first ect, but a lot of the time it is at night and people are trying to sleep. The airport is not closed they're just asking that you don't keep them awake at night with multiple patterns.

It helps a lot in the scheme of things to be nice to your neighbors and go practice somewhere else if you have to do it late at night. If you want to use this airport then just do it during the day.

Yea some people go over the top with noise complaints but it's up to us to not go over the top making the noise.

 

[butt]

The difference between a practice approach and an approach is the practice approach you are doing because you are practicing approaches and the approach is because you need to go to that airport and the only way you can get in is by shooting an approach.

Interestingly enough you could do pattern work if you wanted, but would have to do full stop and taxi back take offs.

But in terms of noise abatement, whats the difference between coming in on the ILS, and coming in straight in.

What is it about using the ILS that makes your plane loud enough for them to outlaw it via a noise abatement procedure, yet a straight in isn't outlawed?

The same goes for touch and go's. I can't understand how they create so much more noise than doing multiple stop and go's...

 

[PanJet]

But in terms of noise abatement, whats the difference between coming in on the ILS, and coming in straight in.

What is it about using the ILS that makes your plane loud enough for them to outlaw it via a noise abatement procedure, yet a straight in isn't outlawed?

The same goes for touch and go's. I can't understand how they create so much more noise than doing multiple stop and go's...

He's not saying there's a difference between an ILS and a straight in in terms of noise. He's just saying that they don't want you to be making unnecessary noice. If you're just coming in to land once and be done, then people probably won't get to upset, but if you're practicing for no good reason but to practice in the middle of the night, then you're just making noise again and again when you could just wait and do it during the day or somewhere else. Practice usually involves multiple approaches rather than just come in and land and be done. It just helps reduce the number of times aircraft are flying low into the area.

Also, touch and go's don't create more noise than multiple stop and goes, but most people aren't going to be motivated enough to land, taxi back, and take off again umpteen times. It's a waste of time and money. That's probably why they just listed touch and go's. I'm sure if you came in there and did ten stop and go's every night, they'd probably list something like "no practice takeoffs or landings" eventually.

 

[Ralgha]

But in terms of noise abatement, whats the difference between coming in on the ILS, and coming in straight in.

What is it about using the ILS that makes your plane loud enough for them to outlaw it via a noise abatement procedure, yet a straight in isn't outlawed?

The same goes for touch and go's. I can't understand how they create so much more noise than doing multiple stop and go's...

What they're trying to tell you is don't do anything unnecessary at that airport between those hours. If you're not planning to land and stay for awhile, don't go there.

 

[butt]

What they're trying to tell you is don't do anything unnecessary at that airport between those hours. If you're not planning to land and stay for awhile, don't go there.

Then why don't they just come out and say that? Why do they have to be so cryptic? You could technically do all sorts of stuff that would cause a ton of noise, but is still not against the noise abatement procedure. Is there any reason they don't just say bluntly "try to avoid operations here unless you have a reason"?

 

[tonyw]

Then why don't they just come out and say that? Why do they have to be so cryptic?

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that as cryptic.

It's pretty clear.

Don't do touch and goes, low approaches, or practice approaches between those hours.

What's unclear about that?

 

[butt]

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that as cryptic.

It's pretty clear.

Don't do touch and goes, low approaches, or practice approaches between those hours.

What's unclear about that?

The point of a noise abatement policy is to restrict operations which create a lot of noise. Restricting your policy to only outlawing those 3 vague things does nothing. If they really wanted to limit noise, they'd be more specefic, such as saying "no multiple patterns", or "do not fly lower than 200 ft AGL until 1 miles from the airport", or "night takeoffs only from runways, 13, 3, or 22, and best climb to 600AGL before turn out".

I just don't see how "no practice approaches" really does anything specifically to limit noise.

 

[Ralgha]

I just don't see how "no practice approaches" really does anything specifically to limit noise.

Because it limits them to non-practice approaches, which are few and far between. Also someone doing a non-practice approach to an airport is likely to stay there once they arrive.

If you just cruise over to that airport to practice landing, your approach is also practice, whether it's an instrument approach or not.

 

[tonyw]

The point of a noise abatement policy is to restrict operations which create a lot of noise. Restricting your policy to only outlawing those 3 vague things does nothing.

Touch and goes make a lot of noise, practice approaches do as well, and so do low approaches.

Why? Because you're going to crank up the engine to full throttle when you go missed or when you're taking off.

And you're going to do this multiple times.

On the other hand, if you're doing an approach for real, the goal is to put the plane down on the runway. This means if you shoot the approach right and it's above mins, you will hopefully be at idle power and putting the plane down quietly.

Make sense?

 

[butt]

Touch and goes make a lot of noise, practice approaches do as well, and so do low approaches.

Why? Because you're going to crank up the engine to full throttle when you go missed or when you're taking off.

And you're going to do this multiple times.

On the other hand, if you're doing an approach for real, the goal is to put the plane down on the runway. This means if you shoot the approach right and it's above mins, you will hopefully be at idle power and putting the plane down quietly.

Make sense?

(emphasis mine)

So you're saying that whenever a noise abatement policy states "no practice approaches", it's only referring to multiple approaches? If I do one ILS to a full stop, taxi back to the hold short line, then takeoff again, I'm obeying the noise abatement procedure?

I'm asking this because theres this really popular cross country destination that all my students want to do go. It takes 4 hours to get there and back, so the only time we can really go there is at night. Along the route theres this really cool airport that is downtown in the middle of a big city. From what I understand during the day it's pretty busy, but at night the tower is closed and traffic is sparse (at least at 1 AM when I'm usually there)

What I want to start doing is having my students do the ILS into that airport on the way back. I'm not wanting to do multiple approaches, nor do I want to stay in the pattern. Yesterday stopped there and I had ATC vector me onto the localizer and the controller didn't seem to care. I want to make sure doing this is OK. I'd give the place a call, but I've been there before. I'll just get some clueless desk lady who'll put me on hold for 20 minutes before coming back with a blanket "no".

 

[Ralgha]

(emphasis mine)

So you're saying that whenever a noise abatement policy states "no practice approaches", it's only referring to multiple approaches? If I do one ILS to a full stop, taxi back to the hold short line, then takeoff again, I'm obeying the noise abatement procedure?

I'm asking this because theres this really popular cross country destination that all my students want to do go. It takes 4 hours to get there and back, so the only time we can really go there is at night. Along the route theres this really cool airport that is downtown in the middle of a big city. From what I understand during the day it's pretty busy, but at night the tower is closed and traffic is sparse (at least at 1 AM when I'm usually there)

What I want to start doing is having my students do the ILS into that airport on the way back. I'm not wanting to do multiple approaches, nor do I want to stay in the pattern. Yesterday stopped there and I had ATC vector me onto the localizer and the controller didn't seem to care. I want to make sure doing this is OK. I'd give the place a call, but I've been there before. I'll just get some clueless desk lady who'll put me on hold for 20 minutes before coming back with a blanket "no".

ATC is not an enforcer and could not care less about noise abatement.

That said, what you want to do would be in violation of the airport's noise abatement policy. The ILS you would do is not necessary, it is for practice, and that is exactly what they do not want happening. It doesn't matter whether you do it to a missed, a touch-and-go, a stop-and-go, or a taxi-back.

 

[butt]

ATC is not an enforcer and could not care less about noise abatement.

I know they aren't enforcers, but if I were way out of line, they probably would have said something.

That said, what you want to do would be in violation of the airport's noise abatement policy. The ILS you would do is not necessary, it is for practice, and that is exactly what they do not want happening.

Now if I were to do a normal landing (not an ILS) it would produce exactly the same amount of noise, yet is perfectly allowed. Why is that.

My second point is: if it's "unnecessary traffic" they want to eliminate, then why don't they just come out and say it. "Airport is closed to non-emergency transient arrivals or departures after 2300 local" or something?

 

[tonyw]

What I want to start doing is having my students do the ILS into that airport on the way back. I'm not wanting to do multiple approaches, nor do I want to stay in the pattern.

What's not clear here?

When you shoot an approach for real, if you're above mins and you shoot it right, what are you doing? You're hopefully at idle because you're going to land, right? So it's quiet.

On the other hand, what happens if you do a low approach or a practice approach? You're going to break it off and go missed, right? Which means you're going to go to full throttle and make a lot of noise, right?

It's really not as complicated as you're making it.

Let's face it. You just don't want to have to deal with the noise abatement procedures so you're complaining. The rationale is pretty clear, the procedures are pretty clear, and you just don't like them.

So you're calling them unclear and questioning why they are in effect.

 

[butt]

What's not clear here?

When you shoot an approach for real, if you're above mins and you shoot it right, what are you doing? You're hopefully at idle because you're going to land, right? So it's quiet.

On the other hand, what happens if you do a low approach or a practice approach? You're going to break it off and go missed, right? Which means you're going to go to full throttle and make a lot of noise, right?

It's really not as complicated as you're making it.

What the hell, did I say I was going to do a missed approach? Did I in ANY WAY insinuate I had planned on doing anything other than a full stop landing? Did you even read ANY posts I've made in this thread thus far?

 

[tonyw]

What the hell, did I say I was going to do a missed approach? Did I in ANY WAY insinuate I had planned on doing anything other than a full stop landing? Did you even read ANY posts I've made in this thread thus far?

How about this?

So you're saying that whenever a noise abatement policy states "no practice approaches", it's only referring to multiple approaches?

I'll stand by my statement. It's clear you don't like the noise abatement rules.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You don't like them, so you're finding all sorts of reasons to question them.

I'll tell you the number one reason why you've got to obey them.

Because if you're taking your instrument students in there and someone gets pissed off at you, you're going to give the anti-airport crowd ammunition to shut down the airport.

Try practicing ANY approaches after that.

And don't try to be all innocent here. I don't recall too many practice approaches where I actually land if it's not an airport where I plan on terminating the flight.

 

[butt]

How about this?



I'll stand by my statement. It's clear you don't like the noise abatement rules.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You don't like them, so you're finding all sorts of reasons to question them.

I'll tell you the number one reason why you've got to obey them.

Because if you're taking your instrument students in there and someone gets pissed off at you, you're going to give the anti-airport crowd ammunition to try to shut down the airport.

Try practicing ANY approaches after that.

You're obviously either not reading my posts, or are deliberately not understanding them. Whether I agree with them or not is not even an issue.

The way the noise abatement policy reads, an ILS to full stop is not allowed. An ILS to a missed approach is not allowed. Multiple ILS approaches with multiple missed approaches are not allowed. Multiple touch and go's are not allowed.

Yet multiple stop and go's are allowed. Full stop straight-in's are allowed. Both of these operations cause just as much sound as the operations that are outlawed above. This, to me, doesn't add up. There has to be more to it.

The way I read the noise abatement policy is that you can do a straight in, you can do a ILS, hell you can probably even do one touch and go as long as you leave and don't come back. Whats not allowed is doing multiple approaches where you're jamming in the throttle 200 ft over the approach end every 10 minutes for an hour, or buzzing around the vicinity of the airport for a hour doing touch and go's.

Thats just the way I read it. I think that particular airport (and other airports for that matter) would greatly benefit from specifying exactly what they don't want you to do in the noise abatement policy, such as what I mentioned in my last post ("closed to non-emergency transients after 2300 local blah blah")

And don't try to be all innocent here. I don't recall too many practice approaches where I actually land if it's not an airport where I plan on terminating the flight.

I do that all the time. Especially around airspace. Even more so if a noise abatement procedure prohibits against it.

 

[WAFlyBoy]

Butt,

Is this noise abatement at Mather or Exec? Which airports are you flying between on the 4-hours night lesson? (Couldn't be Willows and Castle, could it?)

Anyhow, I've spent many-a-night flying in that area, and I could probably recommend several airports that you could fly practice approaches at all night without violating a noise abatement policy.

PS. If you're not flying to Nancy's Airport Cafe at night, you're missing out!

PPS. The noise abatement excerpt you've posted is, indeed, very clear. It's obvious they are trying to thwart flight training activities at night, so as not to disturb the residents surrounding the field. This must be Exec, because you can do touch and gos all night long in a DC-8 and nobody would care at Mather.

 

[Ralgha]

You're obviously either not reading my posts, or are deliberately not understanding them. Whether I agree with them or not is not even an issue.

The way the noise abatement policy reads, an ILS to full stop is not allowed. An ILS to a missed approach is not allowed. Multiple ILS approaches with multiple missed approaches are not allowed. Multiple touch and go's are not allowed.

Yet multiple stop and go's are allowed. Full stop straight-in's are allowed. Both of these operations cause just as much sound as the operations that are outlawed above. This, to me, doesn't add up. There has to be more to it.

The way I read the noise abatement policy is that you can do a straight in, you can do a ILS, hell you can probably even do one touch and go as long as you leave and don't come back. Whats not allowed is doing multiple approaches where you're jamming in the throttle 200 ft over the approach end every 10 minutes for an hour, or buzzing around the vicinity of the airport for a hour doing touch and go's.

Thats just the way I read it. I think that particular airport (and other airports for that matter) would greatly benefit from specifying exactly what they don't want you to do in the noise abatement policy, such as what I mentioned in my last post ("closed to non-emergency transients after 2300 local blah blah")



I do that all the time. Especially around airspace. Even more so if a noise abatement procedure prohibits against it.

Are you deliberately not getting you head around this or what? It's not about the level of noise, it's about noise period. That approach you want to do is not necessary. There is no reason other than practice that you are even at that airport. The people around that airport do not want to hear you at all. They make exceptions for people who are going to stay, i.e. they have a reason, other than practice, for being there. It is not necessary for you to be there, therefore they do not want to listen to you.

Also, ATC will not say anything, and likely doesn't even know about the noise policy. They don't care and will not say anything.

Stop trying to bend the rules to allow you to feel better about shooting a single stinking ILS that's the same as every other ILS.

Pick an airport with no noise policy and stop bending over backwards to help the noise haters close airports.