noise abatement and practice landings

Ok, butt, having debated with you before and reading your post history, it is clear to me that you love to argue. Please try to look at things from a different perspective once in a while. You seem very unwilling to even try to understand what other people are telling you, even when it's you that's asking the question.

I know you won't see it how we see it no matter what anyone says, but you're just acting like an anal lawyer when it comes to wording of this. Quit splitting hairs when the intent is more than obvious.

It's for reasons exactly like this that there has to be warning stickers on blow dryers saying "Do not use in the shower," because someone probably did use it in the shower, and then when they electrocuted themselves, they claimed it was because no one told them that they couldn't use it in the shower.

I know you're just going to reply to this with some rebuttal saying I'm not listening or paying attention, but that's okay; I accept that.
 
Ralgha said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. If you have a reason for being there, then you can do an approach. If you don't have a reason for staying, don't fly the approach because you're just creating unnecessary noise.

You might think its just so cut and clear with no ambiguity, but I disagree. If they really wanted to convey that sediment, then they could just come out and say "Please don't fly here at night unless it's either an emergency, or you're based here and even then please try to be quiet" The way its worded now, you could land anyways, make a bunch of noise and claim you weren't doing anything against the noise abatement policy. It's a rhetorical question, but why do they have to be so indirect?

When it comes to noise abatement, I don't think I've read a single one that that wasn't completely retarded. One example id this airport: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KHJO

Theres a sign on the taxiway right before the runway that says basically don't fly over any houses and don't turn crosswind until at least 600 feet or something. The thing is, theres pretty much houses everywhere. If you look on the Airnav page, you can see buildings on both sides of the runway, and below that you can see the runway points right towards the city. How are you supposed to comply with that?

Another one is http://www.airnav.com/airport/khaf. Theres a noise abatement policy that says "no straight-ins". If you look at the photo, the only thing you're flying over is water, and a few buildings on short final. If you join the traffic pattern, you're going to be flying over those buildings anyways, so whats the point of limiting straight-ins?

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.
Click to expand...
I've had ATC remind me of a notam, give me a local FSS frequency, pirep warnings, etc. If this airport had a notoriously strict noise abatement policy, it seems prudent that ATC would warn me. I realize the absence of such a warning doesn't mean there is no problem, I just thought I'd throw that out.
 
Dude I don't know what your problem is, but reading these posts you seem pretty dense.

The point in the whole thing is that this airport is not to be used for training at night. Interpret the actual wording as you like but that is what it means.

It's pilot's respecting rules like this that keep airports open ect. Just think if suddenly you have students flying ILS's to this place at 1 am all the time the airport may be closed at night in the near future.

Then people that really need to get in there and have business in there have it ruined for them. As I said earlier wake up and show some courtesy.
 
Ralgha said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.
 
tony, haven't you learned that no matter what response is given to butt, the thread will continue ad nausium after the question has been answered?
 
butt said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, you did.

butt said:
If I wanted to do one practice ILS, with a touch and go then depart the area, would that not be allowed?
Click to expand...
 
As difficult as he's being, what i think butt is asking is why doesn't this airport come out and say "no training at night". To answer your question, I'd suspect that the airport is trying to show a little tact, thats all. Statements like "no practice approaches at x time" send the message that beginning pilots are not welcome at that airport. I think the management is trying to be respectful to inexperienced pilots and the residents around the airport. It would be nice if you respected their wishes (and taught your students to do the same), even if there is a "loophole".
 
Kevin.Held said:
As difficult as he's being, what i think butt is asking is why doesn't this airport come out and say "no training at night". To answer your question, I'd suspect that the airport is trying to show a little tact, thats all. Statements like "no practice approaches at x time" send the message that beginning pilots are not welcome at that airport. I think the management is trying to be respectful to inexperienced pilots and the residents around the airport. It would be nice if you respected their wishes (and taught your students to do the same), even if there is a "loophole".
Click to expand...

It's not just beginning pilots, practice approaches can be used to maintain currency. The airport doesn't care if your new or not, they simply don't want you waking up the neighbors.
 
EDUC8-or said:
It's not just beginning pilots, practice approaches can be used to maintain currency. The airport doesn't care if your new or not, they simply don't want you waking up the neighbors.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

And it is our responsibility to help them keep noise complaints down. Right now, there's a joker trying to close down that airport because "dem airplane make too dern much noise."

Giving that joker ammunition by finding ways to skirt the noise abatement procedures is foolish.
 
I've argued with this guy way too much on this website.
This may have already been said because I haven't read every post but touch and go's are alot louder then full stop taxi backs.
 
mikecweb said:
I've argued with this guy way too much on this website.
This may have already been said because I haven't read every post but touch and go's are alot louder then full stop taxi backs.
Click to expand...

This is off topic, but how do you figure a touch and go is louder than a full stop? If anything, a touch and go is more quite than a full stop because in a touch and go, you already have airspeed, so you get airborne faster. If you're thinking a touch and go is louder because they are usually done in multiples, then I agree. Doing 10 or 11 touch and go's one after another is indeed going to be louder than 1 full stop, but just one touch and go is not going to be any louder than one full stop.

Whenever I read "no touch and go landings" in a noise abatement policy, I interpret it to mean "don't be buzzing around in the pattern multiple times", not literally "no touch and go's". If you wanted to do just one, depart, and never come back, it's OK. I would never go as far as interpret it to mean "no training aircraft", unless it said right out "no training aircraft", which I'm sure there are airports out there that indeed say just that.
 
Lets walk through this step by step because you obviously aren't getting it.

When making a full stop you come in on final with the power back, cross the threshold with the power back, roll out with the power back and then taxi to the ramp with the power back.

When making a touch and go you come in on final with the power back, cross the threshold with the power back, start to roll out with the power back then...

PUT UP THE POWER AND MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NOISE WHEN YOU ACCELERATE AND THEN START CLIMBING OUT.

Hmm... Certainly isn't the same thing as far as I see.
 
I can't believe this argument has gotten so ridiculous that you're arguing the difference between a touch-and-go and a full stop in terms of how loud it is.

Butt, do you get some sort of amusement in arguing ridiculous details? We know you'll never accept any explanation we give you, so don't even bother asking questions if you're not going to accept any answers.
 
BobDDuck said:
Lets walk through this step by step because you obviously aren't getting it.

When making a full stop you come in on final with the power back, cross the threshold with the power back, roll out with the power back and then taxi to the ramp with the power back.

When making a touch and go you come in on final with the power back, cross the threshold with the power back, start to roll out with the power back then...

PUT UP THE POWER AND MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NOISE WHEN YOU ACCELERATE AND THEN START CLIMBING OUT.

Hmm... Certainly isn't the same thing as far as I see.
Click to expand...
Oh please, you know what I meant. I meant a full stop with a taxi back and departure again.

A takeoff from a standstill at the threshold produces more sound than adding power when you're already a few knows below rotation speed. Furthermore, that sound is most likely less of a nuisance because it being made towards the middle of the runway, further away from houses and crap.
 
butt said:
Whenever I read "no touch and go landings" in a noise abatement policy, I interpret it to mean "don't be buzzing around in the pattern multiple times", not literally "no touch and go's".
Click to expand...

Why make your own interpretation? By using the phrase "No touch and go landings," the airport authority has made very clear what's prohibited.

butt said:
If you wanted to do just one, depart, and never come back, it's OK.
Click to expand...

Negative! They mean just what they say. Some FARs require interpretation. This airport's policy obviously does not. Also, remember touch and go landings are not always prohibited only because of noise abatement. Sometimes they are prohibited due to field length/obstacle considerations. In this case, your assumption above would do you no good.

butt said:
I would never go as far as interpret it to mean "no training aircraft", unless it said right out "no training aircraft", which I'm sure there are airports out there that indeed say just that.
Click to expand...

As already mentioned in this thread, the airport authority doesn't care if you're a student pilot training in a C-172 or a weekend warrior staying current in your Baron 58. Their intent is to prohibit certain types of maneuvers, not certain types of flying operations. Since a great deal of general aviation operations are training ops, I can't imagine any public airport prohibiting "Training aircraft."
 
I'm going to try to keep this civil. And trust me I have to read the rules and look around and remember we're in Doug's place but SERIOUSLY Butt you argue over everything. You pose questions looking for only one answer and you expect people to agree with you even though they don't. If you can't understand the concepts of Noise "Abatement" then I think you need to open you mind a little and stop with this attitude that in your 4 years of flying you have it all figured out.
Again not trying to be harsh but come on already.
 
BobDDuck said:
Lets walk through this step by step because you obviously aren't getting it.

When making a full stop you come in on final with the power back, cross the threshold with the power back, roll out with the power back and then taxi to the ramp with the power back.

When making a touch and go you come in on final with the power back, cross the threshold with the power back, start to roll out with the power back then...

PUT UP THE POWER AND MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF NOISE WHEN YOU ACCELERATE AND THEN START CLIMBING OUT.

Hmm... Certainly isn't the same thing as far as I see.
Click to expand...

You silly rabbit, touch and go's are louder because you're supposed to scream "WOOOOOOOO" like Ric Flair the when you throw the cobs at it.
 
WAFlyBoy said:
Why make your own interpretation? By using the phrase "No touch and go landings," the airport authority has made very clear what's prohibited.

Negative! They mean just what they say. Some FARs require interpretation. This airport's policy obviously does not. Also, remember touch and go landings are not always prohibited only because of noise abatement. Sometimes they are prohibited due to field length/obstacle considerations. In this case, your assumption above would do you no good.
Click to expand...

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCPM

Look at this airport. It says "NO TOUCH AND GO LANDINGS". Why is that there? What reason could that restriction be in place? It just doesn't make any sense. What reason could exist that would make doing a single touch and go harmful? Multiple touch and go's I can understand, because it creates traffic congestion, as well as a lot of noise.

To me it's very simple. If they didn't want any transient to do any kind of operation there (which is what everyone in this thread seems to think it means), they'd have written the noise abatement to say, "Airport closed to non-emergency transient operations after 2300 local". That way it'd be 100% clear, no one would debate what it meant, it wouldn't be an issue.

But instead they have chosen to word it "no touch and go's and no practice approaches after 2300 local". Which, to me, is completely different than "Airport closed to non-emergency transient operations after 2300 local". Why did they chose to use this wording? Because what they mean here is "no buzzing around in circles over the airport after dark"
As already mentioned in this thread, the airport authority doesn't care if you're a student pilot training in a C-172 or a weekend warrior staying current in your Baron 58. Their intent is to prohibit certain types of maneuvers, not certain types of flying operations. Since a great deal of general aviation operations are training ops, I can't imagine any public airport prohibiting "Training aircraft."
Click to expand...

I guess I should have said "transient" instead of "training"
 
butt said:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCPM

Look at this airport. It says "NO TOUCH AND GO LANDINGS". Why is that there? What reason could that restriction be in place? It just doesn't make any sense. What reason could exist that would make doing a single touch and go harmful? Multiple touch and go's I can understand, because it creates traffic congestion, as well as a lot of noise.

To me it's very simple. If they didn't want any transient to do any kind of operation there (which is what everyone in this thread seems to think it means), they'd have written the noise abatement to say, "Airport closed to non-emergency transient operations after 2300 local". That way it'd be 100% clear, no one would debate what it meant, it wouldn't be an issue.

But instead they have chosen to word it "no touch and go's and no practice approaches after 2300 local". Which, to me, is completely different than "Airport closed to non-emergency transient operations after 2300 local". Why did they chose to use this wording? Because what they mean here is "no buzzing around in circles over the airport after dark"


I guess I should have said "transient" instead of "training"
Click to expand...

Well at least we all know who to blame it on when noise nazis start closing airports. All your complaints about wording won't mean squat when that happens. The rest of us know what they're trying to say even if they're not very good at it.
 
Butt,

LMAO!!!!!! I am amused beyond words at your stubborn attitude. Apparently nobody here has been able to explain this in a way that makes sense to you. (Interesting, because I've never had a student pilot who couldn't understand what the phrase "No touch and go landings" means.)

Are you a flight instructor? It doesn't matter, but I'm curious. Wait a minute... for the sake of your students, of course it matters!

Like many others, I'm not gonna argue with you on this. My suggestion is that you march down to the local FSDO and tell the first Aviation Safety Inspector you can find exactly what you've posted here. Surely they will see the wisdom of your words and changes will be made immediately to AF/Ds everywhere!

Oh, and referencing your first airline job: good luck in basic indoc. I wish I could be there to see how fast the instructor 86's you for arguments like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top