noise abatement and practice landings

[butt]

(Interesting, because I've never had a student pilot who couldn't understand what the phrase "No touch and go landings" means.)

And when your students asked why no touch and go's are allowed, what did you say? What explanation could you possibly give them that would make sense as to why touch and go's are not allowed?

There is absolutly no reason why an airport would prohibit ONE touch and go, yet at the same time allow you to land full stop, taxi back then takeoff again.

 

[WAFlyBoy]

And when your students asked why no touch and go's are allowed, what did you say? What explanation could you possibly give them that would make sense as to why touch and go's are not allowed?

There is absolutly no reason why an airport would prohibit ONE touch and go, yet at the same time allow you to land full stop, taxi back then takeoff again.

My point exactly:

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.

See you next thread, man.

 

[EDUC8-or]

And when your students asked why no touch and go's are allowed, what did you say? What explanation could you possibly give them that would make sense as to why touch and go's are not allowed?

There is absolutly no reason why an airport would prohibit ONE touch and go, yet at the same time allow you to land full stop, taxi back then takeoff again.

Why stop at one touch and go? Why not just keep on keepin' on and go for 10? If you broke the rules and did one might as well go for broke mang!

When your student asks why no touch and go's are allowed, do your best to give them a valid explanation. Be it noise abatement, traffic purposes, or some other reason. The MOST important lesson you can teach them is to respect authority and the rules, especially with all of the anti-aviation folks out there.

 

[tonyw]

And when your students asked why no touch and go's are allowed, what did you say?

Because that's what the AFD says. And because it says so, don't do it.

What's next? Hey, it says you've got to have a wet compass but hell. I mean, the DG's better anyway, so if the compass is on the floor you still have one so don't sweat it.

 

[USMCmech]

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...

Probably not, but the point is that the local residents, and the city council who maintain the airport don't want any unessacery activity after dark when people are trying to sleep. The same logic would apply to engine runups, hover practice, and anyother noisy activity.


Next time you want to shoot a pratice ILS at this airport let me know so I can use a chainsaw outside your window when YOU are trying to sleep. Pilots disregarding sensible noise abatement poilcies like this one are part of the reason that small airports get shut down. Auntie Ethel who calls the mayor every time a plane lands after dark is far more relevant when the towns budjet gets written.

 

[zmiller4]

There is absolutly no reason why an airport would prohibit ONE touch and go, yet at the same time allow you to land full stop, taxi back then takeoff again.

Most touch and goes--assuming you're waiting for the flaps to retract as you should--result in you being lower over the departure end of the runway (and thus closer to people's houses) than a full stop. There's a reason you can give them...aside from the obvious "it's in the freaking AFD!!"

 

[Ralgha]

Next time you want to shoot a pratice ILS at this airport let me know so I can use a chainsaw outside your window when YOU are trying to sleep. Pilots disregarding sensible noise abatement poilcies like this one are part of the reason that small airports get shut down. Auntie Ethel who calls the mayor every time a plane lands after dark is far more relevant when the towns budjet gets written.

I'll join you with a wood chipper and leaf blower to help clean up.

 

[butt]

Probably not, but the point is that the local residents, and the city council who maintain the airport don't want any unessacery activity after dark when people are trying to sleep. The same logic would apply to engine runups, hover practice, and anyother noisy activity.

OK great, but for the 100,000th time, why don't they just come out and say bluntly, "we don't want any unnecessary activity at this airport during the nighttime". Forbidding just practice approaches and touch and go's does not prohibit all unnecessary activities.

Can we all at least agree that if the writers of this policy really wanted to express that sediment, their choice of words was poor?

If my intent was to come in at 3:00 AM to get fuel, I'm not doing a touch and go, I'm not doing a practice approach, so for all intents and purposes, I'm not doing anything against the noise abatement policy as it is written now. But according to you all, I'd be in violation if the fuel stop isn't necessary (which could be easily argued considering there are a few places ~20 miles away with 24 hr SS)

 

[USMCmech]

OK great, but for the 100,000th time, why don't they just come out and say bluntly, "we don't want any unnecessary activity at this airport during the nighttime". Forbidding just practice approaches and touch and go's does not prohibit all unnecessary activities.

Can we all at least agree that if the writers of this policy really wanted to express that sediment, their choice of words was poor?

If my intent was to come in at 3:00 AM to get fuel, I'm not doing a touch and go, I'm not doing a practice approach, so for all intents and purposes, I'm not doing anything against the noise abatement policy as it is written now. But according to you all, I'd be in violation if the fuel stop isn't necessary (which could be easily argued considering there are a few places ~20 miles away with 24 hr SS)

Touch and gos and pratice aproaches are the majority of "late night noise", but we need to heed the spirit of the rules, not just the letter of the law.


Landing, filling up, and departing would not (in my opinion) be in violation of this policy, because you are doing legitimate buisness at the airport.

 

[Ralgha]

OK great, but for the 100,000th time, why don't they just come out and say bluntly, "we don't want any unnecessary activity at this airport during the nighttime".

Because then you would be here arguing that practicing ILS approaches to touch-and-goes at that airport at 3:00 in the morning is necessary.

They realized a long time ago that there will always be nitpickers like you around. The best thing to do is ignore them, and hope that the people who can actually figure out what the plainly obvious spirit of the rule is (which is just about everyone on the face of the planet) will knock some sense into the nitpickers. So far it's not working.

 

[butt]

Because then you would be here arguing that practicing ILS approaches to touch-and-goes at that airport at 3:00 in the morning is necessary.

They realized a long time ago that there will always be nitpickers like you around. The best thing to do is ignore them, and hope that the people who can actually figure out what the plainly obvious spirit of the rule is (which is just about everyone on the face of the planet) will knock some sense into the nitpickers. So far it's not working.

It's not nitpicking. You seem to think the spirit of the law is "nothing unnecessary", I think the spirit of the law is "don't buzz around the runway multiple times". We disagree. There is nothing in that noise abatement policy that explicitly addresses whether or not the approach/landing must be necessary or not.

My argument is, since it's not SPECIFICALLY stating you're operation has to be "necessary" (which they could easily do if they really wanted), they aren't disallowing unnecessary operations per-se. What they are prohibiting, is "touch and go's", and "practice approaches", (with multiple noisy power increases) which clearly and inarguably cause a lot of noise.

Your argument, on the other hand, is basically "nuh uh". And you have the nerve to say I'm the one out of line...

 

[casey]

you'd be a pleasure to fly with for 4 days.

 

[Stone Cold]

Chris Ford has found his replacement. Of course, at least Ford has legitimate discussions and pokes holes in others arguments. Butt just is making a category of his own.

Anybody actually met butt? $20 to the first JCer to meet him and buy him a beer and explain life in general!!! Of course, let me guess...not legal age, right?:crazy:

 

[Ralgha]

It's not nitpicking.

That right there is my cue to exit the discussion. If you can't even see that you're nitpicking, then there is simply nothing else to say.

Stage left...out!

 

[tonyw]

That right there is my cue to exit the discussion. If you can't even see that you're nitpicking, then there is simply nothing else to say.

Stage left...out!

:yeahthat:

We've led you right to the water. You're not willing to drink it.

Just don't fly into there late at night. We'd like to have that airport as an option and Aunt Bessie's going to use your late night approach, back taxi, and take off as an excuse to complain.

 

[FlySmiley]

OK great, but for the 100,000th time, why don't they just come out and say bluntly, "we don't want any unnecessary activity at this airport during the nighttime"

Well, most pilots are smart enough to figure these things out all by themselves. Anyone want to co-author "Interpreting the AFD for Dummies"?

 

[butt]

Well, most pilots are smart enough to figure these things out all by themselves. Anyone want to co-author "Interpreting the AFD for Dummies"?

Theres nothing wrong with taking a conservative interpretation of a rule to err on the safe side. But you have to remember one thing: the rule always stays what it is. If an instrument approach has a MDA of 600 ft, you can conservatively use 650 or 700 feet, but that doesn't change the fact that MDA is still 600 feet, and it's perfectly legal to use 600 feet when doing the approach. Even if the majority of pilots who use that approach agree 600 feet is a little too low. You can't confuse your conservative interpretation with what the rules actually say.

If you want to interpret "No practice approaches or touch and go's" to mean "don't come here at all", you're welcome to do that. But that doesn't change the fact that landing there is not in any way restricted by the rules as they are written.

If we go around interpreting rules further than how they're written, someday that will come back to hurt us. The FAA will think, "Oh, pilots seem to never come to airports at all when they have noise abatement policies, so lets just for now on make all airports that have noise sensitive areas completely closed to all traffic. They already do this anyways, so what the hell..."

 

[USMCmech]

If we go around interpreting rules further than how they're written, someday that will come back to hurt us.

Couldn't disagree more!


Saying "if it's leagle per the FARs, then it must be OK" would have destroyed general aviation long ago. Many things are legit per 91.whater, but are foolishly unsafe. Any PPL can fly over a solid layer of clouds on a moonless night over the ocean the day he passed his checkride, and be completely leagel.

The FAA does a great job of leaving GA alone as much as possible, but if we pilots give them a reason to, they will turn the FAR/AIM into a manhattan phone book. Ever fly in Europe? It's not just user fees, GA is so restricted by the rules and regs that pleasure flying is almost nonexistint.



Did you know the FAA does not regulate the training of skydivers at all? That is because the skydivers have done such a good job of regulating themselves that the FAA sees no need to step in. The FAA only certifies the manufacture of parachutes and parachute riggers, that's it.

If only we in GA had done abetter job of policing ourselves in the past, it could have been even easier.

 

[E6BAV8R]

This thread is ridiculous.

I vote for a Chris Ford vs. Butt battle-royale!

 

[butt]

Saying "if it's legal per the FARs, then it must be OK" would have destroyed general aviation long ago. Many things are legit per 91.whatever, but are foolishly unsafe. Any PPL can fly over a solid layer of clouds on a moonless night over the ocean the day he passed his checkride, and be completely legal.

If it's legal, it's legal. I wasn't asking if flying into this airport at night is safe, or if it was a good idea, I asked if it was legal or not. Your personal opinions of the rules have nothing to do with what they actually mean.

Did you know the FAA does not regulate the training of skydivers at all? That is because the skydivers have done such a good job of regulating themselves that the FAA sees no need to step in. The FAA only certifies the manufacture of parachutes and parachute riggers, that's it.

They don't regulate skydivers because there is nothing to regulate. You jump out, then pull the cord. As long as your parachute is in good condition, there's nothing else there for the FAA to regulate. Saying the FAA doesn't regulate skydiving is like saying the FAA doesn't regulate hang gliders.