Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DesertedParticipant
Let me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.
I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.
After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.
As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.
So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.
Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.
I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).
Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.
So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.
DesertedParticipantLet me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.
I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.
After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.
As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.
So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.
Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.
I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).
Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.
So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.
DesertedParticipantLet me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.
I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.
After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.
As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.
So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.
Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.
I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).
Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.
So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.
DesertedParticipantLet me clarify my prior post and take issue with some of the subsequent comments.
I’m a pilot. I fly for business purposes, though I am not a commercial carrier pilot. I am not based an Palomar, though I’ve flown in and out countless times. In good weather and under instrument conditions.
After looking at the data, it’s clear that there is an astoundingly high accident rate going into and out of Palomar. Reviewing the accidents show that most occurred under instrument conditions (coastal fog). One occurred in clear weather when two planes collided, causing 6 deaths. Maybe it’s just weird coincidence, but the incident, accident, and death rates are way out of proportion to similar airports.
As a pilot, this makes me think that arrival and departure procedures need to be reassessed at Palomar. Yet the accidents have NO BEARING on whether the tower is manned or unmanned. In fact, most of the accidents occurred when the tower was manned and operating.
So the accident statistics give no justification for “quiet hours.” There is no safety reason to close the airport when the tower personnel leave.
Nearby homeowners have an obvious vested interest in restricting flight operations whenever possible — especially at night. So let’s call it what it is: an attempt to increase home valuation after getting a discount for moving into a noisy neighborhood.
I don’t live under a noisy flight path. But I’d like to shut down my local street to the noisy pretentious Harley riders and the idiot car owners with the moronic bass-augmented music systems. However, the street belongs to licensed drivers. Just like the sky belongs to any certified pilot (under Federal Aviation Regulations).
Noise abatement programs have been instituted at some airports, but the Federal government usually takes a dim view of any restrictions since they see these rules as clear attempts to shut down airport operations.
So let’s base opinions on facts, not emotion or self-interest. Noise does not equate with danger. “Quiet hours” have no basis in accident protection. “Quiet hours” do serve the parochial interest of the local homeowners at the expense of the National aviation transportation system.
DesertedParticipantThe strange saga of Palomar Airport.
As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)
Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.
First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.
What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.
Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.
I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.
DesertedParticipantThe strange saga of Palomar Airport.
As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)
Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.
First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.
What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.
Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.
I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.
DesertedParticipantThe strange saga of Palomar Airport.
As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)
Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.
First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.
What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.
Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.
I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.
DesertedParticipantThe strange saga of Palomar Airport.
As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)
Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.
First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.
What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.
Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.
I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.
DesertedParticipantThe strange saga of Palomar Airport.
As a Pigg lurker and occasional blogger, I couldn’t help commenting on jiggy’s recent post. I’m a private pilot who’s been flying in and out of Palomar for 18 years — i guess about 8 years longer than jiggy has lived under the flight path. (I’m thankful our paths have not crossed!)
Originally I thought I would blast jiggy for voicing the typical non-pilot irrational fear of aircraft and airports. However, when I began a little internet research to back up my views, I was surprised by what I found: there’s something not quite right about Palomar Airport.
First, let me clarify the one common misconception in jiggy’s post. There are over 15000 airports in the US. Of those, there are 562 with control towers. Reference the “Airport Certification Status Table” under:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/resources/data_stats/
Although its rare for a commercial carrier to go to an uncontrolled (non-towered) airport, private pilots routinely fly in and out. When the tower closes, the airport becomes an uncontrolled airport. It’s the same airport and there should be no change in risk from aircraft operations.And I also do take issue with the contention that aircraft are somehow noisier now. Prior posts have correctly pointed out that the noisiest aircraft, early model jets, are now pretty much retired. The famously loud Lear 23 and 25 were jokingly said to be best at turning jet fuel into noise.
What surprised me was the number of accidents at Palomar. I checked the NTSB database for the past 10 years. There were 6 accidents with 16 fatalities. Contrast that with a Montgomery field, which is a busier airport (671 operations ber day versus 591 at Palomar) with a bit more complex surrounding airspace. Montgomery had 1 accident with 2 fatalities — and that one occurred in 1999.
Montgomery accident:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001205X00487&ntsbno=LAX99FA150&akey=1Statistically, this shows an astounding concentration of accidents at Palomar. It has the same precision approach (ILS) as Montgomery, roughly the same control tower hours, the same approach control, and yet nearly an order of magnitude more accidents and fatalities.
I think jiggy’s right — there’s something wrong with Palomar. Unless there’s some form of mass stupidity affecting only the pilots flying into Palomar, the FAA needs to study Palomar procedures and change things.
DesertedParticipantNot just the Piggs saw it coming.
Sorry I lost the recent, more comprehensive, news wire story — but here’s a good contemporaneous summary of how the Federal Government actively fought (and won!) the battle against mortgage oversight. The States of Georgia and Iowa, and the Mayor of Cleveland (and others) brought suits to halt the predatory and fraudulent mortgage industry beginning in 2003. Your Federal Government successfully argued that preemption prevented any useful oversight by State or local government.
When the true history of this truly disgusting period in American government is revealed, only the strongest among us will be able to read it without vomiting.
http://www.docmagic.com/compliance/wizard/2004/april-2004/preemption-rules
By the way, I make these predictions: I predict market gains, losses, and unexpected events. I predict an unending line of “experts” paraded on the media to tell you why something already happened.
DesertedParticipantNot just the Piggs saw it coming.
Sorry I lost the recent, more comprehensive, news wire story — but here’s a good contemporaneous summary of how the Federal Government actively fought (and won!) the battle against mortgage oversight. The States of Georgia and Iowa, and the Mayor of Cleveland (and others) brought suits to halt the predatory and fraudulent mortgage industry beginning in 2003. Your Federal Government successfully argued that preemption prevented any useful oversight by State or local government.
When the true history of this truly disgusting period in American government is revealed, only the strongest among us will be able to read it without vomiting.
http://www.docmagic.com/compliance/wizard/2004/april-2004/preemption-rules
By the way, I make these predictions: I predict market gains, losses, and unexpected events. I predict an unending line of “experts” paraded on the media to tell you why something already happened.
DesertedParticipantNot just the Piggs saw it coming.
Sorry I lost the recent, more comprehensive, news wire story — but here’s a good contemporaneous summary of how the Federal Government actively fought (and won!) the battle against mortgage oversight. The States of Georgia and Iowa, and the Mayor of Cleveland (and others) brought suits to halt the predatory and fraudulent mortgage industry beginning in 2003. Your Federal Government successfully argued that preemption prevented any useful oversight by State or local government.
When the true history of this truly disgusting period in American government is revealed, only the strongest among us will be able to read it without vomiting.
http://www.docmagic.com/compliance/wizard/2004/april-2004/preemption-rules
By the way, I make these predictions: I predict market gains, losses, and unexpected events. I predict an unending line of “experts” paraded on the media to tell you why something already happened.
DesertedParticipantNot just the Piggs saw it coming.
Sorry I lost the recent, more comprehensive, news wire story — but here’s a good contemporaneous summary of how the Federal Government actively fought (and won!) the battle against mortgage oversight. The States of Georgia and Iowa, and the Mayor of Cleveland (and others) brought suits to halt the predatory and fraudulent mortgage industry beginning in 2003. Your Federal Government successfully argued that preemption prevented any useful oversight by State or local government.
When the true history of this truly disgusting period in American government is revealed, only the strongest among us will be able to read it without vomiting.
http://www.docmagic.com/compliance/wizard/2004/april-2004/preemption-rules
By the way, I make these predictions: I predict market gains, losses, and unexpected events. I predict an unending line of “experts” paraded on the media to tell you why something already happened.
DesertedParticipantNot just the Piggs saw it coming.
Sorry I lost the recent, more comprehensive, news wire story — but here’s a good contemporaneous summary of how the Federal Government actively fought (and won!) the battle against mortgage oversight. The States of Georgia and Iowa, and the Mayor of Cleveland (and others) brought suits to halt the predatory and fraudulent mortgage industry beginning in 2003. Your Federal Government successfully argued that preemption prevented any useful oversight by State or local government.
When the true history of this truly disgusting period in American government is revealed, only the strongest among us will be able to read it without vomiting.
http://www.docmagic.com/compliance/wizard/2004/april-2004/preemption-rules
By the way, I make these predictions: I predict market gains, losses, and unexpected events. I predict an unending line of “experts” paraded on the media to tell you why something already happened.
-
AuthorPosts