A fly-in for the rest of us.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Given that people here are scattered from the left coast, to the right coast, the top coast, bottom coast, and even the middle coast, it wouldn't seem like there is one place where everyone can converge. Particularly those of us who fly airplanes that aren't much faster than a bicycle.

But there is a place. A place that should be within easy range for everyone.

Objectionable.
Everyone should be near Objectionable. Perfect location. Everyone should be able to get there easily.

All we need to do is pick a date.

 

[DJTorrente]

I saw "OBJECTIONABLE" on an aviation chart for the first time today. The practice obscures at least as much information as it conveys.

I'm curious is the FAA publishes compilation of "objectionable" sites?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I saw "OBJECTIONABLE" on an aviation chart for the first time today. The practice obscures at least as much information as it conveys.

I'm curious is the FAA publishes compilation of "objectionable" sites?

I have no idea.
But, yea, it's real helpful to not show runway length, elevation, etc. when the poop hit the fan and "objectionable" is the only choice in range.

 

[iamtheari]

I also wonder if there is a way to trigger a review of the objections. The OBJECTIONABLE I flew into was 64G Page, northwest of KFAR. The A/FD says "Objectionable / Traffic pattern conflict with Conrad & Thompson arpts. In addition man-made or natural objects obstruct." I can't find a Conrad or Thompson airport anywhere near it on the chart. There is no place called Conrad as far as I can tell, so it must be an uncharted private strip. Same with Thompson, since the city of Thompson is at least 40 nm away (and lacks an airport). So the charting of the airport is not only useless but also inaccurate.

 

[DJTorrente]

Why did the FAA think that this change in practice was necessary? It sounds to me as if it was conceived by one of my bretheren at the bar to insulate from liability claims when (not if) someone inevitably prangs at one of these "objectionable" landing sites -- which is particularly odd because my understanding is that, to a first order approximation, the federal government is largely immune from such claims to begin with.

 

[Jim K]

So this fly in will start with the airing of grievances?

 

[Timbeck2]

Followed closely by feats of strength

 

[ateamer]

Why did the FAA think that this change in practice was necessary? It sounds to me as if it was conceived by one of my bretheren at the bar to insulate from liability claims when (not if) someone inevitably prangs at one of these "objectionable" landing sites -- which is particularly odd because my understanding is that, to a first order approximation, the federal government is largely immune from such claims to begin with.

I bet that it’s more to discourage operations due to whatever the objectionable factors are.