Touch-n-Go Ban

Brad Z said:
The airport is not federally obligated, so whether they can ban touch and goes is a moot point.

http://www.gcr1.com/5010ReportRouter/EDC.pdf

So I guess the OP is still upset with the quality of the radio of the person who advised him of airport policy, and of a "authorized personnel only" sign leading out to the ramp.

If that's the worst you can come up with, consider yourself fortunate.

I also think the "gruff gruff, so and so caters to the rich jet pilots" nonsense, in this thread, and everywhereelse is rediculous. We should hug every private turbine aircraft owner we meet, because without them, we wouldn't still have the infrastructure we have. No one builds airports to take advantage of the economic benefits of a four seat Piper. No FBO makes payroll from 7 gallon 100LL purchases. We're lucky we have as many GA airports as we do, and if the FBO wants to keep those folks happy, I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...

True, but does the cost offset mean there should be an arbitrary line against routine operations for GA? In this case keeping private turbine folks happy and the OP conducting touch and goes at a convenient field are mutually exclusive, and it is, once again, arbitrary. In this case we DON'T have access to this particular piece of infrastructure because of the private jet set.
 
John Bussard said:
True, but does the cost offset mean there should be an arbitrary line against routine operations for GA? In this case keeping private turbine folks happy and the OP conducting touch and goes at a convenient field are mutually exclusive, and it is, once again, arbitrary. In this case we DON'T have access to this particular piece of infrastructure because of the private jet set.
Click to expand...

This airport is a private enterprise. If he chooses not to cater to remote flight training operations (which generate little to no income) that's perfectly fine. We DO have access to the airport to land, go somewhere, and take back off again. That's the ultimate purpose of an airport. If it was getting taxpayer money, then it'd be a different story.
 
TnG usually mean you are doing the pattern so you are flying over the houses that are calling the airport and complaining. This happened at Houston Exec. So if they ban TnG then there is a lot less people flying over the houses of the people who call.

Yes the airport was there first, but it is like when people buy houses next to the prisons and one of them escapes. They ask who built a prison next to their children. Think of the children.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Personally, I think it's stupid, annoying, and potentially hazardous to tailwheel folks. An addition of power if the plane gets squirrely on a landing is always an acceptable outcome as opposed to a ground-loop, so I think a "touch-n-go" out should always be legal.....It's about as stupid as someone publishing "no go-arounds."
Click to expand...
What you're describing IS a go around, not a touch and go...my guess is the airport owner knows the difference.
 
All the references to airports banning touch-and-goes as a matter of noise abatement, is a TnG really any louder or more annoying to neighbors than a landing followed by a takeoff? Or is it considered noise abatement simply by the nature of flight schools and pilots in general won't go there to practice takeoffs and landings if they can't do TnGs?

steingar said:
Don't see the big deal about touch and goes anyway. I don't do them. Land, taxi back, and take of again. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's a "big deal" to do them but it's also not a problem that needs solving, at most airports anyway. If the plan is to practice approaches and landings, I can probably log twice as many per hour by doing touch and goes. Maybe that is a big deal after all.
 
Auburn2002 said:
I wouldn't say it's a "big deal" to do them but it's also not a problem that needs solving, at most airports anyway. If the plan is to practice approaches and landings, I can probably log twice as many per hour by doing touch and goes. Maybe that is a big deal after all.
Click to expand...

Then do your touch and goes at a publicly funded airport. I still don't see the big deal. Damn thing isn't the only one around.
 
Did you confuse me with the original poster? :confused2:
 
Auburn2002 said:
Did you confuse me with the original poster? :confused2:
Click to expand...
Why because you think his anger should be directed at me? :)

He's just a keyboard warrior, don't let him rattle you. You'll see them a lot here... nothing good to add, they don't read all of the posts, but they react in anger. If he had read the posts, he would have seen JimInTexas posted they did take public funding! Instead, he snaps at you and says to do your tngs at a publicly funded airport... kind of shows he's not paying attention to the discussion, but wants you to know it's making him mad.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything here. Simple facts are, if you take federal or state funding at your airport, the public can complain about your operating rules. Why wouldn't they have that right, they helped pay for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top