Phew there seem to be a lot of issues flying around here!
Firstly, nonradio I don't care too much whether anyone teaches crab or wing down - as has been said it depends on the type to an extent but also I feel it's somewhat of a red herring in the context of the issue I raised.
ChilliMonster - would you please define (in the legal context) what you understand by "normal" aviation practice? It's a matter of opinion but all I am pointing out is that you may be contravening Rule 5 if you start a climbing turn at circa 100 ft. This is a LEGAL issue - it may be good airmanship to avoid climbing out over a housing estate but that is another matter! Perhaps a flying lawyer could comment on this? Naturally we should all operate to minimise the noise issue so long as flight safety is not compromised.
Nonradio, My comments may appear to imply a "rigid rule" but those who know me well know that this is quite far from the truth. Yes, I realise we live in the "real" world and that sometimes normal guidlines have to be modified to suit. What I am attempting to point out is that doing this on aregular basis is stacking the odds higher for some sort of incident.
What this all really highlights is the foolishness of building a housing estate near an active airfield, especially when objections were raised by the aerodrome operator.
I agree that it is quite possible to teach a student to fly a competent turn after take off commencing at 100 ft BUT we should be catering for the "lowest common denominator". In the event of an accident I could not, as an instructor, put my hand on my heart and say that we did everything we could to ensure it would not happen.
The more I see this issue debated the more I am of the opinion that in certain environmental conditions departures from this runway should not be contemplated.
Last edited by fireflybob; 30th November 2002 at 17:17.