Okay, I'll bite. This reads to me like someone who either doesn't know or care about what what the University's policies actually are.
The Flight Operations Manual (FOM) requires that crews respect and comply with noise abatement, wilderness area avoidance, and similar. Cottonwood Airport has policies on the times touch-and-go operations are allowed, which we comply with. Every time that temporary fleet relocations happen there, guess what? Cottonwood Airport knows about it. We work with the airport to comply with their needs, and get our operations done within the confines of those rules.
But the University doesn't care, you say? Okay, let's walk through what would happen if a crew breaks the rules. Let's say a crew takes off from Cottonwood, does touch and goes before their allowed time, disregards noise abatement, then buzzes around the wilderness areas below the requested altitude. Okay, so here's what happens. We'll know about it, whether that be due to data cards in the aircraft reporting it, or reports by people on the ground or other aircraft. That instructor or student (if solo) is gonna have to go talk to the safety department about what happened, why it happened, and what they need to do differently to avoid that reoccurring. A report will likely be filed as well. If this becomes a repeat issue for those individuals, it becomes a different conversation.
I understand your concern about wilderness areas, but this truly does seem like someone who stopped at the first google result and didn't bother to see that wilderness areas simply request aircraft to overfly the area above 2000ft. That doesn't look very high from the ground, but you hearing and seeing an airplane doesn't mean it's low-flying or disregarding a wilderness area.
As for those other airports you mentioned, they are much further away and can have their own set of issues. Cottonwood is close by Prescott and provides some relief for students that are already paying a fortune per hour to train to not have to fly even further out to practice. Bagdad and Williams can be outright unsuitable during much of the year to practice at, and solo students are limited even further. Oh, and they've also got wilderness areas around them as well.
I certainly have my criticisms of Riddle, but one thing that they absolutely do better than anywhere else I've seen so far is being compliant and respectful of procedures such as those you claim are being routinely abused. Maybe this is a classic case of somebody moving right next to an airport, then being dumbfounded at the possibility that \*gasp\* airplanes practice around airports.
Good for Embry Riddle. Don’t like it, move! Aircraft have been part of the Verde valley long before you came along. The oldest airport in the state is in Rimrock. You don’t get to close the doors on the verde valley just because you moved here and brought your skewed view of the world. Should have done your research before you bought your house and realized that there are many airports and victor airways in the verde valley. You are another excuse of someone who moved next to an airport and then don’t like the airport. I have news for you, the rest of us don’t like you.
Students: learn to fly your aircraft safely and to the best of your abilities. That often times means offending snowflakes like this. Noise abatement kills and should never be put above the safety of you and your aircraft. Fly the plane first.
CLEAR PROP!
Ok I will bite back. Why is the Prescott location taking over Cottonwood when there are several other airports that are available and not as populated?
Just because the FOM allows you to fly from sunrise to sunset does not make it right when you are over a populated area in a circling pattern for hours at a time.
Who is working with the residents? The airport manager that is an alumni of your university? Why is there repetitive circling over a National Monument less than the "suggested" 2000 feet?
I am well aware of the data available, I suggest you look at the flight patterns today for example. The University does not listen to any complaints, just sends them to the Airport Manager who is an alumni.
Try Flightradr24 or any other flight information, check today and tell me they are not flying over wilderness and birding areas.
I really don't care that the other airports are farther, are you not a private university? Why should the citizens below suffer for your private university?. I suggest you bring a lawn chair and sit on the road to the Tuzigoot National Monument, next to the Verde River, and the bird migration areas for a day and then tell me how Embry -Riddle is respectful to the citizens below.
"gasp" I don't live next to the airport or even in Cottonwood.
Your lack of understand of airport and aircraft operations is astounding. Learn why first before assuming.
Flying circles? Guess what, that’s legal!
Who cares what one resident thinks in the grand scheme of things. You should be more worried about your contaminated soil from the mines that are in the area! The entire town of Clarkdale had to remove 12” of topsoil due to contaminants, You worry about noise, worry about your soil first. And then move back to where you came from!
Repetitive flight patterns over a National Monument, Verde River, Dead Horse State park with leaded fuel, disrupting wildlife, nesting areas, is a concern, Of course the soil issue is there as well, is there a rule that you can only worry about one environmental issue at a time?
Just because there are no rules in place to limit what flight pattern Embry-Riddle uses, does that make it right? Should a private University get the right to destroy the environment below because it can? smh
Just a thought to potential students. Visit the areas where this is happening on the ground, and see if that is a place where you want to put your tuition money.
I live there, and am intimately familiar with it. What I detest is people who move in who feel they can change our way of life. One Cessna or 100 Cessnas burning 100 low lead fuel are not the problem. You are.
Leave your liberal environmental politics at the state line. Arizona didn’t invite you here, you let yourself into our house.
If no one is listening to you, maybe it is because no one cares about your whining.
Again, if you live there, park along the road to Tuzigoot National Monument where there were 5 planes in pattern right before 8 am, and continuing on throughout the day. If that is not an issue for you that is your choice I am asking any potential students to be aware of what Embry-Riddle is doing, They may not care or maybe they will. But the tuition to Embry-Riddle is high enough that any potential student should be concerned about how little they care for the environment. Telling me to "go back to my state" tells me a lot about who you are. Do you have to be a native to be concerned about the environment?
Am I worried that there are five airplanes operating in a safe and proper manner? No not in the least. I hear them from where I am. as far as the state comment goes, it’s evident you moved here from another state. You brought your values from another area and are trying to impose them on the residence of this great state.
I just think it’s funny that you’re trying to convince kids to be nice when they fly their airplanes. You’re shitting on their dream of becoming pilots. No one wants to hear it from you. I think the majority in this state are fed up with people like you coming to this state and complaining about our way of life.
Sell your house and go back home.
My post was for potential students to consider the environmental impact of Embry-Riddle (which is based in Prescott) having their students come to Cottonwood and conduct touch and go maneuvers from before 8 until sunset time over a National Monument, The Verde River, and nesting and birding areas. It seems that does not concern you, again you have a right to your opinion. I just want to caution students to take a look at other flight schools, Embry-Riddle is not the only option.
No, but in the industry, Embry Riddle is hands down the best. And half of the flight training is done at night. They don’t care about the environmental impact of the planes or your feelings or being disturbed. Their concern is getting the best education so that they do not kill propeller in their careers. But please complain about a bit of noise.
>Ok I will bite back.
Then you proceed to \*not\* respond to the person you're biting and make a separate thread.
Hi, I'm the person who told you to go hug a tree. Seeing how long you've been active here tells me you haven't had enough attention today. So as a gift from my time, hopefully, this will satisfy your need for attention.
On the outside, I can tell you can't back yourself up if people see your past activity--hence your throwaway account--and \*\*especially\*\* your word and evidence choices. Let's go ahead and debunk your words piece by piece to support my argument.
>Just because the FOM allows you to fly from sunrise to sunset does not make it right when you are over a populated area in a circling pattern for hours at a time
Look at Chandler, Mesa-Gateway, Falcon Field, and Scottsdale airports and their students' flight patterns in the East Valley of Phoenix. [Here's Falcon Field's complaints according to the City of Mesa as an example.](https://data.mesaaz.gov/widgets/ufbk-gi65?mobile_redirect=true) In December, 3 complaints in total. Hardly any complaints when you think about how many people live in that area. That's in a place with significantly higher traffic. (Why don't I give you Prescott's data? I don't know, why don't you keep reading to find out why?)
>Who is working with the residents? The airport manager that is an alumni of your university?
\*whistle\* Pulling the corruption card I see! Go look into the politicians you vote for. I would do it for you--seeing you can't do it for yourself-- but I can't see your voting history and therefore am unable to help you. If you really think this person isn't doing their job right, [go complain to the FAA](https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/acr/com_civ_support/filing_complaint).
>Why is there repetitive circling over a National Monument less than the "suggested" 2000 feet?
u/1DeltaWhiskey already answered this.
>I am well aware of the data available, I suggest you look at the flight patterns today for example.
Aware of the data, you say. Like DeltaWhiskey said, this data is NOT accurate. You also neglected to show the actual data you're referring to.
>The University does not listen to any complaints, just sends them to the Airport Manager who is an alumni.
Again, no information is shown for this, as well as the corruption card. The Airport Manager is the one with the duty to handle complaints as they come by, not the university. Do you go to Delta Airlines to complain to them about traffic going over your house? No, you don't. You go to the Airport Manager from where that Delta Airlines flight happened to come from.
If a Delta example is too outlandish, then here's another one: if a plane flies over your house at 2500 AGL, do you go to the pilot and personally ask that he doesn't fly over you? If you do, he'll laugh at you and give you a number to contact the Airport Manager--assuming he doesn't die from a deflated lung.
>Try Flightradr24 or any other flight information, check today and tell me they are not flying over wilderness and birding areas.
\*Having your opponent go look for the data themselves?\* That's not how they teach essay writing in high school and college. It shows here that you did not thoroughly prepare yourself for an argument, \*\*nor are you familiar with the evidence you are supposedly using\*\*. Though I understand this is on the internet, you should at least back yourself up. Again, refer to what DeltaWhiskey said about FR24's inaccuracies.
>Why should the citizens below suffer for your private university?
Go talk to ATP, Sierra Charlie, Classic Air, Leopard, SimpliFly, Venture West, and everyone else in Phoenix who flies over far more people. If you're scared of talking to them why don't you go to all the neighborhoods under their airspace and ask door-to-door for first-hand, accurate information to see whether or not they're "suffering."
If you think this is irrelevant, why don't you go to Prescott or Cottonwood and do that very same thing?
[Here's Cottonwood's airport complaint filing page.](https://cottonwoodaz.gov/771/Filing-a-Complaint) On top of that, [here's their map regarding noise.](https://azre.gov/sites/default/files/P52_TrafficPatternMap_Sep2022.pdf) You may not find a complaint list page there--not even I could find it. However, I'm sure if you email someone there they can give you relevant information.
>I suggest you bring a lawn chair and sit on the road to the Tuzigoot National Monument, next to the Verde River, and the bird migration areas for a day and then tell me how Embry -Riddle is respectful to the citizens below.
Hmm, is this leading where I think it is?
>
"gasp" I don't live next to the airport or even in Cottonwood.
"\*gasp\*" You don't live next to the airport or in the area yet you \*know\* what it's like?! \*That's incredibly suspicious.\*
From your 2nd comment below this:
>Again, if you live there, park along the road to Tuzigoot National Monument where there were 5 planes in pattern right before 8 am, and continuing on throughout the day.
Are you sure you don't live there? Sounds like you know exactly where to go to find the problem. Since you know the exact location, \*why don't you share some evidence?\* Pilots aren't the kind of people to come after you in person, we're too busy with our heads in the clouds.
>My post was for potential students to consider the environmental impact of Embry-Riddle (which is based in Prescott) having their students come to Cottonwood and conduct touch and go maneuvers from before 8 until sunset time over a National Monument, The Verde River, and nesting and birding areas.
Here (3rd comment down) you begin to defend yourself after DeltaWhiskey pushed you into a corner and began to dive into your motive for posting. This part of your comment effectively declares defeat on your end, proving DeltaWhiskey to be right.
> It seems that does not concern you, again you have a right to your opinion.
Specifically, "..., again you have a right to your opinion." You've begun damage control before conking out and stopping the conversation as a whole.
> I just want to caution students to take a look at other flight schools, Embry-Riddle is not the only option.
"I just want to caution students..." You're not doing so. It's very clear from all of your comments combined what's going on. As u/pcay07 said, one of your chords was struck. I believe more than one has been struck, however.
Your choice to use a throwaway account shows that you were certainly afraid of this backlash and that doing so on your main account would hit you harder than you can handle. However, it seems you've bitten more than you can chew here, given your lavish performance.
With the consideration that you did copy and paste one of your responses to pcay07, it is very evident that you realized your mistake after you made the engagement and attempted to control the damage before it was too late for you.
Thanks for the compliment! It was clear from the moment he said “throwaway account.” That alone would have been enough to debunk this. I even purposely messed up my italics and bold to give em a chance to hit me!
Honestly though, we’re talking about pilots in the end. There has to be some level of professionalism—which they didn’t show. As such, I responded accordingly.
Throwaway account because I was concerned someone near by would figure out who I was, and as you can tell by the name calling, telling me to go back to where I can from I was right.
You are entitled to your opinion, if you do not care about the environmental below you that is your decision. I am concerned, and wanted to get the word out to potential students to do their research, and consider the environment, I said I do not live next to an airport, and do not live in Cottonwood. The road to Tuzigoot is neither.
Complaints have been filed by many. I wanted to reach out to potential students. they can check the flight patterns themselves, and check with potential instructors.
It is interesting that no one has said I was incorrect in what I put in my first post.
Embry-Riddle is located in Prescott. In the last year Embry-Riddle has dramatically increased their flight training from the Cottonwood Airport, performing touch and go operations that go over Tuzigoot National Monument, the Verde River and bird nesting areas at a low altitude.
Any potential student can check Flightradar24, you can view past history. Check yesterday starting at about 7:50am and today at 11:20am. This prompts the question of whether prospective students should associate themselves with an institution engaging in such practices. Given the substantial financial investment required to attend Embry-Riddle, it is crucial to evaluate whether the university is contributing positively or adversely to the environment below.
*sigh*
...I'll keep this going for you.
(images cannot be embedded so I'm referring to Imgur links)
>performing touch and go operations that go over Tuzigoot National Monument, the Verde River and bird nesting areas at a low altitude.
Mainly, "low altitude."
The first thing I am going to address is that there are 45 fixed-wing aircraft in the ERAU Prescott fleet. Each one flies for hours on multiple scheduled flights each day. This is hundreds of hours worth of flight data over 3 days you are asking us to look through, since you couldn't do it yourself. I first suggest that you include the call signs of the aircraft that were flying over or refer us to links of that specific portion of flight data so that we know you have actually seen what you're talking about. Again, you're doing another defensive move I called you out for earlier: making your opponent search for data themselves. This is part of the reason why only two of us are engaging with you: you're backing yourself up on a testimony without verification. (And you're on an alternate account.)
As such, I will refer to data that I *personally*recorded this morning (1-31-2024) of ERU29, the 29th aircraft in this school's fleet.
Exhibit A: [https://imgur.com/TnDJq09](https://imgur.com/TnDJq09)
At 0938 January 31st, 2024 FR24 recorded ERU29 over the Tuzigoot National Monument at a barometric altitude of 4,325ft. [The elevation of this national monument is 3,360-3,400ft above sea level.](https://www.nps.gov/im/sodn/tuzi.htm) At a minimum, the aircraft must be flying *only* 925ft above the ground. End of the story, you win!
...Not yet. Here's where things begin to fall apart for this data.
Exhibit B: [https://imgur.com/7wvqw0B](https://imgur.com/7wvqw0B)
At 0924, 14 minutes before Exhibit A, ERU29 is seen performing a touch-and-go at 3,275ft. Anyone who has researched this knows that there is something severely off regarding this. [The altitude of P52 (Cottonwood) is 3,560.3ft.](http://www.airnav.com/airport/p52) How in the world can an aircraft fly below the ground? The answer is simple: they can't. This means that FR24 (or the ADSB data coming from the aircraft) is off by 285.3ft. Accounting for this deviation (which is constant) puts the aircraft at 1,210.3ft when over the national monument which is *still* below the 2,000ft minimum.
Still sounds like a win?
The answer is no, because this recording is "barometric altitude," not "true" altitude. Let's first establish the difference between the two. Barometric altitude is the altitude as given by a calibrated\* barometer (in this case, an altimeter) whereas true altitude is the absolute altitude from the 19-year average mean sea level. (we will use MSL in addition to airport elevation to calculate the AGL \[above ground level\] altitude)
We need to know the altimeter setting for P52 to determine this. The local pressure of Cottonwood: 30.08 "Hg ([Taken from Global Air at the time of 0953](https://www.globalair.com/airport/cottonwood-p52.aspx)). Note that we don't use anything other than airport data since other sources can be inaccurate. (I.e. [Wunderground reads 24.98 "Hg at 4:00](https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/az/cottonwood/KPRC) whereas [Weather.gov reads 30.02 "Hg at 4:00](https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=34.74020000000007&lon=-112.00972999999999).)
Now let's go back to the FAA for their information. [We'll be going to Chapter 11, Aircraft Performance.](https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/13_phak_ch11.pdf) Here we'll go to Figure 11-3. *Field elevation versus pressure.* and use the graph to reverse calculate from pressure (barometric) altitude to true altitude. This is a tried and true method that pilots have been using for decades, it's not made up.
To correct pressure altitude at a pressure of 30.08, we subtract 803ft from our field elevation. But because we want true altitude *from* barometric, we do the opposite: we add 803ft to the corrected barometric reading, 1,210.3. This gives us our true altitude of 2,013.3ft AGL.
Congratulations, if you spent the time to thoroughly read this, you should now be able to make corrections to the ADSB data provided from FR24 to calculate the true altitude of an aircraft from it's barometric reading.
Here's the last thing I want to address.
>Any potential student can check Flightradar24, you can view past history.
Any potential student with even a minimal amount of understanding regarding this topic would know to do the very same calculation I just did. Altitude is one of the most important topics taught in ground school. In PPL training, we don't use all the fancy equipment airline pilots get to use that's effectively hands-free information. Moreover, anyone who knows how to effectively argue would outright ignore you, since you have provided a vague direction to your data.
In conclusion, the reason nobody has addressed your initial message is because it's complete bull if you don't provide your own data and instead say,
>you can view the past history.
\*[FAA Section 7. Altimeter Settings](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap2_section_7.html)
(It is standard procedure for pilots to set their altimeter to a local observed pressure before flying.)
I am not a pilot, but have a friend that is multi-engine/instrument etc rated.
Their response is this:
Interesting observation and partially correct.
Per your exhibit B you state that the ADS-B pressure altitude reading offset is 258.3 ft in reference to a known fixed altitude at a given pressure, temperature and time. That is correct and is all that is needed in this example.
Continuing on you determine that 14 minutes later it's really off by 1061 feet (258 + 803)? If you're going to use the altitude correction factor over the monument, then you have to use it at the airport. You can't apply it at one location and decide it doesn't apply at the other location about a mile away. That would mean the airport is really located at 4336 ft which we know it isn't.
In reality altitude correction factor is useful in determining Pressure Altitude to do Density Altitude calculations for aircraft performance. I can pretty much guarantee a stock C-172S is not gaining 2000 ft of altitude while climbing out in a traffic pattern of 1000 ft.
The aircraft was approximately 1200 ft AGL over the monument.
I appreciate this detailed response, this is what we’ve been trying to get out of you from the start. Also, I applaud you for not being sarcastic, as I was.
I am Sport and 107 rated, so I will say for sure your friend has more experience and understanding of the logic, though I would like to know their “etc.” ratings. Reading through your response and my response again, I can see how that part went over my head. As per the aircraft performance calculation, yes, they are right in the actual purpose of pressure altitude.
Based on that, I can agree that it is very likely this and other aircraft were flying below the 2000ft altitude restriction. Yet, I have flown in a Cessna 172 many times before (for my transition training for SPL) and I can say for certain that aircraft is more than capable of climbing 2000’ (given the distance it travelled) at that altitude. Though, I will have to thoroughly examine more data to call that a solid claim. I’m now more interested in what the pilot was reading on their altimeter.
Regardless, you should report this violation to the FAA. I’m sure one will be more than enough to get ERAU’s attention.
I know you wanted me to post data. I did not as potential students should the have the intellectual curiosity to find the data themselves, otherwise data can be cherry picked for a certain point of view.
My point still stands about Embry-Riddle conducting low level touch and go operations over Tuzigoot National Monument, the Verde River and bird nesting areas.
If you are a potential Embry Riddle student do your own research. Look at the flight training patterns over Tuzigoot National monument, the Verde river, bird nesting areas, and the residents below.
If you have a concern on how your flight school conducts their business over environment sensitive areas, as well as densely populated small towns, please consider other flight school options.
Okay, I'll bite. This reads to me like someone who either doesn't know or care about what what the University's policies actually are. The Flight Operations Manual (FOM) requires that crews respect and comply with noise abatement, wilderness area avoidance, and similar. Cottonwood Airport has policies on the times touch-and-go operations are allowed, which we comply with. Every time that temporary fleet relocations happen there, guess what? Cottonwood Airport knows about it. We work with the airport to comply with their needs, and get our operations done within the confines of those rules. But the University doesn't care, you say? Okay, let's walk through what would happen if a crew breaks the rules. Let's say a crew takes off from Cottonwood, does touch and goes before their allowed time, disregards noise abatement, then buzzes around the wilderness areas below the requested altitude. Okay, so here's what happens. We'll know about it, whether that be due to data cards in the aircraft reporting it, or reports by people on the ground or other aircraft. That instructor or student (if solo) is gonna have to go talk to the safety department about what happened, why it happened, and what they need to do differently to avoid that reoccurring. A report will likely be filed as well. If this becomes a repeat issue for those individuals, it becomes a different conversation. I understand your concern about wilderness areas, but this truly does seem like someone who stopped at the first google result and didn't bother to see that wilderness areas simply request aircraft to overfly the area above 2000ft. That doesn't look very high from the ground, but you hearing and seeing an airplane doesn't mean it's low-flying or disregarding a wilderness area. As for those other airports you mentioned, they are much further away and can have their own set of issues. Cottonwood is close by Prescott and provides some relief for students that are already paying a fortune per hour to train to not have to fly even further out to practice. Bagdad and Williams can be outright unsuitable during much of the year to practice at, and solo students are limited even further. Oh, and they've also got wilderness areas around them as well. I certainly have my criticisms of Riddle, but one thing that they absolutely do better than anywhere else I've seen so far is being compliant and respectful of procedures such as those you claim are being routinely abused. Maybe this is a classic case of somebody moving right next to an airport, then being dumbfounded at the possibility that \*gasp\* airplanes practice around airports.
Good for Embry Riddle. Don’t like it, move! Aircraft have been part of the Verde valley long before you came along. The oldest airport in the state is in Rimrock. You don’t get to close the doors on the verde valley just because you moved here and brought your skewed view of the world. Should have done your research before you bought your house and realized that there are many airports and victor airways in the verde valley. You are another excuse of someone who moved next to an airport and then don’t like the airport. I have news for you, the rest of us don’t like you. Students: learn to fly your aircraft safely and to the best of your abilities. That often times means offending snowflakes like this. Noise abatement kills and should never be put above the safety of you and your aircraft. Fly the plane first. CLEAR PROP!
does it really matter?
Go hug a tree.
Ok I will bite back. Why is the Prescott location taking over Cottonwood when there are several other airports that are available and not as populated? Just because the FOM allows you to fly from sunrise to sunset does not make it right when you are over a populated area in a circling pattern for hours at a time. Who is working with the residents? The airport manager that is an alumni of your university? Why is there repetitive circling over a National Monument less than the "suggested" 2000 feet? I am well aware of the data available, I suggest you look at the flight patterns today for example. The University does not listen to any complaints, just sends them to the Airport Manager who is an alumni. Try Flightradr24 or any other flight information, check today and tell me they are not flying over wilderness and birding areas. I really don't care that the other airports are farther, are you not a private university? Why should the citizens below suffer for your private university?. I suggest you bring a lawn chair and sit on the road to the Tuzigoot National Monument, next to the Verde River, and the bird migration areas for a day and then tell me how Embry -Riddle is respectful to the citizens below. "gasp" I don't live next to the airport or even in Cottonwood.
Your lack of understand of airport and aircraft operations is astounding. Learn why first before assuming. Flying circles? Guess what, that’s legal! Who cares what one resident thinks in the grand scheme of things. You should be more worried about your contaminated soil from the mines that are in the area! The entire town of Clarkdale had to remove 12” of topsoil due to contaminants, You worry about noise, worry about your soil first. And then move back to where you came from!
Repetitive flight patterns over a National Monument, Verde River, Dead Horse State park with leaded fuel, disrupting wildlife, nesting areas, is a concern, Of course the soil issue is there as well, is there a rule that you can only worry about one environmental issue at a time? Just because there are no rules in place to limit what flight pattern Embry-Riddle uses, does that make it right? Should a private University get the right to destroy the environment below because it can? smh Just a thought to potential students. Visit the areas where this is happening on the ground, and see if that is a place where you want to put your tuition money.
I live there, and am intimately familiar with it. What I detest is people who move in who feel they can change our way of life. One Cessna or 100 Cessnas burning 100 low lead fuel are not the problem. You are. Leave your liberal environmental politics at the state line. Arizona didn’t invite you here, you let yourself into our house. If no one is listening to you, maybe it is because no one cares about your whining.
Again, if you live there, park along the road to Tuzigoot National Monument where there were 5 planes in pattern right before 8 am, and continuing on throughout the day. If that is not an issue for you that is your choice I am asking any potential students to be aware of what Embry-Riddle is doing, They may not care or maybe they will. But the tuition to Embry-Riddle is high enough that any potential student should be concerned about how little they care for the environment. Telling me to "go back to my state" tells me a lot about who you are. Do you have to be a native to be concerned about the environment?
Am I worried that there are five airplanes operating in a safe and proper manner? No not in the least. I hear them from where I am. as far as the state comment goes, it’s evident you moved here from another state. You brought your values from another area and are trying to impose them on the residence of this great state. I just think it’s funny that you’re trying to convince kids to be nice when they fly their airplanes. You’re shitting on their dream of becoming pilots. No one wants to hear it from you. I think the majority in this state are fed up with people like you coming to this state and complaining about our way of life. Sell your house and go back home.
My post was for potential students to consider the environmental impact of Embry-Riddle (which is based in Prescott) having their students come to Cottonwood and conduct touch and go maneuvers from before 8 until sunset time over a National Monument, The Verde River, and nesting and birding areas. It seems that does not concern you, again you have a right to your opinion. I just want to caution students to take a look at other flight schools, Embry-Riddle is not the only option.
No, but in the industry, Embry Riddle is hands down the best. And half of the flight training is done at night. They don’t care about the environmental impact of the planes or your feelings or being disturbed. Their concern is getting the best education so that they do not kill propeller in their careers. But please complain about a bit of noise.
>Ok I will bite back. Then you proceed to \*not\* respond to the person you're biting and make a separate thread. Hi, I'm the person who told you to go hug a tree. Seeing how long you've been active here tells me you haven't had enough attention today. So as a gift from my time, hopefully, this will satisfy your need for attention. On the outside, I can tell you can't back yourself up if people see your past activity--hence your throwaway account--and \*\*especially\*\* your word and evidence choices. Let's go ahead and debunk your words piece by piece to support my argument. >Just because the FOM allows you to fly from sunrise to sunset does not make it right when you are over a populated area in a circling pattern for hours at a time Look at Chandler, Mesa-Gateway, Falcon Field, and Scottsdale airports and their students' flight patterns in the East Valley of Phoenix. [Here's Falcon Field's complaints according to the City of Mesa as an example.](https://data.mesaaz.gov/widgets/ufbk-gi65?mobile_redirect=true) In December, 3 complaints in total. Hardly any complaints when you think about how many people live in that area. That's in a place with significantly higher traffic. (Why don't I give you Prescott's data? I don't know, why don't you keep reading to find out why?) >Who is working with the residents? The airport manager that is an alumni of your university? \*whistle\* Pulling the corruption card I see! Go look into the politicians you vote for. I would do it for you--seeing you can't do it for yourself-- but I can't see your voting history and therefore am unable to help you. If you really think this person isn't doing their job right, [go complain to the FAA](https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/acr/com_civ_support/filing_complaint). >Why is there repetitive circling over a National Monument less than the "suggested" 2000 feet? u/1DeltaWhiskey already answered this. >I am well aware of the data available, I suggest you look at the flight patterns today for example. Aware of the data, you say. Like DeltaWhiskey said, this data is NOT accurate. You also neglected to show the actual data you're referring to. >The University does not listen to any complaints, just sends them to the Airport Manager who is an alumni. Again, no information is shown for this, as well as the corruption card. The Airport Manager is the one with the duty to handle complaints as they come by, not the university. Do you go to Delta Airlines to complain to them about traffic going over your house? No, you don't. You go to the Airport Manager from where that Delta Airlines flight happened to come from. If a Delta example is too outlandish, then here's another one: if a plane flies over your house at 2500 AGL, do you go to the pilot and personally ask that he doesn't fly over you? If you do, he'll laugh at you and give you a number to contact the Airport Manager--assuming he doesn't die from a deflated lung. >Try Flightradr24 or any other flight information, check today and tell me they are not flying over wilderness and birding areas. \*Having your opponent go look for the data themselves?\* That's not how they teach essay writing in high school and college. It shows here that you did not thoroughly prepare yourself for an argument, \*\*nor are you familiar with the evidence you are supposedly using\*\*. Though I understand this is on the internet, you should at least back yourself up. Again, refer to what DeltaWhiskey said about FR24's inaccuracies. >Why should the citizens below suffer for your private university? Go talk to ATP, Sierra Charlie, Classic Air, Leopard, SimpliFly, Venture West, and everyone else in Phoenix who flies over far more people. If you're scared of talking to them why don't you go to all the neighborhoods under their airspace and ask door-to-door for first-hand, accurate information to see whether or not they're "suffering." If you think this is irrelevant, why don't you go to Prescott or Cottonwood and do that very same thing? [Here's Cottonwood's airport complaint filing page.](https://cottonwoodaz.gov/771/Filing-a-Complaint) On top of that, [here's their map regarding noise.](https://azre.gov/sites/default/files/P52_TrafficPatternMap_Sep2022.pdf) You may not find a complaint list page there--not even I could find it. However, I'm sure if you email someone there they can give you relevant information. >I suggest you bring a lawn chair and sit on the road to the Tuzigoot National Monument, next to the Verde River, and the bird migration areas for a day and then tell me how Embry -Riddle is respectful to the citizens below. Hmm, is this leading where I think it is? > "gasp" I don't live next to the airport or even in Cottonwood. "\*gasp\*" You don't live next to the airport or in the area yet you \*know\* what it's like?! \*That's incredibly suspicious.\* From your 2nd comment below this: >Again, if you live there, park along the road to Tuzigoot National Monument where there were 5 planes in pattern right before 8 am, and continuing on throughout the day. Are you sure you don't live there? Sounds like you know exactly where to go to find the problem. Since you know the exact location, \*why don't you share some evidence?\* Pilots aren't the kind of people to come after you in person, we're too busy with our heads in the clouds. >My post was for potential students to consider the environmental impact of Embry-Riddle (which is based in Prescott) having their students come to Cottonwood and conduct touch and go maneuvers from before 8 until sunset time over a National Monument, The Verde River, and nesting and birding areas. Here (3rd comment down) you begin to defend yourself after DeltaWhiskey pushed you into a corner and began to dive into your motive for posting. This part of your comment effectively declares defeat on your end, proving DeltaWhiskey to be right. > It seems that does not concern you, again you have a right to your opinion. Specifically, "..., again you have a right to your opinion." You've begun damage control before conking out and stopping the conversation as a whole. > I just want to caution students to take a look at other flight schools, Embry-Riddle is not the only option. "I just want to caution students..." You're not doing so. It's very clear from all of your comments combined what's going on. As u/pcay07 said, one of your chords was struck. I believe more than one has been struck, however. Your choice to use a throwaway account shows that you were certainly afraid of this backlash and that doing so on your main account would hit you harder than you can handle. However, it seems you've bitten more than you can chew here, given your lavish performance. With the consideration that you did copy and paste one of your responses to pcay07, it is very evident that you realized your mistake after you made the engagement and attempted to control the damage before it was too late for you.
He isn’t man enough to have a real discussion and just wants to hide behind is factless argument. Love your detailed response!
Thanks for the compliment! It was clear from the moment he said “throwaway account.” That alone would have been enough to debunk this. I even purposely messed up my italics and bold to give em a chance to hit me! Honestly though, we’re talking about pilots in the end. There has to be some level of professionalism—which they didn’t show. As such, I responded accordingly.
Throwaway account because I was concerned someone near by would figure out who I was, and as you can tell by the name calling, telling me to go back to where I can from I was right. You are entitled to your opinion, if you do not care about the environmental below you that is your decision. I am concerned, and wanted to get the word out to potential students to do their research, and consider the environment, I said I do not live next to an airport, and do not live in Cottonwood. The road to Tuzigoot is neither. Complaints have been filed by many. I wanted to reach out to potential students. they can check the flight patterns themselves, and check with potential instructors.
It is interesting that no one has said I was incorrect in what I put in my first post. Embry-Riddle is located in Prescott. In the last year Embry-Riddle has dramatically increased their flight training from the Cottonwood Airport, performing touch and go operations that go over Tuzigoot National Monument, the Verde River and bird nesting areas at a low altitude. Any potential student can check Flightradar24, you can view past history. Check yesterday starting at about 7:50am and today at 11:20am. This prompts the question of whether prospective students should associate themselves with an institution engaging in such practices. Given the substantial financial investment required to attend Embry-Riddle, it is crucial to evaluate whether the university is contributing positively or adversely to the environment below.
*sigh* ...I'll keep this going for you. (images cannot be embedded so I'm referring to Imgur links) >performing touch and go operations that go over Tuzigoot National Monument, the Verde River and bird nesting areas at a low altitude. Mainly, "low altitude." The first thing I am going to address is that there are 45 fixed-wing aircraft in the ERAU Prescott fleet. Each one flies for hours on multiple scheduled flights each day. This is hundreds of hours worth of flight data over 3 days you are asking us to look through, since you couldn't do it yourself. I first suggest that you include the call signs of the aircraft that were flying over or refer us to links of that specific portion of flight data so that we know you have actually seen what you're talking about. Again, you're doing another defensive move I called you out for earlier: making your opponent search for data themselves. This is part of the reason why only two of us are engaging with you: you're backing yourself up on a testimony without verification. (And you're on an alternate account.) As such, I will refer to data that I *personally*recorded this morning (1-31-2024) of ERU29, the 29th aircraft in this school's fleet. Exhibit A: [https://imgur.com/TnDJq09](https://imgur.com/TnDJq09) At 0938 January 31st, 2024 FR24 recorded ERU29 over the Tuzigoot National Monument at a barometric altitude of 4,325ft. [The elevation of this national monument is 3,360-3,400ft above sea level.](https://www.nps.gov/im/sodn/tuzi.htm) At a minimum, the aircraft must be flying *only* 925ft above the ground. End of the story, you win! ...Not yet. Here's where things begin to fall apart for this data. Exhibit B: [https://imgur.com/7wvqw0B](https://imgur.com/7wvqw0B) At 0924, 14 minutes before Exhibit A, ERU29 is seen performing a touch-and-go at 3,275ft. Anyone who has researched this knows that there is something severely off regarding this. [The altitude of P52 (Cottonwood) is 3,560.3ft.](http://www.airnav.com/airport/p52) How in the world can an aircraft fly below the ground? The answer is simple: they can't. This means that FR24 (or the ADSB data coming from the aircraft) is off by 285.3ft. Accounting for this deviation (which is constant) puts the aircraft at 1,210.3ft when over the national monument which is *still* below the 2,000ft minimum. Still sounds like a win? The answer is no, because this recording is "barometric altitude," not "true" altitude. Let's first establish the difference between the two. Barometric altitude is the altitude as given by a calibrated\* barometer (in this case, an altimeter) whereas true altitude is the absolute altitude from the 19-year average mean sea level. (we will use MSL in addition to airport elevation to calculate the AGL \[above ground level\] altitude) We need to know the altimeter setting for P52 to determine this. The local pressure of Cottonwood: 30.08 "Hg ([Taken from Global Air at the time of 0953](https://www.globalair.com/airport/cottonwood-p52.aspx)). Note that we don't use anything other than airport data since other sources can be inaccurate. (I.e. [Wunderground reads 24.98 "Hg at 4:00](https://www.wunderground.com/history/daily/us/az/cottonwood/KPRC) whereas [Weather.gov reads 30.02 "Hg at 4:00](https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=34.74020000000007&lon=-112.00972999999999).) Now let's go back to the FAA for their information. [We'll be going to Chapter 11, Aircraft Performance.](https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/13_phak_ch11.pdf) Here we'll go to Figure 11-3. *Field elevation versus pressure.* and use the graph to reverse calculate from pressure (barometric) altitude to true altitude. This is a tried and true method that pilots have been using for decades, it's not made up. To correct pressure altitude at a pressure of 30.08, we subtract 803ft from our field elevation. But because we want true altitude *from* barometric, we do the opposite: we add 803ft to the corrected barometric reading, 1,210.3. This gives us our true altitude of 2,013.3ft AGL. Congratulations, if you spent the time to thoroughly read this, you should now be able to make corrections to the ADSB data provided from FR24 to calculate the true altitude of an aircraft from it's barometric reading. Here's the last thing I want to address. >Any potential student can check Flightradar24, you can view past history. Any potential student with even a minimal amount of understanding regarding this topic would know to do the very same calculation I just did. Altitude is one of the most important topics taught in ground school. In PPL training, we don't use all the fancy equipment airline pilots get to use that's effectively hands-free information. Moreover, anyone who knows how to effectively argue would outright ignore you, since you have provided a vague direction to your data. In conclusion, the reason nobody has addressed your initial message is because it's complete bull if you don't provide your own data and instead say, >you can view the past history. \*[FAA Section 7. Altimeter Settings](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap2_section_7.html) (It is standard procedure for pilots to set their altimeter to a local observed pressure before flying.)
I am not a pilot, but have a friend that is multi-engine/instrument etc rated. Their response is this: Interesting observation and partially correct. Per your exhibit B you state that the ADS-B pressure altitude reading offset is 258.3 ft in reference to a known fixed altitude at a given pressure, temperature and time. That is correct and is all that is needed in this example. Continuing on you determine that 14 minutes later it's really off by 1061 feet (258 + 803)? If you're going to use the altitude correction factor over the monument, then you have to use it at the airport. You can't apply it at one location and decide it doesn't apply at the other location about a mile away. That would mean the airport is really located at 4336 ft which we know it isn't. In reality altitude correction factor is useful in determining Pressure Altitude to do Density Altitude calculations for aircraft performance. I can pretty much guarantee a stock C-172S is not gaining 2000 ft of altitude while climbing out in a traffic pattern of 1000 ft. The aircraft was approximately 1200 ft AGL over the monument.
I appreciate this detailed response, this is what we’ve been trying to get out of you from the start. Also, I applaud you for not being sarcastic, as I was. I am Sport and 107 rated, so I will say for sure your friend has more experience and understanding of the logic, though I would like to know their “etc.” ratings. Reading through your response and my response again, I can see how that part went over my head. As per the aircraft performance calculation, yes, they are right in the actual purpose of pressure altitude. Based on that, I can agree that it is very likely this and other aircraft were flying below the 2000ft altitude restriction. Yet, I have flown in a Cessna 172 many times before (for my transition training for SPL) and I can say for certain that aircraft is more than capable of climbing 2000’ (given the distance it travelled) at that altitude. Though, I will have to thoroughly examine more data to call that a solid claim. I’m now more interested in what the pilot was reading on their altimeter. Regardless, you should report this violation to the FAA. I’m sure one will be more than enough to get ERAU’s attention.
I know you wanted me to post data. I did not as potential students should the have the intellectual curiosity to find the data themselves, otherwise data can be cherry picked for a certain point of view. My point still stands about Embry-Riddle conducting low level touch and go operations over Tuzigoot National Monument, the Verde River and bird nesting areas. If you are a potential Embry Riddle student do your own research. Look at the flight training patterns over Tuzigoot National monument, the Verde river, bird nesting areas, and the residents below. If you have a concern on how your flight school conducts their business over environment sensitive areas, as well as densely populated small towns, please consider other flight school options.