Complaint of mdt noise of SVFR approach.

Attributes
ACN	253000
Time
Date	199310
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cec
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 300 agl bound upper : 300
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Medium Transport
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : svfr
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 14045 flight time type : 50
ASRS Report	253000
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : far other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

After flying the crescent city, cec ILS approach to runway 11, I executed the missed approach, due to lowering WX conditions at the northwest boundary of the airport. I then cancelled IFR in VFR conditions and requested a special VFR clearance and was cleared. I made my approach to runway 29. The airport was clear to the southeast and had a favorable approach to the runway. After landing and taxiing in to parking, an airline ticket agent brought to my attention that a woman complained to her of a low flying noise complaint, and that the woman complaining was intending to report it to the auths. The aircraft I fly is much larger and noisier than most aircraft that transient crescent city airport making special VFR approachs with minimums of '1 mi, clear of clouds.' unfortunately, this type flying is sometimes inherent in flying, especially at airports with low stratus conditions. I believe that I acted safe and in a legal manner, and apologize for any inconvenience from the noise of the aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMPLAINT OF MDT NOISE OF SVFR APCH.

Narrative: AFTER FLYING THE CRESCENT CITY, CEC ILS APCH TO RWY 11, I EXECUTED THE MISSED APCH, DUE TO LOWERING WX CONDITIONS AT THE NW BOUNDARY OF THE ARPT. I THEN CANCELLED IFR IN VFR CONDITIONS AND REQUESTED A SPECIAL VFR CLRNC AND WAS CLRED. I MADE MY APCH TO RWY 29. THE ARPT WAS CLR TO THE SE AND HAD A FAVORABLE APCH TO THE RWY. AFTER LNDG AND TAXIING IN TO PARKING, AN AIRLINE TICKET AGENT BROUGHT TO MY ATTN THAT A WOMAN COMPLAINED TO HER OF A LOW FLYING NOISE COMPLAINT, AND THAT THE WOMAN COMPLAINING WAS INTENDING TO RPT IT TO THE AUTHS. THE ACFT I FLY IS MUCH LARGER AND NOISIER THAN MOST ACFT THAT TRANSIENT CRESCENT CITY ARPT MAKING SPECIAL VFR APCHS WITH MINIMUMS OF '1 MI, CLR OF CLOUDS.' UNFORTUNATELY, THIS TYPE FLYING IS SOMETIMES INHERENT IN FLYING, ESPECIALLY AT ARPTS WITH LOW STRATUS CONDITIONS. I BELIEVE THAT I ACTED SAFE AND IN A LEGAL MANNER, AND APOLOGIZE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE FROM THE NOISE OF THE ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.