Thanks for the Sun 'n fun reports

[Tedstriker]

I'm headed for Oshkosh this year myself. Everytime I do Sun 'n fun,
it's so close to Oshkosh, I never feel like going up there so soon
after SNF. So this year, I skipped SNF and am all set for OSH. Better
fly-in anyway. I've also noticed the SNF organazation and EAA starting
to distance themselves from each other somewhat. As evidenced by the
letter posted on the SNF website, titled "Sun 'n fun and EAA".
The SNF guys destroyed the good fly-market that used to exist there.
And each year keep jacking up the admission fees. Plus, Oshkosh has
nicer grass. Like a golf course. I prefer parking my homebuilt there.
No black sand blowing on and sticking to my struts like at SNF.
I'm starting to think Zoom may have been right about some of the
things he said about SNF. I've flown into that show several times. And
the arrival procedures aren't very safe at all. I'm landing and a guy
20 feet above my head is landing in front of me. hmm..
Now in all fairness, I haven't done the approach to Oshkosh, so can't
compare it to that. But unless the wx is bad, I'll be flying into OSH
in my Jurca MJ-5 Sirocco this year. See you there!

[BobR]

There is a need for both Sun-N-Fun and for Oshkosh as well as several
other regional EAA flyins. The one thing that I have failed to
understand is this constant blaming of the safety concerns on the
Sun-N-Fun organization. They don't control the airspace, that is a
function of the FAA Air Traffic Control. If you have complaints about
how the ATC is handling the process, complain to them.


Tedstriker wrote:
> I'm headed for Oshkosh this year myself. Everytime I do Sun 'n fun,
> it's so close to Oshkosh, I never feel like going up there so soon
> after SNF. So this year, I skipped SNF and am all set for OSH. Better
> fly-in anyway. I've also noticed the SNF organazation and EAA
starting
> to distance themselves from each other somewhat. As evidenced by the
> letter posted on the SNF website, titled "Sun 'n fun and EAA".
> The SNF guys destroyed the good fly-market that used to exist there.
> And each year keep jacking up the admission fees. Plus, Oshkosh has
> nicer grass. Like a golf course. I prefer parking my homebuilt there.
> No black sand blowing on and sticking to my struts like at SNF.
> I'm starting to think Zoom may have been right about some of the
> things he said about SNF. I've flown into that show several times.
And
> the arrival procedures aren't very safe at all. I'm landing and a guy
> 20 feet above my head is landing in front of me. hmm..
> Now in all fairness, I haven't done the approach to Oshkosh, so can't
> compare it to that. But unless the wx is bad, I'll be flying into OSH
> in my Jurca MJ-5 Sirocco this year. See you there!

[Kyle Boatright]

"Tedstriker" > wrote in message
...
> I'm headed for Oshkosh this year myself. Everytime I do Sun 'n fun,
> it's so close to Oshkosh, I never feel like going up there so soon
> after SNF. So this year, I skipped SNF and am all set for OSH. Better
> fly-in anyway.

No doubt that the fly-ins have plenty of overlap. I've more or less given up
on watching the airshows - I've seen all the loud unlimited aerobatic
aircraft I ever need to see. The performers are all tremendous, but each
show has a half dozen acts that are all but identical. One real plus of Osh
is that there are a few more halfway decent food vendors. SnF has, by my
count, exactly one food vendor that offers anything that compares favorably
with low-end stadium food...

I've also noticed the SNF organazation and EAA starting
> to distance themselves from each other somewhat. As evidenced by the
> letter posted on the SNF website, titled "Sun 'n fun and EAA".

SnF and EAA have always had an arm's length relationship. SnF began as a
local fly-in sponsored by the local chapter, and recieves input from EAA HQ,
but has never been controllled by EAA HQ, whereas Oshkosh is the EAA
convention.

> The SNF guys destroyed the good fly-market that used to exist there.
> And each year keep jacking up the admission fees.

As does Oshkosh, the college team whose football tickets I purchase, and
seemingly everything else.

Plus, Oshkosh has
> nicer grass. Like a golf course. I prefer parking my homebuilt there.
> No black sand blowing on and sticking to my struts like at SNF.
> I'm starting to think Zoom may have been right about some of the
> things he said about SNF.

Zoom never passes on an opportunity to twist facts to the detriment of SnF.
In a recent article in ANN, they indicated that the lack of lines at the
porta potties was a sign of reduced attendance. I was there, and attendance
seemed in line with previous years. Perhaps SnF management has added enough
porta potties that people don't need to line up anymore? You'd never see
THAT story in ANN. Of course, you will see articles on numerous "fringe"
suppliers who sell snake oil and false promises to people who want to
believe. Several engine suppliers whose products are perpetually "nearing
production" come to mind.

I've flown into that show several times. And
> the arrival procedures aren't very safe at all. I'm landing and a guy
> 20 feet above my head is landing in front of me. hmm..

SnF and Osh procedures are very similar. Form a nose to tail line over a
point of reference, and continue in trail until you land. There are plenty
of knuckle heads at both shows who mess up the procedures. I believe the
person in the Cessna Centurion in front of me (for a while) going into SnF
on Thursday must have had either ADD or Alzheimers. The guy/gal obviously
didn't have a clue. Not much either show can do about that...

> Now in all fairness, I haven't done the approach to Oshkosh, so can't
> compare it to that. But unless the wx is bad, I'll be flying into OSH
> in my Jurca MJ-5 Sirocco this year. See you there!

[John T]

I'd say that Oshkosh's fly-market has been pretty well trashed too.
Still a number of aviation related booths/seller/dealers, but I'd like
to get rid of the non-related stuff (leather goods, guitars, nada
chairs, etc) in favor of more aviation stuff.

John

[Morgans]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

There are plenty
> of knuckle heads at both shows who mess up the procedures. I believe the
> person in the Cessna Centurion in front of me (for a while) going into SnF
> on Thursday must have had either ADD or Alzheimers. The guy/gal obviously
> didn't have a clue. Not much either show can do about that...

Anti-aircraft gun emplacement? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Morgans wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote
>
> There are plenty
>
>>of knuckle heads at both shows who mess up the procedures. I believe the
>>person in the Cessna Centurion in front of me (for a while) going into SnF
>>on Thursday must have had either ADD or Alzheimers. The guy/gal obviously
>>didn't have a clue. Not much either show can do about that...
>
>
> Anti-aircraft gun emplacement? ;-)

NO!! Some of the aircraft they fly have value.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Morgans]

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote
>
> NO!! Some of the aircraft they fly have value.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Right. Since this program is my ideea, I get dibs of the first ones!

Borrow the Enterprise's transporter, then set the beam on wide dispersal
pattern? Tractor beam to bring the plane down safely.
--
Jim in NC

[Tedstriker]

On 17 Apr 2005 20:15:29 -0700, "BobR" >
wrote:

>There is a need for both Sun-N-Fun and for Oshkosh as well as several
>other regional EAA flyins. The one thing that I have failed to
>understand is this constant blaming of the safety concerns on the
>Sun-N-Fun organization. They don't control the airspace, that is a
>function of the FAA Air Traffic Control. If you have complaints about
>how the ATC is handling the process, complain to them.
>

I'll complain to whoever I please thank you. Who asked you anyway?

[Jerry Springer]

Tedstriker wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2005 20:15:29 -0700, "BobR" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>There is a need for both Sun-N-Fun and for Oshkosh as well as several
>>other regional EAA flyins. The one thing that I have failed to
>>understand is this constant blaming of the safety concerns on the
>>Sun-N-Fun organization. They don't control the airspace, that is a
>>function of the FAA Air Traffic Control. If you have complaints about
>>how the ATC is handling the process, complain to them.
>>
>
>
> I'll complain to whoever I please thank you. Who asked you anyway?

That make a lot of sense... NOT. What are you a 10 year old child? You
are acting like one.

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Morgans wrote:

> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote
>
>>NO!! Some of the aircraft they fly have value.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Right. Since this program is my ideea, I get dibs of the first ones!
>
> Borrow the Enterprise's transporter, then set the beam on wide dispersal
> pattern? Tractor beam to bring the plane down safely.

Much better idea, but don't forget to have your transporter drain the
fuel. You don't want to have the aircaft hurt themselves.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Tedstriker wrote:

> On 17 Apr 2005 20:15:29 -0700, "BobR" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>There is a need for both Sun-N-Fun and for Oshkosh as well as several
>>other regional EAA flyins. The one thing that I have failed to
>>understand is this constant blaming of the safety concerns on the
>>Sun-N-Fun organization. They don't control the airspace, that is a
>>function of the FAA Air Traffic Control. If you have complaints about
>>how the ATC is handling the process, complain to them.
>>
>
>
> I'll complain to whoever I please thank you. Who asked you anyway?

Go ahead and complain to whomever you want. I suggest complaining to the
correct activity would have better results.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Carriere]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote
>
>>NO!! Some of the aircraft they fly have value.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> Right. Since this program is my ideea, I get dibs of the first ones!
>
> Borrow the Enterprise's transporter, then set the beam on wide dispersal
> pattern? Tractor beam to bring the plane down safely.

Naa, how about the lasers they want to put up around D.C.?

[Morgans]

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote
>
> Much better idea, but don't forget to have your transporter drain the
> fuel. You don't want to have the aircaft hurt themselves.

Put a dampening field in place. That will stop the engine, for set-down.
Then the evidence could be quickly flown away. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote

> Naa, how about the lasers they want to put up around D.C.?

Turning up the juice might vaporize the pilot, but we still want to save the
plane. I think we gotta have the tractor beam! Either that, or the remote
access code, to take over the controls and land the plane.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Jim Carriere wrote:

> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote
>>
>>> NO!! Some of the aircraft they fly have value.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. Since this program is my ideea, I get dibs of the first ones!
>>
>> Borrow the Enterprise's transporter, then set the beam on wide dispersal
>> pattern? Tractor beam to bring the plane down safely.
>
>
> Naa, how about the lasers they want to put up around D.C.?

We are trying to save the aircraft. If nothing else they could be parted
out.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Morgans wrote:

> "Jim Carriere" > wrote
>
>
>>Naa, how about the lasers they want to put up around D.C.?
>
>
> Turning up the juice might vaporize the pilot, but we still want to save the
> plane. I think we gotta have the tractor beam! Either that, or the remote
> access code, to take over the controls and land the plane.

That's a variation of my theory of exporting military aircraft. Each
should have a built in bomb. If the Indians and Pakistanis each have
F-16s, for example, and decide to go to war we push a button. This
accomplishes two things: it stops any bombing/airwar and they will need
to buy new aircraft.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tedstriker]

>>
>>
>> I'll complain to whoever I please thank you. Who asked you anyway?
>
>That make a lot of sense... NOT. What are you a 10 year old child? You
>are acting like one.

Complaining to the SNF organazation would do more than some might
think. You think they just turn over the ATC part of the takeoff and
landings to ATC and have no say whatsoever? If you think that, you are
10 year old child. ATC is there only because SNF has the fly-in. If
they tell ATC they only want 100 takeoffs or landing in an hour, then
that's what ATC will give them. ect.. I'm not botheing complaining to
that bureaucratic ATC organazation, it would fall on deaf ears. But
the SNF organazation might get something changed, if anyone could.