Oshkosh arrivals [Archive]

July 24th 06, 04:46 AM

Had an interesting flight this year into OSH because of this crash.
Apparantly the ripple effect piled up the holds around Rush Lake, and
then Green Lake.

When I arrived in my 172 from Madison, everyone was to enter the hold
at Green Lake (which is new this year), or to hold outside somewhere
else (anywhere else). Coming up on Ripon, I spied a Mooney, got behind
him and had pretty smooth sailing entering the hold over Green. The
radio was alive with two different calls of bingo fuel, as well as all
sorts of different unidentified calls to remind people: "come on, 90
knots", or "speed it up Ercoupe" and so forth and so on. One could also
tell that Rush was packed with planes, that were slowly then allowed to
re-enter the approach over Ripon and start up the tracks to Fisk.

One problem that became quite apparant to those of us holding over
Green Lake was that some of our not so scrupulous bretheren (or
clueless) just barreled on thru from all points of the compass, past
Green Lake, past Ripon, and on up the tracks. This of course gummed up
the works for the controllers trying to work people out of the hold
over Rush, but eventually things calmed down to the point where the
Rush Lake hold was cleared, and those of us over Green were allowed to
proceed. It got a little challenging trying to keep your head on a
swivel, while tracking the guy ahead of you and trying to ignore the
guy behind you, whose shadow I could see on the ground pretty close
behind me (makes me thankful I had a 172C with no back window!),
staying at 90 and 1800 and 1/2.

I "only" spent about an hour in the hold, many more were there longer,
on the order of 2+ hours.
Those flying today probably also chuckled about the (ultralight?) pilot
who admitted he didn't have the notam with him for the u/l proceedure.

DOH!

This is the third time I've flown in, and all in all a pretty
educational experience.

While holding over the lake I thought about the congestion on the
radio, and I guess my thought about this Green lake holding pattern, is
that it is probably not a bad idea, but having a seperate freq for some
controllers moved even more forward to Ripon might help sort things
out, while still keeping the Fisk frequency relatively clear to manage
the pipeline from Ripon to OSH. It would also help control the flow
starting at Ripon, rather than Fisk.
But then again, the Fisk approach procedure has worked so well for so
long....

Ryan Wubben
Co-Chairman, EAA Flight Line Operations

Morgans[_3_]

July 24th 06, 08:03 AM

> wrote

> Had an interesting flight this year into OSH because of this crash.
> Apparantly the ripple effect piled up the holds around Rush Lake, and
> then Green Lake.
>
> When I arrived in my 172 from Madison, everyone was to enter the hold
> at Green Lake (which is new this year), or to hold outside somewhere
> else (anywhere else). Coming up on Ripon, I spied a Mooney, got behind
> him and had pretty smooth sailing entering the hold over Green. The
> radio was alive with two different calls of bingo fuel,

I wonder if they need a new procedure to land people at one of the
out-airports, to relaunch them back to OSH, when things like this happen.

I also wonder if the holds were what bit the 180? driver that landed so hard
on 36 , after the "I've run out of gas" call that another poster mentioned.

It makes someone's advice, on this very group a couple days ago, to not try
and come in toward OSH on fumes - to land somewhere out, and arrive with
plenty of fuel - to be even better advise.
--
Jim in NC

Larry Dighera

July 24th 06, 08:44 AM

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:04:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>It is a rare year that at least 6 don't die either on the way to or on the
>way home from Osh.

That is truly tragic and pathetic. Is that the best airmen can do?

>Some years there are no fatals in the immediate area,
>and some years there are several fatals due to airport operations.

I would say they were probably due to pilot incompetence rather than
blame airport operations.

What sort of image do such statistics about airmen conger in the minds
of the lay public?

What sort of program does the Experimental Aircraft Association have
in place to reduce the death toll resulting from AirVenture
attendance?

Larry Dighera

July 24th 06, 08:50 AM

On 23 Jul 2006 20:46:38 -0700, wrote in
om>::

>The radio was alive with two different calls of bingo fuel,

Imagine how chagrined Burt Rutan must be to be associated with these
pilots through his membership in the EAA.

Skylune[_1_]

July 24th 06, 04:05 PM

Not to worry! Skylune is on the job, ready, willing and able to report all
mishaps, house slammings, stupid pilot tricks, etc.

My record so far is good:

I broke the news well over a year ago that the FAA was going to try to
split the GA community over the user fee issue (business vs. recreational
GA). (I am now predicting that there will be user fees, not on GA, AT
FIRST -- Boyer is correct on this.. This will happen when the current
funding formula exprires next year.)

I broke the news on the death of the Aussie AOPA president (which, if you
only read Boyer's stuff, you'd have never known occurred).

I told you that the ADIZ will STAND, despite the thousands of identical,
rhetorical argumemnts posted on the docket (AOPA retread arguments), and
it looks like I will be correct on that point too.

I posted news on selected crashes, including the one at the Sun and Fun
earlier this year.

Should there be any shenanigans at OSH, I will report the unvarnished
details.

Skylune[_1_]

July 24th 06, 04:14 PM

Scooped!

Larry Dighera

July 24th 06, 06:53 PM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:05:05 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>
>Should there be any shenanigans at OSH, I will report the unvarnished
>details.

I'm not interested in shenanigans; I'm interested in the number of
aviation mishaps occurring as a result of EAA's AirVenture. If the
airman community can't stand the public airing of its laundry, it
doesn't deserve the right to exercise its skills.

I am appalled to find that flying to and from the nation's largest
aviation event kills a number of airman each year. I'd like to know
what the EAA is doing to mitigate the carnage that results from their
AirVenture event.

RST Engineering

July 24th 06, 07:51 PM

>soapbox on<

One thing I've written more than my share of letters with no apparent action
taken is the concept of funneling 100% of the approaching aircraft into a
small pipe between Ripon and Fisk and then splitting them into two streams
for the light wind procedures for 18/36 and 9/27. That maximizes the
concentration of aircraft into a small pipe and increases the chances for
trying to occupy the same space with two aluminum masses.

That also means that aircraft approaching Ripon from the north and east make
a belly-up turn to follow the railroad tracks from Ripon to Fisk,
notwithstanding a rather tall steel antenna structure 300' below your belly
coming over Ripon. People that say "Why change? Fisk has been working all
these years." obviously haven't shot that approach all that often. And,
before you say that I don't have the chops to criticize, this is the first
Oshkosh I've missed flying myself from California since 1973.

There are excellent alternatives to the Fisk arrival, most of them involving
the main freeway from Milwaukee to Green Bay. It would be a lot easier and
less hassle to join the gaggle somewhere between Milwaukee and Fond Du Lac
or Green Bay and Appleton than everybody doing the dipsy doodle over Ripon.
And, rather than 2 hour "holds" over a couple of nondescript lakes, there
are a dozen airports to land and refuel when the inevitable gear-up happens
and the airport closes.

Of course, everything is easy for the troops who are already at home during
the Show and never have to mix it up with the hoi polloi who travel several
thousand miles to make the Show what it is. If everybody at Headquarters
who has a say-so about the Fisk approach had to do it at noon every day
during the show, I guarantee you there would be changes.

<soapbox off>

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...

>
> I am appalled to find that flying to and from the nation's largest
> aviation event kills a number of airman each year. I'd like to know
> what the EAA is doing to mitigate the carnage that results from their
> AirVenture event.
>

Newps

July 24th 06, 08:14 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> I am appalled to find that flying to and from the nation's largest
> aviation event kills a number of airman each year.

I'm not appalled at all. I've worked as a controller at many airshows,
all much smaller than OSH. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid so
many pilots are. They have no clue how to operate in controlled
airspace. The fact that there's only 10 or so deaths at OSH is remarkable.

Larry Dighera

July 24th 06, 10:24 PM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:14:06 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I am appalled to find that flying to and from the nation's largest
>> aviation event kills a number of airman each year.
>
>I'm not appalled at all. I've worked as a controller at many airshows,
>all much smaller than OSH. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid so
>many pilots are. They have no clue how to operate in controlled
>airspace. The fact that there's only 10 or so deaths at OSH is remarkable.

It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
their fellows in the eyes of the public.

What can be done to increase their level of competency? Would an FAA
crackdown on the CFIs who signed off on errant airmens' last flight
review help motivate CFIs to provide them with the training they
apparently need?

Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate sicking the Administrator's
minions on any airmen, but I'm unable to conceive of a better way to
sharpen up those airmen who really need it to be safe.

Peter Duniho

July 24th 06, 10:42 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:14:06 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >::
>>
>>I'm not appalled at all. I've worked as a controller at many airshows,
>>all much smaller than OSH. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid so
>>many pilots are. They have no clue how to operate in controlled
>>airspace. The fact that there's only 10 or so deaths at OSH is
>>remarkable.
>
> It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
> Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
> their fellows in the eyes of the public.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at yours and Newps's surprise. Especially his,
since he goes around calling practically everyone stupid anyway.

The truth is, most people are stupid. Half have two-digit IQs. Even among
the supposedly smart people, there's a consistent lack of common sense. And
in spite of those who would like to think we pilots are an elite group,
there's about the same proportion of stupidity in aviation as in the general
population.

Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6 deaths
per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so, with
fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given the huge
amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6 or 10 deaths
per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

What's really annoying is that this sort of predictable outcome is somehow
considered unusually bad by those outside aviation (or those within, for
that matter). People kill themselves doing stupid things all the time. The
only reason we don't have more motor vehicle fatalities each year is that
the vehicles themselves have been made so much safer. We have more
accidents than ever (due to rising population), but fatalities have remained
roughly level at around 50,000 per year. But is that because people have
gotten smarter? Nope...they're just as dumb as they've always been. We've
just engineered some of the risk out of driving.

Similar advancements have not made it to aviation, and of course there are a
variety of reasons that aviation accidents tend to involve higher forces
anyway (airplanes need airspeed to fly, helicopters don't glide very well,
especially if there's been some kind of severe mechanical failure, etc.).
But if the accident rate at Oshkosh, or in GA generally, reflects poorly on
pilots specifically, then it reflects poorly on humanity in general. Those
who look down upon all the people causing accidents forget just what kind of
animal a human is after all.

As long as humans exist, there will be a significant number of them finding
ways to kill themselves. Most of the time, those ways won't even be new and
unique or interesting in any way. They'll just be plain dumb.

Pete

Peter Duniho

July 24th 06, 10:49 PM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
> deaths per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so, with
> fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given the
> huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6 or 10
> deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

Sorry...I misread the AOPA article I was looking at. 2000/year is the
accident rate, not the fatality rate. The fatalities are about a third in
number of the total accident rate.

Still...6 or 10 doesn't sound that out of line, especially when you consider
the high-risk environment (naturally, you will see a higher accident and
fatality rate in higher-risk environments, by definition).

In any case, I still hold to my assertion that no one should be surprised
that there are stupid pilots.

Kyle Boatright

July 25th 06, 12:23 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
>> deaths per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so,
>> with fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given
>> the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6
>> or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA
>> population.
>
> Sorry...I misread the AOPA article I was looking at. 2000/year is the
> accident rate, not the fatality rate. The fatalities are about a third in
> number of the total accident rate.
>
> Still...6 or 10 doesn't sound that out of line, especially when you
> consider the high-risk environment (naturally, you will see a higher
> accident and fatality rate in higher-risk environments, by definition).
>
> In any case, I still hold to my assertion that no one should be surprised
> that there are stupid pilots.

A couple of thoughts:

1) For the Saturday flyer, Oshkosh is one of few times each year when
s/he'll load up the airplane to the max, then have to fly the airplane well
in a tight pattern. This greatly increases the risk factor.

2) Beyond that, lots of aircraft arrive at the fly-in with legal CG's, but
loaded well aft of where the pilot is accustomed to flying the aircraft.

Both of these issues are proficiency related, and I'm not sure anyone but
Darwin can address that one.

Next, there is the idiot factor. I believe the FAA can address some of
this. For example, the person who flys the approach completely wrong,
doesn't follow the NOTAM, etc. Those folks should get pulled aside after
their <hopefully safe> arrival, and the FAA should politely make sure they
have their stuff together...
- Show me your copy of the NOTAM.
- Why didn't you follow the procedures?
- etc.

I'm not calling for this for the guy who bounces a landing, but for the
people who obviously don't have a clue, there should be some remedial action
taken.

KB

Jim Logajan

July 25th 06, 03:16 AM

"Morgans" > wrote:
> There has already been a double fatal crash, today.
>
> At around 8:45 this morning, an experimental came down short of 9/27,
> and both of the occupants died. The Oshkosh papers had no more
> details, but I was able to find one source that said they were from
> Washington state. No other details, as to why they came down short,
> or what kind of plane.

It appears to have been a Europa XS with a married couple from Washington
state. There are more details on some of the messages posted to the
Matronics Europa forum.

Just for the record on the safety record of Oshkosh, this news story,
http://wfrv.com/topstories/local_story_204183942.html
claims:

"EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski says the homebuilt airplane landed short of
the runway at Wittman Regional Airport.

This is the first fatal crash at the air show in a long time. "The weather
conditions were just about perfect, It was perfectly clear, Very little, if
any, wind at the time. It has to be at least 15 years, just a considerable
length of time since something like this occurred at the airport," said
Knapinski."

Also, one message on the Matronics list from someone who claimed to know
the couple well said this was the third Oshkosh trip for them (among other
fly-ins), so the pilot was probably familiar with the demands involved.

Larry Dighera

July 25th 06, 03:17 AM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:42:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>And in spite of those who would like to think we pilots are an elite group,
>there's about the same proportion of stupidity in aviation as in the general
>population.

I find that statistic difficult to accept; perhaps I don't exactly
understand what you mean by "the same proportion." (Are you saying
that 50% of airmen have two digit IQs?)

The vast majority of the general population would find mastering the
art and science of aviation beyond their ken. Even metrology alone is
incomprehensible to most folks.

>Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6 deaths
>per year" claim is supported by historical data.

I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
AirVenture, not per year.

2005 Nall Report information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html
Total Fixed-Wing GA accidents in 2004: 1,413, 290 fatal. (pp 2)

Personal Flying Accidents: 748 total/ 168 fatal

Personal flying (for example: visiting friends or family,
traveling to a vacation home or for recreation) represents about
half (50.1 percent) of all GA flying (involving fixed-wing general
aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less), but
accounts for 73.8 percent of fatal and 70.6 percent of nonfatal
accidents (Figure 25). This type of flying accounted for nearly
three-quarters (72.9 percent) of all weather-related accidents,
and 75.6 percent of weather-related fatal crashes. Fuel management
is another challenge for pilots on personal flights; three out of
four of the total, and 87.5 percent of the fatal fuel management
accidents occurred during this type of flying. Personal flights
also accounted for 72.1 percent of all descent/approach accidents
(77.1 percent of the fatals), and 72.9 percent of landing
accidents (88.9 percent of the fatals).

>But even so, with fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently),

Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
totaling 510 fatalities.

>given the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6
>or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

First, we should be discussing the number of FATAL ACCIDENTS occurring
at AirVenture, not the number of FATALITIES (for it is an accident
that generates a news story or NTSB report). That error (290 vs 2,000
[your figure]) is probably the source of your lack of concern at the
appalling rate of fatal accidents that occur as a result of
AirVenture.

In any event, one would have to have statistics about the AirVenture
accidents to validate your assertion against the Nall Report.

>What's really annoying is that this sort of predictable outcome is somehow
>considered unusually bad by those outside aviation (or those within, for
>that matter).

The general public bestows a smattering of god status on pilots; after
all, we do hold human lives in our hands to a much greater extent than
say, a bus driver. When we fail to meet those expectations, it shakes
the public trust they have placed in us.

>People kill themselves doing stupid things all the time. The
>only reason we don't have more motor vehicle fatalities each year is that
>the vehicles themselves have been made so much safer. We have more
>accidents than ever (due to rising population), but fatalities have remained
>roughly level at around 50,000 per year. But is that because people have
>gotten smarter? Nope...they're just as dumb as they've always been. We've
>just engineered some of the risk out of driving.

That, and the fact that the velocities involved and unforgiving nature
of aviation tend to make what would be a routine matter to a motorist
(say engine failure), a life and death emergency for air travel.

>Similar advancements have not made it to aviation,

With the obvious exception of the ballistic parachute, XM real-time
weather information, GPS navigation, ....

>But if the accident rate at Oshkosh, or in GA generally, reflects poorly on
>pilots specifically, then it reflects poorly on humanity in general. Those
>who look down upon all the people causing accidents forget just what kind of
>animal a human is after all.

Like I said at the beginning of this follow up article, the general
population doesn't have to pass a written and practical examination
that airmen must. I believe that sets airmen apart from the general
population, just as college grads are a considerably unique group
compared to the general population.

But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.

Larry Dighera

July 25th 06, 03:50 AM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:23:06 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in
>::

>A couple of thoughts:

3. The proportion of aircraft building airman who attend AirVenture
is much larger than the general population of pilots. While piloting
requires certain skills and knowledge, home building skills and
knowledge do not significantly contribute to good airmanship. I would
think it would be difficult to MASTER BOTH arts.

[email protected]

July 25th 06, 05:46 AM

>
> What sort of program does the Experimental Aircraft Association have
> in place to reduce the death toll resulting from AirVenture
> attendance?

Alot of times, these aren't the sort of things EAA can do anything
about. What can EAA do about a stall/spin on short final? That's been
happening since shortly after the Wright Bros, and I suspect it always
will.
You can make all the rules you want, but showing up unprepared is hard
to prevent. Sanction and punish, sure maybe (but very much NOT likely),
but not prevent.

I just don't fathom how you can fly to this without at least reading
the NOTAM...

One other story told by Jay: apparantly they heard two pilots flying
together on the air-air frequency; one was trying to download the NOTAM
onto their PDA, and then trying to read it to the other pilot...?!?!

Oy vay!

Morgans[_3_]

July 25th 06, 06:48 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> "EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski says the homebuilt airplane landed short of
> the runway at Wittman Regional Airport.
>
> This is the first fatal crash at the air show in a long time. "The weather
> conditions were just about perfect, It was perfectly clear, Very little,
if
> any, wind at the time. It has to be at least 15 years, just a considerable
> length of time since something like this occurred at the airport," said
> Knapinski."

Although I would not expect any less, they are splitting hairs. If you
counted maneuvering in the pattern, one year (I think '99) there were two
separate fatal stall spin crashes within a mile or two from the airport.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_3_]

July 25th 06, 07:03 AM

> wrote
>
> One other story told by Jay: apparantly they heard two pilots flying
> together on the air-air frequency; one was trying to download the NOTAM
> onto their PDA, and then trying to read it to the other pilot...?!?!

I'll bet I heard at least one pilot an hour that had obviously not read the
NOTAM. Some more slipped through following the leader that I had not
identified, I suspect. Shoot, as I was sitting near my computer last night,
it was nearly 10:00 PM, and I had not closed the live ATC link. I heard
someone trying to raise OSHKOSH tower, with no luck, of course. Someone
finally came (from the ground, on a handheld, I think) on and told them that
they were closed for the night. Is that clueless, or what?

Others had come in (earlier), announced, and were not where they were
supposed to be, and not following procedures, and the controller asked if
they had checked in earlier, according to the notam. No, they answered. He
fit them in, anyway. I would have told them to climb to above pattern
altitude, and to go to Ripon, land and figure it out. Buttheads!
--
Jim in NC

Peter Duniho

July 25th 06, 08:09 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> I find that statistic difficult to accept; perhaps I don't exactly
> understand what you mean by "the same proportion." (Are you saying
> that 50% of airmen have two digit IQs?)

I would be surprised if it's very far from that. I've met plenty of dumb
pilots. I'd guess the majority of GA pilots know little beyond the rote
knowledge required to pass the written exam and oral, and the limited
physical coordination required to keep a Cessna 172 under control.

If you extend the survey to include airline/cargo pilots and business
aviation, I suspect the quality improves somewhat. But even so, I have seen
in every profession a fair number of people who somehow met the minimum
qualifications, and yet really don't know how to do their job right. I
can't imagine that aviation has somehow escaped that truism.

> [...]
>>Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
>>deaths
>>per year" claim is supported by historical data.
>
> I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
> AirVenture, not per year.

Last I checked, AirVenture happens only once a year.

> [...]
> Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
> 2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
> totaling 510 fatalities.

See my other post.

>>given the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced
>>that 6
>>or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA
>>population.
>
> First, we should be discussing the number of FATAL ACCIDENTS occurring
> at AirVenture, not the number of FATALITIES (for it is an accident
> that generates a news story or NTSB report).

Why? The two are roughly proportional, and the numbers posted in this
thread about the issue are fatalities. I'm just trying to keep it
consistent.

> [...]
> The general public bestows a smattering of god status on pilots; after
> all, we do hold human lives in our hands to a much greater extent than
> say, a bus driver.

Who does? Not me. Not you (unless you've got an airline job I don't know
about).

> [...]
> That, and the fact that the velocities involved and unforgiving nature
> of aviation tend to make what would be a routine matter to a motorist
> (say engine failure), a life and death emergency for air travel.

As I already wrote in my post.

>>Similar advancements have not made it to aviation,
>
> With the obvious exception of the ballistic parachute, XM real-time
> weather information, GPS navigation, ....

Note the use of the word "similar". That is, with respect to
crash-worthiness. None of the technologies you mention help make a crash
more survivable. Most do very little to even address the *cause* of
crashes, if at all. Even the ballistic parachute isn't something that would
have helped in most crashes.

> [...]
> Like I said at the beginning of this follow up article, the general
> population doesn't have to pass a written and practical examination
> that airmen must.

You don't really need to know much to pass those tests.

> I believe that sets airmen apart from the general
> population, just as college grads are a considerably unique group
> compared to the general population.

And again, I disagree that college graduates are "a considerably unique
group". Other than the piece of paper they posess, they are basically the
same as everyone else, especially if you are looking mainly near the middle
of the curve (outlyers always complicate things). I have met plenty of
people who graduated from college without learning a damn thing, and I've
met plenty of people who never went to college who still know quite a lot.

> But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
> national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
> view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.

So what? No crash is good PR for GA. And yet, pilots keep crashing.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

Pete

Newps

July 25th 06, 04:10 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> What can be done to increase their level of competency?

They need to fly. The average guy flies 50 hours a year, or less, and
packs up his ****box experimental and heads for OSH. It is inevitable
that carnage ensues. I'm sure the EAA chapters are different around the
country but I get a good laugh when I think of our local one. Here are
people who are average or better tinkerers. Some of the stuff they
build is pretty good. A lot is crap. These people are not pilots, they
are builders. The worst thing that can happen to these guys is they
actually finish their plane. Good Lord, now what? I guess I better fly
this tractor I just spent 15 years building. Meanwhile he never left
the ground once in an airplane in that time. What? It flies? I better
fly this thing to Oshkosh. Class C airspace? What the hell is that?
These people are clueless and have no more business flying anywhere near
a populated city than you or I do driving in the Indy 500 because we
drove on the freeway in our minivan.

Would an FAA
> crackdown on the CFIs who signed off on errant airmens' last flight
> review help motivate CFIs to provide them with the training they
> apparently need?

I don't think so. If people don't fly regularly there's not much the
CFI's can do.

Newps

July 25th 06, 04:14 PM

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Next, there is the idiot factor. I believe the FAA can address some of
> this. For example, the person who flys the approach completely wrong,
> doesn't follow the NOTAM, etc. Those folks should get pulled aside after
> their <hopefully safe> arrival, and the FAA should politely make sure they
> have their stuff together...
> - Show me your copy of the NOTAM.
> - Why didn't you follow the procedures?
> - etc.

I've never been to OSH, but based on what I've seen at other places the
FAA can't dream of having the manpower available to have a chat with
every pilot that screws up the arrival.

Larry Dighera

July 25th 06, 04:28 PM

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:10:23 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >::

>These people are not pilots, they
>are builders. The worst thing that can happen to these guys is they
>actually finish their plane. Good Lord, now what? I guess I better fly
>this tractor I just spent 15 years building. Meanwhile he never left
>the ground once in an airplane in that time. What? It flies? I better
>fly this thing to Oshkosh. Class C airspace? What the hell is that?
>These people are clueless and have no more business flying anywhere near
>a populated city than you or I do driving in the Indy 500 because we
>drove on the freeway in our minivan.

That was my suspicion also, but I didn't want to phrase it as
colorfully as you, least someone be offended.

RST Engineering

July 25th 06, 04:45 PM

With all due respect, what you SHOULD do and what really happens at Oshkosh
are two very separate and distinct things.

Jim

> wrote in message
oups.com...

>
> With all due respect, the last thing you want to do now is approach
> Ripon from the north or east and THEN turn up the tracks.

FlipSide

July 25th 06, 07:06 PM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:24:13 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
>Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
>their fellows in the eyes of the public.
>
>What can be done to increase their level of competency? Would an FAA
>crackdown on the CFIs who signed off on errant airmens' last flight
>review help motivate CFIs to provide them with the training they
>apparently need?
>
>Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate sicking the Administrator's
>minions on any airmen, but I'm unable to conceive of a better way to
>sharpen up those airmen who really need it to be safe.

The certificate the FAA issues is only a "license to learn". They and
the CFI's naturally have to leave most of the compentency issues up to
the individual pilot to step up to the plate and take this "business"
of flying seriously. To practice, read, study, and think critically
about this privilege the government has given them.

But as a low time aviator I am always questioning how to gain the
experience. I love the idea of flying, but more importantly for me, as
it is with any endeavor I undertake, I want to, no...I NEED to be
exceptional at this.

But these questions always arise every time I call out "clear prop":

With limited resources that can only allow me to fly 5 or 6 hours a
month, am I deluding myself that I can ever be truly competent? What
are my limitations? How will I ever know them unless I actually get to
the edge of those limitations? And if I miscalculate even the
slightest amount it could mean disaster.

As I gain more experience, the thing I want to learn most is in
understanding how far to go to expand the experience. To stick the
proverbial toe in the water further and further. But how far?

Those are the questions I have.

The training has to be self-motivated. I don't think this is something
that can be regulated by the FAA or by the CFI's when it comes to
flying, especially for pleasure.

The pliot HAS to take the responsibility. I don't think this level of
commitment is something that can be taught. It has to come from the
individual.

Unfortunately, according to the what the statistics bear out, it
appears that there are some "certificated pilots" that do not have the
level of commtiment that others have.

Morgans[_3_]

July 26th 06, 02:16 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote
>
> Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
deaths
> per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so, with
> fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given the
huge
> amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6 or 10
deaths
> per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

I started looking back at the past few years, and it looks like I jumped the
gun when I said about 6 deaths per year.

Some years it is only a couple, while some years it is that high.
--
Jim in NC

Viperdoc[_1_]

July 26th 06, 02:30 AM

Agree completely. Was listening to the live ATC broadcast, and someone in a
Canadian registered plane calls up and starts talking, also in the wrong
place and completely oblivious. The controller asked him if he had the
arrival notams and where exactly he was, but the guy said he did not have
the information, and was around 5 southwest.

The controller was a model of cool, and went through the normal procedures
to identify the guy and get him sequenced. It's amazing that more crashes
don't actually occur.

Newps

July 26th 06, 04:00 AM

Viperdoc wrote:

> Agree completely. Was listening to the live ATC broadcast, and someone in a
> Canadian registered plane calls up and starts talking, also in the wrong
> place and completely oblivious. The controller asked him if he had the
> arrival notams and where exactly he was, but the guy said he did not have
> the information, and was around 5 southwest.
>
> The controller was a model of cool, and went through the normal procedures
> to identify the guy and get him sequenced. It's amazing that more crashes
> don't actually occur.
>

That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff
and fly the procedure."

Emily[_1_]

July 26th 06, 04:14 AM

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Viperdoc wrote:
>
>> Agree completely. Was listening to the live ATC broadcast, and someone
>> in a Canadian registered plane calls up and starts talking, also in
>> the wrong place and completely oblivious. The controller asked him if
>> he had the arrival notams and where exactly he was, but the guy said
>> he did not have the information, and was around 5 southwest.
>>
>> The controller was a model of cool, and went through the normal
>> procedures to identify the guy and get him sequenced. It's amazing
>> that more crashes don't actually occur.
>>
>
> That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
> direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff
> and fly the procedure."

You have no idea how much I wish controllers at ADS would start doing
that. It's no Oshkosh, but for crying out loud, people, how hard is it
to a)comprehend the requirements for entering class D and b)learn to
read a map and figure out whether we are north or south of the airport?

Travis Marlatte

July 26th 06, 05:16 AM

Increasing competency is not necessary to increase safety. Flying within
your competency level is sufficient.

Sticking more toes in the water is a way of gaining more experience with
reasonable risk. Decisions made with personal awareness and good judgment
are necessary to limit the risk to oneself and to others. Some pilots may be
willing to take on more risk than others but they should be aware that the
public they fly over may not share their passion.

Airplanes are becoming another gun control issue. Looking at accident
statistics, planes don't kill people, pilots do. Accidents do happen and, in
general, the public can handle that. But, when so many accidents occur with
explanations that point to pilot competency, even I start looking for ways
to regulate the jerks from the cockpit.

I used to rent from a club that required logged time or a flight with one of
their instructors within the past 3 months to rent a plane. I have
maintained that rule of thumb as a personal minimum. If I haven't flown in
three months, I'll hire a CFI with the instructions that he or she hold me
up (or bring me up) to flight review standards.

I use NTSB headlines as my mantra during pre-flight. If I think that some
action would look bad as a headline the next morning, I'll do something
about it.

Some might call it paranoia. But I've got six other voices in my head that
says it's not!

Fly as if your life depends on it!

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

<FlipSide> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:24:13 GMT, Larry Dighera >
> wrote:
>
>
>>It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
>>Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
>>their fellows in the eyes of the public.
>>
>>What can be done to increase their level of competency? Would an FAA
>>crackdown on the CFIs who signed off on errant airmens' last flight
>>review help motivate CFIs to provide them with the training they
>>apparently need?
>>
>>Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate sicking the Administrator's
>>minions on any airmen, but I'm unable to conceive of a better way to
>>sharpen up those airmen who really need it to be safe.
>
> The certificate the FAA issues is only a "license to learn". They and
> the CFI's naturally have to leave most of the compentency issues up to
> the individual pilot to step up to the plate and take this "business"
> of flying seriously. To practice, read, study, and think critically
> about this privilege the government has given them.
>
> But as a low time aviator I am always questioning how to gain the
> experience. I love the idea of flying, but more importantly for me, as
> it is with any endeavor I undertake, I want to, no...I NEED to be
> exceptional at this.
>
> But these questions always arise every time I call out "clear prop":
>
> With limited resources that can only allow me to fly 5 or 6 hours a
> month, am I deluding myself that I can ever be truly competent? What
> are my limitations? How will I ever know them unless I actually get to
> the edge of those limitations? And if I miscalculate even the
> slightest amount it could mean disaster.
>
> As I gain more experience, the thing I want to learn most is in
> understanding how far to go to expand the experience. To stick the
> proverbial toe in the water further and further. But how far?
>
> Those are the questions I have.
>
> The training has to be self-motivated. I don't think this is something
> that can be regulated by the FAA or by the CFI's when it comes to
> flying, especially for pleasure.
>
> The pliot HAS to take the responsibility. I don't think this level of
> commitment is something that can be taught. It has to come from the
> individual.
>
> Unfortunately, according to the what the statistics bear out, it
> appears that there are some "certificated pilots" that do not have the
> level of commtiment that others have.

Bruce Riggs

July 26th 06, 05:53 AM

Emily wrote:

>
> You have no idea how much I wish controllers at ADS would start doing
> that. It's no Oshkosh, but for crying out loud, people, how hard is it
> to a)comprehend the requirements for entering class D and b)learn to
> read a map and figure out whether we are north or south of the airport?

Emily, I fly in/out of KADS often, my club is based there. When not
flying, I'm often monitoring tower. It is very infrequent that I hear a
pilot who has not checked in with approach for sequencing. What exactly
are you describing? Pilots who are sequenced, but not following vectors
to the field, or pilots who are calling ADS tower without checking in
with approach first?

FlipSide

July 26th 06, 10:15 AM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:16:17 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
> wrote:

>
>I used to rent from a club that required logged time or a flight with one of
>their instructors within the past 3 months to rent a plane. I have
>maintained that rule of thumb as a personal minimum. If I haven't flown in
>three months, I'll hire a CFI with the instructions that he or she hold me
>up (or bring me up) to flight review standards.
>
But those standards are very basic. When I got did my BFR in April and
later got checked out at the last two flight schools, we went out and
did some steep turns, slow flight, power off and power on stalls, a
simulated emergency and some T&G's. The basics.

But that just barely scraped the surface IMO. Those 1 hour flights met
the FAA minimum requirement and the FBO's insurance requirements but
to me it's not really adding anything towards real compentency.

I am finding that the CFI's that I have flown with lately do not
"hold" anyone to a good enough standard. I have to do that on my own.

A co-worker / friend of mine also got checked out at the same FBO. I
went along for the ride in the back seat. The instructor had him do
the typical maneuvers. During two steep turns, reversing directions,
my friend gained 350 feet in altitude. But the instructor never said
a word to him about it. There were some other things during that
flight that were not as precise as I would have expected them to be.
If I had been the instructor, I would have at least mentioned the fact
that he was not within the standards set out by the FAA.

But I wasn't the instructor so I kept my mouth shut thinking that my
friend is not really gaining anything from this guy. Neither was I.

Perhaps for the insurance requirements it's enough to show that you
can at least get the airplane in the sky, fly it slow and then get it
back on the ground, no matter how sloppy you are at doing it.

>
>Fly as if your life depends on it!

It does.

Emily[_1_]

July 26th 06, 01:31 PM

Bruce Riggs wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>
> Emily, I fly in/out of KADS often, my club is based there. When not
> flying, I'm often monitoring tower. It is very infrequent that I hear a
> pilot who has not checked in with approach for sequencing. What exactly
> are you describing? Pilots who are sequenced, but not following vectors
> to the field, or pilots who are calling ADS tower without checking in
> with approach first?

Mostly the second.

Viperdoc[_3_]

July 26th 06, 02:18 PM

I agree with you- if I had been the controller I would have been sorely
tempted to tell the pilot to get an effing clue and go away until you had
some idea as to what was going on.The idiot tied up a lot of valuable radio
time with his "ah's, uh, I'm not so sure where I am, what do I do next, etc"

Perhaps this is why the OSH controllers are hand picked volunteers.

This reminds me of a time when I was flying at St. Augustine, before they
had a tower. They used multiple simultaneous intersecting runways, and
there was a lot of student training activity as well. Some guy was mumbling
on the CTAF about where he was "over the river" trying to land, blah, blah,
blah, Cessna blah, blah, blah, a 172 blah, blah, blah- you get the picture

.. I announced that I was entering the midfield downwind for another runway,
and he started going through 60 questions as to where I was, what color
airplane, the name of my firstborn, and other quesitons, tying up a lot of
airtime during a busy day.

I told him over the air maybe he should talk less and look out the window
instead.

One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used to
read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less chance
of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have to repeat
is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say again"

It seems to work pretty well so far.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Viperdoc wrote:
>
>> Agree completely. Was listening to the live ATC broadcast, and someone in
>> a Canadian registered plane calls up and starts talking, also in the
>> wrong place and completely oblivious. The controller asked him if he had
>> the arrival notams and where exactly he was, but the guy said he did not
>> have the information, and was around 5 southwest.
>>
>> The controller was a model of cool, and went through the normal
>> procedures to identify the guy and get him sequenced. It's amazing that
>> more crashes don't actually occur.
>>
>
> That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
> direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff and
> fly the procedure."

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 26th 06, 03:08 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I agree with you- if I had been the controller I would have been sorely
> tempted to tell the pilot to get an effing clue and go away until you had
> some idea as to what was going on.The idiot tied up a lot of valuable
> radio time with his "ah's, uh, I'm not so sure where I am, what do I do
> next, etc"
>

The quickest way to solve a problem like this is to get the pilot on the
ground.

>
> One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
> tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used
> to read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less
> chance of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have
> to repeat is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say
> again"
>

I'm a controller at a field with Class C airspace. Some common problems are
pilots talking too much, taxiing too slow, and flying big patterns. When I
began work on my commercial last year I was informed that I broadcast too
little, taxied too fast, and my patterns were too big.

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 03:29 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:18:57 GMT, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>::

>One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
>tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used to
>read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less chance
>of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have to repeat
>is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say again"
>
>It seems to work pretty well so far.

But that technique denies the possibility of the controller correcting
any misunderstanding you may have made.

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 03:36 PM

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:09:03 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
>> AirVenture, not per year.
>
>Last I checked, AirVenture happens only once a year.

But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

>> [...]
>> Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
>> 2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
>> totaling 510 fatalities.
>

The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
(based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture. This
seems like a disproportionately large percentage of weekly fatal
accidents, but without AirVenture operational statistics, it's
difficult to quantify the magnitude of that percentage.

* http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom/stats/activity.html

>> But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
>> national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
>> view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.
>
>So what?

So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
GA fatalities and incompetence.

>My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
>happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
>part.

We disagree.

Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
correct.

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 05:02 PM

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:06:05 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
>::

>On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:24:13 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
>>Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
>>their fellows in the eyes of the public.
>>
>>What can be done to increase their level of competency? Would an FAA
>>crackdown on the CFIs who signed off on errant airmens' last flight
>>review help motivate CFIs to provide them with the training they
>>apparently need?
>>
>>Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate sicking the Administrator's
>>minions on any airmen, but I'm unable to conceive of a better way to
>>sharpen up those airmen who really need it to be safe.
>
>The certificate the FAA issues is only a "license to learn". They and
>the CFI's naturally have to leave most of the compentency issues up to
>the individual pilot to step up to the plate and take this "business"
>of flying seriously. To practice, read, study, and think critically
>about this privilege the government has given them.

While the certificate may be a license to learn, it is the FAA
examiner's duty to assure that the flight instructor has prepared the
student adequately to operate within the NAS without committing
violations, and that the student understands the gravity of his
command responsibilities.

With regard to calling exercising your _right_ to traverse the
navigable airspace a _privilege_, there is room for debate.*

>But as a low time aviator I am always questioning how to gain the
>experience.

Experience is gained one hour aloft at a time. Increasing knowledge
is a result of researching questions that occur as a result of those
hours of operation, and immersing one's self in aviation activities
like participating in the discussions here in rec.aviation.piloting,
hangar discussions with other pilots and CFIs, adding additional
ratings, ...

>I love the idea of flying, but more importantly for me, as
>it is with any endeavor I undertake, I want to, no...I NEED to be
>exceptional at this.

I find it very encouraging to hear that attitude being expressed by a
newly certified airman. It is far more important than perfectly
executing maneuvers alone. Your instructor did a good job.

>But these questions always arise every time I call out "clear prop":

Count yourself among those who will live to gain expert abilities and
knowledge. Too many airmen fail to fully appreciate their aviation
responsibilities, IMHO. These are the fellows who bust airspace,
because they fail to prepare adequately for a flight, don't
know/follow the regulations, and are so complacent, they don't even
know they don't know. An airman can never cease questioning,
learning, and THINKING.

Here's what another pilot had to say on the subject:

From: "Colin Southern"
Subject: Re: Need some advice...Suddenly not so sonfident...
Message-ID: >
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:46:43 +1200

Every pilot gives themselves a fright from time-to-time - and
every time it shakes their confidence. I remember a time when I
flew solo to the training area to practice forced landings without
power - botched them all up - nearly had a mid air collision
rejoining the circuit on the way back - then got the aircraft
stuck in mud at the taxiway after heavy rain - then got the
dreaded call from the tower "... and give us a call on the phone
when you get back to the club". Had me wondering for a while if
flying really was for me - but I got over it, and was glad that I
did.

There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
luck, and empty bag of experience - the trick being to fill the
bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck"

Sounds like you used a little luck - got back safely - and gained
a lot of experience. Take a little time to analyze your decisions
- have a good think about the decisions you made - and why you
made them - and what you'd do in similar circumstances next time -
so that next time you can apply what you've learned - from the
sound of it you've probably already learned several very valuable
lessons. ...

>With limited resources that can only allow me to fly 5 or 6 hours a
>month, am I deluding myself that I can ever be truly competent?

An hour or more of flying per week should be adequate to keep your
skills current, but increasing competency will require those hours to
contain new challenges and experiences. Think up new destinations,
and operations for your practice flights if you want to continue
growing.

>What are my limitations?

There two sources for the answer to that question: the words of a CFI,
and the results of experiences that challenge your latent limitations.
Flying with an instructor never fails to reveal critique of your
performance. Gradually pushing your experience beyond the familiar
will reveal the path beyond your current operational limitations.

>How will I ever know them unless I actually get to
>the edge of those limitations?

Reading and research can help, but edging toward the edge will provide
more indelibly etched knowledge.

>And if I miscalculate even the slightest amount it could mean disaster.

That is true for a PIC all the time. Complacency is a killer in
aviation, just as inattention is for the motorist.

>As I gain more experience, the thing I want to learn most is in
>understanding how far to go to expand the experience. To stick the
>proverbial toe in the water further and further. But how far?

Only you, or your instructor, can answer that, because the answer is
unique to your personal skill set.

>Those are the questions I have.
>
>The training has to be self-motivated. I don't think this is something
>that can be regulated by the FAA or by the CFI's when it comes to
>flying, especially for pleasure.

Agreed, but a CFI who passes an airman undergoing a flight review,
despite the airman's demonstration of a lack of knowledge, skill, or
ability, is not doing that airman a favor.

>The pliot HAS to take the responsibility. I don't think this level of
>commitment is something that can be taught. It has to come from the
>individual.

If the airman fails to appreciate how crucial commitment and
responsibility are to aviating, he will be eliminated from the ranks
of airmen either voluntarily or involuntarily.

>Unfortunately, according to what the statistics bear out, it
>appears that there are some "certificated pilots" that do not have the
>level of commtiment that others have.

The spectrum is broad. There are those who let their egos and
ignorance cloud their judgment and are unjustifiably overconfident,
and there are those who are so apprehensive about committing a fatal
error, that they cease flying altogether.

* Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT

Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
of the United States.

Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.

Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply
recognizes that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the
government, we simply have them. Now, there are certainly rules
to be followed, but those rules don't take away from your rights,
they protect the rights of others.

You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all
the requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate,
you have a right to it.

However, it seems the Law Judge sees it otherwise:

From: "Rick Cremer" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Arrrgghhh!! FAA strikes again...
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0500
Message-ID: >

[...]
NTSB Hearing Order EA-4232; Docket SE-13136. Here is [sic] the
pertinent parts of that Law Judge's finding:

The FAA is charged with being sure that it fulfills its mission to
the public and that is keeping the airways and aircraft that use
these airways safe. Flying is a privilege, it is not a right and
all airmen are charged with discharging their duties in a highly
conscientious, responsible and prudent manner and at all times.
[...]

--
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

FlipSide

July 26th 06, 05:43 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:02:02 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:06:05 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
>::
>

>While the certificate may be a license to learn, it is the FAA
>examiner's duty to assure that the flight instructor has prepared the
>student adequately to operate within the NAS without committing
>violations, and that the student understands the gravity of his
>command responsibilities.
>
Interesting that you mention the role of the DE. The one that gave me
my oral exam and the flight test left me wondering to this day about
his abilities.
During a 2 hour oral exam he asked me maybe 5 or 6 direct questions.
Most of the time we spent talking about his flying career as a naval
aviator. Then during the check ride I didn't think that he was as
tough as he should have been. He seemed so "whatever" about everything
I needed to do and in my mind it seemed I never really performed as
competently as I should have.
But I wonder if he was either so experienced and bright that he could
see and recognize my abilities, or if he was completely incompetent. I
will never know.
>
>
>I find it very encouraging to hear that attitude being expressed by a
>newly certified airman. It is far more important than perfectly
>executing maneuvers alone. Your instructor did a good job.
>
The instructors tought me the skill sets. From them I learned the
technical aspects of how to get the airplane up and down safely, but
the attitude I have about flying did not come from my instructors.
It's all about being a perfectionist, and not a satisfactionist.

The want and desire to be "perfect" at every thing you do, even though
it's never unattainable, should nontheless motivate all Airmen all the
time.

Peter Duniho

July 26th 06, 06:19 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
> annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

Says you. Given that the traffic surrounding Oshkosh is not limited to a
single week, and given that GA traffic in general has a significant increase
during the period that is affected by Oshkosh, and given that the quoted
statistics are stated for "Oshkosh" and not for a specified time period, I'd
say it makes quite a lot of sense to look at Oshkosh incidents relative to
the total annual count. Otherwise, you have do a LOT more statistical
analysis than your simplistic "per week" count, controlling for all the
variables that make an Oshkosh week very different from other weeks during
the year.

I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
specifically. And comparing on an annual basis shows that pilots are quite
effective at crashing planes and killing people year-round. We could stop
Oshkosh altogether, and not make any noticeable change in the annual
accident rate.

> The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
> but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
> week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
> (based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture.

You are assigning any fatalities associated with Oshkosh, but are
arbitrarily assigning the time period as a week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during the week of Oshkosh are
comparable to flying operations during every other week of the year. That's
a flaw in your thinking.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during a summer week are
comparable to flying operatings during a winter week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

Also, you are assuming that the relative hazard associated with Oshkosh,
where there's an *extremely* high density of air traffic, is comparable to
the relative hazard at any other airport, regardless of how few operations
that airport may see. That's a flaw in your thinking.

Your thinking has a lot of flaws in it.

> So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
> GA fatalities and incompetence.

Why not? It's a poster child for every other aspect of GA. Why should it
not be a poster child for the truth that GA is filled with incompetent
pilots?

The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
and not excluded from GA.

>>My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
>>happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
>>part.
>
> We disagree.

Of course you disagree. You're surprised and I'm saying you shouldn't be.
I would be surprised if you *didn't* disagree.

> Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
> correct.

The operational statistics of AirVenture have nothing to do with whether you
should be surprised or not.

Pete

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 06:28 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:43:53 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
>::

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:02:02 GMT, Larry Dighera >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:06:05 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
>::
>>
>
>Interesting that you mention the role of the DE. The one that gave me
>my oral exam and the flight test left me wondering to this day about
>his abilities.
>During a 2 hour oral exam he asked me maybe 5 or 6 direct questions.
>Most of the time we spent talking about his flying career as a naval
>aviator. Then during the check ride I didn't think that he was as
>tough as he should have been. He seemed so "whatever" about everything
>I needed to do and in my mind it seemed I never really performed as
>competently as I should have.
>But I wonder if he was either so experienced and bright that he could
>see and recognize my abilities, or if he was completely incompetent. I
>will never know.

There's a good chance that the CFI, who trained you and signed-off on
your checkride with the DE, spoke to the DE in advance, and related
his assessment of your skills. Perhaps that's what put the DE at ease
in your case.

>>
>>I find it very encouraging to hear that attitude being expressed by a
>>newly certified airman. It is far more important than perfectly
>>executing maneuvers alone. Your instructor did a good job.
>>
>The instructors tought me the skill sets. From them I learned the
>technical aspects of how to get the airplane up and down safely, but
>the attitude I have about flying did not come from my instructors.
>It's all about being a perfectionist, and not a satisfactionist.
>
>The want and desire to be "perfect" at every thing you do, even though
>it's never unattainable [sic] , should nontheless motivate all Airmen all the
>time.

If you meant 'attainable' there, I agree, and you have provided an
example. :-)

RST Engineering

July 26th 06, 06:29 PM

>
> Perhaps this is why the OSH controllers are hand picked volunteers.
>

That used to be true. As I understand it now, it is a simple time-in-grade
procedure. That is, if you work in the Great Lakes region, the folks who
have been ATC the longest get preference over the younger (but perhaps
"better") controllers. Please correct me if I am wrong. I've heard a
couple this year who were absolutely excellent and a couple I wouldn't trust
to control a bicycle.

While I'm on a rant, there was an @$$#0!e yesterday who called in "at the
shoreline" asking for landing clearance at OSH. This with the normal noon
heavy inbound and outbound, the NS airspace with the flyby demonstrations,
Blue Angel #7 making a few passes for the crowd, and the normal gaggle of
folks flailing about the airspace doing their best to keep the flow going.
The "shoreline" of Lake Winnebago is what, 50 miles long? Above Appleton to
below FondDuLac?

Controller tells the idiot to follow the Ripon approach procedures. "I ...
um ... left the ... um ... notam ... on the ... um ... breakfast ... um ...
table ... um ... could ...um ... you ... um ... read the procedure ... um
.... to me?"

Controller: "Sir, there are ten airports within a 20 mile radius of Oshkosh.
Please land at one of them and get a notam procedure. And the field is
closed to general aviation aircraft."

Idiot: "...um ... I've got special parking ... um ... permission ... and ...
um ... I don't ... um ... think (SQUEEL as tower tries to control traffic
over the idiot's transmission) ... get there before ... um ... you close the
.... um ... airport for the ... um ... airshow.

Controller: "OK, sir, go to Ripon and follow the railroad tracks to Fisk.
Monitor 120.7 and follow the Fisk controller's directions.

Idiot: " ... um ... where's Ripon?"

Controller: "Sir, look on your sectional chart. It is about fifteen miles
southwest of Oshkosh."

Idiot "... um ... I've only ... um ... got instrument charts ... um ... with
me. Is ... um ... Ripon ... an ... intersection?"

Controller: "Yes sir, you ought to be able to call it up on your GPS."

Idiot: " ... um ... ... um ... Oh, yeah, there it is. Now I ... um ...
follow the railroad ... um ... tracks southwest ... to find ... Fisk?"

Controller: "No, sir, Fisk is northeast of Ripon."

And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
then something is rotten in Denmark.

Jim

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 06:49 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote in >::

>And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
>and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
>then something is rotten in Denmark.

It's pretty clear from the information you provided, that the airman
in question was at least in violation of:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1de74710b574072d8d35f1c6c7a7f4e8&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
§ 91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
This information must include— ...

When ATC fails to issue a "call the tower" request in these
situations, I wonder if it's kindness, or irresponsibility.

FlipSide

July 26th 06, 06:56 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:28:05 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>>
>>The want and desire to be "perfect" at every thing you do, even though
>>it's never unattainable [sic] , should nontheless motivate all Airmen all the
>>time.
>
>If you meant 'attainable' there, I agree, and you have provided an
>example. :-)

oops....did some editing at the last minute and left a combination of
two different sentences....indeed.... it's never attainable.

Jose[_1_]

July 26th 06, 06:56 PM

> I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
> it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
> correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
> specifically.

The more flights, the more crashes. It's that simple. At the very
least, dividing the number of accidents by the number of airport
operations would make a much more enlightening comparision. Yes, there
are other variables, as you indicated. But I suspect that the sheer
number of operations at Oshkosh would overwhelm most of the other
variables to first order.

> The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
> find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
> incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
> are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
> and not excluded from GA.

There's also a difference between "incometent" and "imperfect". Where
is the line? Sure I can find clear examples in each camp, but what are
the examples for which you (or anyone else) would not be sure which camp
it belongs in?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 26th 06, 07:19 PM

I heard that guy too. They also had to spell Ripon for him. There was no
point in his radio communication that he showed the least bit of skill. I
really thought that it was going to end badly.

Since he said he was coming in IFR I looked around on Flight Aware to see if
I could figure out who he was and what he was flying. But there is no way to
look up a partial N# and I couldn't find anything listed with the partial he
called.

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> Perhaps this is why the OSH controllers are hand picked volunteers.
>>
>
> That used to be true. As I understand it now, it is a simple
> time-in-grade procedure. That is, if you work in the Great Lakes region,
> the folks who have been ATC the longest get preference over the younger
> (but perhaps "better") controllers. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> I've heard a couple this year who were absolutely excellent and a couple I
> wouldn't trust to control a bicycle.
>
> While I'm on a rant, there was an @$$#0!e yesterday who called in "at the
> shoreline" asking for landing clearance at OSH. This with the normal noon
> heavy inbound and outbound, the NS airspace with the flyby demonstrations,
> Blue Angel #7 making a few passes for the crowd, and the normal gaggle of
> folks flailing about the airspace doing their best to keep the flow going.
> The "shoreline" of Lake Winnebago is what, 50 miles long? Above Appleton
> to below FondDuLac?
>
> Controller tells the idiot to follow the Ripon approach procedures. "I
> ... um ... left the ... um ... notam ... on the ... um ... breakfast ...
> um ... table ... um ... could ...um ... you ... um ... read the procedure
> ... um ... to me?"
>
> Controller: "Sir, there are ten airports within a 20 mile radius of
> Oshkosh. Please land at one of them and get a notam procedure. And the
> field is closed to general aviation aircraft."
>
> Idiot: "...um ... I've got special parking ... um ... permission ... and
> ... um ... I don't ... um ... think (SQUEEL as tower tries to control
> traffic over the idiot's transmission) ... get there before ... um ... you
> close the ... um ... airport for the ... um ... airshow.
>
> Controller: "OK, sir, go to Ripon and follow the railroad tracks to Fisk.
> Monitor 120.7 and follow the Fisk controller's directions.
>
> Idiot: " ... um ... where's Ripon?"
>
> Controller: "Sir, look on your sectional chart. It is about fifteen
> miles southwest of Oshkosh."
>
> Idiot "... um ... I've only ... um ... got instrument charts ... um ...
> with me. Is ... um ... Ripon ... an ... intersection?"
>
> Controller: "Yes sir, you ought to be able to call it up on your GPS."
>
> Idiot: " ... um ... ... um ... Oh, yeah, there it is. Now I ... um ...
> follow the railroad ... um ... tracks southwest ... to find ... Fisk?"
>
> Controller: "No, sir, Fisk is northeast of Ripon."
>
> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
> then something is rotten in Denmark.
>
> Jim
>
>
>

Peter R.

July 26th 06, 07:28 PM

RST Engineering > wrote:

> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
> then something is rotten in Denmark.

Jim, did you hear that on LiveATC? If so, what time yesterday? I want to
pull the archives and listen to this fine exchange.

--
Peter

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 07:30 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:19:25 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
>> annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.
>
>Says you.

Yes. You are correct.

This branch of this discussion began with Message-ID:
>, and refers to EAA
AirVenture. EAA AirVenture 2006 takes place July 24 through 30 at
Wittman Regional (OSH). That is the sole time period to which I was
referring.

>Given that the traffic surrounding Oshkosh is not limited to a
>single week, and given that GA traffic in general has a significant increase
>during the period that is affected by Oshkosh, and given that the quoted
>statistics are stated for "Oshkosh" and not for a specified time period, I'd
>say it makes quite a lot of sense to look at Oshkosh incidents relative to
>the total annual count.

Of course, you are free to hold your opinions and discuss what you
like, but I prefer to limit my discussion in this thread to the period
of time during which EAA AirVenture is held.

>Otherwise, you have do a LOT more statistical
>analysis than your simplistic "per week" count, controlling for all the
>variables that make an Oshkosh week very different from other weeks during
>the year.

Personally, I find limiting the analysis to the time period in which
EAA AirVenture is held easier, but lacking EAA AirVenture operational
statistics is problematic.

It is precisely the unique nature of AirVenture and its national news
coverage that moves me to point out the embarrassment caused by errant
airmen attendees.

>I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
>it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
>correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
>specifically.

I don't know to what variables you are referring.

Regardless, it is not the fact that pilots crash with which I am
taking issue; it is the apparently disproportionate number of them
that occur and are reported in the national news media during EAA
AirVenture that I find surprising.

>And comparing on an annual basis shows that pilots are quite
>effective at crashing planes and killing people year-round. We could stop
>Oshkosh altogether, and not make any noticeable change in the annual
>accident rate.

That is probably true, but it fails to explain the _disproportionate_
number of crashes that occur during EAA AirVenture.

>> The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
>> but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
>> week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
>> (based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture.
>
>You are assigning any fatalities associated with Oshkosh, but are
>arbitrarily assigning the time period as a week. That's a flaw in your
>thinking.

I'm assigning fatalities? I don't think so.

I'm not even discussing fatalities; I'm discussing fatal accidents
that occur during EAA AirVenture week. It is the accidents that
generate new coverage, not the number of people involved in them.

The time period of EAA AirVenture is on week from Monday to Sunday. I
seek to compare the number of fatal accidents (not fatalities) that
occur at EAA AirVenture to the average number of fatal accidents that
occur annually. It seems like EAA AirVenture attendees may have more
than their share of fatal accidents than the general population of
airmen.

>Also, you are assuming that flying operations during the week of Oshkosh are
>comparable to flying operations during every other week of the year. That's
>a flaw in your thinking.

I don't believe that for a minute. You are jumping to unfounded
conclusions.

It is precisely the unique nature of EAA AirVenture operations by
attendees that I am seeking to illuminate.

>Also, you are assuming that flying operations during a summer week are
>comparable to flying operatings during a winter week. That's a flaw in your
>thinking.

So, you feel that the fatal crashes of EAA AirVenture attendees are
precipitated by the season of the year? I'd need to see some
substantiating information before I'd swallow that analysis.

>Also, you are assuming that the relative hazard associated with Oshkosh,
>where there's an *extremely* high density of air traffic, is comparable to
>the relative hazard at any other airport, regardless of how few operations
>that airport may see. That's a flaw in your thinking.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I'm questioning the wisdom of
creating such a hazardous situation.

>Your thinking has a lot of flaws in it.

Apparently, I have failed to make my thoughts clear enough for you to
comprehend them.

>> So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
>> GA fatalities and incompetence.
>
>Why not? It's a poster child for every other aspect of GA. Why should it
>not be a poster child for the truth that GA is filled with incompetent
>pilots?

We apparently disagree significantly about this issue. Given that
remark, I doubt I will be able to sway you to my way of thinking, and
I will cease to attempt it.

>The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
>find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
>incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
>are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
>and not excluded from GA.
>
>>>My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
>>>happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
>>>part.
>>
>> We disagree.
>
>Of course you disagree. You're surprised and I'm saying you shouldn't be.
>I would be surprised if you *didn't* disagree.
>
>> Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
>> correct.
>
>The operational statistics of AirVenture have nothing to do with whether you
>should be surprised or not.
>
>Pete
>

John Clear

July 26th 06, 07:44 PM

In article >,
Peter R. > wrote:
>RST Engineering > wrote:
>
>> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
>> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
>> then something is rotten in Denmark.
>
>Jim, did you hear that on LiveATC? If so, what time yesterday? I want to
>pull the archives and listen to this fine exchange.

I heard the same bozo on LiveATC yesterday. I don't remember the
time, but he was trying to get in before the airshow closed the
field, so ~2pm?

Jim's account of the bozo is actually too kind. The controller
had to spell out Ripon and Fisk, and repeat the frequency several
times.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 26th 06, 07:44 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> I heard that guy too. They also had to spell Ripon for him. There was no
> point in his radio communication that he showed the least bit of skill. I
> really thought that it was going to end badly.
>
> Since he said he was coming in IFR I looked around on Flight Aware to see
> if I could figure out who he was and what he was flying. But there is no
> way to look up a partial N# and I couldn't find anything listed with the
> partial he called.
>

If he was coming in IFR then there'd be no reason for the tower to even
mention Ripon to him and his report "at the shoreline" could only be the
point where the VOR RWY 27 final approach course crossed the west shore of
Lake Winnebago.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 26th 06, 07:47 PM

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Peter R. > wrote:
>>RST Engineering > wrote:
>>
>>> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy
>>> down
>>> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
>>> then something is rotten in Denmark.
>>
>>Jim, did you hear that on LiveATC? If so, what time yesterday? I want to
>>pull the archives and listen to this fine exchange.
>
> I heard the same bozo on LiveATC yesterday. I don't remember the
> time, but he was trying to get in before the airshow closed the
> field, so ~2pm?
>
> Jim's account of the bozo is actually too kind. The controller
> had to spell out Ripon and Fisk, and repeat the frequency several
> times.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/
>

I want to say the first call was a little after 13:30 cst

Gig 601XL Builder

July 26th 06, 07:49 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I heard that guy too. They also had to spell Ripon for him. There was no
>> point in his radio communication that he showed the least bit of skill. I
>> really thought that it was going to end badly.
>>
>> Since he said he was coming in IFR I looked around on Flight Aware to see
>> if I could figure out who he was and what he was flying. But there is no
>> way to look up a partial N# and I couldn't find anything listed with the
>> partial he called.
>>
>
> If he was coming in IFR then there'd be no reason for the tower to even
> mention Ripon to him and his report "at the shoreline" could only be the
> point where the VOR RWY 27 final approach course crossed the west shore of
> Lake Winnebago.
>

I believe he had canceled IFR before he called in. He was VFR at the time of
the exchange.

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 26th 06, 07:59 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> I believe he had canceled IFR before he called in. He was VFR at the time
> of the exchange.

He said he was coming in IFR some time after he cancelled IFR?

RST Engineering

July 26th 06, 08:00 PM

I want to say something around 11:30 PDT, or 1:30 Oshkosh time.

Jim

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering > wrote:
>
>> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
>> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
>> then something is rotten in Denmark.
>
> Jim, did you hear that on LiveATC? If so, what time yesterday? I want to
> pull the archives and listen to this fine exchange.
>
> --
> Peter

RST Engineering

July 26th 06, 08:04 PM

He did NOT say he was coming in IFR. He simply called in "at the
shoreline". He never mentioned IFR except to say he only had the instrument
charts with him and no sectional.

Jim

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I believe he had canceled IFR before he called in. He was VFR at the time
>> of the exchange.
>
> He said he was coming in IFR some time after he cancelled IFR?
>

Viperdoc[_3_]

July 26th 06, 10:02 PM

Isn't the procedure for IFR arrivals to do the VFR approaches via Ripon if
there are VMC conditions?

Peter R.

July 26th 06, 10:06 PM

RST Engineering > wrote:

> I want to say something around 11:30 PDT, or 1:30 Oshkosh time.

OK, found the exchange and edited the clip to only contain the relevant
communications for anyone interested in hearing it. Note that the LiveATC
OSH feed is monitoring a few different frequencies, so there are a couple
of sections where some of the ATC or pilot's comms are clipped.

The link to the MP3 file of the exchange at about 4.5 Mb in size, available
for two weeks from today (Spread-It's limit for free file sharing):

http://tinyurl.com/lu6uu

--
Peter

Ken Finney

July 26th 06, 10:08 PM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>I want to say something around 11:30 PDT, or 1:30 Oshkosh time.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> RST Engineering > wrote:
>>
>>> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy
>>> down
>>> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
>>> then something is rotten in Denmark.
>>
>> Jim, did you hear that on LiveATC? If so, what time yesterday? I want to
>> pull the archives and listen to this fine exchange.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
>

If anyone finds the exact file, will they post the link here?

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 26th 06, 10:34 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> Isn't the procedure for IFR arrivals to do the VFR approaches via Ripon if
> there are VMC conditions?
>

2006 AirVenture NOTAM:

"All IFR arrivals, except turbojet, turboprop and air carrier aircraft, are
strongly encouraged to cancel their IFR flight plan 60 NM from Oshkosh,
when the ceiling at Oshkosh is reported at or above 4,500' and the
visibility is greater than 5 miles."

"After canceling IFR, pilots must execute the VFR arrival procedures
from over Ripon (see pages 5-7)."

Ken Finney

July 26th 06, 10:40 PM

THANKS!

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> RST Engineering > wrote:
>
>> I want to say something around 11:30 PDT, or 1:30 Oshkosh time.
>
> OK, found the exchange and edited the clip to only contain the relevant
> communications for anyone interested in hearing it. Note that the LiveATC
> OSH feed is monitoring a few different frequencies, so there are a couple
> of sections where some of the ATC or pilot's comms are clipped.
>
> The link to the MP3 file of the exchange at about 4.5 Mb in size,
> available
> for two weeks from today (Spread-It's limit for free file sharing):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lu6uu
>
>
> --
> Peter

Matt Whiting

July 26th 06, 10:46 PM

Viperdoc wrote:

> One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
> tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used to
> read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less chance
> of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have to repeat
> is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say again"

So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?

Matt

Matt Whiting

July 26th 06, 10:49 PM

RST Engineering wrote:

>>Perhaps this is why the OSH controllers are hand picked volunteers.
>>
>
>
> That used to be true. As I understand it now, it is a simple time-in-grade
> procedure. That is, if you work in the Great Lakes region, the folks who
> have been ATC the longest get preference over the younger (but perhaps
> "better") controllers. Please correct me if I am wrong. I've heard a
> couple this year who were absolutely excellent and a couple I wouldn't trust
> to control a bicycle.
>
> While I'm on a rant, there was an @$$#0!e yesterday who called in "at the
> shoreline" asking for landing clearance at OSH. This with the normal noon
> heavy inbound and outbound, the NS airspace with the flyby demonstrations,
> Blue Angel #7 making a few passes for the crowd, and the normal gaggle of
> folks flailing about the airspace doing their best to keep the flow going.
> The "shoreline" of Lake Winnebago is what, 50 miles long? Above Appleton to
> below FondDuLac?
>
> And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
> and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
> then something is rotten in Denmark.

Should have just requested Blue #7 to take him out. :-)

Matt

Newps

July 26th 06, 10:55 PM

Viperdoc wrote:

>
> Perhaps this is why the OSH controllers are hand picked volunteers.

They are volunteers, nothing more, nothing less.

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 11:12 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:46:30 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?

Yes.

Matt Whiting

July 26th 06, 11:14 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:46:30 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >::
>
>
>>So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>
>
> Yes.

I'll stick with a quick readback of the numbers. Takes very little time
given the relative importance of getting things right when in IMC.

Matt

Larry Dighera

July 26th 06, 11:20 PM

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:14:58 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:46:30 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote in >::
>>
>>
>>>So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
>I'll stick with a quick readback of the numbers. Takes very little time
>given the relative importance of getting things right when in IMC.
>

Right. I didn't say it was a good idea, but there is no regulation of
which I am aware, that requires reading back IFR clearance
instructions.

Matt Whiting

July 26th 06, 11:23 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:14:58 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >::
>
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:46:30 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>>>wrote in >::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>I'll stick with a quick readback of the numbers. Takes very little time
>>given the relative importance of getting things right when in IMC.
>>
>
>
> Right. I didn't say it was a good idea, but there is no regulation of
> which I am aware, that requires reading back IFR clearance
> instructions.

I'm not aware of one either, but everything I've read or been taught on
the subject says to read back your IFR clearance and any amendments.
Interesting...

Matt

Newps

July 27th 06, 12:21 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Viperdoc wrote:
>
>> One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a
>> contract tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice,
>> when I used to read back every instruction: the less you say over the
>> air, the less chance of screwing something up. The only thing that you
>> absolutely have to repeat is a hold short instruction, the rest can be
>> "roger", or "say again"
>
>
> So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?

Yes, there's no requirement to read it back.

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 27th 06, 01:38 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>

Yes, many do.

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 27th 06, 01:40 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll stick with a quick readback of the numbers. Takes very little time
> given the relative importance of getting things right when in IMC.
>

That's fine, but the answer to your question is still "Yes".

Grumman-581[_1_]

July 27th 06, 02:47 AM

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:14:37 -0600, Newps > wrote:
> I've never been to OSH, but based on what I've seen at other places the
> FAA can't dream of having the manpower available to have a chat with
> every pilot that screws up the arrival.

Considering the number of planes that fly into there during such a
short timespan, I think they do pretty damn good... I've flow in and
out of there 3 times so far... A little research (i.e. read the
****in' NOTAM beforehand) and things go pretty good... Be familiar
enough with the various approaches that you can handle the case where
they change approaches on you and you'll do fine... Nothing quite like
the bit of adrenaline rush of being in the flare and then the
controllers asking you to switch to the parallel runway... Oh yeah,
you should also be familiar with your plane so that you can handle
these impromptu diversions...

Larry Dighera

July 27th 06, 03:45 AM

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:38:46 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>>
>
>Yes, many do.
>

Would those who do be primarily aircarrier flights on the same old
route day after day?

Matt Whiting

July 27th 06, 04:37 AM

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>>
>
>
> Yes, many do.

Interesting. In 10+ years of instrument flying, mostly in the
northeast, I've yet to hear a pilot NOT read back his/her IFR clearance.
Maybe this is a regional thing.

Matt

Matt Whiting

July 27th 06, 04:39 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:38:46 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> et>::
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>So I can just "Roger" my instrument clearance and be on my way?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, many do.
>>
>
>
> Would those who do be primarily aircarrier flights on the same old
> route day after day?

The airline pilots I've heard in Logan, Philly, BWI and Washington
National (I flew in there a few years prior to 9/11), all read back
their clearances. I'd think it even more important for the folks flying
the same route day in and day out. They would be most likely to miss a
route change as the brain often hears what it expects to hear, not what
was actually said.

Matt

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 27th 06, 10:55 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would those who do be primarily aircarrier flights on the same old
> route day after day?
>

No, they generally read back the whole thing. Probably company policy.

[email protected]

July 27th 06, 02:30 PM

Viperdoc wrote:
> Isn't the procedure for IFR arrivals to do the VFR approaches via Ripon if
> there are VMC conditions?

I think that is the recommendation, but from a practical standpoint
it's not uncommon to stay IFR all the way in, especially the bigger and
heavier you are.

Hope you are well! I did finally get that waiver, took months.

Ryan Wubben

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 03:30 AM

On 27 Jul 2006 06:30:30 -0700, wrote:

>
>Viperdoc wrote:
>> Isn't the procedure for IFR arrivals to do the VFR approaches via Ripon if
>> there are VMC conditions?

The last time they brought me straight in to 27 on the VOR. Just
fitted me between a couple of others. Unfortunately we had a window
poster for parking in front of the tower and the ground crew took us
off the left side of 27. We had to taxi clear to the end, around past
Baslers, the East end of 27, and then the diagonal runway used as a
taxiway which is where we picked up an escorte to the parking behind
the safety shack.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>I think that is the recommendation, but from a practical standpoint
>it's not uncommon to stay IFR all the way in, especially the bigger and
>heavier you are.
>
>Hope you are well! I did finally get that waiver, took months.
>
>Ryan Wubben
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 05:33 AM

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:04:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

> > > I wonder how many mishaps occur annually at Air Venture?
>>
>> That's easy. Just read the NTSB and FAA accident pages each day.
>
>There has already been a double fatal crash, today.
>
>At around 8:45 this morning, an experimental came down short of 9/27, and
>both of the occupants died. The Oshkosh papers had no more details, but I
>was able to find one source that said they were from Washington state. No
>other details, as to why they came down short, or what kind of plane.
>
>It is a rare year that at least 6 don't die either on the way to or on the
>way home from Osh. Some years there are no fatals in the immediate area,
>and some years there are several fatals due to airport operations.

I started going in 95. Then ended up working in the homebuilders
center. I'd arrive about 4 or 5 days to a week before the show
started. I'd usually leave a couple of days before the finish. I
haven't gone in a few years as I just don't have the stamina to handle
the heat on the hot days and I was there when the actual temperature
was well over a 100.

At any rate in all the years I was there, no one was killed "while I
was there". One year a guy piled up a jet war bird short of the runway
the day after I left. He got out but his wife didn't. The worst I saw
was when the F4U Corsair hit the other warbird on the runway right in
front of me over by the safety shack.

I got to see "Old Crow" do a landing on one wheel with a 90 degree
cross wind and then try to imitate a "Frisbee" when the right wing hit
the dirt. She was about to touch down when I remembered both cameras
were in the home builder's center.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 05:37 AM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:50:21 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 23 Jul 2006 20:46:38 -0700, wrote in
om>::
>
>>The radio was alive with two different calls of bingo fuel,
>
>Imagine how chagrined Burt Rutan must be to be associated with these
>pilots through his membership in the EAA.

Flight plan only requires to your destination plus a half hour. Not
many are going to plan on more than an extra hour in the air. Me? I'm
paranoid about fuel and rarely go any where without full tanks. If I
couldn't get into OSH I could use Atlanta as an alternate.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 06:00 AM

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:44:37 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:04:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::
>
>>It is a rare year that at least 6 don't die either on the way to or on the
>>way home from Osh.

It's not usually quite that bad and is usually a lot better than
Sun-n'-fun..

>
>That is truly tragic and pathetic. Is that the best airmen can do?

The majority usually do happen some where other than at the field so
we don't hear about them until later.

>
>>Some years there are no fatals in the immediate area,
>>and some years there are several fatals due to airport operations.
>
>I would say they were probably due to pilot incompetence rather than
>blame airport operations.
>
>What sort of image do such statistics about airmen conger in the minds
>of the lay public?

Probably about the same as they do in mine.

We were all taught stabilized patterns as students, but few go much
beyond that. Fewer yet practice to the point of not only knowing the
edges of the envelope for the planes they fly, but being able to feel
the edge.

Put a pilot who is used to flying a stabilized pattern and carries an
extra 10 knots for comfort on final, five for the kids, five for ma,
and the full gust factor into a line of planes that causes him to get
any where near MCA to stay in line and it's a receipt for disaster.

Now he's flying at unfamiliar airspeeds, has people telling him when
to turn base and final at such slow airspeeds, and he gets rattled
when ever he sees another plane within a 1000 feel let alone 500. Now
he finds planes within a couple hundred feet. Instead of S-turns to
stay clear of the plane in front he slows down more and gets fixated
on the tail of the plane in front and forgets to watch the air speed.
He doesn't even have to cross control on base to final to stall. It's
a wonder more don't end up short of the runway.

As I've said before, this is no place for a pilot who always flies a
stabilized pattern and doesn't know the limitations of the airplane
and the feel of those limitations.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>What sort of program does the Experimental Aircraft Association have
>in place to reduce the death toll resulting from AirVenture
>attendance?
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 06:03 AM

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:48:11 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Logajan" > wrote
>
>> "EAA spokesman Dick Knapinski says the homebuilt airplane landed short of
>> the runway at Wittman Regional Airport.
>>
>> This is the first fatal crash at the air show in a long time. "The weather
>> conditions were just about perfect, It was perfectly clear, Very little,
>if
>> any, wind at the time. It has to be at least 15 years, just a considerable
>> length of time since something like this occurred at the airport," said
>> Knapinski."
>
>Although I would not expect any less, they are splitting hairs. If you
>counted maneuvering in the pattern, one year (I think '99) there were two
>separate fatal stall spin crashes within a mile or two from the airport.

Don't forget the jet warbird that crashed on a city street when he got
too slow a few years back either.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Morgans[_3_]

July 28th 06, 07:16 AM

"Roger" > wrote

> I started going in 95. Then ended up working in the homebuilders
> center. I'd arrive about 4 or 5 days to a week before the show
> started. I'd usually leave a couple of days before the finish. I
> haven't gone in a few years as I just don't have the stamina to handle
> the heat on the hot days and I was there when the actual temperature
> was well over a 100.
>
> At any rate in all the years I was there, no one was killed "while I
> was there". One year a guy piled up a jet war bird short of the runway
> the day after I left. He got out but his wife didn't. The worst I saw
> was when the F4U Corsair hit the other warbird on the runway right in
> front of me over by the safety shack.

Yep, it isn't every year that someone is killed right at the airport, but in
one year (I think it was 2000) there were two fatal crashes, one right off
the end of 36, (but technically not on airport grounds) and another about a
mile or so from the runway. Both seemed to be too slow-spin crash
accidents. In the same year, there were several other crashes , mostly due
to some bad weather, with people going to or going home from the show.

I was counting people going to, landing or taking off from, or going home,
from the OSH show. I was surprised that I remembered that being a pretty
constant number, but that year was 7, I think. The years from 2001 to
present, the numbers *were* less, to my surprise, but usually at least a
couple had OSH as destination, or departure in the NTSB reports.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_3_]

July 28th 06, 07:20 AM

"Roger" > wrote
>
> I got to see "Old Crow" do a landing on one wheel with a 90 degree
> cross wind and then try to imitate a "Frisbee" when the right wing hit
> the dirt. She was about to touch down when I remembered both cameras
> were in the home builder's center.

I remember one year ('99, I think), it was real gusty, wind out of about
270, and Aluminum Overcast was doing an overhead approach to landing on 18.
He got so low, I thought for sure he was going to crash, from hitting the
wing on the ground.

I heard later that he didn't hit the ground, but he was so close, he hit the
wingtip on a landing light and bent up the wing tip. OOps!!! At least he
didn't pile it up!
--
Jim in NC

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 07:36 AM

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:00:22 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Viperdoc wrote:
>
>> Agree completely. Was listening to the live ATC broadcast, and someone in a
>> Canadian registered plane calls up and starts talking, also in the wrong
>> place and completely oblivious. The controller asked him if he had the
>> arrival notams and where exactly he was, but the guy said he did not have
>> the information, and was around 5 southwest.
>>
>> The controller was a model of cool, and went through the normal procedures
>> to identify the guy and get him sequenced. It's amazing that more crashes
>> don't actually occur.
>>
>
>That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
>direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff
>and fly the procedure."

Ahhh... I'd think the last thing I'd want to do it take some one who
has already proven themselves to be completely clueless turn around
and fly *toward* all those airplanes coming into Oshkosh. If he's 5
SW he's already in the dense traffic with far more coming toward him
than away.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Morgans[_3_]

July 28th 06, 07:50 AM

"Roger" > wrote

> Don't forget the jet warbird that crashed on a city street when he got
> too slow a few years back either.

Yeah, it hacked me off a little more than a little bit, when the EAA said
that there had never been a fatality at the airport, until this year,
earlier this week.

If that isn't "spinning it" I don't know what is. :-(
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

July 28th 06, 12:18 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:14:37 -0600, Newps > wrote:
> > I've never been to OSH, but based on what I've seen at other places the
> > FAA can't dream of having the manpower available to have a chat with
> > every pilot that screws up the arrival.
>
> Considering the number of planes that fly into there during such a
> short timespan, I think they do pretty damn good... I've flow in and
> out of there 3 times so far... A little research (i.e. read the
> ****in' NOTAM beforehand) and things go pretty good... Be familiar
> enough with the various approaches that you can handle the case where
> they change approaches on you and you'll do fine... Nothing quite like
> the bit of adrenaline rush of being in the flare and then the
> controllers asking you to switch to the parallel runway... Oh yeah,
> you should also be familiar with your plane so that you can handle
> these impromptu diversions...

AMEN, Brother!!!!

[email protected]

July 28th 06, 12:31 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "Roger" > wrote
> >
> > I got to see "Old Crow" do a landing on one wheel with a 90 degree
> > cross wind and then try to imitate a "Frisbee" when the right wing hit
> > the dirt. She was about to touch down when I remembered both cameras
> > were in the home builder's center.
>
> I remember one year ('99, I think), it was real gusty, wind out of about
> 270, and Aluminum Overcast was doing an overhead approach to landing on 18.
> He got so low, I thought for sure he was going to crash, from hitting the
> wing on the ground.
>
> I heard later that he didn't hit the ground, but he was so close, he hit the
> wingtip on a landing light and bent up the wing tip. OOps!!! At least he
> didn't pile it up!
> --
> Jim in NC

One year, one of the other volunteers and I were sitting next to the
"MOO-COW" (the trailer the controllers run departures from on the
runway) when Aluminum Overcast was on short final for 27 at OSH.

I turned to my friend and asked if he had ever seen the beginning of
"12 O'Clock High" where the B-17 lands belly up, and if that was war
footage or not?

Alum. Overcast then touches down, loses it, almost runs over the
controller on the far side (who was filming the whole thing, until it
came right at him, then it was sky-ground-sky-ground-sky as he sprinted
away), then almost hit a mixmaster whose crew bailed out with engines
running, and came damn close to smashing into the VOR!

I shut up and didn't ask anymore stupid questions...

True story.
Did anyone else see the Lancasters' colossal bounce when it touched
down on 27?

Made me feel better about my own flying!

Ryan Wubben
Co-Chairman, EAA Flight Line Operations

Morgans[_3_]

July 28th 06, 01:04 PM

"Roger" > wrote
>
> Ahhh... I'd think the last thing I'd want to do it take some one who
> has already proven themselves to be completely clueless turn around
> and fly *toward* all those airplanes coming into Oshkosh. If he's 5
> SW he's already in the dense traffic with far more coming toward him
> than away.

Yeah, you're right, but if he was to assign a lower altitude, than the
approaching traffic, and send him in the right direction, it would probably
be OK.

I just hate for ignorance to pay off!
--
Jim in NC

Jim Logajan

July 28th 06, 04:38 PM

"Morgans" > wrote:
> "Roger" > wrote
>>
>> Ahhh... I'd think the last thing I'd want to do it take some one who
>> has already proven themselves to be completely clueless turn around
>> and fly *toward* all those airplanes coming into Oshkosh. If he's 5
>> SW he's already in the dense traffic with far more coming toward him
>> than away.
>
> Yeah, you're right, but if he was to assign a lower altitude, than the
> approaching traffic, and send him in the right direction, it would
> probably be OK.
>
> I just hate for ignorance to pay off!

"Kramer: We ought to route him in[to] Lake Michigan, at least we'll avoid
killing innocent people."

(Grabbed from http://rob.kogan.com/humor/airplane.htm)

Roger[_4_]

July 28th 06, 10:32 PM

On 28 Jul 2006 04:18:21 -0700, wrote:

>
>Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:14:37 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>> > I've never been to OSH, but based on what I've seen at other places the
>> > FAA can't dream of having the manpower available to have a chat with
>> > every pilot that screws up the arrival.
>>
>> Considering the number of planes that fly into there during such a
>> short timespan, I think they do pretty damn good... I've flow in and
>> out of there 3 times so far... A little research (i.e. read the
>> ****in' NOTAM beforehand) and things go pretty good... Be familiar
>> enough with the various approaches that you can handle the case where
>> they change approaches on you and you'll do fine... Nothing quite like
>> the bit of adrenaline rush of being in the flare and then the
>> controllers asking you to switch to the parallel runway... Oh yeah,
>> you should also be familiar with your plane so that you can handle
>> these impromptu diversions...

A couple years back I was in the soup being vectored to the ILS for
36. I was almost to within 30 degrees of the localizer when the
controller said... Oops! Oops! Whatdaya mean, Oops? Looks like the
winds have changed and we'll have to send you back out and around for
the VOR09. Naturally VOR09 was the ONLY chart I didn't find in the
stack. It was still in my briefcase. OTOH by the time they sent me
back about 5 miles south, about 15 west, and back north to intercept
the 27 radial I could have had lunch so retrieving the chart was not a
real problem.

BTW Chicago does the approaches for OSH. The tower only takes over
when you are close in.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>AMEN, Brother!!!!
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dave Stadt

July 30th 06, 01:53 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
>>
>> What sort of program does the Experimental Aircraft Association have
>> in place to reduce the death toll resulting from AirVenture
>> attendance?
>
> Alot of times, these aren't the sort of things EAA can do anything
> about. What can EAA do about a stall/spin on short final? That's been
> happening since shortly after the Wright Bros, and I suspect it always
> will.
> You can make all the rules you want, but showing up unprepared is hard
> to prevent. Sanction and punish, sure maybe (but very much NOT likely),
> but not prevent.
>
> I just don't fathom how you can fly to this without at least reading
> the NOTAM...

Based on my experience flying in I would guess less than 75% even know there
is a NOTAM.

Tom McQuinn

July 30th 06, 01:31 PM

Peter R. wrote:

> OK, found the exchange and edited the clip to only contain the relevant
> communications for anyone interested in hearing it. Note that the LiveATC
> OSH feed is monitoring a few different frequencies, so there are a couple
> of sections where some of the ATC or pilot's comms are clipped.
>

Thanks much for putting that clip together. I have always feared
somehow finding a way to be the stupidest SOB coming into OSH. Now I
see that the competition is far too steep for this to be a valid concern.

Tom

[email protected]

July 30th 06, 01:43 PM

I have always feared
> somehow finding a way to be the stupidest SOB coming into OSH. Now I
> see that the competition is far too steep for this to be a valid concern.
>
> Tom

THAT made me laugh, I've always had the same concern!

Ryan Wubben

Blanche Cohen

July 30th 06, 05:57 PM

I remember practicing OSH-type landings for a couple weeks , knowing
I was going to be the one flying (and not United) last year. My radio
work has never been the problem, but had I not been with friends who
had been to OSH many times in the past (and flew the final leg )
I would have landed in Appleton and parked there.

But we did the CRM exceptionally well. I was right seat for the last
leg with the frequencies and NOTAM and radio (if needed). Worked out
very well.

Blanche Cohen

July 30th 06, 06:05 PM

I just finished listening to the LiveATC that Montblack posted.
I don't think I've heard anything more foolish or stupid in an
alledgedly experienced pilot.

Painful to listen to.

Jay Honeck

July 31st 06, 12:06 AM

>Shoot, as I was sitting near my computer last night,
> it was nearly 10:00 PM, and I had not closed the live ATC link. I heard
> someone trying to raise OSHKOSH tower, with no luck, of course. Someone
> finally came (from the ground, on a handheld, I think) on and told them that
> they were closed for the night. Is that clueless, or what?

I do believe the guy landed, too. We saw one guy swing overhead onto
Rwy 18, LOOOOOOONG after the field was closed for the day....

> Others had come in (earlier), announced, and were not where they were
> supposed to be, and not following procedures, and the controller asked if
> they had checked in earlier, according to the notam. No, they answered. He
> fit them in, anyway. I would have told them to climb to above pattern
> altitude, and to go to Ripon, land and figure it out. Buttheads!

I agree -- and this would solve a LOT of problmes.

The day of the accident, guys that were ignoring instructions by coming
up the tracks from Ripon were being cleared to land -- while dozens of
guys (who were following the instructions) were holding endlessly
around Rush and Green lakes.

Those ignorant, inconsiderate pilots were completely ignoring the
controller's instructions to enter the hold and were really gumming up
the works -- but if the FISK controller had simply said "Blue and white
high wing, turn left NOW and enter the hold" (instead of clearing them
through to land), the problem would have been greatly alleviated.

As it was, the guys who were holding for two hours were very, VERY
aggravated to hear/watch as these "scoff-laws" were being cleared to
land. This lead to some aggressively stupid radio talk (I heard one
guy threaten to ram another plane if he didn't speed up!), and could
have lead to disaster.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 31st 06, 12:21 AM

> http://tinyurl.com/lu6uu

All I can say is: "Oh, my God..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ron Natalie

July 31st 06, 01:32 PM

> The day of the accident, guys that were ignoring instructions by coming
> up the tracks from Ripon were being cleared to land -- while dozens of
> guys (who were following the instructions) were holding endlessly
> around Rush and Green lakes.
>
One year we were just rolling out on 36 after doing the whole RIPON
thing when some clown showed up in a Bonanza calling the tower on
3 mile final, totally clueless about the whole RIPON thing (or the
general concept of class D airspace). I suspect the tower figured
it was less safety impact to just let them land than having them
turn around in face of all the other arrivals and cleared them to
land on runway 36L (which is the only runway 36 most times of year).
The bo pilot asked which one 36 was...there was a rather condescending
"It's the one with the big numbers and the dotted line down the
middle."

(Of course, I was standing on taxiway Papa when a plane landed there
one year as well).

Ron Natalie

July 31st 06, 01:37 PM

Emily wrote:

> You have no idea how much I wish controllers at ADS would start doing
> that.

The AOPA open house every year is a similar screw up. The only thing
people get right is that there's a temporary tower frequency. They
set up a "Fisk-like" approach control (which does absolutely nothing
unlike the Fisk which peels you out for different runways). Of course
what everybody does is call the approach 30 miles out and stomps all
over the controller so the people actually flying the procedure can't
hear. Then you get to the field and my opinion is that sequencing
would work better without the tower. Anyhow, nobody flies anything
approaching even a normal pattern (let alone keeping it in tight)
nor do they expeditiously exit the runway. I spend a lot of time
at FDK, so I hauled it around in close (because the controller was
also telling the guy behind me to extend), put it down on the numbers
and just as the controller was telling the guy behind me to go around
turned off into the grass. ALL THE GRASS ALONG SIDE OF THE FDK
RUNWAYS IS TAXIABLE (even landable). It's actually maintained in
better shape than that off the OSHKOSH runways (36's verges are a
bit rough).

Howard Nelson

July 31st 06, 05:22 PM

> The AOPA open house every year is a similar screw up. The only thing
> people get right is that there's a temporary tower frequency. They
> set up a "Fisk-like" approach control (which does absolutely nothing
> unlike the Fisk which peels you out for different runways). Of course
> what everybody does is call the approach 30 miles out and stomps all
> over the controller so the people actually flying the procedure can't
> hear. Then you get to the field and my opinion is that sequencing
> would work better without the tower. Anyhow, nobody flies anything
> approaching even a normal pattern (let alone keeping it in tight)
> nor do they expeditiously exit the runway. I spend a lot of time
> at FDK, so I hauled it around in close (because the controller was
> also telling the guy behind me to extend), put it down on the numbers
> and just as the controller was telling the guy behind me to go around
> turned off into the grass. ALL THE GRASS ALONG SIDE OF THE FDK
> RUNWAYS IS TAXIABLE (even landable). It's actually maintained in
> better shape than that off the OSHKOSH runways (36's verges are a
> bit rough).

Also the AOPA annual convention. I last attended at KPSP. Followed the notam
for arrival. Got held at Banning for 20mins, allowed to enter valley, then
held north of Desert Hot springs for 45 mins. then vectored south to middle
of Salton Sea to join Conga line. Another 360 for traffic. Time from Banning
to touchdown just over 2 hours. During this time heard numerous a/c call in
just 6-7 miles out and while some turned away others had their rudeness
rewarded with quick slots for landing. Just checked airnav. 100LL $6/gal at
PSP today. I think attendence might be down for the AOPA convention this
year.

Cheers
Howard
C182 (Avgas cost $66/hr and rising)

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

July 31st 06, 08:25 PM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> That used to be true. As I understand it now, it is a simple
> time-in-grade procedure. That is, if you work in the Great Lakes region,
> the folks who have been ATC the longest get preference over the younger
> (but perhaps "better") controllers. Please correct me if I am wrong.
> I've heard a couple this year who were absolutely excellent and a couple I
> wouldn't trust to control a bicycle.
>

Some years ago the FAA gave the union considerable say in AirVenture
controller selection. I've heard, but cannot verify, that if you're not a
union member you won't be selected. The best controllers never joined the
union.

.Blueskies.

August 1st 06, 01:16 AM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
:
: > The day of the accident, guys that were ignoring instructions by coming
: > up the tracks from Ripon were being cleared to land -- while dozens of
: > guys (who were following the instructions) were holding endlessly
: > around Rush and Green lakes.
: >
: One year we were just rolling out on 36 after doing the whole RIPON
: thing when some clown showed up in a Bonanza calling the tower on
: 3 mile final, totally clueless about the whole RIPON thing (or the
: general concept of class D airspace). I suspect the tower figured
: it was less safety impact to just let them land than having them
: turn around in face of all the other arrivals and cleared them to
: land on runway 36L (which is the only runway 36 most times of year).
: The bo pilot asked which one 36 was...there was a rather condescending
: "It's the one with the big numbers and the dotted line down the
: middle."
:
: (Of course, I was standing on taxiway Papa when a plane landed there
: one year as well).

Folks on instrument flight plans come in that way when they are handed off from approach - don't know if that is the
case here...

john smith

August 1st 06, 02:46 AM

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> While I'm on a rant, there was an @$$#0!e yesterday who called in "at the
> shoreline" asking for landing clearance at OSH. This with the normal noon
> heavy inbound and outbound, the NS airspace with the flyby demonstrations,
> Blue Angel #7 making a few passes for the crowd, and the normal gaggle of
> folks flailing about the airspace doing their best to keep the flow going.
> The "shoreline" of Lake Winnebago is what, 50 miles long? Above Appleton to
> below FondDuLac?

Jim, what day? We might be able to pull his N-number from the archive
audio and find out who the aircraft belongs to.

john smith

August 1st 06, 03:28 AM

In article >,
"Ken Finney" > wrote:

> If anyone finds the exact file, will they post the link here?

http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?date=20060725

select the day on the calendar
select the airport select the time of day
I found the 1300 and 1330 Z on the 25th to contain the audio

Roger[_4_]

August 1st 06, 10:04 AM

On 30 Jul 2006 17:05:45 GMT, (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

>I just finished listening to the LiveATC that Montblack posted.
>I don't think I've heard anything more foolish or stupid in an
>alledgedly experienced pilot.
>
>Painful to listen to.

Keep listening, eventually you'll find another winner.

Normally I go over IFR across the lake with my route being 3BS D-> LDM
(NDB) D-> LDN (VOR) D-> OSH. I've always been cleared straight in to
OSH 27, or vectored to one of the other approaches even on half way
decent days, but none were clear bright sunshine and any one where I
was *should* have had a clearance, but I have met more than one out
there when the visibility wasn't much more than one and 1500.

One day headed over when the weather in Michigan was pure crap up to
between 6000 and 7000 and well below minimums for most airports
without an ILS I heard a King air out of one of the smaller airports
NE of Traverse City asking Minneapolis Center for a pop-up to OSH from
a controller busier than a one arm paper hanger with the itch. After
a number of calls it was evident he wasn't going away so the
controller pointedly told him to call FSS and file. A bit less than
10 minutes later he was back. Said he couldn't raise FSS. (Probably
didn't have a enroute chart with the FSS frequency on it) You could
hear the controller sigh. (I think they came out with the 150 mile
rule the next year)

You could tell where the west shore of Lake Michigan was located as
the clouds formed a wall that went up to about 10,000 from bases of
1000 to 1500. OTOH is was solid up to about 6000 over the lake. I
don't know what the bases were out there. It was solid and I never
saw even a thinning let alone any holes for vfr to let down.
Visibility was poor. At times the wing tips were hazy. Underneath
was strictly low level skudd running.

Then this year there was a twin headed for OSH with a reservation
which is now required. I don't know how long they've been required,
but I had one way back in 95 on my first flight over.. At any rate he
wanted to modify his flight plan, land at one of the big airports here
in Michigan, and then continue on to OSH. The exasperated controller
finally told him to go away. Either cancel the FP and go VFR of fly it
as filed. This guy is an ATP who is normally in the left seat in the
"big iron".
He may have read the NOTAM as he had the reservation, but he sure
didn't pay attention to the rest of it.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Bob Noel

August 1st 06, 12:38 PM

In article
>,
john smith > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Ken Finney" > wrote:
>
> > If anyone finds the exact file, will they post the link here?
>
> http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?date=20060725
>
> select the day on the calendar
> select the airport select the time of day
> I found the 1300 and 1330 Z on the 25th to contain the audio

access to archives seems to be down at this time.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

August 1st 06, 01:06 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Normally I go over IFR across the lake with my route being 3BS D-> LDM
> (NDB) D-> LDN (VOR) D-> OSH.
>

That's a helluva route. LDN VORTAC is in Virginia. Perhaps you meant
3BS..LDM..MTW..OSH.

Peter R.

August 1st 06, 01:19 PM

Bob Noel > wrote:

> access to archives seems to be down at this time.

This week LiveATC is in the process of upgrading the archive server to a
much larger and faster box. Once complete, feed archives will go from
seven-day retention to over thirty-day retention.

--
Peter

Montblack[_1_]

August 1st 06, 06:56 PM

("Peter R." wrote)
> The link to the MP3 file of the exchange at about 4.5 Mb in size,
> available for two weeks from today (Spread-It's limit for free file
> sharing):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lu6uu

Thanks Peter R.

Montblack

Montblack[_1_]

August 1st 06, 07:34 PM

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> All I can say is: "Oh, my God..."

http://tinyurl.com/lu6uu

[cell phone rings]
"Hello."
"OSH Tower here. Montblack?"
"Yes?"
"If we send one up to Green Bay, would you mind picking him up in your
minivan?"
"Wilco."

S.P.M.
My mid-week dorm roommate was from Seattle. He works for Boeing. I drove up
to Green Bay, from OSH, and picked him up. On Sunday morning, in an early
morning downpour, I drove him back up to (GRB) Austin Straubel International
Airport. Nice terminal building.

Arrival: Thur (6pm) from MSP.
Depart: Sun (9am) to MSP.

Montblack
2(60+60) = 240 miles, burns 10 gal x $3 = $30. He was happy :-)

Al[_1_]

August 1st 06, 09:35 PM

"Tom McQuinn" > wrote in message
...
> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> OK, found the exchange and edited the clip to only contain the relevant
>> communications for anyone interested in hearing it. Note that the
>> LiveATC
>> OSH feed is monitoring a few different frequencies, so there are a couple
>> of sections where some of the ATC or pilot's comms are clipped.
>>
>
> Thanks much for putting that clip together. I have always feared somehow
> finding a way to be the stupidest SOB coming into OSH. Now I see that the
> competition is far too steep for this to be a valid concern.
>
> Tom

Gawd, that's just embarrassing to listen to.

Al G

Peter R.

August 1st 06, 09:47 PM

Al > wrote:

> Gawd, that's just embarrassing to listen to.

I think the real lesson here is that *any* pilot who speaks up on the OSH
frequency next year will be subjected to this kind of scrutiny from his/her
peers. :)

--
Peter

Gig 601XL Builder

August 1st 06, 10:37 PM

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Al > wrote:
>
>> Gawd, that's just embarrassing to listen to.
>
> I think the real lesson here is that *any* pilot who speaks up on the OSH
> frequency next year will be subjected to this kind of scrutiny from
> his/her
> peers. :)
>
> --

I can easily imagine that if a pilot that hangs around here ever pulled that
at OSH he would quickly become someone that used to hang around here.

john smith

August 1st 06, 10:58 PM

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> Al > wrote:
>
> > Gawd, that's just embarrassing to listen to.
>
> I think the real lesson here is that *any* pilot who speaks up on the OSH
> frequency next year will be subjected to this kind of scrutiny from his/her
> peers. :)

This clip needs to be part of an FAA Safety Seminar in every region.

[email protected]

August 2nd 06, 01:52 AM

Ron Natalie wrote:
> (Of course, I was standing on taxiway Papa when a plane landed there
> one year as well).

Ron,

That is a frighteningly common occurrence. We call those runways 18
Left, 18 Right, and 18 Wrong (Papa).

Cheers,
Garrett

[email protected]

August 2nd 06, 02:01 AM

wrote:

> One year, one of the other volunteers and I were sitting next to the
> "MOO-COW" (the trailer the controllers run departures from on the
> runway) when Aluminum Overcast was on short final for 27 at OSH.
>
> I turned to my friend and asked if he had ever seen the beginning of
> "12 O'Clock High" where the B-17 lands belly up, and if that was war
> footage or not?
>
> Alum. Overcast then touches down, loses it, almost runs over the
> controller on the far side (who was filming the whole thing, until it
> came right at him, then it was sky-ground-sky-ground-sky as he sprinted
> away), then almost hit a mixmaster whose crew bailed out with engines
> running, and came damn close to smashing into the VOR!
>
> I shut up and didn't ask anymore stupid questions...
>
> True story.

I can vouch for Ryan on this one. I was there. I did finally watch
"12 O'Clock High" after that.

> Did anyone else see the Lancasters' colossal bounce when it touched
> down on 27?
>
> Made me feel better about my own flying!
>

As one who has bounced clear over the green dot in my Luscombe, I
humbly take the attitude of "There but for the grace of God" when I see
a bad landing. There are a few, though, that are just truly
jaw-dropping.

> Ryan Wubben
> Co-Chairman, EAA Flight Line Operations

Garrett Nievin
Chairman, EAA Flight Line Operations

Roger[_4_]

August 2nd 06, 10:31 AM

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:06:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Normally I go over IFR across the lake with my route being 3BS D-> LDM
>> (NDB) D-> LDN (VOR) D-> OSH.
>>
>
>That's a helluva route. LDN VORTAC is in Virginia. Perhaps you meant
>3BS..LDM..MTW..OSH.
>
What one letter difference between friends? OTOH I like the scenic
route<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Morgans[_3_]

August 2nd 06, 03:26 PM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > (Of course, I was standing on taxiway Papa when a plane landed there
> > one year as well).
>
> Ron,
>
> That is a frighteningly common occurrence. We call those runways 18
> Left, 18 Right, and 18 Wrong (Papa).

<Chuckle> Yep, I've not been out there when one landed, but almost. He
sidestepped at the last moment, when ATC yelled at him. I was monitoring
tower in one ear.

I was on Papa when someone took off from it, one year! I stood there and
saw it and told someone else, "watch out, it looks like he is getting ready
to take off!" and sure enough, he did!
--
Jim in NC

Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]

August 2nd 06, 05:06 PM

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 12:06:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Normally I go over IFR across the lake with my route being 3BS D-> LDM
>>> (NDB) D-> LDN (VOR) D-> OSH.
>>>
>>
>>That's a helluva route. LDN VORTAC is in Virginia. Perhaps you meant
>>3BS..LDM..MTW..OSH.
>>
>
> What one letter difference between friends? OTOH I like the scenic
> route<:-))
>

One letter difference between LDN and MTW?

Paul Tomblin

August 3rd 06, 12:31 AM

In a previous article, "Montblack" > said:
>http://tinyurl.com/lu6uu
>
>[cell phone rings]
>"Hello."
>"OSH Tower here. Montblack?"
>"Yes?"
>"If we send one up to Green Bay, would you mind picking him up in your
>minivan?"
>"Wilco."

I bet he won't get the full concierge service with ice water and
everything. Unless you plan to dump it in his crotch, maybe.

After you delivered that bottle of ice water, I was wondering how I could
arrange to leave it in your van every night. That was extremely welcome
after half a week of luke warm campsite water. Thanks again.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Frankly, your argument wouldn't float were the sea composed of
mercury.
-- Biff

Grumman-581[_1_]

August 3rd 06, 09:39 AM

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:26:34 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:
> <Chuckle> Yep, I've not been out there when one landed, but almost. He
> sidestepped at the last moment, when ATC yelled at him. I was monitoring
> tower in one ear.

On my first trip to OSH, they changed me at the last minute from
landing on 27 to landing on 18R... Apparently the winds had changed,
so they were switching to a different runway... There was a storm
system coming in and the flight from Ripon to Fisk to the field was
basically scud running with enough rain to make it interesting enough
in that you couldn't see the plane in front of you even though you
could tell from the radio calls by the controllers that you were very
close... I looked down, saw basically 3 equally inviting strips of
concrete / asphalt before me and remembered reading that during this
time, they changed it to 18L, 18R and a taxiway... I'm low, slow,
going in and out of rain and in fairly congested airspace, so I don't
have the time to grab the NOTAM and read through it... I don't really
want to be looking down in the cockpit instead of outside... I line up
on the rightmost strip of concrete / asphalt and survey the
situation... I figure that at worst, I'm lined up on the taxiway and
as long as there are no planes on it, it is not something that is
going to kill me... On the other hand, if it was in fact a runway and
I instead lined up on the middle strip of concrete / asphalt, there is
a definite chance of there being another plane and this would not be
good for my continued survival...There were no planes on any of the
strips of concrete / asphalt landing or taxiing, so I didn't have any
visual clues which were the runways and which was the taxiway... I
keep looking all the way down to the flare, at which time, the tower
informed me that I was lined upon on the taxiway, not the runway... No
yelling or anything, just a, "gray low wing, that's the taxiway"... A
bit of throttle and a quick side slip to the left and I continued my
landing on the middle strip of concrete / asphalt... I even got a
comment of "great save" from the tower...