23 July OSH accident audio

[john smith]

00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on 23
July

http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3

[RST Engineering]

Listening to stupidities flying in I can handle. Listening to someone die
isn't on my list.

Jim




"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on 23
> July
>
> http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3

[Bob Gardner]

Reading about accidents helps pilots avoid the mistakes of others; seeing or
hearing accidents doesn't help anyone. How can we complain about media
sensationalizing airplane accidents when we have folks like John Smith doing
the same thing?

Bob Gardner

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> 00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on 23
> July
>
> http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Reading about accidents helps pilots avoid the mistakes of others; seeing or
> hearing accidents doesn't help anyone. How can we complain about media
> sensationalizing airplane accidents when we have folks like John Smith doing
> the same thing?
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on 23
>>July
>>
>>http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3
>
>
>


It is a shame that some folks have no shame.

Matt

[john smith]

Guys, you didn't listen.
It is about how the FAA handled things after the accident occurred. No
one knew what was going on and no one was sharing information with the
pilots.

[Jim Logajan]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Reading about accidents helps pilots avoid the mistakes of others;
> seeing or hearing accidents doesn't help anyone. How can we complain
> about media sensationalizing airplane accidents when we have folks
> like John Smith doing the same thing?

I listened several minutes into the recording and unless I missed
something, there was no actual "recording" of the accident. There doesn't
seem to be anything sensational in the recording at all - no one mentions
the accident. Just a lot of fancy ATC footwork to deal with closing the
runway and then the airport. I actually found that aspect somewhat
educational. YMMV.

>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "john smith" > wrote in message
>
> om...
>> 00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on
>> 23 July
>>
>> http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3
>
>
>

[Jim Logajan]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>> Reading about accidents helps pilots avoid the mistakes of others;
>> seeing or hearing accidents doesn't help anyone. How can we complain
>> about media sensationalizing airplane accidents when we have folks
>> like John Smith doing the same thing?
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>> .
>> com...
>>
>>>00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on
>>>23 July
>>>
>>>http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3
>>
>
> It is a shame that some folks have no shame.

It's actually an interesting listen. John Smith has nothing to be ashamed
of.

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> Listening to stupidities flying in I can handle. Listening to someone die
> isn't on my list.

Jim, you don't "hear anyone dieing!"
What you hear is how the FAA failed to share information with the pilots
via ATIS and the FISKE controllers. This was why there was a meltdown in
the Green Lake hold. For three hours, no one knew what was going on. Had
the pilots and controllers been informed, many people probably would
have headed for outlying airports to wait it out. Instead, there was a
second near disaster on another runway after they started emptying the
holding areas. This is a lesson learned situation.

[Bob Gardner]

My point was that listening to audio or viewing video does nothing to help
Joe Sixpack avoid similar accidents.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Reading about accidents helps pilots avoid the mistakes of others;
>> seeing or hearing accidents doesn't help anyone. How can we complain
>> about media sensationalizing airplane accidents when we have folks
>> like John Smith doing the same thing?
>
> I listened several minutes into the recording and unless I missed
> something, there was no actual "recording" of the accident. There doesn't
> seem to be anything sensational in the recording at all - no one mentions
> the accident. Just a lot of fancy ATC footwork to deal with closing the
> runway and then the airport. I actually found that aspect somewhat
> educational. YMMV.
>
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>>
>> om...
>>> 00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on
>>> 23 July
>>>
>>> http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jim Burns]

Hey I know... let's not listen to it.
Instead let's lambaste the poster.
The reasons TO listen center around the male and female tower controllers
who I think did a wonderful job handling the traffic that they were faced
with. What you will hear is how the tower closed the runway, redirected
landing 27 traffic to 36, then closed the airport, had pattern traffic hold
in the pattern, additional traffic hold east of the airport, more traffic
holding SW of the airport, more holding over the lake and or sent them back
outbound for the RIPON arrival. Once 36 was re-opened they also had to deal
with IFR arrivals from Chicago Center. The tower guys are to be commended
for what they accomplished in very short order and with a high degree of
calm and professional mannerisms.

What you will not hear are the FISKE controllers. That's the archive that
needs to be obtained, posted, and critiqued. It's my understanding from
people that were involved in the multi-hour hold that they were not informed
of the accident, not given any reason for the runway closure, nor were they
told when they could be expected to be released from the hold. Promises of
"we'll get you down as fast as we can" and "we'll get you in, just keep
holding" were common but no estimations of how long they'd be holding were
given. A small amount of info would have saved much frustration.


Attention all aircraft inbound from RIPON or holding at FISKE, Green Lake,
or Rush Lake.
The Oshkosh airport is closed due to an accident.
There are aircraft holding at several locations and altitudes east of the
airport, once the airport is open we need to clear the airspace by getting
those aircraft down first.
We do not know when we will be able to release you from the hold.
If you are unprepared or unable to hold for an undetermined length of time,
we suggest leaving the hold for an alternate airport.

Easy announcement. Although every pilot must determine his own comfort
level and has the ability to "bug out" when it comes to holding with minimal
information about the reason or the length of the hold, the FISKE
controllers could have provided information that would have decreased the
frustration level and added a level of understanding.

Jim

[john smith]

In article >,
"Bob Gardner" > wrote:

> My point was that listening to audio or viewing video does nothing to help
> Joe Sixpack avoid similar accidents.

This isn't about avoiding similar accidents since we do not yet know
what happened. It is about dealing with the post-accident situation and
paying attention to how ATC sorted things out. What they did right and
what they did wrong to make things work better in the future.

[.Blueskies.]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
: In article >,
: "RST Engineering" > wrote:
:
: > Listening to stupidities flying in I can handle. Listening to someone die
: > isn't on my list.
:
: Jim, you don't "hear anyone dieing!"
: What you hear is how the FAA failed to share information with the pilots
: via ATIS and the FISKE controllers. This was why there was a meltdown in
: the Green Lake hold. For three hours, no one knew what was going on. Had
: the pilots and controllers been informed, many people probably would
: have headed for outlying airports to wait it out. Instead, there was a
: second near disaster on another runway after they started emptying the
: holding areas. This is a lesson learned situation.

Yea, I was flying in just about this time and there was no comment or anything on the ATIS to indicate the airport was
closed or at saturation. There were a lot of planes circling south of green lake, and the controller was saying the
airport was closed for another 20 minutes. I was passing north of Milwaukee about that time so I slowed it down a bit
(in a C-172, ok, a lot) to about 75 knots and kept on listening. As I got closer in I kept hearing that the airport was
closed for another 20 minutes, etc. I diverted to Fond Du Lac and picked up some gas and waited around for about 45
minutes. No-one there knew anything had happened either and the temporary tower knew nothing (or they weren't letting on
that they knew anything).

I popped back out just before the racers came in to Fond Du Lac, still listening, and they were still stacked up all
around green lake. I flew around it twice and we had a nice spacing so a string of us went on in towards fiske and
finally landed...

[.Blueskies.]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message ...
: Hey I know... let's not listen to it.
: Instead let's lambaste the poster.
: The reasons TO listen center around the male and female tower controllers
: who I think did a wonderful job handling the traffic that they were faced
: with. What you will hear is how the tower closed the runway, redirected
: landing 27 traffic to 36, then closed the airport, had pattern traffic hold
: in the pattern, additional traffic hold east of the airport, more traffic
: holding SW of the airport, more holding over the lake and or sent them back
: outbound for the RIPON arrival. Once 36 was re-opened they also had to deal
: with IFR arrivals from Chicago Center. The tower guys are to be commended
: for what they accomplished in very short order and with a high degree of
: calm and professional mannerisms.
:
: What you will not hear are the FISKE controllers. That's the archive that
: needs to be obtained, posted, and critiqued. It's my understanding from
: people that were involved in the multi-hour hold that they were not informed
: of the accident, not given any reason for the runway closure, nor were they
: told when they could be expected to be released from the hold. Promises of
: "we'll get you down as fast as we can" and "we'll get you in, just keep
: holding" were common but no estimations of how long they'd be holding were
: given. A small amount of info would have saved much frustration.
:
:
: Attention all aircraft inbound from RIPON or holding at FISKE, Green Lake,
: or Rush Lake.
: The Oshkosh airport is closed due to an accident.
: There are aircraft holding at several locations and altitudes east of the
: airport, once the airport is open we need to clear the airspace by getting
: those aircraft down first.
: We do not know when we will be able to release you from the hold.
: If you are unprepared or unable to hold for an undetermined length of time,
: we suggest leaving the hold for an alternate airport.
:
: Easy announcement. Although every pilot must determine his own comfort
: level and has the ability to "bug out" when it comes to holding with minimal
: information about the reason or the length of the hold, the FISKE
: controllers could have provided information that would have decreased the
: frustration level and added a level of understanding.
:
: Jim
:
:
:

Now that I think about it, I do recall hearing the ripon controllers say, once anyway, that there was an accident and a
runway was closed. That was about the extent of it however...

[RST Engineering]

Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?

Jim

[.Blueskies.]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message ...
: Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?
:
: Jim
:
:

That is the intersection waypoint name.

[Jay Honeck]

> Now that I think about it, I do recall hearing the ripon controllers say, once anyway, that there was an accident and a
> runway was closed. That was about the extent of it however...

I was in that cluster-f*ck of a "hold" around first Green, and then
Rush, lakes, and no controller explained anything during our time in
that blender.

It looked like a scene from "Hell's Angels" -- and it all could have
been made MUCH better simply by a controller saying "Guys, there's been
an accident." All of the angry, frustrated folks (who were literally
SHOUTING at one another on the FISK frequency -- a first, believe me)
would have instantly cooled their jets, and a whole bunch of them would
have diverted to another airport.

Instead, FISK just kept saying "it'll be a bit longer" -- and the swarm
just kept growing and growing. Some guys were saying that they held
in that race track for two HOURS. I held for around an hour, and it
was simply nuts.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?

FAA has standardize to ICAO five character intersection names.
RIPON and FISKE are now intersections in the FAA database.

[Jim Burns]

Sorry. IFR/VFR thing. There is FISKE fix at Fisk. 6 DME on the OSH 247R.
I practice approaches at OSH and use FISKE as a lead in/setup/non published
hold fix. Want to practice a hold near OSH without tying up their fixes or
approaches? FISKE works. Although not on the plates it also gives Chicago
an idea what my route is before I request the approach(s). There is also a
DME fix called RIPON at Ripon.

Jim


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?
>
> Jim
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?
>

FISKE is 6 DME from OSH on the 247 radial.

[RST Engineering]

That may well be, but Fisk has strobes, controllers under a beach umbrella,
railroad tracks, and grass. You proceed from Ripon to Fisk, not from RIPON
to FISKE.

Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?
>>
>
> FISKE is 6 DME from OSH on the 247 radial.
>

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?

Because ir rhyhms with risky? :-)

Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> That may well be, but Fisk has strobes, controllers under a beach
> umbrella, railroad tracks, and grass. You proceed from Ripon to Fisk, not
> from RIPON to FISKE.
>

Well, since RIPON is at Ripon, and FISKE is at Fisk, you cannot avoid doing
both.

[RST Engineering]

Would you care to bet a whole bunch of paper with old dead mens' pictures on
them that FISKE is not directly over the aforementioned beach umbrella?

Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> That may well be, but Fisk has strobes, controllers under a beach
>> umbrella, railroad tracks, and grass. You proceed from Ripon to Fisk,
>> not from RIPON to FISKE.
>>
>
> Well, since RIPON is at Ripon, and FISKE is at Fisk, you cannot avoid
> doing both.
>

[Andrew Sarangan[_1_]]

I beg to differ. Most pilots read about accidents as events that happen
in extreme circumstances or in far away places. A recording adds a
sense of familiarity and brings it much closer to home. We learn more
about our own vulnerabilities by identifying with the pilot and the
circumstances. I see nothing wrong with an audio recording unless it
has circumstances inappropriate or disrespectful of the deceased (ie
expletive language etc..). I don't see it as media sensationalization.
It is the real ATC recording with no commentaries or commercials. I
doubt a nonpilot would be able to make much sense out of the
recordings.





Bob Gardner wrote:
> Reading about accidents helps pilots avoid the mistakes of others; seeing or
> hearing accidents doesn't help anyone. How can we complain about media
> sensationalizing airplane accidents when we have folks like John Smith doing
> the same thing?
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on 23
> > July
> >
> > http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> What you hear is how the FAA failed to share information with the pilots
> via ATIS and the FISKE controllers.
>

They say loud and clear that the runway is closed, and later that the
airport is closed. What more do you need? It's not a news channel, it's
ATC.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Would you care to bet a whole bunch of paper with old dead mens' pictures
> on them that FISKE is not directly over the aforementioned beach umbrella?
>

Do you proceed from Ripon to Fisk, or do you proceed from Ripon to beach
umbrella?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> They say loud and clear that the runway is closed, and later that the
> airport is closed. What more do you need?
>

The reason for the closure.

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> > They say loud and clear that the runway is closed, and later that the
> > airport is closed. What more do you need?
> >
>
> The reason for the closure.
>

Yeah, but why? What does that do for the orderly flow of traffic, which
is ATCs job in that case - and I bet they were more than busy.

I can see that it might be smart to tell the reason for "crowd control"
reasons, but IMHO one has to acknowledge that it is not really part of
the job description. Also, I bet that many pilots would then start asking
the specifics, which would only further deteriorate the situation.

I just thought they handled it really professionally.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, but why? What does that do for the orderly flow of traffic, which
> is ATCs job in that case - and I bet they were more than busy.
>
> I can see that it might be smart to tell the reason for "crowd control"
> reasons, but IMHO one has to acknowledge that it is not really part of
> the job description. Also, I bet that many pilots would then start asking
> the specifics, which would only further deteriorate the situation.
>
> I just thought they handled it really professionally.
>

When aircraft are instructed to hold they're supposed to be issued a time
when they can proceed beyond the holding point. ATC obviously couldn't know
how long the airport would be closed, but they did know why it was closed
and issuing that information would have given pilots an idea how long the
delay would be. Really professional controllers do these things not just
because they're required, but also because it's good procedure.



FAA Order 7110.65R Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 1. General


7-1-4. VISUAL HOLDING OF VFR AIRCRAFT

TERMINAL

When it becomes necessary to hold VFR aircraft at visual holding fixes, take
the following actions:

a. Clear aircraft to hold at selected, prominent geographical fixes which
can be easily recognized from the air, preferably those depicted on
sectional charts.

NOTE-
At some locations, VFR checkpoints are depicted on Sectional Aeronautical
and Terminal Area Charts. In selecting geographical fixes, depicted VFR
checkpoints are preferred unless the pilot exhibits a familiarity with the
local area.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Visual Holding Points, Para 4-6-5.

b. Issue traffic information to aircraft cleared to hold at the same fix.

PHRASEOLOGY-
HOLD AT (location) UNTIL (time or other condition),

TRAFFIC (description) HOLDING AT (fix, altitude if known),

or

PROCEEDING TO (fix) FROM (direction or fix).

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Holding, Para 7-6-5.

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> When aircraft are instructed to hold they're supposed to be issued a time
> when they can proceed beyond the holding point. ATC obviously couldn't know
> how long the airport would be closed, but they did know why it was closed
> and issuing that information would have given pilots an idea how long the
> delay would be.

So the pilots would have known what the controllers didn't? How?

> Really professional controllers do these things not just
> because they're required, but also because it's good procedure.

To imply that the OSH controllers are anything but professional is ridiculous.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

RST Engineering > wrote:

> That may well be, but Fisk has strobes, controllers under a beach umbrella,
> railroad tracks, and grass. You proceed from Ripon to Fisk, not from RIPON
> to FISKE.

Explain that to the NOTAM-clueless pilot made famous in the ATC MP3 file
posted previously.

"Should I program FISKE into my GPS after RIPON?" :)


--
Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

>>The reason for the closure.
> Yeah, but why?

So pilots can evaluate their bag of alternate plans with an eye to which
would be more appropriate.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven,
>
>> When aircraft are instructed to hold they're supposed to be issued a time
>> when they can proceed beyond the holding point. ATC obviously couldn't
>> know
>> how long the airport would be closed, but they did know why it was closed
>> and issuing that information would have given pilots an idea how long the
>> delay would be.
>>
>
> So the pilots would have known what the controllers didn't? How?
>

Apparently you missed the last sentence.


>>
>> Really professional controllers do these things not just
>> because they're required, but also because it's good procedure.
>>
>
> To imply that the OSH controllers are anything but professional is
> ridiculous.
>

Why?

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> So pilots can evaluate their bag of alternate plans with an eye to which
> would be more appropriate.
>

Ok, let's assume the controller knows there's an accident AND they have the
time and free mind capacity to say it on the frequency. Then what? For that
info to be useful, you'd have to know how long it's going to take to clear
up. I'd wager the controllers did not know that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RST Engineering]

Neither. You proceed from Ripon up the railroad tracks to a point about 500
yards east of the beach umbrella directly over the railroad tracks. Have
you ever flown the approach during the show?

Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Would you care to bet a whole bunch of paper with old dead mens' pictures
>> on them that FISKE is not directly over the aforementioned beach
>> umbrella?
>>
>
> Do you proceed from Ripon to Fisk, or do you proceed from Ripon to beach
> umbrella?
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> Ok, let's assume the controller knows there's an accident AND they have the
> time and free mind capacity to say it on the frequency. Then what? For that
> info to be useful, you'd have to know how long it's going to take to clear
> up. I'd wager the controllers did not know that.

No, but now the pilots, knowing more than before, can make their own
evalutions.

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

[Jules]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> My point was that listening to audio or viewing video does nothing to help
> Joe Sixpack avoid similar accidents.
>

It's just curiosity.
You never look when you drive past an accident scene?

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, let's assume the controller knows there's an accident AND they have
> the
> time and free mind capacity to say it on the frequency.
>

What's "free mind capacity"?


>
> Then what?
>

Then pilots have an idea how long the airport will be closed.


>
> For that
> info to be useful, you'd have to know how long it's going to take to clear
> up. I'd wager the controllers did not know that.
>

That info gives pilots of average or better intelligence an idea of how long
the airport will be closed. Then they can decide if they're better off
continuing to hold or diverting to another airport and coming back later.

[RST Engineering]

We know for a fact that any mishap, be it a gear up landing incident or a
real accident that the field will be closed anywhere from half an hour to a
couple of hours. There are a dozen or so airports within spitting distance
of Ripon, and I'd sure prefer to be sitting at one of them monitoring 120.7
than boring holes around Rush or Green Lake, burning up fuel and wasting
engine time. Not to mention the very real chance of a midair in that
gaggle. Just say that there has been an aircraft mishap on the field and
I'll peel off of the inbound right now.

That's all we need -- just a little information and we can deal with it as
we see fit.

Jim




>> For that
>> info to be useful, you'd have to know how long it's going to take to
>> clear
>> up. I'd wager the controllers did not know that.
>>
>
> That info gives pilots of average or better intelligence an idea of how
> long the airport will be closed. Then they can decide if they're better
> off continuing to hold or diverting to another airport and coming back
> later.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Neither. You proceed from Ripon up the railroad tracks to a point about
> 500 yards east of the beach umbrella directly over the railroad tracks.

Not according to the Fisk VFR arrival procedure as published in the 2006
AirVenture NOTAM. Do you advocate ignoring the published procedure by all
pilots, or just those with 5000+ flight hours?


>
> Have you ever flown the approach during the show?
>

No. Have you ever flown the approach as published during the show?

[RST Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Neither. You proceed from Ripon up the railroad tracks to a point about
>> 500 yards east of the beach umbrella directly over the railroad tracks.
>
> Not according to the Fisk VFR arrival procedure as published in the 2006
> AirVenture NOTAM. Do you advocate ignoring the published procedure by all
> pilots, or just those with 5000+ flight hours?

That is precisely the Fisk VFR arrival procedure. Ripon up the railroad
tracks to Fisk. Or what we CALL Fisk. Fisk itself is a small town about
half a mile to the north-northwest of the railroad tracks. The controller's
tent or umbrella is on a small knoll in the middle of a grassy field about
halfway between the railroad tracks and the town of Fisk. You stay over the
railroad tracks at the prescribed altitude and airspeed until advised by the
controllers in the tent which of the approach procedures to execute.

Over the railroad tracks at Fisk Avenue puts you almost exactly 500 yards
abeam the tent/umbrella on the knoll to your port side.

>
>
>>
>> Have you ever flown the approach during the show?
>>
>
> No. Have you ever flown the approach as published during the show?

Every time. As my ancient memory recalls, the arrival procedures had their
genesis in the great post-airshow gaggle of 1976 (of which I was an
unwilling participant), but the Fisk procedure as we know it today took a
couple of years after that to work out. I do not remember what the
procedure was from '77 until Fisk was instituted, but this is the first year
since 1973 that I haven't flown myself into Oshkosh for the Show ... in
strict compliance with the NOTAM as published.

Dave Yeoman (Marion, IA) sells cassette tapes of that '76 afternoon gaggle;
you may want to listen for the "red and white Cessna taildragger" in that
tape.

Somebody with a better memory than mine may wish to correct me on the year
of the Great Gaggle.

Jim
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is precisely the Fisk VFR arrival procedure. Ripon up the railroad
> tracks to Fisk.
>

You're contradicting yourself. When I asked if you proceed from Ripon to
Fisk, or from Ripon to beach umbrella you said; "Neither. You proceed from
Ripon up the railroad tracks to a point about 500 yards east of the beach
umbrella directly over the railroad tracks."


>
> Or what we CALL Fisk. Fisk itself is a small town about half a mile to
> the north-northwest of the railroad tracks.
>

Fisk is south of the railroad track.


>
> The controller's tent or umbrella is on a small knoll in the middle of a
> grassy field about halfway between the railroad tracks and the town of
> Fisk. You stay over the railroad tracks at the prescribed altitude and
> airspeed until advised by the controllers in the tent which of the
> approach procedures to execute.
>
> Over the railroad tracks at Fisk Avenue puts you almost exactly 500 yards
> abeam the tent/umbrella on the knoll to your port side.
>

So what?

[RST Engineering]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...

>
> You're contradicting yourself. When I asked if you proceed from Ripon to
> Fisk, or from Ripon to beach umbrella you said; "Neither. You proceed
> from Ripon up the railroad tracks to a point about 500 yards east of the
> beach umbrella directly over the railroad tracks."

Not if you read it correctly. You do not proceed to either the beach
umbrella nor to the town of "Fisk" nor to FISKE, however you wish to define
it. You proceed up the railroad tracks to what we commonly call "Fisk",
which is 500 yards east of the beach umbrella and directly over the railroad
tracks. You do NOT deviate from the railroad tracks until given persimmon
to do so.



>
>
>>
>> Or what we CALL Fisk. Fisk itself is a small town about half a mile to
>> the north-northwest of the railroad tracks.
>>
>
> Fisk is south of the railroad track.

You are correct. My memory was when we drove out to see it in February a
couple of years ago. The "business district" (both of them) is about a mile
north-northwest of Highway 44, not a mile north of the tracks. My bad.
>
>
>>
>> The controller's tent or umbrella is on a small knoll in the middle of a
>> grassy field about halfway between the railroad tracks and the town of
>> Fisk. You stay over the railroad tracks at the prescribed altitude and
>> airspeed until advised by the controllers in the tent which of the
>> approach procedures to execute.
>>
>> Over the railroad tracks at Fisk Avenue puts you almost exactly 500 yards
>> abeam the tent/umbrella on the knoll to your port side.
>>
>
> So what?

So what I said on my first pass at this.

Jim

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Steven,
>
>
>>When aircraft are instructed to hold they're supposed to be issued a time
>>when they can proceed beyond the holding point. ATC obviously couldn't know
>>how long the airport would be closed, but they did know why it was closed
>>and issuing that information would have given pilots an idea how long the
>>delay would be.
>
>
> So the pilots would have known what the controllers didn't? How?
>
>
>>Really professional controllers do these things not just
>>because they're required, but also because it's good procedure.
>
>
> To imply that the OSH controllers are anything but professional is ridiculous.
>

How extensive is your ATC experience?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Jose,
>
>
>>So pilots can evaluate their bag of alternate plans with an eye to which
>>would be more appropriate.
>>
>
>
> Ok, let's assume the controller knows there's an accident AND they have the
> time and free mind capacity to say it on the frequency. Then what? For that
> info to be useful, you'd have to know how long it's going to take to clear
> up. I'd wager the controllers did not know that.

The point is that now the pilots would also know that ATC didn't know,
but they could also surmise that it would be quite some time given the
circumstances. Many likely would have found an alternate thus relieving
some of the congestion.

Matt

[gatt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

>> To imply that the OSH controllers are anything but professional is
>> ridiculous.
>>
> How extensive is your ATC experience?

Would you describe the ATC at Oskosh as "amateur," "hobbyist," "student,"
"volunteer", "ad hoc"...

-c

[.Blueskies.]

Yes, you could tell the guys flying the GPS straight line rather than staying over the tracks...


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message ...
: That may well be, but Fisk has strobes, controllers under a beach umbrella,
: railroad tracks, and grass. You proceed from Ripon to Fisk, not from RIPON
: to FISKE.
:
: Jim
:
:
:
: "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
: nk.net...
: >
: > "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >>
: >> Just for my nosiness, why are we calling Fisk Fiske now?
: >>
: >
: > FISKE is 6 DME from OSH on the 247 radial.
: >
:
:

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
<...>
>
> Dave Yeoman (Marion, IA) sells cassette tapes of that '76 afternoon
> gaggle; you may want to listen for the "red and white Cessna taildragger"
> in that tape.
>
> Somebody with a better memory than mine may wish to correct me on the year
> of the Great Gaggle.
>
> Jim

You were in that line? Cool. I got to watch it from the ground - Aircraft
lined up as far as the eye could see - a real show!

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Matt Whiting]

gatt wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>To imply that the OSH controllers are anything but professional is
>>>ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>How extensive is your ATC experience?
>
>
> Would you describe the ATC at Oskosh as "amateur," "hobbyist," "student,"
> "volunteer", "ad hoc"...

I'm not an ATC specialist so I'm not in as good a position to judge as
is Steven, since he is an ATC professional. It certainly sounds like
they were deficient during the incident under discussion. I likely
wouldn't describe them as you have above in general, but it sounds like
they had a temporary lapse in judgement.


Matt

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> That may well be, but Fisk has strobes

Make that "strobe" (singular).

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> You proceed up the railroad tracks to what we commonly call "Fisk",
> which is 500 yards east of the beach umbrella and directly over the railroad
> tracks.

Isn't that the same point as FISKE?

[john smith]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> a. Clear aircraft to hold at selected, prominent geographical fixes which
> can be easily recognized from the air, preferably those depicted on
> sectional charts.

I like this one. Listen to the ATC controllers in the archive and you
will hear one of them telling aircraft to find another aircraft that is
already holding over an undefined location to follow the first aircraft.

[RST Engineering]

My calculations show FISKE to be about 200 yards north of the railroad
tracks at Fisk Avenue. Anybody that has a better plotter than mine is
welcome to correct me.

Jim



"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> You proceed up the railroad tracks to what we commonly call "Fisk",
>> which is 500 yards east of the beach umbrella and directly over the
>> railroad
>> tracks.
>
> Isn't that the same point as FISKE?

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

john smith > wrote:

> Isn't that the same point as FISKE?
>

FYI, the coordinates of Fisk in the Notam are identical to those of the FISKE waypoint (as shown on
Airnav and also my GPS database). Maybe this is all a moot point!

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> No, but now the pilots, knowing more than before, can make their own
> evalutions.
>

How? What changes in your evaluation from "hold there" to "hold there
because of an accident"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> What's "free mind capacity"?

I'm not a native speaker. You know what I mean if you want to.

> That info gives pilots of average or better intelligence an idea of how long
> the airport will be closed. Then they can decide if they're better off
> continuing to hold or diverting to another airport and coming back later.

Ah, ok. So I must be below average intelligence, because I have seen/read about
vastly differing times needed for clearing of runways after accidents and would
have NO idea at all what timeframe I could figure for an event like that
without a vast amount of further details beyond "there's been an accident".
Good for you that you are so much smarter, I guess.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Steven,
>
>
>>What's "free mind capacity"?
>
>
> I'm not a native speaker. You know what I mean if you want to.
>
>
>>That info gives pilots of average or better intelligence an idea of how long
>>the airport will be closed. Then they can decide if they're better off
>>continuing to hold or diverting to another airport and coming back later.
>
>
> Ah, ok. So I must be below average intelligence, because I have seen/read about
> vastly differing times needed for clearing of runways after accidents and would
> have NO idea at all what timeframe I could figure for an event like that
> without a vast amount of further details beyond "there's been an accident".
> Good for you that you are so much smarter, I guess.

Very few accidents take less than an hour to clear, that is just common
sense. Even raising an airplane after a gear-up landing is likely an
hour event at least. And that assumes no injured pax to clear.


Matt

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

gatt wrote:
>
> Would you describe the ATC at Oskosh as "amateur," "hobbyist," "student,"
> "volunteer", "ad hoc"...
>


The fact that someone earns a living at an activity means they're "a
professional". Even "a professional" can execute the activity in a more
professional or less professional manner.

I've seen this demonstrated nicely @ KDXR on a busy weekend. As I was
handed off from "the PROFESSIONALS" @ BDL approach to "the professional"
@ DXR tower, the difference was very clear. One individual was top
notch, fully on top of his game, and very "professional", while the
other should have been fired, as he let his Delta airspace degrade to a
very busy CTAF.

Any more hairs to split? <G>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> How? What changes in your evaluation from "hold there" to "hold there
> because of an accident"?
>

"Hold there because of an accident" provides an idea of how long the delay
will be, "hold there" does not.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven,
>
>>
>> What's "free mind capacity"?
>>
>
> I'm not a native speaker. You know what I mean if you want to.
>

Not true. I have no idea what you meant, but I do want to know.


>>
>> That info gives pilots of average or better intelligence an idea of how
>> long
>> the airport will be closed. Then they can decide if they're better off
>> continuing to hold or diverting to another airport and coming back later.
>>
>
> Ah, ok. So I must be below average intelligence, because I have seen/read
> about
> vastly differing times needed for clearing of runways after accidents and
> would
> have NO idea at all what timeframe I could figure for an event like that
> without a vast amount of further details beyond "there's been an
> accident".
>

That was my conclusion as well.

[Jose[_1_]]

> How? What changes in your evaluation from "hold there" to "hold there
> because of an accident"?

Each pilot will make their own determination. What changes in =my= view
is that after an accident, there would likely be cleanup and
investigation, and the runway may be closed for a long time. I would
probably choose to divert if a circuit or two doesn't clear it up.
Other reasons for holds are more ephemeral.

It is true, I could make the wrong decision, but it would be =my=
decision. I value that.

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

[Jose[_1_]]

>>>What's "free mind capacity"?
>> I'm not a native speaker. You know what I mean if you want to.
> Not true. I have no idea what you meant, but I do want to know.

The way I read it, "Free" means "available". "Mind capacity" means
"ability to think". We sometimes refer to it as "processor cycles", by
anaolgy to computing. When one is thinking too much, there is not much
mind capacity left for other tasks, so there is not much "free" mind
capactity, although one's total mind capacity ("intellegence") is unaltered.

The other way to parse it, "free mind" "capacity" (ability to be
freethinking) doesn't fit well, so I went with the first one.

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

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote
>
> Ah, ok. So I must be below average intelligence, because I have seen/read
about
> vastly differing times needed for clearing of runways after accidents and
would
> have NO idea at all what timeframe I could figure for an event like that
> without a vast amount of further details beyond "there's been an
accident".
> Good for you that you are so much smarter, I guess.

If it were stated that there was a "fatal incident" on the runway, that
would tell everyone that there would be a sizable delay. There is always
extra time taken to investigate, take proper care and respect to remove the
occupants, and remove the aircraft.

If I were put into a hold with that many aircraft, and knew it was not just
a backup due to too many aircraft trying to get in to land all at once, I
would have definitely made the decision to go find somewhere to land, and
come back later.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Steven,

> "Hold there because of an accident" provides an idea of how long the delay
> will be
>

How long will it be? I seriously want to know.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven,
>
>> "Hold there because of an accident" provides an idea of how long the
>> delay
>> will be
>>
>
> How long will it be? I seriously want to know.
>

One hour minimum.

[[email protected]]

> If it were stated that there was a "fatal incident" on the runway, that
> would tell everyone that there would be a sizable delay. There is always
> extra time taken to investigate, take proper care and respect to remove the
> occupants, and remove the aircraft.
>
> If I were put into a hold with that many aircraft, and knew it was not just
> a backup due to too many aircraft trying to get in to land all at once, I
> would have definitely made the decision to go find somewhere to land, and
> come back later.

I agree.
Having been in that hold over Green Lake, I think (and this is just my
opinion) that this one tidbit of information would have shut up all the
jibber-jabber on the frequency. It had gotten out of hand, and while I
respect the idea that ATC/FAA/EAA might not have wanted to brodcast the
fact that there was a fatal accident, there were still literally
hundreds of airplanes in the air on that Sunday, and people would have
piped down and shut up and made proper decisions about what to do next
if they knew the full scope of what was going on. Call it situational
awareness, but things were teetering on the brink of break down.
Broadcasting what had happened would have helped the guys at FISK get
it back under control, which they were in danger of losing.

People had a bad case of "get-THERE-itis" and wanted to get in. Knowing
what had happened would have helped to calm things down.

Arguing about how long it might take to clear up various types of
accidents is a waste of time. Each situation is a little different. I
remember one (non-fatal, except to the avionics involved) where a
baggage door on a twin opened up while the aircraft rotated on 27 at
OSH. The boxes of avionics then went thru the prop and got shredded
into a million small pieces. It took us probably an hour or two at
least to do the FOD walk and clear the runway.

Ryan Wubben
EAA Flight Line Operations

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

Well said, and it has an added plus. The more pilots that take the
"accident announcement" to mean that the hold will be longer than they are
comfortable with, the more pilots that may leave the congested airspace and
resultantly open up more room and a larger safety factor for not only
themselves, but for those pilots who decide to stay in the hold.

It's a win for those who want to leave, it's a win for those who want to
stay, and it's a win for the controllers.

Jim


"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
> > How? What changes in your evaluation from "hold there" to "hold there
> > because of an accident"?
>
> Each pilot will make their own determination. What changes in =my= view
> is that after an accident, there would likely be cleanup and
> investigation, and the runway may be closed for a long time. I would
> probably choose to divert if a circuit or two doesn't clear it up.
> Other reasons for holds are more ephemeral.
>
> It is true, I could make the wrong decision, but it would be =my=
> decision. I value that.
>
> Jose
> --
> The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_3_]]

> How long will it be? I seriously want to know.

Minimum for a collapsed gear, 30 minutes, fatal acciden t60 - 90 minutes,
would be close.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> Minimum for a collapsed gear, 30 minutes, fatal acciden t60 - 90 minutes,
> would be close.
>

So if a controller says "delay due to accident", you have a 300 percent
error margin, with 30 minutes probably being sensible to wait out and 90
minutes being a little on the long side. I wouldn't know what to do with
that information, but, well, that's just me.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RST Engineering]

And I choose to take that 1 to 3 hour wait back at Portage, where I can have
a couple of more morning brats, listen to 120.7 for the chatter to start
back up, fill up the tanks, and relax.

As for not announcing that the incident/accident was fatal, not a problem.
Simply say "accident" and be done with it. Now we know it isn't airport
overload.

Oshkosh and "gottagetthere" don't belong in the same sentence.

Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>
> One hour minimum.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if a controller says "delay due to accident", you have a 300 percent
> error margin, with 30 minutes probably being sensible to wait out and 90
> minutes being a little on the long side. I wouldn't know what to do with
> that information, but, well, that's just me.
>

So it appears.

[Chris G.]

This link was not found. (404 error).

Got an alternate link to it?

Chris G.

john smith wrote:
> 00:01:15 minutes into the playback is when the accident occurred on 23
> July
>
> http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/kosh/KOSH-Jul-23-2006-1330Z.mp3

[Peter R.]

"Chris G." > wrote:

> This link was not found. (404 error).
>
> Got an alternate link to it?

LiveATC's archive server is down for the next few days due to a major
upgrade. Hopefully the archive files from these dates will be preserved
when the new server goes online.

Check back later in the week, or perhaps over the weekend.

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

"Chris G." > wrote:

> This link was not found. (404 error).
>
> Got an alternate link to it?

On second thought, Chris, someone posted an edited version of this clip
over in the LiveATC audio clip forum. I grabbed the clip and uploaded it
to Spread-it.com. This link will be available for two weeks from today
(Spread-it's hosting policy).

http://www5.spread-it.com/dl.php?id=e4a99fea54d0f97ca6b8ae12a4ec1f3432436b10

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not sensationalistic
audio of the pilot's final words, but rather a testament to the
professionalism of the ATC during that tragedy.


--
Peter

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:51:42 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:
> So if a controller says "delay due to accident", you have a 300 percent
> error margin, with 30 minutes probably being sensible to wait out and 90
> minutes being a little on the long side. I wouldn't know what to do with
> that information, but, well, that's just me.

When I flew to OSH back in 2002, I had refueled at Kirksvill, MO (IRK)
and as such, I had at least 2 hours of fuel, just in case there was
any sort of delay... I can see how someone with less of a fuel reserve
might start getting a bit testy with the prospect of an indeterminate
delay...

[john smith]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> The way I read it, "Free" means "available". "Mind capacity" means
> "ability to think". We sometimes refer to it as "processor cycles", by
> anaolgy to computing. When one is thinking too much, there is not much
> mind capacity left for other tasks, so there is not much "free" mind
> capactity, although one's total mind capacity ("intellegence") is unaltered.

For MicroSoft Windows users, this would be a buffer overrun error. It's
a common hacker technique to take control of someone else's computer.

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> As for not announcing that the incident/accident was fatal, not a problem.
> Simply say "accident" and be done with it. Now we know it isn't airport
> overload.

How about this:
on ATIS: "Oshkosh Airport is closed indefinitely. All aircraft are
advised to land at other airports. A NOTAM stating the airport closure
has been issued. When the airport is re-opened, the NOTAM will be
cancelled. The RIPON Arrival Procedure will remain in effect following
the reopening of the airport."

FISKE Controllers: "Oshkosh Airport is closed. Any aircraft inbound on
the RIPON Arrival Procedure are instructed to land at another airport
until the Oshkosh Airport reopens. Any aircraft proceeding beyond FISKE
will not be allowed to land at Oshkosh."

OSH Tower: "The Oshkosh Airport is closed indefinitely. Any aircraft
landing while the airport is closed will be subject to FAA enforcement
actions. You are instructed to depart the Oshkosh Class D Airspace and
remain clear. A NOTAM advising of the airport closure has been issued.
It is recommended that all aircraft desiring to land Oshkosh divert to
an outlying airport and monitor the NOTAM for cancellation and reopening
of the Oshkosh Airport."

[RST Engineering]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> As for not announcing that the incident/accident was fatal, not a
>> problem.
>> Simply say "accident" and be done with it. Now we know it isn't airport
>> overload.
>
>
> FISKE Controllers: "Oshkosh Airport is closed. Any aircraft inbound on
> the RIPON Arrival Procedure are instructed to land at another airport
> until the Oshkosh Airport reopens. Any aircraft proceeding beyond FISKE
> will not be allowed to land at Oshkosh."

I disagree with this one. If you don't go to another airport, you are
disobeying a direct order from ATC. I prefer to give the pilot the option
of the Rush Lake hold, the Green Lake hold, or diversion at the pilot's
option. All questions of the nature "how long will the hold be" are
answered the same way, "the hold is indefinite ... there has been an
accident at Oshkosh airport."

THe procedure is Fisk, not FISKE.

And I'd have Fisk ask the first ten or twenty aircraft in the ensuing open
field lineup to say words on the aircraft's radio that the field is open.
THat way those who have diverted and are listening on a handheld below the
ATIS line of sight will have a clue that the airport has reopened. Line of
sight (radio horizon) for an aircraft at 1000 AGL is about 45 miles.

Jim

Jim

[john smith]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> I disagree with this one. If you don't go to another airport, you are
> disobeying a direct order from ATC. I prefer to give the pilot the option
> of the Rush Lake hold, the Green Lake hold, or diversion at the pilot's
> option. All questions of the nature "how long will the hold be" are
> answered the same way, "the hold is indefinite ... there has been an
> accident at Oshkosh airport."

Good catch, Jim. I think there should be something to dissuade people
from holding, though. It leads to the problems we witnessed this year
and creates a false impression that the airport will be opening soon.

[Thomas Borchert]

Grumman-581,

> . I can see how someone with less of a fuel reserve
> might start getting a bit testy with the prospect of an indeterminate
> delay...
>

So, accident or not, they leave...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not sensationalistic
> audio of the pilot's final words, but rather a testament to the
> professionalism of the ATC during that tragedy.
>

Actually, the exact opposite was pointed out in the thread: That it was a
testament to the non-professionalism of ATC during the tragedy.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this is not sensationalistic
> > audio of the pilot's final words, but rather a testament to the
> > professionalism of the ATC during that tragedy.
> >
>
> Actually, the exact opposite was pointed out in the thread: That it was a
> testament to the non-professionalism of ATC during the tragedy.

Nobody said that they were anything but professional at the moment of the
accident. The other discussion was that they did not explain why everyone
was put in a hold.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

John Smith said: "...What you hear is how the FAA failed to share
information with the pilots
via ATIS and the FISKE controllers..."

to which Steven added:

"Really professional controllers do these things not just
because they're required, but also because it's good procedure."

So there you have it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)