Making the OSH Arrival Safer

[Jay Honeck]

As many of you know, this was our 24th consecutive Airventure -- and
our 8th flying in. I've seen the RIPON/FISK arrival from all angles,
both from the ground and in the air, and have seen pretty much
everything that could be thrown at us. Although it's always tense,
due to the proximity of aircraft and the unusual arrival procedures,
the OSH arrival is usually a piece of cake.

This year, however, was different. Due to a fatal accident on Rwy 27,
the normally orderly stream of aircraft up the railroad tracks was
turned into a multi-hour hold around Rush and Green lakes. With
temperatures and tempers flaring, I witnessed radio discipline
completely break down at Oshkosh, for the first time. Worse, as the
lakes melee deteriorated, frustrated pilots were cheating the hold and
flying up the tracks DESPITE specific instructions from controllers to
remain in the hold.

Worse yet, IMHO, the controllers were doing nothing about it. They
were simply clearing these bold scoff-laws right into OSH, leaving the
rule-abiding pilots to circle endlessly. This really ground salt into
the wounds of the many who were circling the lakes for nearly two
hours, and made a tough situation downright ugly. I've never heard such
language on an aircraft radio -- and I hope to never hear it again.

Speed, as always, became a critical issue. With literally dozens of
aircraft circling nose-to-tail, the cha-cha line began to break down.
Dissimilar aircraft, varying from Champs to RVs, were all trying to
stay in line, but -- over time -- the line simply broke down. A Cub,
going full bore, can barely do the required 90 knots in a dive, let
alone in cruise, and with so many airplanes in the same line, the
speeds gradually deteriorated into a dangerous situation.

At one point I was forced to drop 2 notches of flaps, and was hanging
on the prop, trying not to over-run a gaggle of Kitfoxes, with other
planes on both sides AND above me. The single line around the lake at
one point was actually THREE lines abreast, and it was an absolutely
mess.

I don't ever want to see anything like that again, so, here are my
suggestions to make the EAA Arrival Procedures safer and easier next
year:

1. Add an LSA Arrival Procedure.
Currently, there are just two procedures for "non-ultra-light"
aircraft: 1800 MSL and 90 knots, or 2300 MSL, and 130 knots. Trouble
is, a Cub or a Kitfox (or many of the new LSAs) are not capable of
maintaining 90 knots in cruise. This results in an ever-slowing
approach, which ALWAYS results in trouble. (Was that poor Europa
pilot who was killed impeded by someone going 60 knots? Will we ever
know?)

We need a third speed/altitude, just for slower planes. For 2007 I
suggest adding an "LSA Arrival" at 70 knots, and 1800 MSL, to keep
these slow-pokes out of the bunch. This will make things MUCH safer
for the majority of pilots. Keep "GA Arrivals" at 90 knots, but move
'em up to 2100 feet, and bump the 130 knot "Fast Mover" arrivals up to
2400 MSL.

2. Stop the "Keep in Tight" Commands.
Every year I've landed on Rwy 27, the controller spends most of his
time admonishing arrivals to "keep it inside the blue water tower" on
downwind. This always results in a "Corsair approach" to land, meaning
that you're banked steeply in a constantly descending right turn all
the way to touchdown.

Face it, everyone is loaded at (or beyond) gross, it's hot, nerves are
frazzled, and then you're forced to perform an abnormally tight pattern
to land -- all (apparently) for the convenience of the controllers. I
didn't see it, but the guy who stalled and spun in was performing this
arrival, and it's tough. (We landed on Rwy 36 later, which is a much
simpler -- and safer -- approach.)

IMHO, there is no reason for this to happen. If the pattern gets a bit
wider, who cares? Pilot safety should be paramount, not controller
convenience. If they're worried about the pattern expanding beyond
their ability to see from the tower, they're just gonna have to move
their butts out onto a flat-bed, just like FISK.

3. COMMUNICATE Problems.
The multi-hour mess that followed the accident was exacerbated by the
fact that the controllers NEVER (while I was in it, anyway) explained
what was going on. If they had simply said "Guys, there's been an
accident, we're down to half the runways, it's gonna be a while till
they clean it up." -- a whole bunch of pilots would have diverted to
other airports to wait it out.

Instead, all they said was "Guys, we're doing the best we can, but if
you don't give us the proper 1/2 mile spacing, we're gonna send you
back to the lake to do it again." This gave pilots no useful
information, and essentially made the problem worse by making pilots
think that the hold might end at any minute.

That's it. Nothing earth-shaking, but I feel these three changes would
be easy to implement, and would help make the Oshkosh approach safer
and more enjoyable for everyone.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> 3. COMMUNICATE Problems.
> The multi-hour mess that followed the accident was exacerbated by the
> fact that the controllers NEVER (while I was in it, anyway) explained
> what was going on.

I wonder if this has something to do with keeping the press from getting
wind (not that the press isn't already there on the ground watching it
all, but it may be SOP for controllers to be discreet. I've heard
comments like "we've made contact with American" while at a major hub;
what happened was the pilot (of the other airline; I'm making the
airline names up) dinged wingtips with tha American Airlines jet, and
both would need to come back to the gate.

Random people who heard the exchange on the radio would not be alarmed
at "making contact", but would jump to the phones if they heard "crashed
into".

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

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As many of you know, this was our 24th consecutive Airventure -- and
> our 8th flying in. I've seen the RIPON/FISK arrival from all angles,
> both from the ground and in the air, and have seen pretty much
> everything that could be thrown at us. Although it's always tense,
> due to the proximity of aircraft and the unusual arrival procedures,
> the OSH arrival is usually a piece of cake.
>
> This year, however, was different.

<<<snip>>

>
> I don't ever want to see anything like that again, so, here are my
> suggestions to make the EAA Arrival Procedures safer and easier next
> year:

My rule, after experiencing a "bad" hold at SnF once upon a time is that I
*don't* hold. I'll fly away and land at an outlying airport before I'll
engage in a dogfight with dissimilar aircraft and pilots.

> 1. Add an LSA Arrival Procedure.
>>>snip>>>
> We need a third speed/altitude, just for slower planes. For 2007 I
> suggest adding an "LSA Arrival" at 70 knots, and 1800 MSL, to keep
> these slow-pokes out of the bunch. This will make things MUCH safer
> for the majority of pilots. Keep "GA Arrivals" at 90 knots, but move
> 'em up to 2100 feet, and bump the 130 knot "Fast Mover" arrivals up to
> 2400 MSL.

Lots of aircraft can use a slower arrival procedure. Any of the 2 seat
Cessnas, Luscombes, Aeroncas, most of the vintage biplanes, etc. could
easily fly a 75 knot arrival. That would eliminate the issue of somone in a
Commanche (or whatever) getting stuck behind a slow mover. Been there,
done that.

>
> 2. Stop the "Keep in Tight" Commands.
> Every year I've landed on Rwy 27, the controller spends most of his
> time admonishing arrivals to "keep it inside the blue water tower" on
> downwind. This always results in a "Corsair approach" to land, meaning
> that you're banked steeply in a constantly descending right turn all
> the way to touchdown.
>
> Face it, everyone is loaded at (or beyond) gross, it's hot, nerves are
> frazzled, and then you're forced to perform an abnormally tight pattern
> to land -- all (apparently) for the convenience of the controllers. I
> didn't see it, but the guy who stalled and spun in was performing this
> arrival, and it's tough. (We landed on Rwy 36 later, which is a much
> simpler -- and safer -- approach.)
>
> IMHO, there is no reason for this to happen. If the pattern gets a bit
> wider, who cares? Pilot safety should be paramount, not controller
> convenience. If they're worried about the pattern expanding beyond
> their ability to see from the tower, they're just gonna have to move
> their butts out onto a flat-bed, just like FISK.

Keep it tight does have benefits. It helps the incoming aircraft stay in
visual contact. A big pattern probably means a higher chance of mid-air
collisions because "that guy" is gonna turn base early, creating problems
for folks flying the bigger pattern.

> 3. COMMUNICATE Problems.

Agreed. If there is an accident, make an announcement. That way, people
can exit the hold procedure and go elsewhere to hold in the air or on the
ground.

My other comment is that the FAA needs to put people on the ground at
Oshkosh and SnF. Not to check weight and balance or to harass people.
Instead, to follow-up with pilots who make bad errors such as blowing the
arrival procedure or not following tower instructions. In those situations,
the first question is "Show me your copy of the NOTAM". Face it, there are a
handful of idiots out there trying to kill the rest of us or at least
tarnish our good name...


> That's it. Nothing earth-shaking, but I feel these three changes would
> be easy to implement, and would help make the Oshkosh approach safer
> and more enjoyable for everyone.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

In the past, I've sent similar comments to the EAA regarding both the SnF
and Oshkosh arrival procedures. I got a response to the effect of "Thanks
for your input..."


KB

[john smith]

Jay, an excellently written description.
Send this to the FAA and copy EAA.
Copy all the EAA directors, also.

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

I guess you need to show up with a lot of gas in your tanks if your going to
OSH.

[RST Engineering]

You can copy the FAA, the EAA, all the Directors, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph if
you wish. I've been making similar suggestions for over twenty years. If
you get a "thanks for your input" you will have gotten more than I.

The Ripon-Fisk approach is the stupidest idea in town, yet the EAA/FAA are
married to it because they invented it. To do something else is to admit
that there has always been a better way and none of the "in crowd" thought
of it first. There are a dozen better ways to do it, and all you need to do
is put Tom and every director in a small light aircraft AS THE COPILOT WHO
CAN'T GET THEIR HANDS ON THE CONTROLS every day at noon for a week and have
them see the Ripon approach procedure as a helpless passenger. THEN see how
fast it changes.

Jim




"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Jay, an excellently written description.
> Send this to the FAA and copy EAA.
> Copy all the EAA directors, also.

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> We need a third speed/altitude, just for slower planes. For 2007 I
> suggest adding an "LSA Arrival" at 70 knots, and 1800 MSL, to keep
> these slow-pokes out of the bunch. This will make things MUCH safer
> for the majority of pilots. Keep "GA Arrivals" at 90 knots, but move
> 'em up to 2100 feet, and bump the 130 knot "Fast Mover" arrivals up to
> 2400 MSL.

keep the 500' seperation between altitudes - it's too easy to gain/lose
altitude on bumpy days.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> > 2. Stop the "Keep in Tight" Commands.

> Keep it tight does have benefits. It helps the incoming aircraft stay in
> visual contact. A big pattern probably means a higher chance of mid-air
> collisions because "that guy" is gonna turn base early, creating problems
> for folks flying the bigger pattern.

I don't mean they shouldn't keep the base turn in close to the runway
threshold-- there's nothing wrong with that, and the "green dot" system
works great to alleviate someone who's in TOO tight.

But the too-tight-to-the-runway downwind is what kills people. They
can't quite get it around on base-to-final, they help it with a little
rudder, they're too slow, too low, too hot, and too dead.

Allow the downwind to loosen up, and you'll save some lives, methinks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skywise]

Being a non pilot I may just be blowing smoke, but after reading
about this tragedy and the ensuing madness, I have an idea....

Do you think there'd be enough people that would stand up and say
that "I'm boycotting OSH until new, safer approach procedures are
implimented" and voice this statement publicly to AOPA, FAA, EAA,
OSH, and whoever else should see it?

The point being, if a lot of pilots come out and say they are not
going next year because, as pilots in command, they feel the
approach procedures are unsafe, perhaps the problem will get
looked at much quicker?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[RST Engineering]

OOOOH, balloon buster targets. I get first swipe at next year's balloons.

Jim



>
> How about putting up a few of those balloons that look like a really small
> blimp (like they use for new car dealerships, and grand openings) as
> points
> to turn just outside of, to control pattern size?
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Being a non pilot I may just be blowing smoke, but after reading
> about this tragedy and the ensuing madness, I have an idea....
>
> Do you think there'd be enough people that would stand up and say
> that "I'm boycotting OSH until new, safer approach procedures are
> implimented" and voice this statement publicly to AOPA, FAA, EAA,
> OSH, and whoever else should see it?

As this thread shows, those of us who fly to Oshkosh or SnF understand that
the procedures are not perfect and neither are all of the pilots and planes
in attendance. We choose to attend by air anyway.

Regardless of how fouled up the procedures are, I'm not driving to a fly-in,
and I'm not skipping SnF or Osh...

KB

[RST Engineering]

As a theoretical approach, this is a good idea. On the other hand, getting
rid of German submarines in the North Atlantic during WWII had a theoretical
proposal to heat the water up to 212°F and boil the water off. You could
then pick them off as they sat on the ocean floor.

Oshkosh/EAA is a juggernaut. At some point it will implode upon itself, but
that may be next year, or not in our lifetime. Neither you nor I with any
great ideas are going to impact what EAA is going to do. Live with and
understand this fact.

Jim



>
> The point being, if a lot of pilots come out and say they are not
> going next year because, as pilots in command, they feel the
> approach procedures are unsafe, perhaps the problem will get
> looked at much quicker?

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I don't ever want to see anything like that again, so, here are my
> suggestions to make the EAA Arrival Procedures safer and easier next
> year:

> That's it. Nothing earth-shaking, but I feel these three changes would
> be easy to implement, and would help make the Oshkosh approach safer
> and more enjoyable for everyone.

This year was the biggest exception that has ever been, but they need to be
ready to deal with a closed runway or airport. If short holds are not
enough, I think that they should also have a procedure published to land
planes at one of the nearby airports, too. Do it just like OSH procedures,
but have the planes land, and then and take off in the order that they
landed, when space in the pattern is available.

They really do need to develop procedures to send weenie pilots out to land
and get the NOTAMs, when someone comes in without a clue.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> Keep it tight does have benefits. It helps the incoming aircraft stay in
> visual contact. A big pattern probably means a higher chance of mid-air
> collisions because "that guy" is gonna turn base early, creating problems
> for folks flying the bigger pattern.

How about putting up a few of those balloons that look like a really small
blimp (like they use for new car dealerships, and grand openings) as points
to turn just outside of, to control pattern size?
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

A couple more suggestions:

Don't come to Oshkosh if you aren't comfortable in your plane and can't hold both speed and altitude
relatively accurately. I don't claim to be the ace of the base by any means, but the two RV's we were
following were +/- 500 feet and 30 knots, and just made total chaos out of the holding and arrival
sequence. Our stall horn was beeping trying to maintain separation - not a good thing! I'm just
speculating, but I can imagine a lot of Oshkosh visitors are making their one big cross-country flight of
the year, and this is no place to get familiar with your airplane!

Don't come alone. It's very helpful to have another pilot on board to help with the navigation, traffic
spotting, Notam monitoring, and communications, while the pilot flying can stay on speed/altitude and
watch the traffic sequence. I'd be VERY uncomfortable doing the Ripon arrival solo!

Mike

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm just
> speculating, but I can imagine a lot of Oshkosh visitors are making their one big cross-country flight of
> the year, and this is no place to get familiar with your airplane!

I think the high cost of gas has made this even more prevalent. Some
of those folks in the hold talked and acted like they hadn't flown
cross-country *ever* -- let alone recently.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Skywise]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in
:

> As a theoretical approach, this is a good idea. On the other hand,
> getting rid of German submarines in the North Atlantic during WWII had a
> theoretical proposal to heat the water up to 212°F and boil the water
> off. You could then pick them off as they sat on the ocean floor.
>
> Oshkosh/EAA is a juggernaut. At some point it will implode upon itself,
> but that may be next year, or not in our lifetime. Neither you nor I
> with any great ideas are going to impact what EAA is going to do. Live
> with and understand this fact.
>
> Jim

So if everyone takes the attitude that they can't do anything
to fix the problem, of course it will never get fixed!!!

If people are going to bitch and moan about a problem yet are
unwilling to even try fixing the problem, then I have zero
sympathy for ya!

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Kingfish]

Skywise wrote:
> So if everyone takes the attitude that they can't do anything
> to fix the problem, of course it will never get fixed!!!
>
> If people are going to bitch and moan about a problem yet are
> unwilling to even try fixing the problem, then I have zero
> sympathy for ya!

>From the feedback I've read here, it sounds like there's enough
discontent with the status quo that EAA/AOPA might be on the receiving
end of much angry mail concerning the arrival procedures. I understand
there's quite a mix of aircraft and pilot experience/capability flying
in at once which is a tough proposition to begin with, but there must
be a better/safer solution that all can live with.

[almostthere[_1_]]

I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
details.


"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Being a non pilot I may just be blowing smoke, but after reading
> about this tragedy and the ensuing madness, I have an idea....
>
> Do you think there'd be enough people that would stand up and say
> that "I'm boycotting OSH until new, safer approach procedures are
> implimented" and voice this statement publicly to AOPA, FAA, EAA,
> OSH, and whoever else should see it?
>
> The point being, if a lot of pilots come out and say they are not
> going next year because, as pilots in command, they feel the
> approach procedures are unsafe, perhaps the problem will get
> looked at much quicker?
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Whiting]

almostthere wrote:
> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.

The AOPA legal plan can raise you from the dead after your mid-air
collision? Wow, I guess I better sign-up!!

Matt

[john smith]

In article >,
"almostthere" > wrote:

> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.

You see, this is exactly what we are talking about!
An inexperience pilot who doesn't follow the procedures and
instructions, creating a problem for everyone else who does.
And he thinks that he is making the correct decision.
Sounds like his flight instructor hasn't done a good job on teaching
this student good judgement.
The best thing you could do is find a pilot who has previously flown in
several times and ask to ride right seat, watch for traffic, listen to
the controllers and observe what is happening.

[Jeff[_1_]]

This article has been posted here multiple times, but it puts into words
exactly what we are saying. Worth a re-read:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182691-1.html

jf


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As many of you know, this was our 24th consecutive Airventure -- and
> our 8th flying in. I've seen the RIPON/FISK arrival from all angles,
> both from the ground and in the air, and have seen pretty much
> everything that could be thrown at us. Although it's always tense,
> due to the proximity of aircraft and the unusual arrival procedures,
> the OSH arrival is usually a piece of cake.
>
> This year, however, was different. Due to a fatal accident on Rwy 27,
> the normally orderly stream of aircraft up the railroad tracks was
> turned into a multi-hour hold around Rush and Green lakes. With
> temperatures and tempers flaring, I witnessed radio discipline
> completely break down at Oshkosh, for the first time. Worse, as the
> lakes melee deteriorated, frustrated pilots were cheating the hold and
> flying up the tracks DESPITE specific instructions from controllers to
> remain in the hold.
>
> Worse yet, IMHO, the controllers were doing nothing about it. They
> were simply clearing these bold scoff-laws right into OSH, leaving the
> rule-abiding pilots to circle endlessly. This really ground salt into
> the wounds of the many who were circling the lakes for nearly two
> hours, and made a tough situation downright ugly. I've never heard such
> language on an aircraft radio -- and I hope to never hear it again.
>
> Speed, as always, became a critical issue. With literally dozens of
> aircraft circling nose-to-tail, the cha-cha line began to break down.
> Dissimilar aircraft, varying from Champs to RVs, were all trying to
> stay in line, but -- over time -- the line simply broke down. A Cub,
> going full bore, can barely do the required 90 knots in a dive, let
> alone in cruise, and with so many airplanes in the same line, the
> speeds gradually deteriorated into a dangerous situation.
>
> At one point I was forced to drop 2 notches of flaps, and was hanging
> on the prop, trying not to over-run a gaggle of Kitfoxes, with other
> planes on both sides AND above me. The single line around the lake at
> one point was actually THREE lines abreast, and it was an absolutely
> mess.
>
> I don't ever want to see anything like that again, so, here are my
> suggestions to make the EAA Arrival Procedures safer and easier next
> year:
>
> 1. Add an LSA Arrival Procedure.
> Currently, there are just two procedures for "non-ultra-light"
> aircraft: 1800 MSL and 90 knots, or 2300 MSL, and 130 knots. Trouble
> is, a Cub or a Kitfox (or many of the new LSAs) are not capable of
> maintaining 90 knots in cruise. This results in an ever-slowing
> approach, which ALWAYS results in trouble. (Was that poor Europa
> pilot who was killed impeded by someone going 60 knots? Will we ever
> know?)
>
> We need a third speed/altitude, just for slower planes. For 2007 I
> suggest adding an "LSA Arrival" at 70 knots, and 1800 MSL, to keep
> these slow-pokes out of the bunch. This will make things MUCH safer
> for the majority of pilots. Keep "GA Arrivals" at 90 knots, but move
> 'em up to 2100 feet, and bump the 130 knot "Fast Mover" arrivals up to
> 2400 MSL.
>
> 2. Stop the "Keep in Tight" Commands.
> Every year I've landed on Rwy 27, the controller spends most of his
> time admonishing arrivals to "keep it inside the blue water tower" on
> downwind. This always results in a "Corsair approach" to land, meaning
> that you're banked steeply in a constantly descending right turn all
> the way to touchdown.
>
> Face it, everyone is loaded at (or beyond) gross, it's hot, nerves are
> frazzled, and then you're forced to perform an abnormally tight pattern
> to land -- all (apparently) for the convenience of the controllers. I
> didn't see it, but the guy who stalled and spun in was performing this
> arrival, and it's tough. (We landed on Rwy 36 later, which is a much
> simpler -- and safer -- approach.)
>
> IMHO, there is no reason for this to happen. If the pattern gets a bit
> wider, who cares? Pilot safety should be paramount, not controller
> convenience. If they're worried about the pattern expanding beyond
> their ability to see from the tower, they're just gonna have to move
> their butts out onto a flat-bed, just like FISK.
>
> 3. COMMUNICATE Problems.
> The multi-hour mess that followed the accident was exacerbated by the
> fact that the controllers NEVER (while I was in it, anyway) explained
> what was going on. If they had simply said "Guys, there's been an
> accident, we're down to half the runways, it's gonna be a while till
> they clean it up." -- a whole bunch of pilots would have diverted to
> other airports to wait it out.
>
> Instead, all they said was "Guys, we're doing the best we can, but if
> you don't give us the proper 1/2 mile spacing, we're gonna send you
> back to the lake to do it again." This gave pilots no useful
> information, and essentially made the problem worse by making pilots
> think that the hold might end at any minute.
>
> That's it. Nothing earth-shaking, but I feel these three changes would
> be easy to implement, and would help make the Oshkosh approach safer
> and more enjoyable for everyone.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.

That attitude will get you killed at OSH, my friend.

The secret to OSH is to "go with the flow". Those who don't put all
of us at risk.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jeff <jfranks1971 minus > wrote:

> This article has been posted here multiple times, but it puts into words
> exactly what we are saying. Worth a re-read:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182691-1.html

First time I read that article. Thanks for reposting the link.

--
Peter

[Dave Stadt]

"almostthere" > wrote in message
...
> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.

You really need to consider not attending OSH.

[Thomas Borchert]

Almostthere,

> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.
>

Stay away. Please.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"almostthere" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.
>

If you can't stay in step you can't be in the parade. You're not up to
flying to OSH. If you go, drive.

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "almostthere" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
>> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
>> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
>> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
>> details.
>
> You really need to consider not attending OSH.

so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?
OSH shouldn't be any different than flying into anywhere else.

One more reason why I have zero desire to ever go.

[Jay Honeck]

> so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?
> OSH shouldn't be any different than flying into anywhere else.

It's a matter of degree.

> One more reason why I have zero desire to ever go.

Too bad -- it's the most wonderful place on earth, for 8 days...

(And, interestingly, it's the one week of the year when we fly the
LEAST.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "almostthere" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
>>> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and
>>> you
>>> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
>>> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
>>> details.
>>
>> You really need to consider not attending OSH.
>
> so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?

Normal rules are not the norm at OSH but that doesn't mean the modified
rules are dangerous IF you know how to fly your airplane and can follow
simple instructions.

> OSH shouldn't be any different than flying into anywhere else.

As the busiest airport in the world it is very different. If you can't
handle having traffic within several hundred yards you should not fly in.

> One more reason why I have zero desire to ever go.

Too bad as it is an experience you will find nowhere else.

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?
>

No. But the OP shows a little inflexibility that might not be
appropriate for OSH.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

> > so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?


Yes.
The FAA has specific waivers for seperation that apply only to OSH. Do
you think its normal policy to have 3 airplanes landing simultaneously
on the same runway (numbers, green dot, orange dot)?
This is not normal behavior. The FAA treats it differently, and so
should you.
Be prepared.
Read the NOTAM.
Be fat on gas.
Know how to fly your airplane in all sorts of configurations and
speeds.
Be prepared.
Read the Notam.

Despite all the discussion, flying in is an experience that is well
worth it, and I truly believe that.

-Ryan Wubben

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

The fact that you think you can tune 7700 into your com says it all.
Jim

"almostthere" > wrote in message
...
> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.
>
>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Being a non pilot I may just be blowing smoke, but after reading
> > about this tragedy and the ensuing madness, I have an idea....
> >
> > Do you think there'd be enough people that would stand up and say
> > that "I'm boycotting OSH until new, safer approach procedures are
> > implimented" and voice this statement publicly to AOPA, FAA, EAA,
> > OSH, and whoever else should see it?
> >
> > The point being, if a lot of pilots come out and say they are not
> > going next year because, as pilots in command, they feel the
> > approach procedures are unsafe, perhaps the problem will get
> > looked at much quicker?
> >
> > Brian
> > --
> > http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> > Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> > Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> > Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
>

[Skylune[_1_]]

LOL. You guys make my case (about need for substantially beefed up
training/currency requirements) far better than me.

I'm only surprised that this years' casualty count was so low.

[[email protected]]

Skylune wrote:
> LOL. You guys make my case (about need for substantially beefed up
> training/currency requirements) far better than me.
>
> I'm only surprised that this years' casualty count was so low.

We don't need "substantially beefed up requirements"...
We just need a bigger percentage to read the F-$#%-g NOTAM to begin
with, and follow it. That would be a start.

[Emily[_1_]]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>> "almostthere" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
>>>> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and
>>>> you
>>>> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
>>>> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
>>>> details.
>>> You really need to consider not attending OSH.
>> so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?
>
> Normal rules are not the norm at OSH but that doesn't mean the modified
> rules are dangerous IF you know how to fly your airplane and can follow
> simple instructions.
>
>> OSH shouldn't be any different than flying into anywhere else.
>
> As the busiest airport in the world it is very different. If you can't
> handle having traffic within several hundred yards you should not fly in.

Most busy airports don't have low time pilots in all sorts of aircraft
flying into them.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Yeah. Call the AOPA and have them lobby to make ALL flight training
"voluntary". I mean, the 40 or so hours to get your PPL is definitely a
"burden."

Drop the Avgas taxes to zero, too, since it basically amounts to less than
a drop in the bucket.

THAT would be real "freedom."

Still laughing...

[Robert M. Gary]

One reason I went with the Caravan when I went. They closed the airport
down for us as we all arrived in our orderly flight groups from a
nearby staging airport.

-Robert

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> The fact that you think you can tune 7700 into your com says it all.
> Jim

Right, since he will be busier than a one armed paper hanger, plus the fact
that there are not supposed to be any transponders turned on.
--
Jim in NC

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:27:21 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?
> OSH shouldn't be any different than flying into anywhere else.
>
> One more reason why I have zero desire to ever go.

Flying into OSH is one of those things that as a pilot you have to do
at least *once*... I've landed there 4 times over 2 years... I don't
know if I'll ever end up going up there again, but it's not because of
the traffic procedures...

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> If you can't stay in step you can't be in the parade. You're not up to
> flying to OSH. If you go, drive.


If you drive, and are approaching OSH from the west, say ...from Tomah on
(Wis) Hwy 21 - please keep your speed up.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C23616F7D
Tomah is where i-90 and i-94 meet.
They meet up again out in Billings, Montana.


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you drive, and are approaching OSH from the west, say ...from Tomah on
> (Wis) Hwy 21 - please keep your speed up.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C23616F7D
> Tomah is where i-90 and i-94 meet.
> They meet up again out in Billings, Montana.
>

And in Madison, Wisconsin.
And in Chicago, Illinois. Twice.

[Dave Stadt]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>> "almostthere" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
>>>>> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and
>>>>> you
>>>>> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to
>>>>> hell
>>>>> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
>>>>> details.
>>>> You really need to consider not attending OSH.
>>> so just because it's OSH, people should throw away all normal rules?
>>
>> Normal rules are not the norm at OSH but that doesn't mean the modified
>> rules are dangerous IF you know how to fly your airplane and can follow
>> simple instructions.
>>
>>> OSH shouldn't be any different than flying into anywhere else.
>>
>> As the busiest airport in the world it is very different. If you can't
>> handle having traffic within several hundred yards you should not fly in.
>
> Most busy airports don't have low time pilots in all sorts of aircraft
> flying into them.

I'll repeat for you.....If you can't handle having traffic within several
hundred yards you should not fly in.

[me[_1_]]

Any chance that someone downloaded and saved the audio of this time period
from liveatc.net ?

I would be interested in listening to it.



I have been to SNF for 4 years but have always flown into winter haven
airport and bypassed the stress of going to the show airport. Next year I
was thinking of going to Airventure and thought about flying into OSH but
might be having second thoughts and would fly in to a close airport
instead..



Thanks in advance



Jon



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As many of you know, this was our 24th consecutive Airventure -- and
> our 8th flying in. I've seen the RIPON/FISK arrival from all angles,
> both from the ground and in the air, and have seen pretty much
> everything that could be thrown at us. Although it's always tense,
> due to the proximity of aircraft and the unusual arrival procedures,
> the OSH arrival is usually a piece of cake.
>
> This year, however, was different. Due to a fatal accident on Rwy 27,
> the normally orderly stream of aircraft up the railroad tracks was
> turned into a multi-hour hold around Rush and Green lakes. With
> temperatures and tempers flaring, I witnessed radio discipline
> completely break down at Oshkosh, for the first time. Worse, as the
> lakes melee deteriorated, frustrated pilots were cheating the hold and
> flying up the tracks DESPITE specific instructions from controllers to
> remain in the hold.
>
> Worse yet, IMHO, the controllers were doing nothing about it. They
> were simply clearing these bold scoff-laws right into OSH, leaving the
> rule-abiding pilots to circle endlessly. This really ground salt into
> the wounds of the many who were circling the lakes for nearly two
> hours, and made a tough situation downright ugly. I've never heard such
> language on an aircraft radio -- and I hope to never hear it again.
>
> Speed, as always, became a critical issue. With literally dozens of
> aircraft circling nose-to-tail, the cha-cha line began to break down.
> Dissimilar aircraft, varying from Champs to RVs, were all trying to
> stay in line, but -- over time -- the line simply broke down. A Cub,
> going full bore, can barely do the required 90 knots in a dive, let
> alone in cruise, and with so many airplanes in the same line, the
> speeds gradually deteriorated into a dangerous situation.
>
> At one point I was forced to drop 2 notches of flaps, and was hanging
> on the prop, trying not to over-run a gaggle of Kitfoxes, with other
> planes on both sides AND above me. The single line around the lake at
> one point was actually THREE lines abreast, and it was an absolutely
> mess.
>
> I don't ever want to see anything like that again, so, here are my
> suggestions to make the EAA Arrival Procedures safer and easier next
> year:
>
> 1. Add an LSA Arrival Procedure.
> Currently, there are just two procedures for "non-ultra-light"
> aircraft: 1800 MSL and 90 knots, or 2300 MSL, and 130 knots. Trouble
> is, a Cub or a Kitfox (or many of the new LSAs) are not capable of
> maintaining 90 knots in cruise. This results in an ever-slowing
> approach, which ALWAYS results in trouble. (Was that poor Europa
> pilot who was killed impeded by someone going 60 knots? Will we ever
> know?)
>
> We need a third speed/altitude, just for slower planes. For 2007 I
> suggest adding an "LSA Arrival" at 70 knots, and 1800 MSL, to keep
> these slow-pokes out of the bunch. This will make things MUCH safer
> for the majority of pilots. Keep "GA Arrivals" at 90 knots, but move
> 'em up to 2100 feet, and bump the 130 knot "Fast Mover" arrivals up to
> 2400 MSL.
>
> 2. Stop the "Keep in Tight" Commands.
> Every year I've landed on Rwy 27, the controller spends most of his
> time admonishing arrivals to "keep it inside the blue water tower" on
> downwind. This always results in a "Corsair approach" to land, meaning
> that you're banked steeply in a constantly descending right turn all
> the way to touchdown.
>
> Face it, everyone is loaded at (or beyond) gross, it's hot, nerves are
> frazzled, and then you're forced to perform an abnormally tight pattern
> to land -- all (apparently) for the convenience of the controllers. I
> didn't see it, but the guy who stalled and spun in was performing this
> arrival, and it's tough. (We landed on Rwy 36 later, which is a much
> simpler -- and safer -- approach.)
>
> IMHO, there is no reason for this to happen. If the pattern gets a bit
> wider, who cares? Pilot safety should be paramount, not controller
> convenience. If they're worried about the pattern expanding beyond
> their ability to see from the tower, they're just gonna have to move
> their butts out onto a flat-bed, just like FISK.
>
> 3. COMMUNICATE Problems.
> The multi-hour mess that followed the accident was exacerbated by the
> fact that the controllers NEVER (while I was in it, anyway) explained
> what was going on. If they had simply said "Guys, there's been an
> accident, we're down to half the runways, it's gonna be a while till
> they clean it up." -- a whole bunch of pilots would have diverted to
> other airports to wait it out.
>
> Instead, all they said was "Guys, we're doing the best we can, but if
> you don't give us the proper 1/2 mile spacing, we're gonna send you
> back to the lake to do it again." This gave pilots no useful
> information, and essentially made the problem worse by making pilots
> think that the hold might end at any minute.
>
> That's it. Nothing earth-shaking, but I feel these three changes would
> be easy to implement, and would help make the Oshkosh approach safer
> and more enjoyable for everyone.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Despite all the discussion, flying in is an experience that is well
> worth it, and I truly believe that.

Good point, Ryan -- this cannot be be stressed too much.

Flying into OSH should be every pilot's goal. In my opinion, until
you've been to Oshkosh, as a pilot, in your own plane, you have missed
one of the truly great experiences in life.

All this talk about making the OSH arrival safer is healthy, and needs
to be quietly discussed amongst thoughtful pilots -- but this should
not in any way dissuade one from flying in. It's the trip of a
lifetime, and I've been blessed to be able to do it multiple times.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-07-31, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> We need a third speed/altitude, just for slower planes. For 2007 I
> suggest adding an "LSA Arrival" at 70 knots, and 1800 MSL, to keep
> these slow-pokes out of the bunch. This will make things MUCH safer
> for the majority of pilots. Keep "GA Arrivals" at 90 knots, but move
> 'em up to 2100 feet, and bump the 130 knot "Fast Mover" arrivals up to
> 2400 MSL.

I was thinking this in 2000, when I did OSH. Reading the procedure, "if
unable to maintain 90 knots", I thought "What about planes that can't
even go that fast?" Fortunately, the C140 can fast cruise at 90 knots,
but sure enough, I came up behind a Pietenpol doing about 65 knots as
well as a Cub. Then there are conflicting procedures: one says 'no
overtaking' and the other says 'maintain 90 knots'. With the Cub and
Pietenpol that I was catching, I could do either one or the other, not
both (as the procedure called for). I elected to follow the Cub and
Pietenpol rather than overtake them on the grounds that three of us
would be easier to see. I wasn't surprised when a Bonanza overtook us.

Personally, when I did OSH, I had already decided that if the hold
lasted more than 15 minutes, I'd go to another airport and wait a bit.
I've done plenty of formation flying, but I don't like to do formation
flying with a large gaggle of strangers for hours at a time.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Morgans[_3_]]

"me" > wrote
>
> I have been to SNF for 4 years but have always flown into winter haven
> airport and bypassed the stress of going to the show airport. Next year I
> was thinking of going to Airventure and thought about flying into OSH but
> might be having second thoughts and would fly in to a close airport
> instead..

Don't let all of this freak you out. Practices all of the maneuvers you
might be called on to do, like slow flight, precision touchdowns, flying
down the runway, tight one-turn to- final patterns, slowing down and
speeding up your approach, ect.

After that, plan on not arriving at a peak time. Stage at a nearby airport,
and leave at such a time as to be one of the first arrivals when the airport
opens.

You can do it.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave S]

If you are UNABLE.. then the safest course of action is to depart the
area on a non-conflicting heading and altitude. Don't rely on AOPA legal
to prevent the accident.

almostthere wrote:
> I've never been to OSH and am intending to go there next year. OSH
> controllers, be advised that if I feel that the approach is unsafe and you
> don't honor my "unable" then its 7700 on the com and xponder and to hell
> with your convenience. I'll let my AOPA legal plan take care of the
> details.
>
>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Being a non pilot I may just be blowing smoke, but after reading
>>about this tragedy and the ensuing madness, I have an idea....
>>
>>Do you think there'd be enough people that would stand up and say
>>that "I'm boycotting OSH until new, safer approach procedures are
>>implimented" and voice this statement publicly to AOPA, FAA, EAA,
>>OSH, and whoever else should see it?
>>
>>The point being, if a lot of pilots come out and say they are not
>>going next year because, as pilots in command, they feel the
>>approach procedures are unsafe, perhaps the problem will get
>>looked at much quicker?
>>
>>Brian
>>--
>>http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>>Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
>>Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
>>Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
>
>
>

[me[_1_]]

You have some good ideas Jim.. Thanks..

I have flown the Tiger into some busy places including JFK, LGA and lot of
airshows. The thing that I am using as a personal comparison is the aopa
fly-in at their headquarters. It was so crazy that I have put that event on
the never again list..

Take care,

Jon

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "me" > wrote
>>
>> I have been to SNF for 4 years but have always flown into winter haven
>> airport and bypassed the stress of going to the show airport. Next year I
>> was thinking of going to Airventure and thought about flying into OSH but
>> might be having second thoughts and would fly in to a close airport
>> instead..
>
> Don't let all of this freak you out. Practices all of the maneuvers you
> might be called on to do, like slow flight, precision touchdowns, flying
> down the runway, tight one-turn to- final patterns, slowing down and
> speeding up your approach, ect.
>
> After that, plan on not arriving at a peak time. Stage at a nearby
> airport,
> and leave at such a time as to be one of the first arrivals when the
> airport
> opens.
>
> You can do it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>