Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

[RST Engineering]

I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
"BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."

(Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird arrival
is like."

The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
"Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with a
Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to get
out of our way."

I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted to
invite his cronies.

Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets gas money except
the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from? Your inflated
entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid idiots to aggrandize
World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.

So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
this sort of stupidity.

Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

Jim

[Jim Macklin]

I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
airshow at all.



"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
| I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+
flight hours, I've
| never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999.
Oshkosh Tower:
| "BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe
put it on the
| numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right
downwind for
| runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
|
| (Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what
a warbird arrival
| is like."
|
| The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The
copilot screams,
| "Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see
two wings perhaps
| fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly
had a midair with a
| Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little
b@$+@rd to get
| out of our way."
|
| I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The
only reason that
| there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a
warbird and wanted to
| invite his cronies.
|
| Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets
gas money except
| the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from?
Your inflated
| entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid
idiots to aggrandize
| World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.
|
| So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has
more money than
| good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway
in front of his
| aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort
of payback for
| this sort of stupidity.
|
| Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
|
| Jim
|
|
|

[Jay Honeck]

> I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
> airshow at all.

Agreed.

Were it not for the Warbirds, I would not have attended my first
Oshkosh Fly-In, way back in '83. In fact, that's all I thought EAA
*was*, was an organization to preserve and protect Warbirds. I
remember being quite surprised, sometime later, to discover that EAA
actually had local "chapters" with "home-builders" creating cool little
airplanes in their garages.

Thus, the wheels started to spin, and eventually EAA's "all-inclusive"
enthusiasm fanned the flames of aviation within me. As with all
marketing, the "sale" was made on the fifth attempt...or thereabouts...

No, taking Warbirds from the show would instantly eliminate WAY too
many attendees, some of whom just might learn to fly someday, as I did.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank Stutzman]

In rec.aviation.homebuilt Jim Macklin > wrote:
> I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
> airshow at all.

For the past two years the warbird attendance at Arlington has
been way down. Heard something about the NW warbird
organizaion being in some snit with Arlington management.

Personally, I think the last two Arlingtons have been the best
of the last 6 I've gone to. Don't miss the warbirds at all.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Dave Stadt]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
>I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
> airshow at all.

And the money for the fuel they receive comes from the Warbirds division not
from the EAA as some believe.

[flyer]

I'd vote to get rid of the Warbirds too. This year [this morning in
fact] a small window opened in the extreme weather experienced this
year as we were trying to depart. As we lined up on the taxi way,
someone decided it would be a great time for some t6s to preform some
sort of 'airshow'. We waited and waited with engines running thinking
we would be going soon. Twenty minutes later, some of us were let out
of the penalty box.

After 20 minutes of idle, then applying take off power among aircraft
with very different speeds [I was in my Lancair] this is NO time for a
hic up!

There is a place for this warbird thing but the timing today was way
out of line. I've already written EAA Hwq stating my displeasure.

Earl Schroeder

[Dan[_1_]]

I would support the elimination of the non-jet powered warbirds. Being
one of the (apparently) rare non-career GA pilots under 30, I certainly
can't relate to them at all.

I am interested in the jet-powered warbirds. Show me the latest and
greatest in technology, but planes from the 50s and before... please.
I can appreciate history, but to be honest, am not interested in
warbirds (or any plane, really) from my grandfather's era.

Show me an F-22, a Lancair IV-P, or an SR22. THAT's what gets me
excited! However, everyone has different tastes and I can appreciate
that some do enjoy the antique planes for some reason... just not me.

--Dan


Jim Macklin wrote:
> I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
> airshow at all.
>
>
>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> | I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+
> flight hours, I've
> | never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999.
> Oshkosh Tower:
> | "BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe
> put it on the
> | numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right
> downwind for
> | runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
> |
> | (Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what
> a warbird arrival
> | is like."
> |
> | The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The
> copilot screams,
> | "Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see
> two wings perhaps
> | fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly
> had a midair with a
> | Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little
> b@$+@rd to get
> | out of our way."
> |
> | I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The
> only reason that
> | there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a
> warbird and wanted to
> | invite his cronies.
> |
> | Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets
> gas money except
> | the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from?
> Your inflated
> | entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid
> idiots to aggrandize
> | World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.
> |
> | So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has
> more money than
> | good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway
> in front of his
> | aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort
> of payback for
> | this sort of stupidity.
> |
> | Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
> |
> | Jim
> |
> |
> |

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

As an ex warbird pilot, I'd be the first one to admit that money and
horsepower don't necessarily mix, but I'd also tell you that some of the
finest pilots I've ever known were warbird pilots.
Aircraft accidents are no place to start generalizing about specific
communities. What happened out there today was a tragedy. ALL accidents are
tragedies. Hell, I lost five friends in ONE air racing accident in a
mid-air.
You have cowboys in all branches and phases of aviation, and Oshkosh can
bring out the best and the worst in everybody. The stress alone involving
aircraft movement at the show is tremendous. This means EVERYBODY involved
should be on their toes and doing their job at top form, be they pilots or
ground personnel.
As for the warbird pilots; I agree that the airplanes can be a real problem
in the wrong hands. So can any other airplane for that matter. Mid-airs are
something that absolutely has to be a prime consideration for everyone
attending Oshkosh, warbird or breezy!
My over riding concern about Oshkosh is that something is learned from all
this and corrective measures taken to keep things in line out there. It's a
great show, with wonderful equipment and some extremely talented people
taking part in it every year.
Finally, as an old air show and warbird pilot myself, I have to tell you
that in an environment like Oshkosh, the possibility of an accident
happening is leaps and bounds above the norm, and unless EVERYBODY out there
from the people running it, through the pilots attending it, all the way
down to the newest line boy are tuned in solidly to the flight safety issue,
what happened today will almost certainly happen again.
Let's hope it's a wake up call for EVERYBODY!!!!
Dudley Henriques


"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
> never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
> "BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
> numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
> runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
>
> (Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird
> arrival is like."
>
> The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
> "Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
> fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with
> a Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to
> get out of our way."
>
> I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
> there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted
> to invite his cronies.
>
> Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets gas money except
> the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from? Your inflated
> entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid idiots to aggrandize
> World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.
>
> So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
> good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
> aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
> this sort of stupidity.
>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's the
RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or the
Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at the
airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.

Ironically, if I were to have to call out the group of pilots who cause the
most trouble around here, it'd be the people flying experimentals, and
primarily homebuilts. Based on that, using your train of thought, I'd want
all experimentals banned from Oshkosh.

I'm thinking that probably wouldn't go over too well, though. :)

As far as the warbirds themselves, IMHO while there may indeed be a general
attitude problem among them, the real problem is attitude problems
generally. From the various descriptions I've read here alone of events at
Oshkosh, never mind elsewhere, it's clear that the real issue is that
failing to conform to procedures and fly safely is basically condoned.

Would it be a lot of work for the FAA to file actions against each and every
pilot who violates basic safety common sense (the FAA loves 91.13...they
could get to use it a lot at Oshkosh), FARs, and procedures outlined in the
NOTAM? Damn straight it would be. The first year. For that matter, they
need not go after everyone...just triage the offenders, and go after the
worst. Most important: make sure each and every certificate action is VERY
well publicized.

It might take a year or two for pilots to figure out that there just is no
room for screwing around, but I'm sure they would. Each year, there would
be fewer and fewer pilots who need reprimands, and on average the severity
of the incidents should reduce as well. Problems will never be eliminated,
but it sounds as though right now there's a LOT of low-hanging fruit that
needs to be harvested.

Are warbirds a problem? Well...perhaps. But it's not like anyone seems to
be taking the safety issues seriously generally. IMHO, it's a bit premature
to be banning specific classes of airplanes and pilots from Oshkosh, when
huge strides in safety could be made overall by focusing on the BAD pilots
first (and if the majority of the bad pilots are flying warbirds, well then
you help get rid of the warbirds without actually explicitly banning them
:) ).

Pete

[OP]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:37:10 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
>never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
>"BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
>numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
>runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
>
>(Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird arrival
>is like."
>
>The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
>"Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
>fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with a
>Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to get
>out of our way."
>
>I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
>there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted to
>invite his cronies.


I agree. It seems the most arrogant fly the least little airplane
who's only association with the war was as a trainer. The AT-6 was
a trainer flown by "student" pilots. Their current owners, in some
cases, are not much better pilots than raw students.

The flip side of that coin is that not all AT-6 drivers are
arrogant. I've run into several at air shows who were most polite
and considerate of others. Answering endless questions during
static displays and in one case, performing a really amazing
aerobatic demo flight that really explored the limits of the AT-6.
Of course this guy flew a solo performance. It seems they only get
really obnoxious in groups of three or more.

Ron

[CB]

Jim,

Most of the warbirds are classed as Experimental. By definition, they
are "our own" as much as the squadrons of glass-cockpit RVs and
Lancairs and the increasingly-rare builder-designed or even plans-built
birds.

Aviation - especially Experimental aviation, VERY especially
high-density Experimental aviation - is a high-risk endeavor.
Situational awareness is never perfect. Accidents DO happen.

A good many T-6 drivers may be hot-doggers. The waddling TBM doesn't
lend itself to that sort of attitude, though. Having seen TBMs and RVs
up close, though, I can understand how it might be hard to see an RV
from a TBM - especially if it was close-aboard.

To the under-30 crowd who "can't relate" to WW2 aircraft, I
respectfully submit the observation that if not for those aircraft -
and the men and women (now in their 80s if they're alive at all) who
built, maintained, and flew them - you would almost certainly not be
reading this post today. Totalitarian states do not permit
experimental aviation.

Those "ancient clattertraps" serve to remind us that freedom such as we
enjoy is not - has never been, will never be - free.

-Corrie

RST Engineering wrote:
> So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
> good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
> aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
> this sort of stupidity.
>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> Jim

[Dan[_1_]]

Jim,

Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate them and the sacrifices of
those who operated them. The vaccuum tube computer was an important
invention in history too and should be preserved. However, it would be
a mere passing curiosity at today's Consumer Electornics Show for
instance.

It's not that they are not important, but that for me _personally_ they
do not hold my interest. They apparently interest plenty of other
people and that's fine.... I'll go look at the Cirrus and Eclipse
exhibits during that part of the airshow!

--Dan



CB wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Most of the warbirds are classed as Experimental. By definition, they
> are "our own" as much as the squadrons of glass-cockpit RVs and
> Lancairs and the increasingly-rare builder-designed or even plans-built
> birds.
>
> Aviation - especially Experimental aviation, VERY especially
> high-density Experimental aviation - is a high-risk endeavor.
> Situational awareness is never perfect. Accidents DO happen.
>
> A good many T-6 drivers may be hot-doggers. The waddling TBM doesn't
> lend itself to that sort of attitude, though. Having seen TBMs and RVs
> up close, though, I can understand how it might be hard to see an RV
> from a TBM - especially if it was close-aboard.
>
> To the under-30 crowd who "can't relate" to WW2 aircraft, I
> respectfully submit the observation that if not for those aircraft -
> and the men and women (now in their 80s if they're alive at all) who
> built, maintained, and flew them - you would almost certainly not be
> reading this post today. Totalitarian states do not permit
> experimental aviation.
>
> Those "ancient clattertraps" serve to remind us that freedom such as we
> enjoy is not - has never been, will never be - free.
>
> -Corrie
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
> > good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
> > aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
> > this sort of stupidity.
> >
> > Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
> >
> > Jim

[Thomas Borchert]

RST,

> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>

Great idea. GA is small enough to be threatened from all sides, so we
should definitely start the in-fighting and make it even smaller by
ourselves. Yep. Sounds great. For the airlines.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"RST Engineering" > wrote:

[snip]
> So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
> good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
> aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
> this sort of stupidity.
>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

From this post and others, sounds like everyone would be better served
to keep stupid pilots from Oshkosh. But how to do that? There's the rub, eh?

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> From this post and others, sounds like everyone would be better served
> to keep stupid pilots from Oshkosh.
>

And it sounds like everyone posting is not part of that group <gd&r>.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>From this post and others, sounds like everyone would be better served
>to keep stupid pilots from Oshkosh. But how to do that? There's the rub, eh?

I spent a few hours listening on the scanner, and one thing that struck me
is that the tower people were *way* too accomodating. We heard people just
call in 5 miles out from any which direction, not having followed the
Ripon-Fisk arrival route, and instead of telling them to go away and come
back when they had read the NOTAM, tower just slotted them in and welcomed
them to Oshkosh. Other people reading back tower instructions, people
landing on the threshold instead of their assigned dots, etc. And tower
just worked around the stupidity. Not much incentive for you to study the
NOTAM and practice spot landings for a week if being fat, dumb and happy
gets your a faster arrival.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full
house and four people died. -- Steven Wright

[Skylune[_1_]]

its the 98% of pilots who give the rest a bad reputation.

[Bob Fry]

The best airshows and flyins I've been to...have been those without
warbirds. Furthermore I'm more than tired of the worship demanded of
the entire WWII thing. Yes, they did good. Now can we puh-leeeze
move on??

Having said that, I know there are those who like the warbirds and the
worshipful attitude. And a huge airshow/flyin like Airventure should
have them as part of the complete package. But they should definitely
be segregrated from GA arrivals and departures.

[RomeoMike]

RST Engineering wrote:

>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> Jim
>

To imply that warbird pilots as a group are hotdogging idiots to be
banned is as valid as saying that all Cessna pilots are fine,
professional types that do no wrong. Ban a whole group...never. How
about some enforcement against the show-offs and rules breakers that
form the minority of all pilot groups?!

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

I completely agree with your comment with one addition.
Penalty enforcement is fine, and should be encouraged, but its not what will
save lives. Pre-emptive analysis of the entire flight and ground safety
issue at Oshkosh is the only approach to this issue that will save lives.
The safety program in general at Oshkosh needs a serious and in depth
review. The traffic situation vs the space available both in the air and on
the ground has reached the point where absolute control is necessary.
Without this taking place, I'm afraid there might very well be a need for
more "enforcement" after the fact.....down the line.
Dudley Henriques


"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
>>
>> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> To imply that warbird pilots as a group are hotdogging idiots to be banned
> is as valid as saying that all Cessna pilots are fine, professional types
> that do no wrong. Ban a whole group...never. How about some enforcement
> against the show-offs and rules breakers that form the minority of all
> pilot groups?!

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
> never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
> "BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
> numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
> runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
>
> (Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird arrival
> is like."
>
> The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
> "Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
> fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with a
> Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to get
> out of our way."
>

Is there more to this story, like what the FAA or the folks at Oshkosh
had to say to the pilot?

If it were up to me, I'd get escort him off the premises and get a
TRO forbidding him from setting foot there again. If he wanted his
plane back, he could send somebody else to fly or truck it out.

--

FF

[Canal builder]

> wrote:


> Totalitarian states do not permit experimental aviation.

Not true. The German Nazi regime of the 1930s loved experimental aviation
(and experimental rocketry), they even gave financial support. A lot of the
amateur designers and pilots then went on to play a big part in the Second
World War. The contemporary British government tried everything it could to
stop amateurs getting into the air.

As a result, surviving the Battle of Britain (1940) was as much a matter of
luck as judgment. Later on we had to put up with bombs mysteriously falling
out of the sky (the V2 long range rocket). If the war in Europe had gone on
much longer the first man in space would have been a German piloting a
two-stage missile to New York.

BTW this difference in attitude between British and German governments
continues to this day. This explains why German radio hams are putting
together a Mars lander, and we can't fly a suitably-equipped Lancair in IFR.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> From this post and others, sounds like everyone would be better served
> to keep stupid pilots from Oshkosh. But how to do that? There's the rub,
> eh?

As I said in my previous post to this thread, assuming the various
descriptions of the situation at Oshkosh are accurate (and there's enough
similar ones to have every reason to believe they are), the first step would
be for the FAA staff (controllers and inspectors) to stop putting up with
the stupid pilots.

Pilots who can't comply with the published and transmitted instructions
should be refused entry into the Class D, never mind allowed a landing
clearance, and FAA inspectors should be filing actions where pilots are
actually in violation of the FARs.

Pete

[Kingfish]

Skylune wrote:
> its the 98% of pilots who give the rest a bad reputation.

Quit yer bitchin' Loon, nobody crashed into any houses... You're
repeating yourself (once again)

[John Kunkel]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
> there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted
> to invite his cronies.


One might argue that puddle-jumping Cessnas have no place at Oshkosh, after
all, how many people go there to look at lines of parked Skyhawks and
Cherokees?



>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>


Speak for yourself.
Looks like Pope Paul has been replaced by Lord jim.

[John Gaquin]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message news:AVezg.34
>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> Jim

Never been there, possibly never will. But I suspect if the EAA has to
choose between warbirds and Jim -- well, you might just have some extra time
on your hands next summer. :-)

[Jarhead]

"Canal builder" > wrote in message
...
| > wrote:
|
|
| > Totalitarian states do not permit experimental aviation.
|
| Not true. The German Nazi regime of the 1930s loved experimental
aviation
| (and experimental rocketry), they even gave financial support. A lot
of the
| amateur designers and pilots then went on to play a big part in the
Second
| World War. The contemporary British government tried everything it
could to
| stop amateurs getting into the air.
|
| As a result, surviving the Battle of Britain (1940) was as much a
matter of
| luck as judgment. Later on we had to put up with bombs mysteriously
falling
| out of the sky (the V2 long range rocket). If the war in Europe had
gone on
| much longer the first man in space would have been a German piloting a
| two-stage missile to New York.
|
| BTW this difference in attitude between British and German governments
| continues to this day. This explains why German radio hams are putting
| together a Mars lander, and we can't fly a suitably-equipped Lancair
in IFR.
|

I read where the Germans emphasized sailplanes and their power planes
didn't carry much fuel.

--
Jarhead




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[RomeoMike]

I appreciate what you're saying, but couldn't penalty enforcement save
lives if it discourages miscreants. For example, in the scenario
presented in the OP, if accurate and assuming that the Cessna pilot was
following all ATC instructions and assuming that ATC didn't err,
wouldn't some sort of action against the warbird pilots for breaking a
FAR (a federal action) or for just being rudely aggressive (an airshow
organizers issue) help prevent further such behavior from others that
might get a testosterone moment at the next airshow?

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> I completely agree with your comment with one addition.
> Penalty enforcement is fine, and should be encouraged, but its not what will
> save lives. Pre-emptive analysis of the entire flight and ground safety
> issue at Oshkosh is the only approach to this issue that will save lives.
> The safety program in general at Oshkosh needs a serious and in depth
> review. The traffic situation vs the space available both in the air and on
> the ground has reached the point where absolute control is necessary.
> Without this taking place, I'm afraid there might very well be a need for
> more "enforcement" after the fact.....down the line.
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> "RomeoMike" > wrote in message

>>>
>> To imply that warbird pilots as a group are hotdogging idiots to be banned
>> is as valid as saying that all Cessna pilots are fine, professional types
>> that do no wrong. Ban a whole group...never. How about some enforcement
>> against the show-offs and rules breakers that form the minority of all
>> pilot groups?!
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

Absolutely! I'm not against punative action against violators. In fact, I
agree with you on that issue. Its imparative that violatations be addressed
and addressed hard. Its been my experience working in this arena however
that punative action only goes just so far in enhancing the safety
situation. You "punish" a violator and you reach the violator and a few
peripheral pilots who "get the message".
On issues like Oshkosh, the situation is so unique and so complex, that to
make any headway at all in getting into the guts of the safety issues found
in this highly inflammable environment, you will have to take the existing
safety program and tear into it piece by piece, finding the weak links and
correcting them. Then, after all this has been addressed, the whole thing
will have to be distributed throughout the entire EAA community by its own
members; literally an Oshkosh education program that reaches down into the
heart of the community so that everyone not only knows what's going on, but
is an active part in seeing that it goes on properly.
This is the only way to clean up something as complicated as the traffic
situation that occurs every year at Oshkosh. Safety has to be so high a
priority, that nobody will want to be the subject of the community's ire by
not adhearing to the established safety policies.
In other words, what EAA has to do is supercede the FAA's minimum
requirements for flight safety and create a level above that mimimum.
Hell...I've been teaching pilots to fly airplanes above the minimum FAA
requirements all through my career. Its the "only way to fly".
:-))
Dudley Henriques

"RomeoMike" > wrote in message
...
>I appreciate what you're saying, but couldn't penalty enforcement save
>lives if it discourages miscreants. For example, in the scenario presented
>in the OP, if accurate and assuming that the Cessna pilot was following all
>ATC instructions and assuming that ATC didn't err, wouldn't some sort of
>action against the warbird pilots for breaking a FAR (a federal action) or
>for just being rudely aggressive (an airshow organizers issue) help prevent
>further such behavior from others that might get a testosterone moment at
>the next airshow?
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> I completely agree with your comment with one addition.
>> Penalty enforcement is fine, and should be encouraged, but its not what
>> will save lives. Pre-emptive analysis of the entire flight and ground
>> safety issue at Oshkosh is the only approach to this issue that will save
>> lives.
>> The safety program in general at Oshkosh needs a serious and in depth
>> review. The traffic situation vs the space available both in the air and
>> on the ground has reached the point where absolute control is necessary.
>> Without this taking place, I'm afraid there might very well be a need for
>> more "enforcement" after the fact.....down the line.
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> "RomeoMike" > wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>> To imply that warbird pilots as a group are hotdogging idiots to be
>>> banned is as valid as saying that all Cessna pilots are fine,
>>> professional types that do no wrong. Ban a whole group...never. How
>>> about some enforcement against the show-offs and rules breakers that
>>> form the minority of all pilot groups?!
>>

[David J. Zera]

The T-6 were performing a missing man formation for the Memorial wall
service that EAA does to remember the pilots that have gone west....


Ps. just got back and boy am I burnt and tired.

Dave Zera
Co-Chair
Safety/ Flight line
AirVenture
"flyer" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'd vote to get rid of the Warbirds too. This year [this morning in
> fact] a small window opened in the extreme weather experienced this
> year as we were trying to depart. As we lined up on the taxi way,
> someone decided it would be a great time for some t6s to preform some
> sort of 'airshow'. We waited and waited with engines running thinking
> we would be going soon. Twenty minutes later, some of us were let out
> of the penalty box.
>
> After 20 minutes of idle, then applying take off power among aircraft
> with very different speeds [I was in my Lancair] this is NO time for a
> hic up!
>
> There is a place for this warbird thing but the timing today was way
> out of line. I've already written EAA Hwq stating my displeasure.
>
> Earl Schroeder
>
>

[gatt]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
>I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
> airshow at all.

I don't go to airshows that don't feature warbirds.

-c

[gatt]

"Dan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I would support the elimination of the non-jet powered warbirds. Being
> one of the (apparently) rare non-career GA pilots under 30, I certainly
> can't relate to them at all.

Meanwhile, I can't relate to Lancairs, Cirrus, etc.

If there are no warbirds, the airshow doesn't get my money but if I see a
B-17 or a Spitfire beyond the fence, I'm there. Fascinating how people's
preferences vary so much.

-c

[gatt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> RST,
>
>> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>
>
> Great idea. GA is small enough to be threatened from all sides, so we
> should definitely start the in-fighting and make it even smaller by
> ourselves. Yep. Sounds great. For the airlines.

Who wants warbirds?! Warbirds aren't relevant anymore. Nobody cares
about warbirds. That's why everybody must go to Chino's Planes of Fame, the
Boeing Museum of Flight, the McMinnville Air Museum, Duxford, etc to look at
the Citations and Pipers parked over in the GA side...

It ain't a Lancaster or a Flying Fortress they want to see. It's the new
Cessna....

-c
(If I want to look at a bunch of people's private airplanes, I'll save my
money and hang out at the FBO.)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Bob,
>
> > From this post and others, sounds like everyone would be better served
> > to keep stupid pilots from Oshkosh.
> >
>
> And it sounds like everyone posting is not part of that group <gd&r>.

Well, for sure and for certain, it can't be me, I've never been to OSH.

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

[john smith]

In article >,
"John Kunkel" > wrote:

> Looks like Pope Paul has been replaced by Lord jim.

That has potential!

[.Blueskies.]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message ...
:
: "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
: news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
: >I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
: > airshow at all.
:
: And the money for the fuel they receive comes from the Warbirds division not
: from the EAA as some believe.
:
:

Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?

[Marc CYBW]

Amen.

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
> never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
> "BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
> numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
> runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."
>
> (Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird
> arrival is like."
>
> The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
> "Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
> fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with
> a Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to
> get out of our way."
>
> I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
> there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted
> to invite his cronies.
>
> Pope Paul is out to pasture. Nobody else at Oshkosh gets gas money except
> the warbirds. Guess where the gas money is coming from? Your inflated
> entry ticket prices. You are paying for those stupid idiots to aggrandize
> World War II, which damned few of us can relate to.
>
> So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
> good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
> aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
> this sort of stupidity.
>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[JJS]

"David J. Zera" > wrote in message news:btednWtfk51o4FPZnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> The T-6 were performing a missing man formation for the Memorial wall service that EAA does to remember the pilots
> that have gone west....
>
>
> Ps. just got back and boy am I burnt and tired.
>
> Dave Zera
> Co-Chair
> Safety/ Flight line
> AirVenture

David, You guys will probably catch a lot of flack over the Avenger - RV accident. I for one appreciate the job you
do every year. Please do not be too hard on yourselves.

Joe Schneider



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Bob Martin]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>> [...]
>> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
> where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's the
> RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or the
> Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at the
> airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've
been watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month.
Nothing looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we
come back from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a
straight-in landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as
you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless
you consider formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side
to be inherently dangerous.

[Kyle Boatright]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...

<<<snip>>>
>
> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>
> Jim

To me, the warbirds are very welcome, as is everyone else until all the
parking fills up. What happened yesterday was simple pilot error, and could
have been avoided by taking more preventative measures. One idea would be
to let groups of warbirds depart once an hour. If you fly a warbird and
have it fired up and ready to taxi at 0:10 before the hour, you get to
depart with the group of warbirds that leaves on the hour. Yep, it'll be an
inconvenience to some, but if everyone knows the procedures, it won't be the
nightmare of mixing the warbirds with the spam. As someone who flies an RV,
I don't like taxiing and departing with warbirds or jets. The warbirds leave
a fair amount of wake turbulence if you're following one, and have the nasty
combination of a big prop and poor visibility. Taxiing behind a jet (I got
stuck behind one for 20 minutes yesterday) is miserable. Even if you're 50
or 100 yards back, your airplane rocks back and forth due to the jet blast
and it smells like you've stuck your head inside a kerosene heater for the
entire time.

As far as obnoxious warbird flyers go, there are plenty of other people who
are just as obnoxious. A pet peeve of mine is the guys doing formation work
(frequently RV's, but I've seen it done in everything from ultralights on
up) who don't think twice about doing a 4 ship overhead break without much
regard for other aircraft in the pattern. The attitude seems to be similar
to the warbird guys - announce what you're going to do and expect everyone
else to adapt.

KB

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> [...]
>>> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>
>> We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
>> where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's
>> the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or
>> the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at
>> the airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.
>
>
> How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"
>
> Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
> overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
> tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
> cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've been
> watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month. Nothing
> looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we come back
> from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a straight-in
> landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as you announce
> what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless you consider
> formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side to be
> inherently dangerous.

An approach flown from an initial overhead break has a practical side as
well. In the P51 for example, flying a regular pattern with reduced manifold
pressure can really foul up the plugs on you.
An overhead approach allows a tight in circular pattern that can be flown
with the power up in the range that keeps the plugs clean; allows for better
visibility, and allows for easier positioning without losing the runway
under the nose.
This doesn't mean that pilots flying high performance airplanes should
arbitrarily use these approaches without prior approval or radio contact to
clear first. It just means that in high performance airplanes, this type of
approach is requested for practical reasons by practical pilots who know
exactly what they are doing and have no wish to be showing off or violating
anyone's airspace.
Dudley Henriques
Ex P51 pilot........among others :-))

[Dave Stadt]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> : news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
> : >I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
> : > airshow at all.
> :
> : And the money for the fuel they receive comes from the Warbirds division
> not
> : from the EAA as some believe.
> :
> :
>
> Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?


Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("john smith" wrote)
>> Looks like Pope Paul has been replaced by Lord jim.

> That has potential!


Read the fine print.

*Must be present to win.


Montblack :-)

[Morgans[_3_]]

"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote

> David, You guys will probably catch a lot of flack over the Avenger - RV
accident. I for one appreciate the job you
> do every year. Please do not be too hard on yourselves.

I could be wrong, but I think that his guy's responsibility pretty much ends
when the pilot gets on his way on the taxiway. At an intersection, if there
is a problem, it could be his problem.

I agree, about them doing a great job. I do think there needs to be
something done in response to this, and not just telling everyone to be more
careful. What about escorts for each and every taildragger the whole time
they are moving, all the way from chocks out to turn on to the active for
takeoff?

It would take some more bikes, but I'll bet you could find plenty of
volunteers to ride bikes around.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:44:32 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
>airshow at all.

When I go I go to see the high performance home builts and the war
bird. To me one is as important as the other when I go. Different
interests and I serously doubt I'll be building a warbird, but
still...

If you can't count rivets it ain't close.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Jarhead,

> I read where the Germans emphasized sailplanes
>

Because powered planes were not allowed by the Versailles Treaty.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Gatt,

I agree with you.

> It's the new
> Cessna....

There was no new Cessna. There was a "proof of concept". Google
"vaporware"...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

Ah, treaties, they make the world safe from war.

Washington Naval Conference
Any thing signed by Russia or Germany or Japan before WWII
and many things since.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in
message ...
| Jarhead,
|
| > I read where the Germans emphasized sailplanes
| >
|
| Because powered planes were not allowed by the Versailles
Treaty.
|
| --
| Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
|

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
> How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

[Scott[_1_]]

And just out of curiosity, were there any ground marshallers along the
taxiway to help keep traffic from getting too close and keeping an eye
on things? We all know forward visibility is very poor on most warbirds
and it seems like they should have an escort from a guy on a scooter to
be a set of "remote eyes". Just a thought.

Scott


Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
>>Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> To me, the warbirds are very welcome, as is everyone else until all the
> parking fills up. What happened yesterday was simple pilot error, and could
> have been avoided by taking more preventative measures. One idea would be
> to let groups of warbirds depart once an hour. If you fly a warbird and
> have it fired up and ready to taxi at 0:10 before the hour, you get to
> depart with the group of warbirds that leaves on the hour. Yep, it'll be an
> inconvenience to some, but if everyone knows the procedures, it won't be the
> nightmare of mixing the warbirds with the spam. As someone who flies an RV,
> I don't like taxiing and departing with warbirds or jets. The warbirds leave
> a fair amount of wake turbulence if you're following one, and have the nasty
> combination of a big prop and poor visibility. Taxiing behind a jet (I got
> stuck behind one for 20 minutes yesterday) is miserable. Even if you're 50
> or 100 yards back, your airplane rocks back and forth due to the jet blast
> and it smells like you've stuck your head inside a kerosene heater for the
> entire time.
>
> As far as obnoxious warbird flyers go, there are plenty of other people who
> are just as obnoxious. A pet peeve of mine is the guys doing formation work
> (frequently RV's, but I've seen it done in everything from ultralights on
> up) who don't think twice about doing a 4 ship overhead break without much
> regard for other aircraft in the pattern. The attitude seems to be similar
> to the warbird guys - announce what you're going to do and expect everyone
> else to adapt.
>
> KB
>
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
> And just out of curiosity, were there any ground marshallers along the
> taxiway to help keep traffic from getting too close and keeping an eye on
> things? We all know forward visibility is very poor on most warbirds and
> it seems like they should have an escort from a guy on a scooter to be a
> set of "remote eyes". Just a thought.
>
> Scott
>
>

I don't know. We waited about 20 minutes in the departure line and there
were no prop warbirds or escorts in front of us. There were people at each
intersection. There were a couple of warbirds (a B-25 comes to mind) behind
us, but I didn't notice if they had escorts or not.

KB

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
> And just out of curiosity, were there any ground marshallers along the
> taxiway to help keep traffic from getting too close and keeping an eye
> on things? We all know forward visibility is very poor on most warbirds
> and it seems like they should have an escort from a guy on a scooter to
> be a set of "remote eyes". Just a thought.

Typically, there is only an escort for individual planes, when they enter a
high likelihood of getting around people, such as on the northern most
taxiway off of 36, going back to the RV parking on the left, and P-51
parking on the right.

As is currently done, there is not enough manpower to escort each warbird
all of the way down the taxiways. It is up to the pilot to maintain
spacing, except where they come to an intersection.

I don't understand why this guy in the Avenger ran all over the RV. For
years, warbirds have done a fine job of having no accidents, by doing their
S-turns. I don't understand why he neglected to do the clearing turns, in
this case. There are no places I can think of that there is not enough room
to S-turn.

As always, now there will have to be a reaction to prevent any other
incidents from ever happening in the future. One pilot's lack of awareness
will cause headaches for everyone.
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> As always, now there will have to be a reaction to prevent any other
> incidents from ever happening in the future. One pilot's lack of
> awareness
> will cause headaches for everyone.
> --
> Jim in NC

Hopefully, something will be learned and changed. Unfortunately, this
process is never totally right or the "changes" seemingly sufficient enough
to prevent accidents down the line. The usual result is a time of "increased
awareness" by the community, followed by a time of laxity, followed by
another inevitable accident caused by someone else in another place.
It seems that accident prevention is a never ending sine curve of good and
bad.
Dudley

[David J. Zera]

>>
>>
>> Ps. just got back and boy am I burnt and tired.
>>
>> Dave Zera
>> Co-Chair
>> Safety/ Flight line
>> AirVenture
>
> David, You guys will probably catch a lot of flack over the Avenger - RV
> accident. I for one appreciate the job you do every year. Please do not
> be too hard on yourselves.
>
> Joe Schneider

Thanks! Sunday was very rough, allot of crying from the other Chairs, The
whole day was a mess from a FuelTruck cutting off a tug taxing a B17 in the
west ramp to that horrific taxiway accident. I had to throw out of the
convention 2 photo journalists that were trying go around the safety line to
take pictures (Boy that REALLY burns me!) of the accident.

The accident will be in my nightmares for many years...... :(.... It was
a rough year for EAA.

Dave Zera
Co-Chair
Safety/Flight Line
AirVenture

[David J. Zera]

I like the idea it is a good one. No right now the guys on scooters are not
allowed on the taxiways only the ramps my guess that is directed by the
insurance guys.

Dave Zera
Co-Chair
Safety/Flight Line
AirVenture
"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
> And just out of curiosity, were there any ground marshallers along the
> taxiway to help keep traffic from getting too close and keeping an eye on
> things? We all know forward visibility is very poor on most warbirds and
> it seems like they should have an escort from a guy on a scooter to be a
> set of "remote eyes". Just a thought.
>
> Scott
>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> <<<snip>>>
>>
>>>Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>>
>> To me, the warbirds are very welcome, as is everyone else until all the
>> parking fills up. What happened yesterday was simple pilot error, and
>> could have been avoided by taking more preventative measures. One idea
>> would be to let groups of warbirds depart once an hour. If you fly a
>> warbird and have it fired up and ready to taxi at 0:10 before the hour,
>> you get to depart with the group of warbirds that leaves on the hour.
>> Yep, it'll be an inconvenience to some, but if everyone knows the
>> procedures, it won't be the nightmare of mixing the warbirds with the
>> spam. As someone who flies an RV, I don't like taxiing and departing with
>> warbirds or jets. The warbirds leave a fair amount of wake turbulence if
>> you're following one, and have the nasty combination of a big prop and
>> poor visibility. Taxiing behind a jet (I got stuck behind one for 20
>> minutes yesterday) is miserable. Even if you're 50 or 100 yards back,
>> your airplane rocks back and forth due to the jet blast and it smells
>> like you've stuck your head inside a kerosene heater for the entire time.
>>
>> As far as obnoxious warbird flyers go, there are plenty of other people
>> who are just as obnoxious. A pet peeve of mine is the guys doing
>> formation work (frequently RV's, but I've seen it done in everything from
>> ultralights on up) who don't think twice about doing a 4 ship overhead
>> break without much regard for other aircraft in the pattern. The
>> attitude seems to be similar to the warbird guys - announce what you're
>> going to do and expect everyone else to adapt.
>>
>> KB
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > As always, now there will have to be a reaction to prevent any other
> > incidents from ever happening in the future. One pilot's lack of
> > awareness
> > will cause headaches for everyone.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Hopefully, something will be learned and changed. Unfortunately, this
> process is never totally right or the "changes" seemingly sufficient
enough
> to prevent accidents down the line. The usual result is a time of
"increased
> awareness" by the community, followed by a time of laxity, followed by
> another inevitable accident caused by someone else in another place.
> It seems that accident prevention is a never ending sine curve of good and
> bad.
> Dudley
>
>
Very true, and draconian measures have no greater lasting value. However, I
really like your suggestion (from past practice and posted on r.a.p) of the
wing sitter. I'm not volunteering, which I'll leave to the young bucks, but
I really like the concept because it leaves the wing sitter free from any
personal driving responsibility to attend to the task at hand. About the
only obvious risk is the possibility of sliding off in an unexpected stop;
which should be safe enough if left to the appropriate personnel.
Peter

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> As far as the wing sitters go, I think insurance will be more likely to
> prohibit that practice, than bikes on the taxiways. Plus, if you polled
> the
> warbird drivers, and asked them how many would be willing to let someone
> sit
> on their wing, I'll bet MOST of them would say, "NO Way!" Might leave a
> dent, or scratch the paint, or ..... Fill in the blank.
> --
> Jim in NC

Can't really say, but the pilots I know personally I think would say that
the scratches and dents obtained by plowing into that Pitts up there under
the nose might require a bit more work to rehab than the risk of someone
scratching the paint on the tip.
We always put out the word before hand to potential wingtip sitters that we
preferred them to have nothing in their back pockets and no rivets or jeans
were encouraged. We never had a problem getting people to do this for us.
Oshkosh might be another matter however, because of the sheer density of the
operation. People wanting to serve as sitters would need prior notification
that's for sure.
But its all academic really. The lawyers advising the insurance people will
most likely shoot down the tip riders anyway :-)
Dudley

[Morgans[_3_]]

"David J. Zera" > wrote in message
...
> I like the idea it is a good one. No right now the guys on scooters are
not
> allowed on the taxiways only the ramps my guess that is directed by the
> insurance guys.

It is my understanding that the only thing keeping them off the taxiways is
the fact that all vehicles on active taxiways are required to have a yellow
flashing light above them. Put a pole up from them and mount a light, and
there you go!

Check on that, if you will. You might be able to get that going.

As far as the wing sitters go, I think insurance will be more likely to
prohibit that practice, than bikes on the taxiways. Plus, if you polled the
warbird drivers, and asked them how many would be willing to let someone sit
on their wing, I'll bet MOST of them would say, "NO Way!" Might leave a
dent, or scratch the paint, or ..... Fill in the blank.
--
Jim in NC

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Bob Martin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"
>
> The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
> low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
> enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
> downwind.
>
> I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
> abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
> doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
> airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
> dangerous).
>
> As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
> see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
> traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
> straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
> pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.
>
> As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
> problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
> is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.
>
> Pete

The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
dragging it in for three miles.

This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
pilots may not have been taught to do so.

[Peter Duniho]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!

If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
position, rather than the statements you did make.

> It gives
> you a view of traffic in the pattern

In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

> keeps you in close

Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

> gets you to the downwind

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

> and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
> to get one plane on the ground.

Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.

Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
on the ground).

There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
airport traffic safety.

Pete

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:25 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> "Bob Martin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"
>>
>> The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
>> low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
>> enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
>> downwind.
>>
>> I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
>> abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
>> doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
>> airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
>> dangerous).
>>
>> As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
>> see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
>> traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
>> straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
>> pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.
>>
>> As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
>> problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
>> is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.
>>
>> Pete
>
>The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
>you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
>the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
>to get one plane on the ground.
>
>My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
>they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
>IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
>dragging it in for three miles.
>
>This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
>at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
>pilots may not have been taught to do so.

I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime
in on what they teach you north of the 49th?

Don
[1] San Carlos, CA. Down the road at Palo Alto, they use left and
right patterns for a single runway. I do NOT care for that. I'm
anxious about where the guy in the other pattern is turning base. San
Carlos doesn't do that because there is a lot of helicopter activity
and the helos are segregated on one side of the field and land on the
apron while fixed-wing craft use the other side and land on the
runway.

[[email protected]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.

I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
"church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
"hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.

Jim

[Drew Dalgleish]

>I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
>It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
>field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
>good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
>45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime
>in on what they teach you north of the 49th?
>
>Don

You are correct it is normal to join the pattern from over the feild
in Canada. At uncontrolled aerodromes straight in approaches are not
standard. I was also taught to never be more than gliding distance
from the runway while in the pattern. It drives me nuts when I see
cessna 150s flying 3 mile finals or are so wide on downwind I think
they've left the pattern. Oh ya another difference is we don't use 45
degree entries to the pattern.

[.Blueskies.]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message ...
:
: ".Blueskies." > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
: > ...
: > :
: > : "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
: > : news:E1fzg.84679$ZW3.47978@dukeread04...
: > : >I like warbirds, an airshow without warbirds is like no
: > : > airshow at all.
: > :
: > : And the money for the fuel they receive comes from the Warbirds division
: > not
: > : from the EAA as some believe.
: > :
: > :
: >
: > Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?
:
:
: Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.
:
:

Been there, same questions. If you know the answer show it...thanks!

[.Blueskies.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
: Gatt,
:
: I agree with you.
:
: > It's the new
: > Cessna....
:
: There was no new Cessna. There was a "proof of concept". Google
: "vaporware"...
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!
>
> If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
> position, rather than the statements you did make.
>
> > It gives
> > you a view of traffic in the pattern
>
> In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
> Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
> moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

> > keeps you in close
>
> Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
> includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
> some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
> straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
> rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits. Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.


> > gets you to the downwind
>
> Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

> > and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
> > to get one plane on the ground.
>
> Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.
>
> Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
> formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
> actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
> plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
> formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
> individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
> they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
> getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
> on the ground).

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.


> There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
> overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
> specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
> that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
> airport traffic safety.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

[vlado]

wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.
>
> I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
> then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
> It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
> and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
> could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
> antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
> to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
> the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
> I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
> fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
> "church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
> turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
> that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
> "hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
> I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.
>
> Jim

Do you realistically think they will all be destroyed by flying them?
What about the ones already locked up in museums? Do they count?

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.
>
> I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
> then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
> It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
> and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
> could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
> antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
> to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
> the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
> I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
> fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
> "church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
> turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
> that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
> "hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
> I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.
>
> Jim

That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go WAY
back with some of these folks.
Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you join
the organization.

As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says you
have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF, even
with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could be
mistaken however. It's been a long time.
As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually believe
that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when in
the CAF?
Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly as
possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for you
to leave :-)
Dudley Henriques
ex- P51 Mustang
(Just an old friend of the CAF)

[Peter Duniho]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
> bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
> In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
> if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

> Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
> as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

>> Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.
>
> And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

> It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
> lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

> Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
> Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> The accident will be in my nightmares for many years...... :(.... It was
> a rough year for EAA.

Thanks for all you do, Dave -- us long-term OSH attendees really do
appreciate your efforts.

Can you clue us in as to what happened in this bizarre accident? Did
the Avenger pilot simply not see the RV, and trundle right over
(through?) it?

That seems hard to believe, but I suppose in all the "tune the
radios/find the chart/what's that altitude?" craziness, it could
happen. Damned shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Blueskies.,

> Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?
>

Yep. As I said: a "proof of concept" in Cessna's own words.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John[_1_]]

Canal builder wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Totalitarian states do not permit experimental aviation.
>
> Not true. The German Nazi regime of the 1930s loved experimental aviation
> (and experimental rocketry), they even gave financial support. A lot of the
> amateur designers and pilots then went on to play a big part in the Second
> World War. The contemporary British government tried everything it could to
> stop amateurs getting into the air.
>
> As a result, surviving the Battle of Britain (1940) was as much a matter of
> luck as judgment. Later on we had to put up with bombs mysteriously falling
> out of the sky (the V2 long range rocket). If the war in Europe had gone on
> much longer the first man in space would have been a German piloting a
> two-stage missile to New York.
>
> BTW this difference in attitude between British and German governments
> continues to this day. This explains why German radio hams are putting
> together a Mars lander, and we can't fly a suitably-equipped Lancair in IFR.

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.

[Dave[_2_]]

"John" > wrote in message
s.com...

> Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
> aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
> operate private aircraft in its airspace.
>

All governments vary in what they permit and when, and they change over time
and circumstances. Unless you wish this forum to become another venue for
discussing politics I suggest you take this elsewhere.

[John[_1_]]

Dave wrote:
> "John" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> > Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
> > aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
> > operate private aircraft in its airspace.
> >
>
> All governments vary in what they permit and when, and they change over time
> and circumstances. Unless you wish this forum to become another venue for
> discussing politics I suggest you take this elsewhere.

Sorry Dave, you are entirely right. THE last thing I intended to do
was bring politics into this discussion group. There is a reason I
don't fly when I am tired, perhaps I should expand to prohibition to
posting :<)

My apologies to the group

John

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:21:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>> Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
>> bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
>> In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make tâ„¢e runway
>> if the engine quits.
>
>There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
>much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
>one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
>enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.
>
>> Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
>> as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.
>
>If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
>glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
>you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
>overhead break.
>
>Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
>while flying a straight-in approach.
>
>>> Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.
>>
>> And it lets you conflict with other traffic.
>
>No more so than an overhead break would.
>
>> It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
>> lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.
>
>So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
>or any other type of pattern.
>
>> Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
>> Spamcans. Get over it!
>
>That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
>prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
>do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.
>
>Pete

If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins. Others
may tend to disagree (like me for instance). That's just the way the
world works sometimes.... 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

[Dave[_2_]]

"John" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Sorry Dave, you are entirely right. THE last thing I intended to do
> was bring politics into this discussion group. There is a reason I
> don't fly when I am tired, perhaps I should expand to prohibition to
> posting :<)
>
> My apologies to the group
>

No need for apologies to me at least John, I've made the same error more
time than I can count.

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Martin > wrote:
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> [...]
>>> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>
>> We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around
>> here, where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily
>> flying, it's the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down
>> Lake Sammamish, or the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead
>> break" to a landing at the airport, or any number of other pilots
>> doing stupid pilot tricks.
>
>
> How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, for better or worse, flying straight-in, it's the other traffic that
> has to sequence for you. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing
> (it's one of the reasonable arguments against flying a straight-in), but
> it's not a complication that exists for a straight-in approach.
>

So a "reasonable argument" against flying a straight-in is it forces other
traffic to yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final?

[Peter Duniho]

"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
> If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
> approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
> (and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
> rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

> You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
> So a "reasonable argument" against flying a straight-in is it forces other
> traffic to yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final?

No. A straight-in approach does not in and of itself force other traffic to
yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final. The FARs do that.

What a straight-in does is *possibly* inconvenience traffic already in the
pattern by requiring them to adjust their flight path in the pattern to
accomodate the aircraft flying the straight-in, as a result of the
afore-mentioned FAR requirement.

The way the argument goes, it's a "they were there first" situation (where
"they" are the airplanes who have to deviate, who were "in the pattern
first"). I'm not personally motivated strongly by the argument, both
because aviation isn't always about who was "there first", and because
depending on how one looks at it, the airplane on final was "there first"
(on final first, that is). But I acknowledge it as a reasonable
philosophical position, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

I understand that you don't have a concept of a "reasonable philosophical
position", and so you may not comprehend any of the above. I simply provide
it here in case anyone else is interested in an elaboration of my point.

Pete

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

The Warbirds division is still a part of the EAA.

Because the EAA refuses to release any financial information, you'll have a
tough time convincing me that the Warbirds division does not get funding
from the EAA parent organization.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:SuAzg.91
>
> > Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?
>
>
> Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.
>
>

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:29:38 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
...
>> If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
>> approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
>> (and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
>> rather at pattern altitude).
>
>You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
>pattern altitude.
>
>> You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.
>
>You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
>as straight-ins.
>
>Pete
>

Whatever....

Bela P. Havasreti

[Peter Dohm]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bela P. Havasreti" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
> > approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
> > (and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
> > rather at pattern altitude).
>
> You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done
at
> pattern altitude.
>
> > You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.
>
> You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as
safe
> as straight-ins.
>
> Pete
>
>
IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an overhead
break or an overhead approach. My best guess is that a couple of local "hot
doggers" are simply calling their activity an overhead aproach in an attempt
to give it a legitimate sounding name. Clearly, trading speed for altitude
and popping up into the pattern around mid-field is not an approved
maneuver, and is only slightly less insane than spinning down into the
pattern.

OTOH, an overhead approach (as normally described) has a lot of utility as
has been pointed out eslewhere in this thread.

Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an
> overhead
> break or an overhead approach.

It may well be that the term I used is more commonly reserved for something
else. The moment someone else made an indication that the maneuver I
referenced was different from what most people consider the maneuver of the
same name, I acknowledged that they were different and made clear which I
was talking about. I have tried in each and every post to continue to make
that distinction.

AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight
directly over the runway, as well as a form of a "breaking" turn (or even
"braking turn" if you like :) ), I don't have a better term than the
confusing one, and simply follow what I have heard used on the radio, when
I've had the opportunity to hear the radio calls of these folks.

I have at every step of the way tried to make as clear as possible what
maneuver I'm talking about and how it differs from the maneuver other people
appear to be talking about. I cannot help it if people insist on continuing
to be confused.

Pete

[[email protected]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > RST Engineering wrote:
> >> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.
> >
> > I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
> > then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
> > It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
> > and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
> > could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
> > antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
> > to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
> > the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
> > I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
> > fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
> > "church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
> > turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
> > that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
> > "hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
> > I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.
> >
> > Jim
>
> That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go WAY
> back with some of these folks.
> Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
> organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
> joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you join
> the organization.
>
> As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says you
> have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF, even
> with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could be
> mistaken however. It's been a long time.
> As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually believe
> that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when in
> the CAF?
> Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
> make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly as
> possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for you
> to leave :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> ex- P51 Mustang
> (Just an old friend of the CAF)

Is it really possible you could get my money back???

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > RST Engineering wrote:
>> >> I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.
>> >
>> > I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
>> > then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
>> > It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
>> > and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
>> > could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
>> > antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
>> > to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
>> > the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
>> > I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
>> > fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
>> > "church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
>> > turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
>> > that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
>> > "hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
>> > I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.
>> >
>> > Jim
>>
>> That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go
>> WAY
>> back with some of these folks.
>> Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
>> organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
>> joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you
>> join
>> the organization.
>>
>> As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says
>> you
>> have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF,
>> even
>> with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could
>> be
>> mistaken however. It's been a long time.
>> As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually
>> believe
>> that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when
>> in
>> the CAF?
>> Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
>> make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly
>> as
>> possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for
>> you
>> to leave :-)
>> Dudley Henriques
>> ex- P51 Mustang
>> (Just an old friend of the CAF)
>
> Is it really possible you could get my money back???

There was a time when I'm quite sure I carried enough weight arond the CAF
hangar to get that done. Today, probably not.
Tell you what. Why don't you simply copy your own post from this thread and
print it out; then take it with you to CAF and let them read it. Then ask
them if its possible for them to possibly refund your money. I think you
might just have a shot :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Carriere]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
> approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight

Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden
underneath a lot of IFR stuff:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.html#Va821cROBE

In keeping with the international nature of these newsgroups, yes, this
applies to operations in the U.S., but the generic maneuver is universal.

Of course, when making variations on the maneuver (like low/fast
followed by a popup), courtesy and good airmanship towards other
aircraft, already established in a conventional traffic pattern, would
be considered. Common sense, I know.

[.Blueskies.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
: Blueskies.,
:
: > Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?
: >
:
: Yep. As I said: a "proof of concept" in Cessna's own words.
:
: --
: Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
:

You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane...

[Morgans[_3_]]

Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Don Tuite]

What does everybody have against war brides?

What?

Never mind.

Don

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
>> approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve
>> flight
>
> Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
> Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden underneath
> a lot of IFR stuff:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.html#Va821cROBE

Hmmm...well, I'd agree that is as close to an official definition as we're
likely to see. However, note that it's in the context of IFR arrivals, at
airports where an "overhead maneuver pattern" has specifically been
designated. If one is to use that as the official definition, then one also
needs to accept that they are allowed only in the specific circumstances
described in that section.

I think it makes more sense to accept that the phrases "overhead break" or
"overhead approach" are used to describe a variety of similar procedures.

Pete

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
> --
> Jim in NC

Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers ASK
me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)

All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non sequitur.
(that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and plug
fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on separate
pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side seems
to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right into
somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm sure,
knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it HAS
happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
pilot with an once of brains.
So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what the
poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are routinely
flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule;
not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a while,
as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his typing
War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe me
gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with warbirds
:-))
Dudley

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
> APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule;
> not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)

Naturally this should have read "UNAPPROVED"

DH

[Thomas Borchert]

Blueskies.,

> You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane...
>

Something flew, yes. Was it a product from Cessna? Hardly.

Vaporware in my book is something you demo to great effect but with
nothing even remotely approaching a finished product in sight, let
alone a firm date for a finished product "on the shelves". Often, the
purpose is to keep the impressed masses from buying an available
product from the competition while playing catch-up with that
competition after you have badly dropped the ball.

IMHO, what Cessna did qualifies fully and in all aspects.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:18:32 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
>It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
>field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
>good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
>45-degree entries, and base-leg entries.

There is a nuclear power plant a few miles south of my home airport.
To approach from the west (the usual direction, since the ocean is on
the east) and to make the usual approach to runway 20 therefore
involves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, which is apt to make the
security guards nervous. Ever since 9/11, therefore, I have always
entered the 45 from the west, regardless of wind direction. If I am to
land to the north, I fly the standard pattern. If I am landing to the
south, I make a midfield crossover. (It's actually a bit south of
midfield.)

The Cub is NORDO. I carry a handheld, but interference from the
sparkplugs makes it unfeasible to transmit unless the engine is at
idle. So I announce that I'm on the 45 from the west as I am
descending to pattern altitude, and generally I announce when I'm
descending on base or final. But otherwise I'm silent, though of
course I'm listening (and looking). No one has ever complained about
this.

I do confess however that, the first time I saw a midfield crossover,
I was so startled that I flew off and did some practice stuff for a
while, then returned when I was sure this interloper had parked his
plane or else left the area.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:19:25 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>I was also taught to never be more than gliding distance
>from the runway while in the pattern.

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> I think many would disagree with your definition.
>

Hey, that's what usenet is all about, isn't it? ;-)

Here's what I'm trying to say:

If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,
if not decades. What we also see is that a certified product from
Cessna in either category is years away.

And all that together, in my view, shows a failure of Cessna rather
than a success. It's still great that they might(!) enter those
markets, but the presentation was underwhelming to me in that it was
too little too late and no firm commitment.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

>
> And all that together, in my view, shows a failure of Cessna rather
> than a success. It's still great that they might(!) enter those
> markets, but the presentation was underwhelming to me in that it was
> too little too late and no firm commitment.
>
> --

It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and the
"Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA party is
Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I started
building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to market much
less a completed S-LSA.

Piper it seems isn't going to come and play in either sandbox and are
counting on Honda's VLJ to make them relevant. Good luck with that.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Blueskies.,
>
> > You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane...
> >
>
> Something flew, yes. Was it a product from Cessna? Hardly.
>
> Vaporware in my book is something you demo to great effect but with
> nothing even remotely approaching a finished product in sight, let
> alone a firm date for a finished product "on the shelves". Often, the
> purpose is to keep the impressed masses from buying an available
> product from the competition while playing catch-up with that
> competition after you have badly dropped the ball.
>
> IMHO, what Cessna did qualifies fully and in all aspects.

I think many would disagree with your definition.

Vaporware to most, is a plan, some nice specifications, and some 3-D cad
pictures. Have the computer crash, and what do you have to show for your
airplane? Nothing. Vapor!
--
Jim in NC

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
> Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
> airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
> well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
> there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
> Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
> up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,

Why does this remind me of Windoze?

Stefan

[Jose[_1_]]

> The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
> good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
> the fact that engines are not immortal.

I suspect that the dangers from a MAC in a crowded airport envoronment
are greater than the dangers from an engine out.

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

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:06:50 -0400, Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT
net> wrote:

>This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
>to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
>flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
>leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
>engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
>good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
>the fact that engines are not immortal.
>
I'm not sure it's all that much better. Is there a standard for where
you let down to pick up the 45 entry? Which way you turn? And I
swear, the last time I flew into South County, when I made my turn to
get on the 45, about a mile out, there was a plane on downwind out
there. I'd heard him on the radio, but I didn't expect him that far
out.

Don

[Newps]

>
>>This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
>>to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
>>flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
>>leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
>>engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
>>good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
>>the fact that engines are not immortal.

It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

[bdl]

Newps wrote:
> It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
> you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
> take? That's just dumb.

As an aside I know of at least one pilot that failed his private pilot
checkride because he did the a midfield crosswind entry instead of
overflying the airport for 2 miles and re-entering on the 45. The DE
didn't like the fact that that airport's flight school taught the
midfield crosswind entry (mostly due to overlying class Bravo
airspace).

[Peter Dohm]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers
ASK
> me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)
>
> All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non
sequitur.
> (that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
> They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
> preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and
plug
> fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
> What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on
separate
> pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side seems
> to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
> driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right into
> somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm
sure,
> knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it HAS
> happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
> pilot with an once of brains.
> So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what the
> poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are
routinely
> flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
> traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
> APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule;
> not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
> There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a while,
> as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his
typing
> War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
> 2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe me
> gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with
warbirds
> :-))
> Dudley
>
>
I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Peter

[Chris G.]

There is one point in this discussion that is being missed (for the US
pilots). The Overhead Approach (OA) maneuver, normally approved by ATC
(at controlled facilities), is a non-standard pattern entry. If there
was an incident as a result of the OA maneuver, there could be grounds
for action against the pilot(s) involved in that maneuver based on the
much larger and more prominent sections of the AIM (like the one below)
that specifically cover proper pattern entry procedures.

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-3

4-3-3. Traffic Patterns
At most airports and military air bases, traffic pattern altitudes for
propeller-driven aircraft generally extend from 600 feet to as high as
1,500 feet above the ground. Also, traffic pattern altitudes for
military turbojet aircraft sometimes extend up to 2,500 feet above the
ground. Therefore, pilots of en route aircraft should be constantly on
the alert for other aircraft in traffic patterns and avoid these areas
whenever possible. Traffic pattern altitudes should be maintained unless
otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria (14
CFR Section 91.155). (See FIG 4-3-2 and FIG 4-3-3.)

EXAMPLE-
Key to traffic pattern operations
1. Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, at
pattern altitude. (1,000' AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless
established otherwise. . .)
2. Maintain pattern altitude until abeam approach end of the landing
runway on downwind leg.
3. Complete turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the runway.
4. Continue straight ahead until beyond departure end of runway.
5. If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg
beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude.
6. If departing the traffic pattern, continue straight out, or exit with
a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a left-hand traffic pattern; to
the right when in a right-hand traffic pattern) beyond the departure end
of the runway, after reaching pattern altitude.



Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Duniho wrote:
>>> AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
>>> approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve
>>> flight
>> Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
>> Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden underneath
>> a lot of IFR stuff:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.html#Va821cROBE
>
> Hmmm...well, I'd agree that is as close to an official definition as we're
> likely to see. However, note that it's in the context of IFR arrivals, at
> airports where an "overhead maneuver pattern" has specifically been
> designated. If one is to use that as the official definition, then one also
> needs to accept that they are allowed only in the specific circumstances
> described in that section.
>
> I think it makes more sense to accept that the phrases "overhead break" or
> "overhead approach" are used to describe a variety of similar procedures.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> I've also seem this done on a VFR flight at a towered airport

I don't doubt that at all. I've seen similar approaches used in a variety
of places. But the "official definition", such as it is, concerns only a
specific IFR situation.

I never said that the procedure itself was IFR-only, and in fact I would not
be surprised if it occurs primarily during VFR flights. But the fact
remains that there are a variety of pilots out there flying a variety of
similar, but not identical versions of "overhead" maneuvers, using the term
"overhead" to describe them. Some comply with the "official" definition
described in the IFR procedure you referenced (other than not being part of
an IFR procedure, not during an IFR flight, not at a towered airport, and
not with a designated overhead maneuver pattern), some do not.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
> I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
> drivers.

Indeed. I find the interpretation, quoted in your reply, of my comments to
be bizarre, considering that this whole subthread started as my response
pointing out that these "stupid pilot tricks" are NOT limited to warbirds,
and that warbirds should NOT be singled out as the sole offenders.

For someone to come along and think that I was saying that this is a
warbird-only problem is entirely backwards, and shows a complete lack of
understanding of any of my comments.

Pete

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
> If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
> Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
> airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
> well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
> there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
> Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
> up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,
> if not decades. What we also see is that a certified product from
> Cessna in either category is years away.


Cessna's VLJ, Mustang, comes to mind. We think we'll do this - a few years
later, there it is.

The giggle I had at OSH was Cessna reps stating their good looking new
Cessna LSA would do 120 knots.

Hearing that, I'm calling it ...."The Cessna Killer."


Montblack

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
>> > --
>> > Jim in NC
>>
>> Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers
> ASK
>> me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)
>>
>> All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non
> sequitur.
>> (that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
>> They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
>> preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and
> plug
>> fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
>> What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on
> separate
>> pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side
>> seems
>> to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
>> driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right
>> into
>> somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm
> sure,
>> knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it
>> HAS
>> happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
>> pilot with an once of brains.
>> So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what
>> the
>> poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are
> routinely
>> flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
>> traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
>> APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the
>> rule;
>> not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
>> There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a
>> while,
>> as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his
> typing
>> War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
>> 2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe
>> me
>> gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with
> warbirds
>> :-))
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
> drivers.
>
> Peter
>
>

I think the gist of the negative posters comment was directed to pilots in
general who make unauthorized overheads. Not quite sure how the warbird
community got involved; probably because of the other comment in this thread
being negative about people who fly warbirds.
In all fairness, the thread creep is so bad in this thread that it would
behoove everybody to read it from the beginning before getting upset with
anyone else :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Peter Dohm]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've also seem this done on a VFR flight at a towered airport
>
> I don't doubt that at all. I've seen similar approaches used in a variety
> of places. But the "official definition", such as it is, concerns only a
> specific IFR situation.
>
> I never said that the procedure itself was IFR-only, and in fact I would
not
> be surprised if it occurs primarily during VFR flights. But the fact
> remains that there are a variety of pilots out there flying a variety of
> similar, but not identical versions of "overhead" maneuvers, using the
term
> "overhead" to describe them. Some comply with the "official" definition
> described in the IFR procedure you referenced (other than not being part
of
> an IFR procedure, not during an IFR flight, not at a towered airport, and
> not with a designated overhead maneuver pattern), some do not.
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete,

I presumed that you were saying that the local "hot doggers" were describing
their maneuver as an overhead approach. My criticism applied to their
missuse of the term, not yours. I presume the same applies to the other
poster who gave the link to the IFR procedure.

Peter

[gatt]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

> Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like
> to
> see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
> summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
> to be handy:
>
> http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

THANKS, JIM!

-c

[John Ousterhout[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and the
> "Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA party is
> Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I started
> building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to market much
> less a completed S-LSA.

Or one might say that Vans has surveyed the LSA specs and market and is
carefully developing the RV-12 instead of rushing to market.

I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

- John Ousterhout -

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"John Ousterhout" > wrote in
message news:bG9Cg.883926$084.394004@attbi_s22...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and
>> the "Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA
>> party is Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I
>> started building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to
>> market much less a completed S-LSA.
>
> Or one might say that Vans has surveyed the LSA specs and market and is
> carefully developing the RV-12 instead of rushing to market.
>
> I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
> outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.
>

I have little doubt you are right Van's knows how to create a great kit and
if they had had the RV-12 anywhere close to market when I started building I
might well have been building it instead of the 601XL I'm building now. My
statement was that Van's is coming to the party late not that their aircraft
would be in any way inferior.

My bet is the reason they didn't have an LSA type kit before they did is
that they were too busy with the RV-10. Which given their market was
probably a good idea.

[Jim Logajan]

John Ousterhout > wrote:
> I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
> outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.

In what way will the RV-12 be superior to the Zenith Zodiac? On what basis
is the RV-12 going to overtake market share from a very similar plane that
is already flying as well as from a host of other available LSA models
already flying?

[ET]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> John Ousterhout > wrote:
>> I'd be willing to bet that five years from now that the RV-12 will
>> outnumber all of the other flying homebuilt LSAs.
>
> In what way will the RV-12 be superior to the Zenith Zodiac? On what
> basis is the RV-12 going to overtake market share from a very similar
> plane that is already flying as well as from a host of other available
> LSA models already flying?
>

It will actually fly at it's rated speed.

The match hole drilling will actually match...

The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
planes to build. but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac builders
if you dont believe me) and many have also complained about poor fit of
the pre-drilled components.

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jim Logajan]

ET > wrote:
> The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
> planes to build.

It's still on my short list. What was the other plane on your short list,
if you don't mind my asking?

> but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
> matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac builders
> if you dont believe me)

Actually I've researched the written material on the Internet regarding the
Zodiac and unless I missed something, those complaints refer to older 601
models. I haven't seen any complaints regarding the Zodiac model making its
rated speed, which I believe has redesigned wings. I haven't ordered the
Kitplane's January 2004 issue to see what the article "Zenith vs. Zenith
Showdown (Zodiac 601 XL - Stol CH 701)" said about it meeting its claimed
speed.

Unfortunately the usefulness of Matronics postings is about on a par with
the usefulness of Usenet postings - at best merely suggestive, but they
always need more authoritative confirmation.

[ET]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> ET > wrote:
>> The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
>> planes to build.
>
> It's still on my short list. What was the other plane on your short
> list, if you don't mind my asking?
>
>> but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
>> matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac
>> builders if you dont believe me)
>
> Actually I've researched the written material on the Internet
> regarding the Zodiac and unless I missed something, those complaints
> refer to older 601 models. I haven't seen any complaints regarding the
> Zodiac model making its rated speed, which I believe has redesigned
> wings. I haven't ordered the Kitplane's January 2004 issue to see what
> the article "Zenith vs. Zenith Showdown (Zodiac 601 XL - Stol CH 701)"
> said about it meeting its claimed speed.
>
> Unfortunately the usefulness of Matronics postings is about on a par
> with the usefulness of Usenet postings - at best merely suggestive,
> but they always need more authoritative confirmation.

I disagree about the Matronics postings, most are from actual builders
building real planes using their own name and most times having a
personal website showing construction, etc. to back up claims of being a
builder. I have read several posts from builders of the XL claiming
substantially reduced cruise speeds off of the MFR claimed numbers.

My other choice was the Sonex, I chose the Sonex, & I chose to scratch
build. I started last September and now have all the angle and plate
parts built, one wing built, both the spars built, and the empenange
built. I'm starting the other wing now and all of the major parts are
built, starting actual assembly.

The Sonex plans are second to none for a scratch builder. Every single
piece that could be depicted full size on the 24"X36" plans is shown
full size. Every single rivet & bolt is called out, there is no
guessing or using "accepted practices" The Zenith plans are adiquate for
a kit builder and lacking for a scratch builder, although I know many
have been scratch built sucessfully.

I chose the Sonex for 1) Quality of Plans 2) Cost 3) speed-every post
I've read from Sonex builders claim the plane lives up to the factory
speeds.

The only downside to the Sonex is it may be a bit small in the cabin for
a really big guy (or 2). I'm 5'10" & 195 & fit great. Try to find one
to sit in before you decide for certain (same for the Zodiac for that
matter).

Not trying to dis the Zodiac too much here, if the Sonex did not exist
I'd be building a Zodiac XL.

BTW the Sonex also has a very active email list at

groups.yahoo.com\SonexTalk

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> :
>
>> ET > wrote:
>>> The Zodiac is a great little plane, it was on my short list of 2 of
>>> planes to build.
>>
>> It's still on my short list. What was the other plane on your short
>> list, if you don't mind my asking?
>>
>>> but it has never met it's advertized speeds (go to the
>>> matronics Zodiac list and read the archives of posts of Zodiac
>>> builders if you dont believe me)
>>
>> Actually I've researched the written material on the Internet
>> regarding the Zodiac and unless I missed something, those complaints
>> refer to older 601 models. I haven't seen any complaints regarding the
>> Zodiac model making its rated speed, which I believe has redesigned
>> wings. I haven't ordered the Kitplane's January 2004 issue to see what
>> the article "Zenith vs. Zenith Showdown (Zodiac 601 XL - Stol CH 701)"
>> said about it meeting its claimed speed.
>>
>> Unfortunately the usefulness of Matronics postings is about on a par
>> with the usefulness of Usenet postings - at best merely suggestive,
>> but they always need more authoritative confirmation.
>
> I disagree about the Matronics postings, most are from actual builders
> building real planes using their own name and most times having a
> personal website showing construction, etc. to back up claims of being a
> builder. I have read several posts from builders of the XL claiming
> substantially reduced cruise speeds off of the MFR claimed numbers.
>
> My other choice was the Sonex, I chose the Sonex, & I chose to scratch
> build. I started last September and now have all the angle and plate
> parts built, one wing built, both the spars built, and the empenange
> built. I'm starting the other wing now and all of the major parts are
> built, starting actual assembly.
>
> The Sonex plans are second to none for a scratch builder. Every single
> piece that could be depicted full size on the 24"X36" plans is shown
> full size. Every single rivet & bolt is called out, there is no
> guessing or using "accepted practices" The Zenith plans are adiquate for
> a kit builder and lacking for a scratch builder, although I know many
> have been scratch built sucessfully.
>
> I chose the Sonex for 1) Quality of Plans 2) Cost 3) speed-every post
> I've read from Sonex builders claim the plane lives up to the factory
> speeds.
>
> The only downside to the Sonex is it may be a bit small in the cabin for
> a really big guy (or 2). I'm 5'10" & 195 & fit great. Try to find one
> to sit in before you decide for certain (same for the Zodiac for that
> matter).
>
> Not trying to dis the Zodiac too much here, if the Sonex did not exist
> I'd be building a Zodiac XL.
>
> BTW the Sonex also has a very active email list at
>

There are so many engine/prop/cowling combos that MFG numbers mean diddly.
It seems that with a the right prop setting William Wynne's XL might
actually be faster than the Zenith numbers and faster than the LSA rules
permit. I flew in the factory 601XL with a Jabiru engine and it was meeting
factory numbers.

As far as match drilled holes matching up I can't say much. When I bought my
kit the only pre-drilling was on the wing skins and they matched up
perfectly with the undrilled ribs that were installed in keeping with the
plans. There were some early problems when they first started the match
drilling in more places but from what I understand the kits shipping now
don't have that problem.

[Cy Galley]

Last year we had a Super CUB chop up the tail of an RV-4 so the concept of
paying attention and leaving enough space so that the following plane
doesn't overtake the plane waiting in line to leave is NOT just a size or
war bird problem... It is a pilot problem.

With all that said, I don't remember any other taxi way problems, but an OF
might!

Maybe they can cure my CRS at the same time.


--
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A 45 Year Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
>> drivers.
>
> Indeed. I find the interpretation, quoted in your reply, of my comments
> to be bizarre, considering that this whole subthread started as my
> response pointing out that these "stupid pilot tricks" are NOT limited to
> warbirds, and that warbirds should NOT be singled out as the sole
> offenders.
>
> For someone to come along and think that I was saying that this is a
> warbird-only problem is entirely backwards, and shows a complete lack of
> understanding of any of my comments.
>
> Pete
>

[ET]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in
news:P8rCg.126663$1i1.124285@attbi_s72:

> Last year we had a Super CUB chop up the tail of an RV-4 so the
> concept of paying attention and leaving enough space so that the
> following plane doesn't overtake the plane waiting in line to leave is
> NOT just a size or war bird problem... It is a pilot problem.
>
> With all that said, I don't remember any other taxi way problems, but
> an OF might!
>
> Maybe they can cure my CRS at the same time.
>
>

Interesting, the NTSB report of this accident mentions a Lancair that
was behind this big warbird was originally directed by the ground vol's
to taxi in front of it, and refused cause he didnt want to be in front
of that big a** propeller. I would've probably done the same. There
was no mention in the report of the RV allegedly "cutting in front" of
the warbird as was mentioned on the RV mailing list. They even had a
film of the whole incedent, so surely that would have been mentioned.
The NTSB report reads very clearly that the warbird pilot just did not
know the RV was there. They thought they where following a high wing
100 yards in front of them. They apparently did not S turn very much at
all, as only 1 out of 3 witnesses on the NTSB report say they saw an S
turn at all, and the NTSB reports very shallow S turns, and only
occasionally upon review of the film.

Very tragic, and although no official fault has been given, it's my
prediction it will read something to the effect of faliure of the
warbird pilot to S turn deaply enough to verify the taxiway was clear.


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Big John]

Dudley

Let me hang this on your post.

The fighter pattern in WWII was flight in echelon and at a minimum of
cruise airspeed at 100 feet or less (high enough to give #4 ground
clearance).

At end of Runway, leader pitched up in a hard climbing turn and
throttle idle (to kill off airspeed) and rest of flight fanned out in
pitch up. After about 180 degrees of turn, speed of #1 would be down
where gear could be extended followed immediately by wing flaps. At
this time #1 was on a very short turning final. Rest of flight took
spacing after pitch up, put gear and flaps down as required to make
short pattern and flight landed close together right side, left side,
right side and left side.

Rational for this pattern I was told was that we often caught German
Fighters in big patterns or long straight in and shot them down
because the were slow and dirty (and many times short on fuel). To
prevent Germans from catching our fighters low and slow in pattern the
pitch up let us keep at least cruise airspeed (some Fight Leaders
pitched faster that cruise airspeed) until we pitched and made the
very quick pattern and got on ground.

After War's end there were some accidents associated with the pitch up
and it was changed to the overhead pattern.

In this pattern the flight in echelon flies down the runway at 1000 ft
and half way down the leader breaks hard enough with throttle back and
boards out to get down to gear down airspeed at or shortly after
rolling out on a downwind leg. Flaps are extended in the normal
position in rectangular pattern to let bird make a normal base leg and
turn to final at 300 feet or so.

Wing men each make their break at a number of seconds after leader
(varies with aircraft type) rolling out on a down wind with proper
spacing from bird ahead. Landings are again right side, left side,
right side and left side for safety.

On Dudley's comment about plugs. We used British Platinum plugs and
didn't have any plug problem going to idle on Merlin. We got 25-50
hours on these plugs with minimum fouling. Not sure these plugs were
available after War and those in supply channels used up???? If we ran
out of the British plugs and couldn't trade some booze to a Spit
outfit for plugs, we used American plugs which fouled up very easy and
were sometimes changed after every mission.

One technique we used was to run Merlin very lean on ground taxing out
prior to taking R/W for take off where we went to auto rich for
takeoff. This helped with any fouling. We also found that improper
ground adjustment by the mechanic, of the mixture control, caused plug
fouling.

On night takeoffs there was fire out of short stacks about half way
back to cockpit. After getting airborne and cutting back to climb
power the fire reduced to a little over a foot. After leveling off and
going to cruise power we manually leaned the mixture until there was
just a very light pale blue flame almost all in the short stacks. We
could then start working on getting our night vision and tuck it in
tight in night formation.

During War (WWII) there was no restriction I ever hear of about Idle
on Merlin in P-51. After War they put a restriction on idle rpm in
pattern to keep from warping valves.

Oh,those were the days with that sweet sound of a Merlin :o)


Big John


Dudley how is your health coming along? My Rotator Cuff surgery is
finally getting better and am getting full movement back in right arm.
I can almost hold my Martini in my right hand again :o)
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````



On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:17:57 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
>> Peter Duniho wrote:
>>> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> [...]
>>>> Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.
>>>
>>> We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
>>> where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's
>>> the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or
>>> the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at
>>> the airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.
>>
>>
>> How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"
>>
>> Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
>> overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
>> tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
>> cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've been
>> watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month. Nothing
>> looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we come back
>> from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a straight-in
>> landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as you announce
>> what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless you consider
>> formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side to be
>> inherently dangerous.
>
>An approach flown from an initial overhead break has a practical side as
>well. In the P51 for example, flying a regular pattern with reduced manifold
>pressure can really foul up the plugs on you.
>An overhead approach allows a tight in circular pattern that can be flown
>with the power up in the range that keeps the plugs clean; allows for better
>visibility, and allows for easier positioning without losing the runway
>under the nose.
>This doesn't mean that pilots flying high performance airplanes should
>arbitrarily use these approaches without prior approval or radio contact to
>clear first. It just means that in high performance airplanes, this type of
>approach is requested for practical reasons by practical pilots who know
>exactly what they are doing and have no wish to be showing off or violating
>anyone's airspace.
>Dudley Henriques
>Ex P51 pilot........among others :-))
>

[dougdrivr]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "Cy Galley" > wrote in
> news:P8rCg.126663$1i1.124285@attbi_s72:
>
> > Last year we had a Super CUB chop up the tail of an RV-4 so the
> > concept of paying attention and leaving enough space so that the
> > following plane doesn't overtake the plane waiting in line to leave is
> > NOT just a size or war bird problem... It is a pilot problem.
> >
> > With all that said, I don't remember any other taxi way problems, but
> > an OF might!
> >
> > Maybe they can cure my CRS at the same time.
> >
> >
>
> Interesting, the NTSB report of this accident mentions a Lancair that
> was behind this big warbird was originally directed by the ground vol's
> to taxi in front of it, and refused cause he didnt want to be in front
> of that big a** propeller. I would've probably done the same. There
> was no mention in the report of the RV allegedly "cutting in front" of
> the warbird as was mentioned on the RV mailing list. They even had a
> film of the whole incedent, so surely that would have been mentioned.
> The NTSB report reads very clearly that the warbird pilot just did not
> know the RV was there. They thought they where following a high wing
> 100 yards in front of them. They apparently did not S turn very much at
> all, as only 1 out of 3 witnesses on the NTSB report say they saw an S
> turn at all, and the NTSB reports very shallow S turns, and only
> occasionally upon review of the film.
>
> Very tragic, and although no official fault has been given, it's my
> prediction it will read something to the effect of faliure of the
> warbird pilot to S turn deaply enough to verify the taxiway was clear.
>
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)

You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power to
straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you. Not making
excuses, just attempting to understand what the pilot of the TBM was up
against, especially if he had the mindset that the high wing that exited
into the grass was the airplane he was sequenced behind and he needed to
close up on the preceeding aircraft. It's still his responsibility to clear
the area in front of his aircraft but I can see how easily he fell into this
trap.

[Jay Beckman]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...

<Snip>

John,

I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
posting these pearls ad infinitum...

Great little gems of history.

Thanks,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Morgans[_3_]]

"dougdrivr" > wrote
>
> You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
> TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
> lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power
to
> straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you. Not
making
> excuses, just attempting to understand what the pilot of the TBM was up
> against, especially if he had the mindset that the high wing that exited
> into the grass was the airplane he was sequenced behind and he needed to
> close up on the preceeding aircraft. It's still his responsibility to
clear
> the area in front of his aircraft but I can see how easily he fell into
this
> trap.

I'll say again; I never saw the taxiway width being a problem for any other
warbird, while I was working there. 35 feet is plenty wide for a good
S-turn.
--
Jim in NC

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:08:45 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

> "dougdrivr" > wrote
> >
> > You also need to consider that this was on a very narrow taxiway (for a
> > TBM) and the TBM has no tail wheel steering. Deep "S" turns would require
> > lots of brake and ,if the tail wheel got off on the grass, alot of power
> > to straighten out and the chance of blowing someone over behind you....
> > [Snip]
>
> I'll say again; I never saw the taxiway width being a problem for any other
> warbird, while I was working there. 35 feet is plenty wide for a good
> S-turn.

Yes, but: Most of the other warbirds you saw have tailwheel steering. Without
it, directional control is pretty indirect, and S-turning isn't just a matter of
a casual push on a pedal. Couple that with the realization that every S-turn
wears a brake pad, and that pads for TBMs are probably neither common nor cheap.
Heck, they're $200 a pair just for my Fly Baby....

Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a good
view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from the
centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that much
quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels don't
leave the pavement.

Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear the
taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:sJzCg.16475$RD.16309@fed1read08...
> I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
> posting these pearls ad infinitum...
>
> Great little gems of history.

I can't even say that I always appreciate his posts (I'm sure that's
okay...he probably rarely appreciates mine :) ), but I have to agree here,
that one *was* a real gem, as you put it.

Thanks for sharing John.

Pete

[Scott[_1_]]

Since it is obvious to the most casual observer, a plane such as a TBM
has such poor forward visibility and such a tough time with ground
manuevering, wouldn't it have been easier to have a guy on a scooter
escort it as a second set of remotely mounted eyes?

Scott


Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>
> Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a good
> view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from the
> centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that much
> quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels don't
> leave the pavement.
>
> Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear the
> taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
> Yes, but: Most of the other warbirds you saw have tailwheel steering.
Without
> it, directional control is pretty indirect, and S-turning isn't just a
matter of
> a casual push on a pedal. Couple that with the realization that every
S-turn
> wears a brake pad, and that pads for TBMs are probably neither common nor
cheap.
> Heck, they're $200 a pair just for my Fly Baby...

Ron, you know better than that. Every type of warbird at OSH has taxied
past me. They all managed. Plus, the cost of brakes is part of being at
OSH. If you can not taxi safely cause it costs too much, stay home.
>
> Couple with a big radial cowling, the pilot probably doesn't truly get a
good
> view forward until the longitudinal axis takes a significant offset from
the
> centerline. With that, you're heading towards the taxiway lights that
much
> quicker, and you're going to want to turn back early enough so the wheels
don't
> leave the pavement.

There are no taxiway lights on that particular taxiway. It is not a
normally used taxiway.

> Like Dougdrivr said, it certainly was the pilot's responsibility to clear
the
> taxiway ahead. But I can sympathize with the problems he faced.

Problems that can be overcome, since everyone else managed.
--
Jim in NC

[Big John]

Jay

Lived in Chandler until got housing on base.

4 years as a Jet Instructor at Willie.

Was very sorry to see them close the field and keep Luke.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````


On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:44:58 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
><Snip>
>
>John,
>
>I can't speak for everyone, but as far as I'm concerned, you can just keep
>posting these pearls ad infinitum...
>
>Great little gems of history.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jay Beckman
>PP-ASEL
>Chandler, AZ
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:01:33 +0000, Scott >
wrote:
> Since it is obvious to the most casual observer, a plane such as a TBM
> has such poor forward visibility and such a tough time with ground
> manuevering, wouldn't it have been easier to have a guy on a scooter
> escort it as a second set of remotely mounted eyes?

That has already been discussed... Look back through the thread for
the last few days...

[Ernest Christley]

Morgans wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote
>
>>Yes, but: Most of the other warbirds you saw have tailwheel steering.
>
>
> Ron, you know better than that. Every type of warbird at OSH has taxied
> past me. They all managed. Plus, the cost of brakes is part of being at
> OSH. If you can not taxi safely cause it costs too much, stay home.
>

And all of it is neither here nor there. I used to drive a big truck,
and 18-wheeler as moving van. 18 wheels down through residential
neighborhoods. The number one rule was "If you don't know you're clear,
you don't move." Period. No guessing. No thinking. No hoping and no
wishing. Either you can see you're clear through mirrors or sticking
your head out the window, or you have your partner get out and sight for
you. If you don't have a partner, you set the parking brake and take a
walk around the truck.

The pilot knew the airplane had visibility issues, and he knew he would
be in crowded environment. It's his responsibility, plain and clear.
Oshkosh organizers are fully culpable for not requiring that he observe
the simplest safety rule. This isn't something that's limited to
aviation. Anytime you have large equipment moving in a crowded
environment, you will see extra precautions taken. Anytime a forklift
is moving something at the HomeDepot, they'll post two guards to keep
people back. It's my opinion that the Oshkosh organizers should be held
responsible for criminal negligence, and Uncle Tom should be whipped at
high noon for the crude and audacious remark that "this will not detract
from the success of the convention."

Not the fact that this was allowed to occur, but it was allowed to
happen in such a glaringly stupid fashion, without the first modicum of
the normal safeguards that you would see at any large convention is a
serious black eye on Warbirds, GA aircraft, the EAA, and especially
Oshkosh. Whether it is true or no, this just screams to the world that
we're all a bunch of reckless yahoos. Most of us aren't, but just try
to convince Joe Public of that when the biggest convention of GA
aircraft in the world doesn't practice safety measures that would be
strictly enforced at the county fair.

----
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."