Biggest bonehead moves flying into OSH?

[Viperdoc[_4_]]

Two days ago, while returning from the east coast on a business trip, I
heard an exchange between a plane going to OSH and the controllers in
Michigan. We were at 10,000 in an out of IMC and doing a large deviation to
avoid a line of thunderstorms.

The pilot going to OSH asked for an IFR clearance in the air to go to an
intersection near OSH (?) The controller patiently explained that a
reservation was required to get a clearance into OSH, although the pilot
didn't seem to understand what this meant, and kept asking for a clearance
to some intersection near OSH.

Finally, the controller said it wasn't going to happen, and offered VFR
advisories over the lake (roughly 80 miles). The pilot accepted this, and
proceeded to fly over the lake, between layers of clouds, at 4500 feet in a
single.

I mentally wished him luck.

While getting gas at my home base, the line guy related a story of a couple
in a clapped out ratty home built who wanted to leave at night to fly over
Lake Michigan, VFR. They said they did similar over water trips all the
time, and that they knew how to swim.

About five minutes after departure they returned, with a complete electrical
failure.

Most of the pilots I know would acknowledge that flying over Lake Michigan
in a single is a calculated risk, and would do it high, with lots of gas,
and perhaps with survival gear. Some won't do it at all in a single, since
the survival rate after ditching is very low. Most wouldn't do it at night
or in IMC.

Are there any other stories out there about questionable judgment flying
into OSH?

[El Maximo]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...

>
> Are there any other stories out there about questionable judgment flying
> into OSH?

I was flying east over the lake from OSH at 11,500' in a loose formation of
five planes. About half way over, I saw a bright yellow cub flying the other
way at what looked like 1000'.

[John T]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message

>
> Most of the pilots I know would acknowledge that flying over Lake
> Michigan in a single is a calculated risk, and would do it high, with
> lots of gas, and perhaps with survival gear. Some won't do it at all
> in a single, **since the survival rate after ditching is very low**. Most
> wouldn't do it at night or in IMC.

Are you sure about that survival rate? Here's one site that provides stats
disproving that theory (old, but the trends aren't likely to have changed
much since):

http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Marco Leon]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Two days ago, while returning from the east coast on a business trip, I
> heard an exchange between a plane going to OSH and the controllers in
> Michigan. We were at 10,000 in an out of IMC and doing a large deviation
> to avoid a line of thunderstorms.
>
> The pilot going to OSH asked for an IFR clearance in the air to go to an
> intersection near OSH (?) The controller patiently explained that a
> reservation was required to get a clearance into OSH, although the pilot
> didn't seem to understand what this meant, and kept asking for a clearance
> to some intersection near OSH.
>
> Finally, the controller said it wasn't going to happen, and offered VFR
> advisories over the lake (roughly 80 miles). The pilot accepted this, and
> proceeded to fly over the lake, between layers of clouds, at 4500 feet in
> a single.
>
> I mentally wished him luck.
>
> While getting gas at my home base, the line guy related a story of a
> couple in a clapped out ratty home built who wanted to leave at night to
> fly over Lake Michigan, VFR. They said they did similar over water trips
> all the time, and that they knew how to swim.

I think the most telling clue is the fact that they do it "all the time."
These people are squarely in the "bonehead" category of pilots that occupy
the bottom 10% of the population and are a statistic waiting to happen. The
fact that it's on the way to OSH is inconsequential.

Marco

[John Clear]

In article >,
John T > wrote:
>"Viperdoc" > wrote in message

>>
>> Most of the pilots I know would acknowledge that flying over Lake
>> Michigan in a single is a calculated risk, and would do it high, with
>> lots of gas, and perhaps with survival gear. Some won't do it at all
>> in a single, **since the survival rate after ditching is very low**. Most
>> wouldn't do it at night or in IMC.
>
>Are you sure about that survival rate? Here's one site that provides stats
>disproving that theory (old, but the trends aren't likely to have changed
>much since):

There is surviving the ditching, and surviving the swim in Lake
Michigan. In the context of this discussion, I'd count failing
the second part as a failed ditching.

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

[John T]

"John Clear" > wrote in message

>
> There is surviving the ditching, and surviving the swim in Lake
> Michigan. In the context of this discussion, I'd count failing
> the second part as a failed ditching.

I agree and that would have been reflected in the stats quoted in the link.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Fly-For-Fun]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Most of the pilots I know would acknowledge that flying over Lake Michigan
> in a single is a calculated risk, and would do it high, with lots of gas,
> and perhaps with survival gear. Some won't do it at all in a single, since
> the survival rate after ditching is very low. Most wouldn't do it at night
> or in IMC.

If I'm going to be ditching 40 miles from shore, I choose to do it in the
Gulf of Mexico instead of Lake Michigan. Maybe I'll get lucky and be able
to ditch near a shrimp boat or oil rig. At the very least, it'll be warmer.

[[email protected][_2_]]

The issue here is not the ditching part, it's surviving Lake Michigan
for any length of time requires full survival gear. That lake has big
steel freighters on the bottom that have yet to be found after going
down (although amateurs are actively looking).
I flew over earlier this year in a 182, at 12,500 in CAVU conditions
with a brisk tailwind and felt acutely aware of the risk, but it was a
beautiful flight. I think those who fly over down low may not realize
how big it is when they get over the middle. Taking the ferry accross,
there is a period in the middle where you see nothing but water for a
couple of hours...

I volunteer at OSH and I remember a guy in non-electric Champ getting
out (with a parrott no less) from lower Michigan, having flown
directly across at about 2000'. I question the judgement, but he made
it...

The bigger issue remains the bone-heads who have no clue about the
arrival procedure, don't know anything about the NOTAM, and call in at
the 5 mile point on the Class D asking "for clearance" as one Canadian
Mooney last Sunday did (they were not too happy with him, but much to
my frustration the contollers worked with him rather than sending him
off somewhere else. It happens every year (and this year more than
once).

The other issue is those who get mixed up and try to land on the wrong
runway (like landing on 9 rather than the 50 people landing on 27),
which will get you a visit from the FSDO folks REAL QUICK. (which I
witnessed the other day up close).

OR, after landing not following directions and "freelancing" around
the airport with people everywhere, blithly ignoring all the EAA
folks.

SO, there is alot of stupid pilot tricks out there.

-Ryan

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

[snip]
> I volunteer at OSH and I remember a guy in non-electric Champ getting
> out (with a parrott no less) from lower Michigan, having flown
> directly across at about 2000'. I question the judgement, but he made
> it...
>
> The bigger issue remains the bone-heads who have no clue about the
> arrival procedure, don't know anything about the NOTAM, ...

I'm not sure which is more dangerous, low over the lakes or going to OSH
given the known number of idiots who arrive without a clue. How good
is a pilot that doesn't properly prepare?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Luke Skywalker]

On Jul 28, 6:53 am, " > wrote:
..
>
> I volunteer at OSH and I remember a guy in non-electric Champ getting
> out (with a parrott no less) from lower Michigan, having flown
> directly across at about 2000'. I question the judgement, but he made
> it...
>
..
> -Ryan

It was the Parrot that did it! LOL

They should give out a Darwin award at OSH...

Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Are you sure about that survival rate? Here's one site that provides stats
> disproving that theory (old, but the trends aren't likely to have changed
> much since):
>
> http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
>

I don't see any statistics there regarding an unplanned 20+ mile swim in
Lake Michigan.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "John Clear" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> There is surviving the ditching, and surviving the swim in Lake
>> Michigan. In the context of this discussion, I'd count failing
>> the second part as a failed ditching.
>
> I agree and that would have been reflected in the stats quoted in the
> link.
>

Did you read just the stats? The author states, "Still, as the overall
record shows, pilots somehow muddle through anyway. This is certainly due in
part to the fact that the majority of ditchings--86 percent, to be
exact--occur in what we call 'coastal and inshore water,' along an ocean
beach, in a sheltered bay not far from land or even a lake, a river, a pond
or a canal. Many of these ditching sites are within sight of land or boats
and the egressing pilots and crew are able to swim to shore or are quickly
picked up by helpful yachtsman." A ditching in the middle of Lake Michigan
would be in the remaining 14 percent.

[bdl]

On Jul 28, 6:53 am, " > wrote:
> The bigger issue remains the bone-heads who have no clue about the
> arrival procedure, don't know anything about the NOTAM, and call in at
> the 5 mile point on the Class D asking "for clearance" as one Canadian
> Mooney last Sunday did (they were not too happy with him, but much to
> my frustration the contollers worked with him rather than sending him
> off somewhere else. It happens every year (and this year more than
> once).

Like the guy landing on Friday when told: "cleared to land 27 green
dot" said: "Whats that mean?". Controller replied, after a very
audible sigh on the frequency, "see that big green dot on the runway?
land on it"

> The other issue is those who get mixed up and try to land on the wrong
> runway (like landing on 9 rather than the 50 people landing on 27),
> which will get you a visit from the FSDO folks REAL QUICK. (which I
> witnessed the other day up close).
>

Care to share? You witnessed the FSDO folks or the person landing on
9?


Brian
N9093K

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:34:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> Are you sure about that survival rate? Here's one site that provides stats
>> disproving that theory (old, but the trends aren't likely to have changed
>> much since):
>>
>> http://www.equipped.com/ditchingmyths.htm
>>
>
>I don't see any statistics there regarding an unplanned 20+ mile swim in
>Lake Michigan.

Not to worry. The water is so cold even a good swimmer would sucumb to
hypothermia well before reaching shore. Going across from Ludington
it's 50 miles so the swim could be 25 miles.
>

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:06:23 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Most of the pilots I know would acknowledge that flying over Lake Michigan
>in a single is a calculated risk, and would do it high, with lots of gas,
>and perhaps with survival gear. Some won't do it at all in a single, since
>the survival rate after ditching is very low. Most wouldn't do it at night
>or in IMC.

My preference would be to do it on an IFR fligh plan. IMC or VMC
should make little difference. In either case you fly it until it hits
the water. The lowest clearance I've ever had was 7,000. Usually it's
well above that. At 7000 I'm out never of gliding distance of shore.
You do have to be well aware of where "middle" is in relation to the
winds and don't forget to allow distance for the turn around if
necessary.

Multiply half the distance across by 5280 for statute miles (4591 for
nautical miles IIRC) and divide by your glide ratio. That will tell
you the minimum altitude AGL you need to be to always be within
gliding distance of shore.

VFR *should* use a "lake crossing flight plan"(if they are still
available) which is filed in conjunction with a VFR flight plan. The
Lake crossing portion is activated coming up on the shore. You are
expected to provided the time for "mid point" and you have a 5 minute
window in which you *must* call ATC at the mid point, or you are going
to receive a very expensive bill for SAR. At midpoint IIRC you are
requested for the ETA at the shore line and again call ATC.

>
>Are there any other stories out there about questionable judgment flying
>into OSH?
>

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-07-28 04:53:54 -0700, " > said:

> The other issue is those who get mixed up and try to land on the wrong
> runway (like landing on 9 rather than the 50 people landing on 27),
> which will get you a visit from the FSDO folks REAL QUICK. (which I
> witnessed the other day up close).

I hope you did not witness that visit TOO close. :-)


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 19:41:18 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>
>VFR *should* use a "lake crossing flight plan"(if they are still
>available) which is filed in conjunction with a VFR flight plan. The
>Lake crossing portion is activated coming up on the shore. You are
>expected to provided the time for "mid point" and you have a 5 minute
>window in which you *must* call ATC at the mid point, or you are going
>to receive a very expensive bill for SAR. At midpoint IIRC you are
>requested for the ETA at the shore line and again call ATC.

I'm not familiar with the lake, so I was just going to ask about the
availability of such a service.

A VFR service is offered in the Cape Cod, Islands, and Long Island
area that works similar to what you describe, with position reporting.

[[email protected][_2_]]

This guy apparantly had been causing problems all the way back since
Fond du Lac, and had almost landed on 9, circled around over the
pioneer airport area (a no-no) and then entered the downwind for 27...

The tower boss asked where this particular pilot was on the field, so
the FSDO folks could come talk to him. It so happens that he is
directly behind us. We ask the guy to wait at his airplane, as someone
from the FAA wanted to talk to him. As he was tying down the aircraft
a van pulls up with the FSDO gentleman and a conversation ensues.
Unfortunately with all the aircraft noise, it was about 50 feet away
and out of earshot. But he did then dig deep into his aircraft pulling
out what looked like ALL of his documents.

I doubt he had a NOTAM.

Something is always interesting going on.

-Ryan

[John T]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message

>>
>> I don't see any statistics there regarding an unplanned 20+ mile
>> swim in Lake Michigan.
>
> Not to worry. The water is so cold even a good swimmer would sucumb to
> hypothermia well before reaching shore. Going across from Ludington
> it's 50 miles so the swim could be 25 miles.

Both of you are assuming no survival gear. I won't argue the point strongly
since I wouldn't be comfortable down low even with survival gear and one can
argue (safely, I think) that somebody willing to fly across that much water
at 2000 feet may well be willing to do so without any gear at all.

However, my point was simply to take issue with the OP's assertion that
"survival rate after ditching is very low". The stats simply don't back this
up. Sure we can always find exceptional situations that are almost
guaranteed to be fatal, but unless the OP clarifies otherwise, this
statement was nothing more than repeating an OWT. Ditching is quite
survivable.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Both of you are assuming no survival gear. I won't argue the point
> strongly since I wouldn't be comfortable down low even with survival gear
> and one can argue (safely, I think) that somebody willing to fly across
> that much water at 2000 feet may well be willing to do so without any gear
> at all.
>
> However, my point was simply to take issue with the OP's assertion that
> "survival rate after ditching is very low". The stats simply don't back
> this up. Sure we can always find exceptional situations that are almost
> guaranteed to be fatal, but unless the OP clarifies otherwise, this
> statement was nothing more than repeating an OWT. Ditching is quite
> survivable.
>

The OP's assertion had nothing to do with the ditching.

[John T]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net
>>
>> However, my point was simply to take issue with the OP's assertion
>> that "survival rate after ditching is very low". The stats simply
>> don't back this up. Sure we can always find exceptional situations
>> that are almost guaranteed to be fatal, but unless the OP clarifies
>> otherwise, this statement was nothing more than repeating an OWT.
>> Ditching is quite survivable.
>
> The OP's assertion had nothing to do with the ditching.

Ah. I must have been confused by the "after ditching" part... :)

If either of you have stats to the contrary - even if they're specific to
Lake Michigan, I'm interested.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Ah. I must have been confused by the "after ditching" part... :)
>

I have no idea what confused you.

[John T]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
> [nothing of consequence]

[Alan Gerber]

B A R R Y > wrote:
> A VFR service is offered in the Cape Cod, Islands, and Long Island
> area that works similar to what you describe, with position reporting.

Where can I learn about this? I'm planning a trip in that direction, and
it sounds useful.

.... Alan
--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Alan Gerber wrote:
> B A R R Y > wrote:
>> A VFR service is offered in the Cape Cod, Islands, and Long Island
>> area that works similar to what you describe, with position reporting.
>
> Where can I learn about this? I'm planning a trip in that direction, and
> it sounds useful.
>
> ... Alan


AIM 4-1-20 "Hazardous Area Reporting Service"

There are separate sections for Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound,
and Cape Cod and the Islands. The same service is also offered for the
Great Lakes and Everglades.

If I'm VFR, I typically use a standard flight following based on the
following reasoning:

1.) I always use VFR FF, as I prefer all the assistance I can get
spotting traffic, identifying active jump zones, etc...
2.) In case of emergency, I'm already up with a TRACON. Other aircraft
in the area also with the TRACON will hear my emergency and hopefully
see where I go down.
3.) I don't have to do anything special as I go "feet wet" and "feet
dry", but I would with the special over water service.
4.) I've never been denied a VFR flight following by Cape, NY, or Boston
approach.

I try to keep aware of the special service should #4 ever change.

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

At some point as this event continues to grow, they may have to
implement a 'gateway' system for pilots who are enroute to OSH.
Several satellite locations where pilots must stop to be briefed and
given a card that is visible in the window or ribbon attached to a
tiedown ring showing they made the stop. At this gateway stop they
would be briefed and receive a copy of the NOTAM. Information about
alternate fields in case they arrive when the field was 'closed'.

I know the NOTAM is posted on the AirVenture website and is available
through FAA channels, but I bet many who arrive without ever seeing
one don't use the internet or file a flight plan and get a briefing
about their planned route or destination.

Several years ago I met a gentleman who was in line following the FISK
procedures, he was waved off after the aircraft in front of him landed
short when he was suppose to land long. The controllers guided him
around and slipped him into a gap of arrivals line once more, only to
have an airliner depart just as he was crossing the lake shore on
final. Again the FAA controller waved him off. He said, if no one but
me is going to follow directions I'm going elsewhere, which he did
returning later after the traffic flow of arrivals had eased.

[EridanMan]

I think it was last year that one of the avweb columnists suggested
that they implement a 300 dollar landing fee at Oshkosh, 100% waived
if the pilot has a physical copy of the NOTAM with him in the
aircraft.

I personally think its a fantastic idea.

-Scott

[Jay Honeck]

> At some point as this event continues to grow, they may have to
> implement a 'gateway' system for pilots who are enroute to OSH.
> Several satellite locations where pilots must stop to be briefed and
> given a card that is visible in the window or ribbon attached to a
> tiedown ring showing they made the stop. At this gateway stop they
> would be briefed and receive a copy of the NOTAM. Information about
> alternate fields in case they arrive when the field was 'closed'.

Given that there is a small-but-steady percentage of idiots who
descend into OSH without seeing (or reading) the NOTAM, I fail to see
how this procedure would help. These same fools will simply fail to
follow the instructions to land at the satellite airports.

What is needed is enforcement action against the dunderheaded. A
couple of well-publicized busts *might* get the message out?
(Although this tactic didn't work with the Washington ADIZ, now, did
it?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 3, 1:04 pm, Hawkeye > wrote:
> At some point as this event continues to grow, they may have to
> implement a 'gateway' system for pilots who are enroute to OSH.
> Several satellite locations where pilots must stop to be briefed and
> given a card that is visible in the window or ribbon attached to a
> tiedown ring showing they made the stop. At this gateway stop they
> would be briefed and receive a copy of the NOTAM. Information about
> alternate fields in case they arrive when the field was 'closed'.
>
> I know the NOTAM is posted on the AirVenture website and is available
> through FAA channels, but I bet many who arrive without ever seeing
> one don't use the internet or file a flight plan and get a briefing
> about their planned route or destination.
>
>

Hello:

Just "right" off the bat that strikes me as a suggestion with some
merit...

again just my first thought after reading it...a landing at a sat
field would be required with some record taken of who did what
(including N numbers) and if one lands at OSH without that briefing
and your N number isnt on the paper (or try to land and this part
might be difficult to enforce but once on the deck it should be
easier) then there are some serious FAA FSDO problems.

IT might be considered like an "airshow" briefing of such.

there are doubtless some problems with your suggestion but it seems on
its face worthy of discussion.

Robert

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Luke Skywalker" > wrote

> Just "right" off the bat that strikes me as a suggestion with some
> merit...
>
> again just my first thought after reading it...a landing at a sat
> field would be required with some record taken of who did what
> (including N numbers) and if one lands at OSH without that briefing
> and your N number isnt on the paper (or try to land and this part
> might be difficult to enforce but once on the deck it should be
> easier) then there are some serious FAA FSDO problems.

An out landing is not necessary for those who have the NOTAM, and have read
(and understand) it.

The idea of requiring that the NOTAM be on board is what needs to be
enacted, and enforced.
--
Jim in NC

[Tom L.]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:35:53 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Luke Skywalker" > wrote
>
>> Just "right" off the bat that strikes me as a suggestion with some
>> merit...
>>
>> again just my first thought after reading it...a landing at a sat
>> field would be required with some record taken of who did what
>> (including N numbers) and if one lands at OSH without that briefing
>> and your N number isnt on the paper (or try to land and this part
>> might be difficult to enforce but once on the deck it should be
>> easier) then there are some serious FAA FSDO problems.
>
>An out landing is not necessary for those who have the NOTAM, and have read
>(and understand) it.
>
>The idea of requiring that the NOTAM be on board is what needs to be
>enacted, and enforced.

It's not the possession of the NOTAM, nor reading it that counts. It's
the flying in the last few miles that matters.

So how about a panel of judges evaluating everyone's approach and
landing perfomance and assessing appropriate fines?
Just kidding... Just kidding... :)

I am amazed at some of the suggestions here (this and other threads).
Do we really expect ATC to turn away someone for not knowing the
procedure?

Pilot: Oshkosh tower, experimental 5678X ... uhhh ... approaching the
airport ... uhhh ... from the west. Landing.
ATC: Experimental 5678X, what is the third word in the second
paragraph on page 5 of the NOTAM?
Pilot: Huh?
ATC: Experimental 5678X, fly heading 270 for 30 minutes, then resume
own navigation.
Pilot: But ... but I want to land at OSH.
ATC: Unable.

This is a *show* we're talking about. *EAA* show.
They want everybody there. Including (or especially?) a guy who built
his own plane in the barn and avoids airspace where talking to ATC is
required. He probably doesn't even know that the NOTAM exists and for
him compliance with FAR 91.103 means squinting at the sky.

Having *most* pilots follow the NOTAM keeps things failry orderly and
helps ATC accomodate (within limits) the others.
Seems to be working quite well. 12,000 aircraft landed and took off in
just few days without a major accident.

- Tom

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

Those with a copy of the NOTAM land runway 18, those without land
runway 90...those of you landing on runway 90 have your wallet out,
your stupidity just cost you a fine. We only accept cash and major
credit cards (a 4% surcharge for CC payments will be added to your
fine).

To bad there wasn't some way of only accepting pilots that have been
briefed or have/understand the NOTAM. Some sort of reservation number
which you can download a receipt of to post inside your windshield.
Those without would be charged a 'failure to comply fee'; 'damn I'm
dumb fee'; 'forgot follow the procedure to pull my head out of my a_ _
fee', this list could go on for ever.

Even a student pilot (at least I was) is required to obtain proof of
landing during a cross country. Why couldn't folks be directed to an
intermediate designated stop enroute to get briefed on the NOTAM. I
know Iowa City would be agreeable with this, means maybe a few more
would spend the night and or purchase fuel. Those who fail to follow
procedures have to stand in line to talk to the FSDO upon arrival at
OSH. This procedure would also help prevent all those who arrive after
the airshow starts and are forced to orbit or land elsewhere..."You
are aware that OSH closes for arrivals in fifteen minutes, you can
either stay here or land at an alternate...whatcha gonna do?"

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 3, 3:35 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Luke Skywalker" > wrote
>
> > Just "right" off the bat that strikes me as a suggestion with some
> > merit...
>
> > again just my first thought after reading it...a landing at a sat
> > field would be required with some record taken of who did what
> > (including N numbers) and if one lands at OSH without that briefing
> > and your N number isnt on the paper (or try to land and this part
> > might be difficult to enforce but once on the deck it should be
> > easier) then there are some serious FAA FSDO problems.
>
> An out landing is not necessary for those who have the NOTAM, and have read
> (and understand) it.
>
> The idea of requiring that the NOTAM be on board is what needs to be
> enacted, and enforced.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim...

That is probably accurate (well I have done it a few times in a lot of
airplanes so If I can read the NOTAM I guess everyone can (LOL)...

Still the above suggestion is an idea worth talking about. I just
came up with another one on my jog...

Having been to OSH in a few years guess I could check the web site...

Does EAA have a "video" on its web site with an example of an arrival?

Robert

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

I agree with you Tom that this is a show. However this show continues
to expand in the number of aircraft that attend. What eventually will
happen is a chain of events that result in a fatality accident over
the city of Oshkosh. Years ago a jet crashed into a neighborhood near
the field, this raised concerns about the amount of air traffic. If
two airplanes collide in the pattern and plummet into an area such as
a shopping center, these concerns will have negative effects on EAA.
Add in the number of new inexperienced pilots that will begin to
attend will compound this issue. All we want to see is a better way to
ensure pilots are aware of the procedures to make flying in/out of
this event as safe as possible. If everyone is on the same page,
things will continue to be as safe as they have been. As was discussed
before the show, go out and slow fly your aircraft...know how to do
it! Perfect sense to do especially considering the mix of performance
levels of aircraft and pilots in the pattern. It amazes me how many
color blind pilots there are...blue Cessna land on the green
dot....huh? I learned to fly at a military aero club. The rules then
were you had to have an endorsement to do certain things or go certain
places with the clubs aircraft. Maybe pilots attending need an
endorsement to attend EAA. Something as simple as stopping at
designated fields to review and be briefed on the NOTAM. This is a win
win situation...you get to review the NOTAM and take a potty break
before you get tied up in traffic.

[RST Engineering]

That is a tradition rooted in antiquity, but not in regulation.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



>
> Even a student pilot (at least I was) is required to obtain proof of
> landing during a cross country.>

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

On Aug 3, 6:35 pm, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:35 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Luke Skywalker" > wrote
>
> > > Just "right" off the bat that strikes me as a suggestion with some
> > > merit...
>
> > > again just my first thought after reading it...a landing at a sat
> > > field would be required with some record taken of who did what
> > > (including N numbers) and if one lands at OSH without that briefing
> > > and your N number isnt on the paper (or try to land and this part
> > > might be difficult to enforce but once on the deck it should be
> > > easier) then there are some serious FAA FSDO problems.
>
> > An out landing is not necessary for those who have the NOTAM, and have read
> > (and understand) it.
>
> > The idea of requiring that the NOTAM be on board is what needs to be
> > enacted, and enforced.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
> Jim...
>
> That is probably accurate (well I have done it a few times in a lot of
> airplanes so If I can read the NOTAM I guess everyone can (LOL)...
>
> Still the above suggestion is an idea worth talking about. I just
> came up with another one on my jog...
>
> Having been to OSH in a few years guess I could check the web site...
>
> Does EAA have a "video" on its web site with an example of an arrival?
>
> Robert

Not that I am aware of. But if they aren't viewing the website, will a
video inspire them to do so.But I like your thinking.

What about sending everyone a DVD with procedures and video on arrival
procedures. They could add other things as well. Like a briefing from
the FAA, NTSB; show schedules, highlights from the previous year.
Charge a token fee to cover postage an production. Or see if a sponsor
will offset the costs allowing them to advertise on it. EAA could do a
mass mailing 30 days prior to the event.

[Luke Skywalker]

On Aug 3, 8:15 pm, Hawkeye > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:35 pm, Luke Skywalker > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 3:35 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > > "Luke Skywalker" > wrote
>
> > > > Just "right" off the bat that strikes me as a suggestion with some
> > > > merit...
>
> > > > again just my first thought after reading it...a landing at a sat
> > > > field would be required with some record taken of who did what
> > > > (including N numbers) and if one lands at OSH without that briefing
> > > > and your N number isnt on the paper (or try to land and this part
> > > > might be difficult to enforce but once on the deck it should be
> > > > easier) then there are some serious FAA FSDO problems.
>
> > > An out landing is not necessary for those who have the NOTAM, and have read
> > > (and understand) it.
>
> > > The idea of requiring that the NOTAM be on board is what needs to be
> > > enacted, and enforced.
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
>
> > Jim...
>
> > That is probably accurate (well I have done it a few times in a lot of
> > airplanes so If I can read the NOTAM I guess everyone can (LOL)...
>
> > Still the above suggestion is an idea worth talking about. I just
> > came up with another one on my jog...
>
> > Having been to OSH in a few years guess I could check the web site...
>
> > Does EAA have a "video" on its web site with an example of an arrival?
>
> > Robert
>
> Not that I am aware of. But if they aren't viewing the website, will a
> video inspire them to do so.But I like your thinking.
>
> What about sending everyone a DVD with procedures and video on arrival
> procedures. They could add other things as well. Like a briefing from
> the FAA, NTSB; show schedules, highlights from the previous year.
> Charge a token fee to cover postage an production. Or see if a sponsor
> will offset the costs allowing them to advertise on it. EAA could do a
> mass mailing 30 days prior to the event.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

that is the spirit of what I was thinking of. Why not have something
that is downloadable on the web site that hass all those things and
actually gets out and flies an arrival etc.

That is done all the time in the real world.

I think of OSH like in Part 121 where you have complex special and
complex simple (etc) airports. To go into them you have to have some
pre training and today that is done at most airlines by watching a
video, some you can even get it off the web.

Robert

[Adhominem]

Tom L. wrote:

> I am amazed at some of the suggestions here (this and other threads).
> Do we really expect ATC to turn away someone for not knowing the
> procedure?

Yes. I think exactly that was suggested as a way to make sure the NOTAM is
known and this make OSH safer.

Ad.