If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"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 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 54 | August 16th 05 09:24 PM |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Owning | 44 | August 7th 05 02:31 PM |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 45 | August 7th 05 02:31 PM |
Oshkosh EAA Warbirds ??? | Paul | Restoration | 0 | July 11th 04 04:17 AM |
How I got to Oshkosh (long) | Doug | Owning | 2 | August 18th 03 12:05 AM |