Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Changes to OSH Arrivals procedures?

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,236
    Jeff, don't mess up the warbird arrival ,it is needed and works well. There may be some of the planes, T34 for example that can comfortably and safely fly 90 knots Ripon -Fisk, but a lot could not. 90knots is short final speed in a Mustang, and base leg speed in a Spitfire. Im sure a B25 or most of the bombers and large transports are faster than that. And you wouldn't want to bring wake turbulence onto the Fisk route for smaller planes to have to fly through. The warbirds seem to be very popular with the public,maybe the most popular segment, don't discourage owners who are spendiing $1000s of their own money to attend Osh without reimbursement except some fuel.

  2. #42
    Jeff Point's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    269
    While I don't entirely agree with you Bill, you offer a valid perspective. Fortunately I don't have any power to change anything- I'm just throwing out some provocative ideas to generate some thought and discussion. I know EAA is considering the bigger issue of changes to the arrival procedures, and I suspect they may be getting some input via this thread. We'll see what happens next year. My biggest suggestion is that if they do make changes, they need to decide on them soon so they can be publicized well in advance of the convention.
    Jeff Point
    RV-6 and RLU-1 built & flying
    Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor & President, EAA Chapter 18
    Milwaukee, WI
    "It All Started Here!"

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,236
    Jeff, L birds like Chipmunks and L-19s etc can of course fly 90 knots, but if they cant use warbird arrival then there are that many more planes to fill up the Ripon Fisk arrival.
    P S, if they change it a lot, I can imagine hearing it next year, "Warbird arrival, Blue Mustang at Fond Du Lac, " " Go to the prison and follow the Breezy" . By the way I love a Breezy, everyone should get to ride in one once. Only thing is when you sit down in what it really a bare chair with nothing on the sides, you sort of feel like the builder forgot to finish the airplane!!!!

  4. #44
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC26 (Catawba, NC)
    Posts
    1,996
    You can not fly the Warbird/Turbine arrival at 90 knots. You are expected to "fill up" the Ripon arrival if you're that slow. That arrival is predicated on you maintaining 130 knots until you are able to make the break (actually, the L-17 can actually, keep 130 up to a quarter mile final and still slow down and get down before there are any turnoffs from 36.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by FlyingRon View Post
    This occurred when NATCA forced a switch from OSH being an invitation-only job for controllers and they brought back the best controllers every year to being a spoils program doled out by the union without regard as to who had the best experience for the job.
    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!! (Not surprised it's you, Ron <g>). Back in those days, I was the one that taught the FISK class on controller training day-- and the way you described it being worked back then, is exactly the way I taught it.

    Then, NATCA got involved, declaring that it "wasn't fair" that the same people were always selected for the prestigious event, and (citing an applicable provision of their contract to which the FAA had previously agreed). imposed a five-year term limit for OSH controllers, as well as a "selection by facility seniority" clause. Although I had the seniority at ORD to be selected, since I'd already worked nine years as an OSH controller, I was done. Even at nine years, I was somewhat low on the OSH seniority pole-- I had worked with (and learned an immense amount from) guys that had worked OSH for DECADES, including one fellow with 25+ years. We were ALL, every controller who had repeatedly demonstrated the special skills needed to effectively work OSH traffic, prohibited from returning-- because we were "too experienced".

    The only true OSH controller experience left back then was in the supervisor workforce, which continued with experienced people for many years, since they weren't impacted by the new union policy. They did what they could with the controllers they were given, but what you're seeing now is largely the result of those supervisors retiring-- so nearly everyone working the event these days is "new school". The "old school" is effectively gone.

    I understand that there have been some changes to the union policy since it's implementation, but not nearly enough-- most of the problems experienced this year can be directly linked to lack of controller skills, and that lack of controller skills can be directly linked to that sudden slashing of the experience level, so many years ago (1992, IIRC).

    In ATC, when the "system" is overwhelmed, the only way to (at least, attempt) to maintain safety is to slow down the problem to match the skill level of the available controller workforce. We saw it happen nationwide in the wake of the '81 strike; those of us that were in ATC prior to that time know that the system has never, truly, recovered. What you saw at OSH this year is very similar, just in a smaller venue. Yes, the system "works"-- but not nearly as well as it did (or it could)

    Nonetheless, we are where we are. The one thing in which the FAA and EAA are solidly in agreement is that this year's fiasco cannot be repeated. It's too late to fix it with personnel improvements, so procedural changes are coming. They won't return us to the glory days, and they won't make everybody happy, but we can only play the hand we're dealt. I won't be commenting more here, due my involvement in some far corners of the ongoing discussions. But, when I can, I'll have more on the topic, in a future blog on Avweb.

    Denny Cunningham
    Last edited by flibmeister; Yesterday at 04:10 PM.

  6. #46
    Jeff Point's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    269
    With a great sense of timing, EAA just released the following about their proposed changes to the arrival procedures.

    https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...M2TEwifQ%3D%3D

    Some of it makes a lot of sense, and some of it frankly makes little sense to me. I look forward to learning more about this from EAA, including the thought process behind these changes and how they are meant to address the actual problems.
    Jeff Point
    RV-6 and RLU-1 built & flying
    Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor & President, EAA Chapter 18
    Milwaukee, WI
    "It All Started Here!"

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Point View Post
    With a great sense of timing, EAA just released the following about their proposed changes to the arrival procedures.

    https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...M2TEwifQ%3D%3D

    Some of it makes a lot of sense, and some of it frankly makes little sense to me. I look forward to learning more about this from EAA, including the thought process behind these changes and how they are meant to address the actual problems.
    I saw those yesterday. Extending the arrival line makes no sense. It just creates a bigger opportunity for all of the problems inherent in "Nose to tail, in trail, no side by side, etc." Now we're going to do that for 20 miles instead of 10? Think, McFly.

    And (as pointed out by a poster on another forum) throttling arrivals and somehow using ADS-B during MVFR arrivals only magnifies the problems. You had a bunch of airplanes milling around in bad weather last year? The solution isn't to intentionally throttle the arrivals with one more restriction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •