Changes to OSH Arrivals procedures? [Archive]

Kyle Boatright

11-02-2018, 09:08 PM

I just received my November issue of Sport Aviation and read Charlie Precourt’s article on Revisting AirVenture Arrivals with great interest. OSH AV has a long but not entirely unblemished record, and while there is always room for improvement (like the change to the NOTAM to keep transponders on to facilitate ADS-B traffic awareness) I hope EAA and FAA are very judicious in any significant adjustments. One of the great hallmarks of OSH AV has been its egalitarian nature, it would be a great shame to lose that. If anything, EAA needs to favor the unsophisticated.

Perhaps the denizens of this board could offer some suggestions for improvement in the arrivals process that makes OSH better without gutting its essence.

ted

Let's see:

1) They could discourage departures during the peak arrival periods.
2) They could do a better job with the mass arrivals - it seems they "lose" a lot of available runway time at both ends of each mass arrival.

I'm not sure what else.

Obviously, weather is the big issue. If you have a blocking weather event on Saturday or Sunday, the aftermath is going to be ugly.

dougbush

11-03-2018, 12:52 AM

TedK

11-03-2018, 06:27 AM

I think the problem this year was: some of the turf taxiways were too muddy to be used. Consequently, they intermittently closed runways and used them as taxiways. The runway closures caused traffic backups on the Fisk Arrival. This was compounded by IFR conditions part of the time, so when the weather improved, a lot of pilots wanted to arrive in a short time. The simplest, if not cheapest, solution would be to pave some more taxiways. Or, maybe drainage could be improved to keep the turf taxiways usable.

Doug- Good ideas. The Marines are going to resurface the Catalina Island airport to get some practice. Perhaps an Air Force “Prime Beef” squadron or two could get some practice by laying down an expeditionary runway and maybe some Marsden Matting (or its 21st Century equivalent) to provide more taxiway over the grass.

TedK

11-03-2018, 06:31 AM

Let's see:

1) They could discourage departures during the peak arrival periods.
2) They could do a better job with the mass arrivals - it seems they "lose" a lot of available runway time at both ends of each mass arrival.

.

Do the Departures much impact the Arrivals?

Kyle Boatright

11-03-2018, 11:29 AM

Do the Departures much impact the Arrivals?

Yes. The tri-motors doing flights is a real drag on arrivals.

TedK

11-03-2018, 01:42 PM

Yes. The tri-motors doing flights is a real drag on arrivals.
Are they too big to fly out of Pioneer Field?

Floatsflyer

11-03-2018, 03:05 PM

Are they too big to fly out of Pioneer Field?

Probably, but also too much conflict with the chopper traffic all day long. There are also activities on the southern part of the runway as well as a pathway to the museum.

TedK

11-03-2018, 03:21 PM

Kyle Boatright

11-03-2018, 05:50 PM

What if you knew which runway you wanted? 36/18 or 27/9. What about avoiding the RIPON merge and having two arrival paths? Perhaps the existing FISKE arrival for 27/9, and separate arrival for 36/18? This ought to remove a little of the ground traffic as you self selected your desired runway closest to the parking area you wanted?

One of the beauties of splitting the stream at Fisk is the controllers ther can effectively spread the load to both runways. If a bunch of aircraft arrives grouped together, the Fisk controllers can divide them up to correct spacing problems.

FlyingRon

11-05-2018, 07:34 AM

Actually, it's the other way around. The discourage/prohibit arrivals during peak departure periods (notably right after the airshow ends). The departures are already throttled if there are arrivals. The guys on the MOOCOW can't release a departure if there is conflicting traffic on final.

The problem in the north 40 this year was they messed up the grass drainage when they straightened the Bravo taxiway. Hopefully, they'll work on that over the winter.

vaflier

11-05-2018, 08:31 PM

A lot of the problems I saw this year could be solved by the pilots following the Notam. Not flying past other aircraft between Ripon and Fisk. Get in line as we all should. Between Ripon and Fiske this year we had 4 passing us at the same time , one 50 feet above us , one 50 feet below us , and one each left and right at about 150 feet. I do not beleive they did not see us. We were in a 172 over the tracks, on altitude and speed. These folks are dangerous !. When we pilots all do as we please it becomes a mess very quickly. No one can fix the weather and it was a bit nasty, but we can fly the plan and improve safety.

Mayhemxpc

11-07-2018, 06:59 PM

(1) I read Recurring accounts about pilots not flying per the NOTAM. I have been in the air when that happened, too. It certainly that messes with an already complex system. Complex, but designed for safety. My question is what can be done about pilots who are arriving in violation of the NOTAM? What is being done? If it is 1% of the pilots, how bad does that effect the other 90%? (Actually, I can add reasonably well, most of the time. I am not counting IFR and Warbird arrivals.)

(2) It also seems that when weather screws screws up mass arrivals on Saturday that rescheduling the arrivals for Sunday only has the effect of screwing up arrivals on both days.

Kyle Boatright

11-07-2018, 09:52 PM

One of the challenges i deal with most years is conflicting instructions on the Fisk arrival.

You're supposed to line up over the RR tracks.

You're supposed to be nose to tail, not side by side.

So, the guy in front of you is 750' south of the tracks. Do you follow him or do you follow the tracks?

If you follow the guy, some jerk is almost certain to barrel past you while he follows the tracks.

If you don't follow the guy, it is easy to lose sight of him, which isn't desirable.

AArgh.

keen9

11-08-2018, 07:49 AM

(1) I read Recurring accounts about pilots not flying per the NOTAM. I have been in the air when that happened, too. It certainly that messes with an already complex system. Complex, but designed for safety. My question is what can be done about pilots who are arriving in violation of the NOTAM?
One thing I think would help is to announce on ATIS when you must enter the hold. That would help with the unaware NOTAM violators which is what I suspect is the case for most of them arriving at Ripon from the south/southeast even though the hold was already overflowing. Nothing you can do about the self entitled ones except severe enforcement if you can catch them.

FlyingRon

11-08-2018, 10:26 AM

One thing I think would help is to announce on ATIS when you must enter the hold. .
Actually, having some indication the field is closed (or extremely congested) and when it was reopened would be a big help. I diverted to a nearby field (I'd rather wait it out on the ground than fly around in circles) but it's hard to tell what the field status is remotely.

Kyle Boatright

11-08-2018, 06:24 PM

Actually, having some indication the field is closed (or extremely congested) and when it was reopened would be a big help. I diverted to a nearby field (I'd rather wait it out on the ground than fly around in circles) but it's hard to tell what the field status is remotely.

Very true. ATIS is often out of date and unhelpful. It should be updated immediately with every change in field status.

They could even post the status live on the internet. Make it a dedicated web page that requires very little data transfer (no pictures, no dancing bologna, etc), and many folks can pull the status down from a cell tower nearing Oshkosh.

FlyingRon

11-08-2018, 06:32 PM

The latter was very much what I had in mind. Sitting on the ground at 79C, I was listening to live ATC to try to figure out whether it was worth launching again to try to move my plane back before the airshow. I gave up and had someone drive up from OSH and get us and I went back and got my plane the next day./

dougbush

11-09-2018, 01:18 AM

Very true. ATIS is often out of date and unhelpful. It should be updated immediately with every change in field status.

They could even post the status live on the internet. Make it a dedicated web page that requires very little data transfer (no pictures, no dancing bologna, etc), and many folks can pull the status down from a cell tower nearing Oshkosh.
Good idea, because I kept getting a busy signal calling the ATIS phone number.

PeterEAA

11-09-2018, 11:02 AM

The real Problem had been too much pilots did not follow the NOTAM arriving at RIPON !!!

We tried to get in on Sunday for over 2 hours and what we experienced was horrible !
Not 1% of the pilots flew in this rude manner, lets start by 20 to 30 percent of the pilots
which had no concerns to fly not over the railroad tracks, not at the right speed,
not at the right altitude, not at the right spacing.

The worst had been numerous pilots cutting in our spacing short before we reached FISK
which ended for all of us turning west out of the approach !
This happened several times while we tried to fly in !

I say it again - shame on you !!!

Don't blame the weather nor the ATC controller - they tried their best.

You will see the result in the future, they will change the arrival procedures .....
Whatever this means ... possibly they will be thinking if this freedom to
fly in is the best way to stay save in the future ..............

And not to forget .... to thank all the "nice" pilots for that !

Peter

GERMANY

JohnH

11-09-2018, 06:25 PM

It is interesting seeing some new ideas such as multiple arrivals, though it might be some effort to reconcile that with other arrivals separate from the Fisk VFR procedure. Also agree that ATIS didn't keep us updated on conditions; that might take a little more effort from ATC to keep it real-time, but would be quite valuable. In my previous visits, ATC was very good about keeping the pre-Ripon traffic updated. While many would likely agree that pilots not conforming to the arrival procedure made a challenging situation worse, I think there are one or two things the NOTAM and ATC could change to mitigate the difficulties. I thought about this for a while after our 2-hour Sunday arrival adventure and contacted EAA to send feedback, not appreciating that many others had, too, and that EAA was already convening a group to consider the situation. To their credit, they contacted me back, cc'd some senior names and gave me the opportunity to pen the following note. Am I missing something or is there a gap in either the NOTAM or ATC instruction on how to handle planes kicked out after Ripon?

My feedback is about our experience on the arrival at approximately 1:30-3:30pm, Sunday, July 22. My concerns relate primarily to system operation efficiency with secondary effects on airspace safety. I realize the weather Friday and Saturday helped create a heavy backup of aircraft attempting to arrive Sunday which was likely to saturate even the most well-designed procedure.
The primary item is: The NOTAM does not describe, and ATC did not explain, what airplanes ejected from the Ripon-to-Fisk segment should do.

Heavy traffic and pilots failing to provide the requested spacing (2 miles, for most of our time on the arrival) kept that segment clogged. When ejected, ATC simply instructed aircraft to "turn left, go back and try again". These pilots returned directly to Ripon, repeating the same spacing errors. Dozens of aircraft were stuck in the Green Lake hold with no way to enter at Ripon due to saturation and ATC did not update the holding aircraft on hold status. ATC kept the frequency nearly constantly open talking to the Ripon-Fisk segment traffic causing difficulties, so holding aircraft had no opportunity to ask. Holding traffic got tired of holding with no information and attempted to enter, making the saturation worse. It was unclear to me whether the hold was officially active at any time during our arrival. Even the few times ATC announced that all arrivals were stopped, there was no instruction for Ripon-to-Fisk traffic to enter either hold, and they appeared to continue re-entering at Ripon.

The safety impact was that aircraft turning left from the Ripon-Fisk segment and returning to Ripon were, albeit briefly, approaching holding traffic head-on before turning toward Ripon again. For some reason, a number of those aircraft were descending from higher altitude while turning back in, not ideal for low-wings descending into opposite direction traffic. These seemed to be mostly RVs in tight spacing, perhaps attempting to land as flights? Another safety impact was the increasingly dense saturation at Green Lake and near misses. All of this led to frustration among some pilots, which affects their situational awareness and decision making. Add in the usual inattention to merging and failing to maintain altitude/speed requirements, and the Green Lake area got dicey.

Potential mitigations might include:

Whether the NOTAM should have a procedure to address such situations, or whether ATC should be briefed on specific instructions for ejected aircraft. e.g., enter the Rush Lake hold, re-enter Green Lake hold to establish spacing before entering Ripon again, etc.
Specific ATC instructions prohibiting flights when congestion is a problem and aircraft are failing to maintain requested separation.
Periodic guidance/reminders to traffic not yet at Ripon, such as whether holding is active and to establish spacing prior to entering at Ripon.

There are various considerations for the different re-entrance options for Ripon-Fisk ejections, including challenges integrating traffic streams, unintentionally prioritizing bad actors, and inadvertently punishing pilots unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The solution may be very simple – improving communication to set specific expectations.

Thank you again for taking the time to consider these thoughts. I should add that, problems aside, we do appreciate the monumental task EAA and ATC take on to craft and operate a system that handles a staggering number of aircraft – and pilots of varying competence – and generally works well.

Bill Berson

11-09-2018, 10:30 PM

What if you knew which runway you wanted? 36/18 or 27/9. What about avoiding the RIPON merge and having two arrival paths? Perhaps the existing FISKE arrival for 27/9, and separate arrival for 36/18? This ought to remove a little of the ground traffic as you self selected your desired runway closest to the parking area you wanted?

Makes sense to me. Years ago, Mac said in an article the two runways convert to essentially make two airports for Airventure.
Why not fully make it two airports with separate paths and frequencys to cut chatter in half?

ATIS or ATC could advise the best airport to choose from time to time, if needed.

MEdwards

11-10-2018, 05:59 AM

Makes sense to me. Years ago, Mac said in an article the two runways convert to essentially make two airports for Airventure.
Why not fully make it two airports with separate paths and frequencys to cut chatter in half?

ATIS or ATC could advise the best airport to choose from time to time, if needed.Runway situations change fairly often with no warning. You’d have a bunch of planes lined up for one “airport” when it closes and all those would have to fly around to the approach for the other”airport.” Better to let Fisk work the problem in real time.

The existing system has worked well for decades. This year was essentially a weather problem. Some minor changes like better, more current ATIS are a great idea. But please don’t mess with the basic approach design.

FlyingRon

11-10-2018, 07:46 AM

Ages ago, the controllers used to sort out who went where. If you were an older plane or homebuilt, they sent you to 36, if you were a spam can you'd go to 27.
Now it seems they largely don't care and will send you randomly to either runway even when both are in operations.

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.

Kyle Boatright

11-10-2018, 07:48 AM

Ages ago, the controllers used to sort out who went where. If you were an older plane or homebuilt, they sent you to 36, if you were a spam can you'd go to 27.
Now it seems they largely don't care and will send you randomly to either runway even when both are in operations.

I fly a tailwheel. Every time, they send me to the runway with the most favorable winds. Putting taildraggers in good situations and managing spacing seem to be the two of the factors which drive decisions.

Kyle Boatright

11-10-2018, 07:49 AM

Runway situations change fairly often with no warning. You’d have a bunch of planes lined up for one “airport” when it closes and all those would have to fly around to the approach for the other”airport.” Better to let Fisk work the problem in real time.

The existing system has worked well for decades. This year was essentially a weather problem. Some minor changes like better, more current ATIS are a great idea. But please don’t mess with the basic approach design.

If I could upvote this post, I would.

Kyle Boatright

11-10-2018, 07:52 AM

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.

This may be a huge factor.

"Back in the day", the top notch, Oshkosh experienced controllers seemed to manage spacing much better (with smaller margins) than I've seen recently. During busy periods, they really jammed aircraft onto the runways, eliminating the backups and holds upstream. This year, and a couple of years ago when there was a similar problem, the aircraft seemed to just trickle to the airport. You (I?) knew there were a gazillion little airplanes out there circling and the runways didn't seem to be stressed at all. To me, that's an ATC issue.

Bill Greenwood

11-10-2018, 09:26 AM

One year I, we landed with no problem, but then was a cog in the way of other planes taxing in. I felt pretty nuts. I flew the Fisk arrival years ago at least twice with no problem. But then I went the other route starting over Fon Du Lac and then the island and mostly rnwy 9 or 36 and with an overhead approach if is was crowded. I got to know the Warbird arrival well, and they didn't monkey with it much. It works well as is pretty simple and when you get to FLD you can hear who is ahead of you and a idea of relative speeds of the types involved. If you need to pass someone slower you can do it on the way to the island, you just need to me 150 knots at the island. I flew this approach for 20 years in two different planes, and the only sticky point is when you have to blend in with general aviation planes who may be as slow as 90knots and coming on right downwind for 9. Ive done a lot of go arounds at that point but it works ok, just circle overhead if needed to fit in, the contollers are pretty good about it.I have to keep the gear up till near the airport for engine cooling, so have to be alert to that, but that is the only critical item on my checklist. And after landing I never needed a parking sign as to where to go, its obvious to the ground people, So I did this for 20 years or more, no real problem. Then one year I flew in in my Bonanza, via the Fisk arrival. I wasntt expecting any difficulty, I can fly it 90knots, just have to concentrate and I reviewed the NOTAM. So I watch for traffic at Ripon, remember the gear and they send me to land 36, made and ok landing, but then realized I needed to go all the way to the north side of 27 and I didn't have prepared parking sign to hold up, never needed one before, so each controller had to try to figure out where we were going, finally got there , but not my best moment, and Tom P who I know was in his red VW on the side trying to speed up traffic. I now have not one, but 2 big printed signs for gen parking, GAP!
I hope they don't make any major arrival changes and if weather is ok it works al these years.

FlyingRon

11-10-2018, 12:23 PM

The reason the alternative arrivals "work well" is there are not too many people using them and those that do have bothered to read the NOTAM. When I give rides during the show I usually come in the warbird arrival unless the passenger is a pilot who's never seen the normal Ripon/Fisk arrival in which case I show him that.

My favorite arrival was when we grabbed a couple of Navions and took two of the Snowbirds up for a flight. We let them do one practice landing at an outlying field and then made them fly the Ripon/Fisk arrival to a landing on 36L. It was on their Oshkosh bucket list (they had already camped with their plane in Vintage, and got to go work the Moocows with the controllers). They also wanted to drive one of the VWs around so I borrowed the keys from one of our Vintage chairs to let them have a spin.

Jeff Point

11-12-2018, 07:05 AM

The existing system has worked well for decades. This year was essentially a weather problem. Some minor changes like better, more current ATIS are a great idea. But please don’t mess with the basic approach design.

While it may have worked for decades, I think the last few years have shown that it has been outgrown by the show and is no longer adequate for the task. In my view the obvious solution is to develop separate arrival procedures for 18/36, while allowing the traditional Fisk approach to feed 9/27. The 18/36 could start to the south near Fond du Lac, in fact the warbird arrival could be repurposed for this with warbirds using the high/ fast pattern to 9/27. The southern arrival should also have a low & slow component for those aircraft which can't maintain 90 kts. Since the majority of those are either Vintage or Homebuilt anyway, routing them to 18/36 makes sense. Over time folks would learn to self-select which arrival to take based on what kind of airplanes they are flying- showplanes to 18/36 and N40 types to 9/27.

Of course, the issues this year were largely caused by the weather and exacerbated by poor decisions by both EAA and FAA, like rescheduling the mass arrivals for Sunday and FAA poor handing of traffic issues, holds etc. They were clearly not on their A game this year, and hopefully everyone learned a few lessons.

FlyingRon

11-12-2018, 08:43 AM

I don't agree Jeff. This year was indeed a distaster not because they needed two different approaches. The problems occurred when they lost a runway for some reason (mass arrival, accident, soggy adjacent taxiways) and that backed up all the traffic to the existing runway onto Ripon. Adding a seperate 9-27 from the 18-36 won't help and would furhter confused. I'm not sure what your proposal to change the Warbird approach would do either. There's not been any problem with that approach. The number of aircraft that can't maintain 90 are pretty few and far between. Usually it's people who should have no problem maintaining 90 but fail to do so. Occasionally you'll get a breezy or whatever that can't, but that's rare and a slow approach procedure might help.

The major problem this year and has happened in the past, is the "RIPON-FISK IS FULL" procedure is a joke. The Rush lake and other "hold where you are" and then turn the pipe back on procedure is where the problem is. The problems have all been not that RIPON-FISK becomes saturated but that the runways themselves have become saturated backing up into FISK.

I usually come and go out of the various approaches a dozen times during the show (my initial arrival is always before the NOTAM goes into effect). I've arrived IFR, RIPON, WARBIRD, through arrangement with the tower for a straight-in to 18. Haven't done the Prison arrival yet, but maybe next year.

Bill Berson

11-12-2018, 11:04 AM

Yeah, a slow approach and no radio grass runway is needed. A bunch of slow flyers like me just won't fly in at all as it is with no approach less than 90.
More set up for GA not Sport Aviation, seems from my perspective.

L16 Pilot

11-12-2018, 01:26 PM

I agree, a grass runway would be nice. Radio: no problem I use a hand held which works just fine. I've flown in several times usually mid morning during the week and traffic is usually not a problem.

FlyingRon

11-12-2018, 01:34 PM

There actually was a grass runway marked out south of where taxiway papa ends (it ends about 1000' from the end of the runway, just about where the glide slope antenna is). It was constructed because the "tail skid" crowd wanted it and it didn't want to land at Pioneer. I don't think they ever got any formal procedures for it and the concept seemed to die after a couple of years.

Bill Berson

11-12-2018, 01:54 PM

Not much use without a separate arrival procedure (like the Seaplanes base and Ultralight runway with no speed minimum and don't need a radio). For a separate arrival procedure the grass runway would need to be some distance away to the south in a rented farm field, or something.

Only about 100 seaplanes use the lake, so not much relief there. The Ultralight/Lightsport runway isn't really that great for LightSport with just 1200 feet and no obstical free clear zones on both ends. So only a few choose that runway.

CHICAGORANDY

11-12-2018, 02:20 PM

This thread reinforces the frequent notion that AirVenture is sometimes a victim of its own success. I hope it never gets too big to remain able to grow. I do love volunteering every year.

FlyingRon

11-12-2018, 04:54 PM

This thread reinforces the frequent notion that AirVenture is sometimes a victim of its own success. I hope it never gets too big to remain able to grow. I do love volunteering every year.

It's actually not "grown" much over the last decade. It's barely recovered from the peak. What's happened on the ground is a lot of loss of capacity due to taxiway configuration, the inane security fence and perimeter road, and the moving the crowd line back from taxiway papa by an airplane width. The EAA has a stated goal to not turn any planes away in 2020, which means unless the EAA condemns more private land, or someone whacks the FAA and the Oshkosh airport authority to stop making what land is available unusuable, that we're going to get even more creative in finding places to park people. We may get some space in vintage and custom by teeing them in like the north 40. We've already stuffed people in aisle end caps and pushed them back into places that hadn't previously been rows. They've added a tiny amount of space down at the south end in what used to be corn fields, but the surface there is still dicey and there are petty political power squabbles going on that aren't helping.

Jeff Point

11-12-2018, 06:18 PM

I'm not sure what your proposal to change the Warbird approach would do either. There's not been any problem with that approach. The number of aircraft that can't maintain 90 are pretty few and far between. Usually it's people who should have no problem maintaining 90 but fail to do so.
As I walk around in Vintage I see all kinds of planes that can't maintain 90 kts, and as at least one other person pointed out, more fail to attend because they feel they can't safely get in.

As for the Warbirds arrival, while there have not been any problems specifically with the procedure, it does not appear to be the most efficient use of resources and that is my issue with it. Many folks use it for convenience when they could fly the Fisk arrival (high or low route) within their aircraft capabilities. High performance warbirds requiring overhead patterns are far more rare at Oshkosh than planes which can't maintain 90 kts.

In any event, this is all just food for thought. We can either maintain status quo, or we can have discussions about making changes with an eye towards improving things. My ideas may not be the best solution. There does seem to be significant momentum at HQ behind making some changes, which I think is a good thing. Let's have a robust discussion about this and come up with a better way.

Jeff Point

11-12-2018, 06:23 PM

Haven't done the Prison arrival yet, but maybe next year.

I did the prison arrival this year- and on a Breezy no less! So between us I think we have all the bases covered!

Here's an example from EAA's past about what happened when the show outgrew itself. If you've never listened to the "Fantastic Friday" recording, check it out. This is what led to the procedure that we have today. The file is in post #6.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?5782-fantastic-friday

dougbush

11-13-2018, 11:20 PM

The whole point of having ATC at Fisk is so they can send you to the least crowded runway. If you could pick your own runway, you wouldn't choose as well because you wouldn't know what ATC knows. There's little benefit to choosing your runway yourself since you can't choose your parking spot. Even if you know where you will park, we need to make the best use of the most limited resource, which is available runways.

Bill Greenwood

11-14-2018, 05:48 PM

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.

Jeff Point

11-14-2018, 06:15 PM

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.

Bill Greenwood

11-15-2018, 08:18 AM

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!!!!

FlyingRon

11-15-2018, 08:36 AM

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.

flibmeister

11-15-2018, 04:04 PM

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

Jeff Point

11-16-2018, 07:00 AM

Kyle Boatright

11-16-2018, 07:26 AM

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-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/11-15-2018-AirVenture-Arrival-Procedure-Changes-Recommended-FAA?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVRjd1lXTmlaRFppWWpSaCIsInQiOi I0ekRyVFJqaUthMTV1S1NXMzROYUlWeEVjNkV5bkd4Z2dPRTJi WE9IS3hPdXZZQXRuODBUalhvamdWXC8zR21pUWdWREVjWXhNak 5QMDYyNXhlaDZENVdIZE5IOEl3YVpzNnJVRjVIODc5ZFdDNmky RUltZDZBcE9uUTRmbXM2TEwifQ%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.

FlyingRon

11-16-2018, 01:06 PM

I should point out that I got to see the Oshkosh arrivals from the ground many years ago when Denny took me out to Fisk and let me up into the (old) Oshkosh tower. Got to see how it ran from the other side. Very useful. It might have colored some of my comments on the matter :)

Mayhemxpc

11-17-2018, 07:43 AM

There is a lot in the proposal that seems very good. It also seems, as the proposal says, that they listened to the pilots/members. Right now this is an initial proposal and I will be interested to see some of the details as they develop. For example, extending the initial to a point beyond Fisk could be a good thing or not, depending on what that really means. The same for a new entry gate. A new approach does not solve the runway/taxiway space problem, so you could just wind up with more airplanes arriving at the airport at the same time. On the other hand, it also provides more options for managing the aircraft before they get to the airport, so in that way it could be a very good thing. Therefore, I remain optimistic.

The real challenge is to get the airplanes on an available runway and then off of it as soon as possible. The Warbirds arrival presents a tool that can assist with that: “ATC may initiate a 360° overhead approach to other runways as needed for spacing.” Yes, it looks cool, but the reason that approach exists is to get airplanes on the ground as expeditiously as possible. If I were to change the WB arrival at all (and I am exceptionally reluctant to do that) I would include language stating that all aircraft using that arrival are expected to be able to execute a 360 degree overhead approach if asked for by ATC.

(In anticipation of objections to that, yes, it occurs to me that pilots who are not proficient with the overhead approach may suddenly find themselves executing that maneuver, and the risks attendant to that. Hence my reluctance to change the WB arrival at all.)

FlyingRon

11-17-2018, 08:37 AM

Understand that the "Warbird" approach is, in fact, the "Warbird and Turbine" approach. It's open to non-military wannabees. Even with military planes, the overhead break only really makes sense to 36R (and possibly a sidestep to 36L). If you "break" to other runways you're really going to intrude into the other patterns. Thank God the "Flyby" pattern is gone. Too bad they didn't deep six the now pointless, confusing, and counterproductive "departure briefing" crew when it went away.

Marty Santic

11-17-2018, 08:41 AM

<snip>
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).

Will be VERY interesting to see if the EAA addresses this "lack of experience" issue. Surprised there were no mid-air incidents this past year.

FlyingRon

11-17-2018, 04:40 PM

Will be VERY interesting to see if the EAA addresses this "lack of experience" issue. Surprised there were no mid-air incidents this past year.

Very few midairs ever at Oshkosh. Absent the one that occurred between performers, I think there's been, what one?

flibmeister

11-17-2018, 06:25 PM

Very few midairs ever at Oshkosh. Absent the one that occurred between performers, I think there's been, what one?

I can verify that there was one between a C170 and a Thorp T-18, somewhere outside of Fisk, in 1990 or so. I was working Fisk at the time, but never saw or communicated with either airplane. First I heard about it was when the EAA Bell 47 (N90B?) called, telling me he'd be flying outbound on the inbound route (but down low), "...looking for the other airplane." When I asked, "...what other airplane?", he informed me that a C170 had landed and reported he thought he might have had a midair out near Fisk, but never saw the other airplane. They found substantial damage on one of the 170's flaps, so sent the 'copter out to look around. He found the Thorp somewhere in a field, south of Fisk, damaged, but (IIRC), with no injuries.

Then there was the triple fatality (probably the event that eventually brought an end to the flyby pattern), back in 1982 or so. IIRC, that one killed the pilot of a Corbin Baby Ace, and the pilot and his granddaughter in a Starduster II. Both were operating NORDO (as was customary in the flyby pattern back then).

Bill Berson

11-17-2018, 09:24 PM

I saw a midair collision on 36 with two P-51's. The guy in front was on the runway rollout and the guy behind landed on his tail and bounced high and crashed inverted. Fatal to him.
I guess it was still a midair since he collided while in flight. They were not in formation or together, as I understand.

Kyle Boatright

11-18-2018, 06:53 AM

mazdaP5

11-18-2018, 06:55 AM

TedK

11-18-2018, 07:41 AM

It seems to me the root problem is mixing aircraft of different speeds, particularly on the 1800ft MSL/90 KIAS RIPON/FISKE approach. It is the most heavily trafficked approach and can get bottlenecked by slow movers who can’t make 90KIAS.

If if you can’t slow to 90 you can step up to the 135 altitude. If you need faster still, you can go to Warbird/Turbine/(Heavy) approach.

Perhaps there should be 4 approaches. Low speed (<90), 90, 135, WTH

FlyingRon

11-18-2018, 05:35 PM

I saw a midair collision on 36 with two P-51's. The guy in front was on the runway rollout and the guy behind landed on his tail and bounced high and crashed inverted.
Are you talking about the one that occurred at the end of the Air Race demonstration? I knew about that one which is why I qualified it to not involving performers.

Bill Greenwood

11-18-2018, 06:27 PM

Flying Ron, it should be clear, if you make an effort to understand without my having to have an editor, that my mention of light warbirds able to fly 90 knots safely was so they could use normal Ripon Fisk arrival as Jeff wrote, not for them to fly warbird arrival at 90knots.

Bill Berson

11-18-2018, 07:30 PM

Are you talking about the one that occurred at the end of the Air Race demonstration? I knew about that one which is why I qualified it to not involving performers.

I have no idea if the two P-51 were performers or not.
I also watched Roush stall and crash his jet in front of me. That was a traffic conflict.
My view is that I probably will never fly the Fisk procedure. Mostly because of 60kt top speed, I guess. And the reports I read here about being passed by traffic within 50 feet, 2 hour holding, etc.

Bill Greenwood

11-18-2018, 08:50 PM

The 2 P-51s were performers. one was Gerry Beck who was in front, I don't personally know the other pilot but recall it may have been a friend. The 2nd pilot lost sight of the first plane on landing. Murphy never takes a day off, hes always there if anyone makes any mistake

DaleB

11-18-2018, 10:24 PM

My view is that I probably will never fly the Fisk procedure. Mostly because of 60kt top speed, I guess. And the reports I read here about being passed by traffic within 50 feet, 2 hour holding, etc.
I have done it. Once as a passenger, twice solo PIC. I’m a low time pilot and was even greener then. Compared to a lot of the pros here, I’m sure I suck. But just like having dinner at an all you can eat buffet will make even the portliest of us feel skinny (you know, sitting around the five hundred pounders)... I felt vindicated after flying the Airventure arrival. I’ve never before seen people fly that poorly.

PeterEAA

11-19-2018, 05:44 AM

It's interesting in this discussion that nearly no one addresses
the rude and dangerous manner numerous pilots did fly the
FISK arrival route not following the NOTAM this year !!!???

You can change whatever you want in the procedures,
if no one follows them it's wasted time !

I totally agree with "DaleB"

"I've never before seen people fly that poorly"

Where are the comments for this subject ??!!

Peter

CHICAGORANDY

11-19-2018, 07:38 AM

I'm guessing that the mopes who don't bother with NOTAM procedures and common courtesy also do not tend to frequent any EAA forums? And if some do they are not likely to announce that they are indeed the dolts?

FlyingRon

11-19-2018, 07:49 AM

I'm pretty sure that the two P-51's were the landing subsequent to the air race demonstration. I was working crowd control on the flight line. The airport was closed to arrivals. The only planes landing were the four (maybe five) involved in the performance.

There's been plenty of crashes at Oshkosh of arrivals solely due to single plane issues like One Eyed Jack's escapade. I had just managed to get the last of the planes that were parked on the taxiway relocated to regular parking a few hours before that happened (that was the Sloshkosh year). A buddy of mine who begged to let me leave his plane there since he was leaving the next day came up with a dazed look on his face right after that happened. Where Jack crashed had been my typical duty station (if it hadn't been for the fact that I had put in many long days calling pilots on my personal cell phone to get them to move their aircraft, I'd have been out there). We do have pictures of one of our volunteers running from the fireball. He showed up with a "Jack Roush tried to kill me" T-shirt with a copy of that picture on it the next year.

PeterEAA

11-19-2018, 08:48 AM

CHICAGORANDY you will be right, but we ALL have to discuss how
to handle those pilots not following the NOTAM in a dangerous manner !

As I said you can change the Arrival Procedures over and over again
but when no one cares about this …. what for ??

Peter

CHICAGORANDY

11-19-2018, 09:06 AM

PETEREAA - I'm presuming that air-to-air missiles is NOT an option?

Only kidding of course.….probably.

rwanttaja

11-19-2018, 02:56 PM

CHICAGORANDY you will be right, but we ALL have to discuss how
to handle those pilots not following the NOTAM in a dangerous manner !
What would you suggest? Especially if they are following the NOTAM to the extent that they're not providing their call signs?

I doubt the EAA would tolerate a phalanx of FAA enforcers grabbing these people right after they land at Oshkosh.....

Ron Wanttaja

TedK

11-19-2018, 04:02 PM

rwanttaja

11-19-2018, 05:08 PM

What about self enforcement? Shouldn’t be that hard to place some cameras and EAA Observers and then greet the scofflaws with evidence of their misdeeds and some well intentioned counseling…

Merely publicizing that might prove a sufficient deterrent.
But how do you find them...how do you know their names? How do you stop from accusing the wrong people? Who's tracking the people who butt in to the traffic flow five miles out rather than at Fisk?

Pilots are kind of known for having strong egos. I could see this ending kind of bad, especially bad for EAA if it's some sort of official program. If someone thinks it's a great idea, try it out on your local highway system, first. See how that works out....

Ron Wanttaja

Kyle Boatright

11-19-2018, 05:08 PM

What would you suggest? Especially if they are following the NOTAM to the extent that they're not providing their call signs?

I doubt the EAA would tolerate a phalanx of FAA enforcers grabbing these people right after they land at Oshkosh.....

Ron Wanttaja

For egregious examples, the FAA does need to step in. Three years ago, I saw a Commander land against traffic because he declared low fuel. So many things wrong there. The FAA needed to have a serious talk with that guy.

I've seen aircraft buzz directly over show center and break into the arrival line for 36/18. Ain't hard to follow someone like that until s/he parks.

Now, these are the 0.5% examples, but they do happen. When word got out that "Bob got busted", Bob v2.0 might think twice about personal minimums and reading the NOTAM.

Bill Berson

11-19-2018, 05:16 PM

FlyingRon

11-19-2018, 07:17 PM

"Ain't nobody got time for that." Well, maybe we can send the CAP kids out there when they're not ELT hunting.

FlyingRon

11-19-2018, 07:22 PM

Yeah, I thought for a second Jack's jet was gonna kill me but then it stopped. I wouldn't say it was a one airplane event.
Jack said a slow Cub was ahead of him and that put him in a bad spot. I can't imagine why a big jet was sent to the tight base on 18 behind a Cub.
The cub was a departure. There was plenty of spacing. Jack's problem is he did a half-assed go around in the process. He's got the usual OSHKOSH crash problem, it's got squat to the procedure, the FAA, or the EAA or anybody else. Poorly maintained pilot skills in a rather busy environment.

At least there were services here. He almost drowned on his last crashed his AirCam into powerlines and was left face down in the lake. He was fortunate a guy saw him go down and rowed out and pulled him out of the water.

Bill Berson

11-19-2018, 08:20 PM

So the procedures are fine, I would just need a faster airplane, and with a radio, and lots of practice at busy towered airports.:(

PeterEAA

11-20-2018, 05:50 AM

Ron Wanttaja:
Actually I also don't know what to do with those pilots ??!

But I think it's important to talk about this because if we ignore what is going
on up there at a certain point someone else will take care of this ( FAA, EAA .. ).

WE are the pilots flying in …. WE have to say we don't like this and stop to those
pilots disregarding all rules and the friendly way flying in !

This year was my 8th year flying in and it was the worst I ever saw ……

Reading last SPORT AVIATION Article "Revisiting AirVenture Arrivals" they wrote

"NOTAM SUFFICIENCY AND ADHERENCE - We unfortunately had numerous examples
of pilots not adhering to the NOTAM, and actually a new phenomenon of aggressive
behavior is starting to emerge"

It's not true that this had been only 0,5 percent ….. I guess it had been
20 to 30 percent … during my 2:45 Hours trying to fly in I had enough time to count ……..

I think one way is to talk to other pilots about these behaviors, maybe your best friend
was one of those "bad" guys …..

Peter

CHICAGORANDY

11-20-2018, 07:10 AM

Just a thunk on an early Tuesday morning.

Does the EAA record the name/address/e-mail for each GA aircraft that flies into AirVenture and parks on the grounds? If so, could these folks then receive some form of brief communication about this serious concern prior to next year's event? If no such record is maintained, would it not be possible to have a simple parking registration plan to gather that important info?

I realize that the NOTAM does contain the vital info, but if it is being ignored, perhaps a different format of information delivery could help?

I'm thinking along the lines of a short, general "warning/advisory" to all the GA pilots who fly in, sent out a few weeks before AirVenture, rather than trying to identify and single out those creating the issue after the fact?

How do you get 10,000 independent individuals to 'read the instructions and follow the rules'? I dunno, but trying a variety of means might be worth the effort.

Bill Greenwood

11-20-2018, 09:35 AM

Two Points: 1. the weather this year was bad at the worst time, making a crowded arrival corridor even more so. Weather may be ok next year and thus less of a problem. And it weather is bad, stay on the ground, like I did Saturday, or divert to Appleton or somewhere like I did Sunday, BEFORE you get caught up in having to circle the lakes for an hour.

2. Why single out Jack Roush? I don't think he was flying the Fisk arrival, he had nothing to do with that, and his incident was not even this year. And I"m sure many other of us have made some mistake on landing or taxing at Oshkosh Being cleared to land a jet behind a Super Cub is a chance to have a problem. Jack is a nice guy, an avid aviation buff, and a major supporter of EAA and Airventure.

Of course pilots should read and follow the notam, I don't know how to guarantee that.

Joda

11-20-2018, 09:56 AM

Three years ago, I saw a Commander land against traffic because he declared low fuel. So many things wrong there. The FAA needed to have a serious talk with that guy.

There were at least two aircraft that landed opposite direction of the traffic flow this year. To my knowledge, the FAA did not take any action against either pilot. I think that's a mistake, but they don't ask my opinion.

PeterEAA

11-20-2018, 10:07 AM

This will be a good idea to communicate the serious concern prior to next year's event !

An nearly everybody will be EAA Member flying in and therefor the EAA have those addresses !

Great idea !

PeterEAA

11-20-2018, 10:08 AM

rwanttaja

11-20-2018, 10:23 AM

CHICAGORANDY

11-20-2018, 10:28 AM

I wonder what the cost would be for a mass e-mailing instead?

IF this is a 'real' concern for all those flying in, and only judging by the previous NINE pages of comments by folks it seems to be, doing something new and positive in nature is perhaps better than EAA doing nothing beyond what they have done in the past?

I make NO claim to having all the answers and my opinions are worth exactly what you paid to read them - lol

TedK

11-20-2018, 12:01 PM

That's a pretty good idea. More proactive than expecting people to read a NOTAM on their own.

IIRC, there are ~15,000 airplanes on the field during the show. That's only $7,500 in postage, plus paying for the people or machines who stuff the envelopes.

Ron Wanttaja

$7500 postage plus $x for handling is pocket lint for EAA. They have Millions.

Plus, they do a dozen mailings a year of Sport Aviation.

Why not create a required online course like they have for the DC SFRA? OSH is a helluva more complex and dynamic. Get Wings credit for doing it.

ted

DaleB

11-20-2018, 12:40 PM

$7500 postage plus $x for handling is pocket lint for EAA. They have Millions.

Plus, they do a dozen mailings a year of Sport Aviation.Not to mention countless others asking for money. You'd think a postcard or somethign regarding Airventure wouldn't be a drain in resources.

Why not create a required online course like they have for the DC SFRA? OSH is a helluva more complex and dynamic. Get Wings credit for doing it.
Online course is a great idea -- in fact, wasn't there a webinar already done? I could be wrong. Don't know how you'd make it "required" though. Heck, reading the NOTAM is required, and apparently enough people don't do that.

TedK

11-20-2018, 05:06 PM

Online course is a great idea -- in fact, wasn't there a webinar already done? I could be wrong. Don't know how you'd make it "required" though. Heck, reading the NOTAM is required, and apparently enough people don't do that.
Online Course is required by FAA to fly with 60nm of DC (that is 30nm outside the SFRA).

DaleB

11-20-2018, 05:15 PM

Yes, I know that... but I'm not clear on how you'd enforce that with a huge influx of airplanes, all operating effectively NORDO, converging on Oshkosh.

TedK

11-20-2018, 06:01 PM

Yes, I know that... but I'm not clear on how you'd enforce that with a huge influx of airplanes, all operating effectively NORDO, converging on Oshkosh.
Before we get to Enforcement, let’s try Encouragement.
Howabout an “I survived the Fiske arrival” T-shit for every pilot who flies in and shows proof of completion of the online course?

FlyingRon

11-21-2018, 07:43 AM

Online Course is required by FAA to fly with 60nm of DC (that is 30nm outside the SFRA).

...and enforced just about as much as the Oshkosh NOTAM.

L16 Pilot

11-21-2018, 08:24 AM

PeterEAA

11-21-2018, 08:36 AM

My goodness....you can get a booklet with the procedure, pictures and radio frequencies. How much more does anyone need? If there is a "glitch in the system" it needs to be fixed but I don't see where making the system more complicated is of any benefit. Weather can be a factor that pilots and controllers have to deal with at times. Some times you need to sit on the ground and wait for it to clear....been there and done that.

Normally I think the same .... I hate more restrictions ( I am from Germany, I know what I am talking about ) !

And the sad answer is ... a lot of pilots obviously need more !
These pilots risk the freedom of all other pilots flying into KOSH !

Peter

FlyingRon

11-21-2018, 10:21 AM

Further, there have been youtube videos for what to expect out there for a long time.
The problem is people who don't bother to research before the flight. One point of particular confusion is while people get the part about Ripon to Fisk, they fail to brief the transitions to the Runways and end up going all over the place. They put nice big arrows on the railroad tracks in recent years, perhaps some of the Fisk Ave or whatever the road that takes you to 36 might help.

Bill Berson

11-21-2018, 10:33 AM

I was thinking if EAA wants more land to contain all the airplanes by 2020 perhaps that 2400 ft. grass emergency field (depicted on NOTAM near Fisk) could be acquired. It could be bought or leased something like the Seaplane Base, which is used the week of Airventure only.
Of course, another farm might be a better location. But the basic idea is to get a grass base for slow Light Sport pilots, which may not be using radios. Actually, most would have radios for CTAF, similar to the Seaplane Base. But a radio should not be required, same as Seaplane Base.
I like CTAF self announce better than the apparently blind unannounced procedure to Fisk. Pilots can self separate with CTAF. The pattern altitude should be 60kt or less at 300 agl, maybe shared with the current ultralights approach path, I think.

PeterEAA

11-21-2018, 10:56 AM

Mayhemxpc

11-21-2018, 05:42 PM

MEdwards

11-21-2018, 09:41 PM

People flew around the lake for 2 1/2 hours because they just HAD to get into OSH. But they didn’t. If they had diverted to Fond du Lac or Appleton they would have arrived at the front gate on the bus just as early. Not ideal, but better than the risk and expense they imposed on themselves.

EAA should do a better job of publicizing the options if it’s impossible or unsafe to get into OSH. Perhaps an article or even a webinar. Accurate information on facilities and transportation, invitations from the pleasant, helpful people at Appleton (and probably Fond du Lac too), much more relevant information than just what’s in the NOTAM. Perhaps also lists and brief descriptions of facilities at other outlying airports such as Wisconsin Dells, where I refueled this year.

Mike E

FlyingRon

11-22-2018, 08:43 AM

I've flown commercial in to Appleton twice. Easy peasy. The first time I went to Oshkosh (with Paul Bertorelli) we landed at Fond du Lac. There's lots of other fields around too. The cubby's have their own little flyin at New Holstein. I got stuck up at Brennand field (about 5 miles away in Neenah) one year when the Malibu crashed on 27. We had gone up their to take showers and I finally gave up on getting in before the airshow and had someone drive up and get me.

Jeff Point

11-22-2018, 09:02 AM

With regard to keeping track of who flew what on the Fisk, or any other future approach, by 2020 everyone will have ADS-B out and then ATC will know who flew and did what when.
Do you really think so? I don't guess that more than 1/3 of the GA fleet will be equipped by 2020, if ever. It isn't required for the vast majority of the airspace in the US. This is what concerns me about EAA making ADS-B part of the price of admission to use the arrival in MVFR conditions. I fear that will keep more airplanes away, especially the Antique/ Classic crowd.

CarlOrton

11-22-2018, 09:38 AM

With regard to keeping track of who flew what on the Fisk, or any other future approach, by 2020 everyone will have ADS-B out and then ATC will know who flew and did what when. Not that I am advocating playing police state with AirVenture arrivals, but it is part and parcel of the ADS-B technology.

With regard to using the SFRA as an example, I don’t think we want people deviating from the approach procedure to be intercepted by F-16’s. It would be neat to watch, but not exactly welcoming.

I don't think that will help. As it is now, they have you turn your xpndr to standby once you get close. Since I'm still building, I don't yet have ADS-B out, so I don't know if that system operates differently. I doubt it, since there are so many solutions that piggy back on your existing Mode C unit.

FlyingRon

11-22-2018, 10:22 AM

I don't think that will help. As it is now, they have you turn your xpndr to standby once you get close. Since I'm still building, I don't yet have ADS-B out, so I don't know if that system operates differently. I doubt it, since there are so many solutions that piggy back on your existing Mode C unit.

The FAA relented and do not tell you to shutoff ADSB out when you are near Oshkosh.

Bill Berson

11-22-2018, 11:33 AM

If any pilots are staring at the ADS-B panel instead of see and be seen or if ADS-B is required to attend then you can be sure I won't.

TedK

11-22-2018, 01:39 PM

If any pilots are staring at the ADS-B panel instead of see and be seen or if ADS-B is required to attend then you can be sure I won't.
ADS-B is proposed by EAA as a requirement when ceiling is less than 1500ft. We have till 27 Nov to comment to EAA.

Kyle Boatright

11-22-2018, 04:08 PM

ADS-B is proposed by EAA as a requirement when ceiling is less than 1500ft. We have till 27 Nov to comment to EAA.

What is the address for comments?

TedK

11-22-2018, 05:09 PM

What is the address for comments?
Feedback@eaa.org

perhaps we all ought to be perusing the proposed changes at https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/11-15-2018-AirVenture-Arrival-Procedure-Changes-Recommended-FAA

Bill Greenwood

12-02-2018, 06:41 AM

I read thel EAA proposal with concern. There are 3 points, first it claims to have consulted all or at least many points of view in the planning, I wonder about this. In some cases EAA officials like Mac have written about the Fisk arrival when actually they fly into Oshkosh on an ifr clearance and and a different route. . I wonder how many of the last 30 years he or others in the same position have flown in via Fisk? There are some good folks in EAA offices , but often it feels as if there is a disconnect to the membership. I have never seen a survey by EAA of members on arrival suggestions, but then I have only flown in for 35 years by vfr arrival in different planes so may not be a good source. As for experts, I would give a lot of weight to those FAA people who are actually on the ground at Ripon, Fisk, though their objective may be different than pilots. Last point, now EAA is pushing to have ADS B as a requirement to fly in. It cost thousands of $$$ to fly into Osh every year, getting the planes ready, fuel, insurance, very high housing costs for week, rental car, and or taxis, food, rides in Tri motor or B-17, etc, Adding $$$ for an avionics device might discourage some, even me from coming. I know many are proud of any new device they have, like a lady with a new handbag, but Ive never needed ads to find Osh and don't relish spending $4000 to do so now. Finally, many pilots complain about how bad the arrival is, facts are that it has worked for decades and I cant even recall a collision on the arrival other than in the pattern. This year, the weather and its timing were the most intrusive, it may be better next time. We should be cautions to change a proven and known procedure.

obmaha

03-05-2019, 07:51 AM

As a NATCA member this post is so much BS I don’t even know where to begin. Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t like unions.

There are dues paying and non dues paying controllers who work OSH. Due to the current staffing crisis that has been growing over the past decade its harder to get certain controllers away from short staffed facilities to OSH.

Also there was never an invitation only. TOTAL BS. There is and always has been a volunteer bid.

Next time educate yourself before spreading stupid anti union lies.

Ages ago, the controllers used to sort out who went where. If you were an older plane or homebuilt, they sent you to 36, if you were a spam can you'd go to 27.
Now it seems they largely don't care and will send you randomly to either runway even when both are in operations.

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.

obmaha

03-05-2019, 08:01 AM

You do understand there is a massive turnover of controllers in the NAS right? The majority of controllers have less than 5 years experience thanks to the FAA cant hire correctly.

Will be VERY interesting to see if the EAA addresses this "lack of experience" issue. Surprised there were no mid-air incidents this past year.

FlyingRon

03-05-2019, 08:58 AM

As a NATCA member this post is so much BS I don’t even know where to begin.
Some of the other controllers who worked Oshkosh for years under the old system would strongly disagree with you.

Why don’t you just come out and say you don’t like unions.

Because, I don't. I'm not even anti-NATCA (other than this policy). That's your invention.

There are dues paying and non dues paying controllers who work OSH.

Which means nothing to what I said.

Due to the current staffing crisis that has been growing over the past decade its harder to get certain controllers away from short staffed facilities to OSH.

WHich again means nothing to what I said.

Also there was never an invitation only. TOTAL BS. There is and always has been a volunteer bid.

How long have you been a controller? Because you obviously haven't been around long enough to know that it indeed was an invitation-only event years ago (and yes under the PREVIOUS union).

Next time educate yourself before spreading stupid anti union lies.

I am plenty educated, and not anti-union. You are the one who seems to be mistaken. Why don't you ask someone who worked Oshkosh back in the 1990s before you start shouting profanity and other insults at others.
If you'd have bothered to READ the thread you were venting your spleen over, you'd find the very n ext post was from one of those controllers: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?8664-Changes-to-OSH-Arrivals-procedures&p=73622&highlight=NATCA#post73622

obmaha

03-05-2019, 09:46 AM

I have been a controller for 12 years now. Since I am involved with the planning of ATC of OSH each year I would say I am pretty educated on the sitation and have first hand knowledge of the ins and outs of ATC at OSH.

I love how you have to go back to the PATCO days to talk about invitation only. I mean nothing has changed at Airventure or ATC in 25 plus years.

If you would like I could share the traffic count data from the 1990s until last year. It would the steady rise of traffic so pointing out how OSH worked in the 1990s compared to today is comparing apples and oranges.

The poster you reference isn’t a current air traffic controller so again since he has not been involved in recent air traffic controlling and planning his opinions are an educated guess at best. I am sure he was an amazing controller but controller in 2019 is different than controlling in 1999.

You and or he have no idea the staffing issues we are facing. We have a personal problem because all the of veteran controllers with the experience kept getting selected. Now we don’t have the experience to replace the veterans because they are retiring in mass and the amount of veteran OSH controllers are limited. That doesn’t even take into account it’s hard to get some of these veteran controllers out of short staffed facilities.

Lastly I don’t recall shouting any insults at anyone. Do I take it personally when someone without direct knowledge of the situation is Monday morning armchair quarterbacking a situation you have no direct knowledge of, yes I do. Do I take it really personally when you attach my union. You’re dam right I do.

Feel free to come to the NATCA booth and tell the controllers working thousands of flights a day to their face they messed up Oshkosh.

Some of the other controllers who worked Oshkosh for years under the old system would strongly disagree with you.

Because, I don't. I'm not even anti-NATCA (other than this policy). That's your invention.

Which means nothing to what I said.

WHich again means nothing to what I said.

How long have you been a controller? Because you obviously haven't been around long enough to know that it indeed was an invitation-only event years ago (and yes under the PREVIOUS union).

I am plenty educated, and not anti-union. You are the one who seems to be mistaken. Why don't you ask someone who worked Oshkosh back in the 1990s before you start shouting profanity and other insults at others.
If you'd have bothered to READ the thread you were venting your spleen over, you'd find the very n ext post was from one of those controllers: http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?8664-Changes-to-OSH-Arrivals-procedures&p=73622&highlight=NATCA#post73622

flybuddy

03-06-2019, 03:28 PM

IMO the ADSB out requirement is a good thing and should be required 100% of the time for normal procedures and an additional procedure established for non equipped. Controllers won't waste time with verifying aircraft (wag your wings, etc.), and it should cut down on those who don't follow procedures & those who cut in. If a controller sees a conflict he can address it directly by 'N" number much more quickly. Think about N12345, turn right immediately vs red Cessna turn right immediately and 20 red Cessnas start to turn.

DaleB

03-06-2019, 04:51 PM

Sure, except that a substantial percentage of the traffic arriving won't be ADS-B equipped, and I'd bet a fair number will be using anonymous mode with no tail number. Then there are the guys who will have theirs misconfigured with the WRONG tail number, shut off, etc.

It would be nice, but then it would be nice if people would read the NOTAM and fly like they had a clue. If they can't read and fly competently, what would make one think they can manage electronics any better?

cdlwingnut

03-06-2019, 07:40 PM

I suppose since they are already long down the road going from an organization trying to make aviation affordable to one trying to separate pilots from their money and selling promotions to the big venders selling expensive kits and gagetry why not just make ADSB and a transponder mandatory, those of us flying and building the old fashion way can form our own organization to follow what the original EAA founders intended.

vaflier

03-06-2019, 08:05 PM

Has no one taken into account what the screen clutter is going to look like with all these N numbers grouped together on the screen is going to look like ????. It is one giant blob of targets on my screen already with no N numbers showing just a target. It is completely unusable from what I have seen. I had to turn off ADSB in just to see the underlying GPS map.

cdlwingnut

03-06-2019, 08:51 PM

I remember on flight aware it was so cluttered they just put a picture of a shark on the arrival area to promote shark week on discovery

flybuddy

03-07-2019, 11:50 AM

Bill Greenwood

03-10-2019, 09:30 AM

Having 2 procedures is logical if they make the last week of July for those of us who don't have ADSB or whatever it is that we haven't needed for the last three decades, but now the FAA tells us we can't fly without. And the first week of Aug can be for all those who are up on the latest techno gadgetry. Maybe even have a contest for the 2nd group, the P/E award which is sort of like Price/ earnings in stocks, but in this case it is Price/electrodes. That is whoever has spent the most money on Garmin, Avadyne, Aspen Electronics, which by the way are from New Mexico, not Aspen., etc.

At the FAA cheerleading session last yea,r I asked them how many mid air collisions, there were that brought on this new demand, surely must be hundreds or at least dozens. Faa didn't have the statictics. and didn't seem to care, so I got them from the Nall aurvey at AOPA. Turns out last year reported was 5 midair's, fatal to 7 people. Is this to potentially save 7 people or more likely for ATC to get gen private aviation mostly out of the way for corporate jet traffic, not at Oshkosh per se but everywhere.

cdlwingnut

03-12-2019, 06:42 AM

The logic would be for 2 procedures, one with ADSB out and one without it to hopefully 2 different runways. This is not meant for personal adsb use as our screens will be too cluttered and we should be looking outside. Mainly for controllers where the spacing is greater once past Fisk. It might even be an additional incentive to those non adsb folks if the required ADSB out procedure runs smoothly and the other group is chaotic.

So I can choose the to follow the procedure where everyone has their head stuck inside the cabin and so many I pads stuck to the windows they can't see out or the one where people actually know how to "see and avoid" I will take option 2

flybuddy

03-12-2019, 11:02 AM

So I can choose the to follow the procedure where everyone has their head stuck inside the cabin and so many I pads stuck to the windows they can't see out or the one where people actually know how to "see and avoid" I will take option 2
Option 1, no one will be looking inside their cockpit because it's way too cluttered--basically you seem to believe that people who have purchased ADSB are complete buttheads and don't have the common sense to look out the window when flying around hundreds of airplanes. Option 2 - your see and avoid crowd didn't do too well last year...REALITY is that ADSB is just a tool and the failings of last year were both Procedural (which ADSB helps) and pilots (not following the procedure and those who cheat by cutting in, etc, which again--ADSB helps..The loudest anti ADSB proponents are those who are still trying to rationalize the need NOT to spend money on something they disagree with. For those that have spent the money (and many of them don't agree with the "need" either), it wouldn't be such a bad thing to actually get some usefulness out of it via smoother procedures and increased safety. If you think you can't trust yourself and you're going to try and play controller while you're flying, you do have the option to turn off your ADSB in and just use the out.Let's face it, last year was a disaster and we can't stick our heads in the sand when there are viable alternatives out there.

Bill Greenwood

03-12-2019, 02:38 PM

Flybuddy, you write , " 'your see and avoid crowd didn' t do too well last year". I don't know of any accidents on the Ripon Fisk arrival last year, same as the year before. Do you have some actual factual reports that the rest of us dont? I mean on the approach, not at the airport in the pattern. And once your new technology alerts you that there are other airplanes around going to Osh, what do you expect or intend to do about it? Do you hope the other pilot will be intimidated by your image and just give up, or do you intend to look out the window and "see and avoid" other planes? Same as the last few decades. Does your idea of "viable alternatives" involve in some way restricting other pilots flying into Oshkosh?
I think I am at least as experienced as average EAA pilots having flown in since 1983 and in 4 different airplanes and 2 different arrivals, as well as flying in the show perhaps 20 years and I have 3 simple rules to follow of which the 2nd is to look out the window and avoid other planes. Maybe I'm lucky but it seems to have worked for 30 years and I don't have any of those gadgets in my panel.

And it is only my semi-educated guess, but like this year I think those of us with less techno cockpits are more likely to actually have a copy of the notam and actually follow it rather than what shortcuts Garmin or Avidyne says.

Kyle Boatright

03-12-2019, 07:07 PM

your see and avoid crowd didn't do too well last year...REALITY is that ADSB is just a tool and the failings of last year were both Procedural (which ADSB helps) and pilots (not following the procedure and those who cheat by cutting in, etc, which again--ADSB helps.

The fail last year was runway usage. On Sunday, the runways were used at ~50% of capacity with aircraft stacked on top of one another in the holds. This was a fail by the FAA/EAA to open the runways and land the *&$#!! aircraft. Sure the taxiways for 27 were toast. Land airplanes on 36 L and R, which were practically barren of aircraft, and taxi people to the N40 on 27 or via other means. You have 3 runways. There is no excuse to bog the whole thing down by marrying yourself to one runway with unusable taxiways.

flybuddy

03-13-2019, 05:03 AM

Somehow this has moved into the "spin" zone.. The failings last year were caused by a lot more than just runway usage. There weren't accidents but it wasn't safe and with forced compression of traffic continually back to initial fixes it was dangerous. Is there anyone here who thinks it wasn't a cluster last year and an accident waiting to happen? Yes, a lot of this would have been negated IF there were better flow but ti doesn't eliminate all of the problems. We all admit that pilots didn't follow the procedures and there was a lot of cutting in which caused folks to be sent back time and time again. There seems to be some extreme resistance toward trying to utilize ADSB as a partial fix. It's a tool that can help in several ways. So let's say there's too much resistance to ADSB usage so we dump it...What solutions do you think will truly work and somehow prevent people from not following procedures and cutting in?

CHICAGORANDY

03-13-2019, 09:35 AM

Having read all 13 pages of posts on this subject, I reckon I'm not totally unhappy that MY "Ripon Approach" to Oshkosh is in a Hyundai Tucson over Rtes 23, 44 and N - with a stop for fresh coffee at the PlaneView Plaza - lol

I suspect that if we get better weather pre-Monday, things will kinda sort themselves out? Like many who have posted in this thread I too marvel that people with Pilot's privileges are incapable of following simple published procedures and employing common courtesy to their fellow airmen and women. But as the comic Ron White often notes - "You can't fix stupid, stupid is forever."

Bill Greenwood

03-13-2019, 12:56 PM

FlyBuddy, yes it was congested last year and could have had an accident. But still answer this one question please, lets say you have ADSB and every other gadget Garmin and others make, and you get to Ripon and start toward Fiske and lo and begora, there on your magic screen it shows there are quite a few other airplanes around you doing the same thing. What are you going to do? MIght you look out the window and try to avoid them and find a place to fall in line and follow someone , same as we.ve done for years? Do you have a "clear" button on the panel that will make all the other planes vanish? And as a beside, just for interest, what plane are you flying and how many years have you flown in?
I think last year was the worst of factors coming together, likely will be normal or better this year? I'll have to admit I wasn't in the middle of the bucnch, when the atis and approach said that much delay, I diverted elsewhere.

flybuddy

03-13-2019, 02:08 PM

Thx Bill, I've had several aircraft over the years that I've flown in, including a Velocity, 3 years with Mooney Caravan, RV6, Cherokee, Mooney alone, Varieze, First flight in the 80s and I've made most shows. Just to be clear, I absolutely disagree with pilots looking at the screen anywhere during the procedure. My first post was only addressing using ADSB OUT as a help for the controllers after Ripon once spacing established. No more waggle wings and the controller can call aircraft by number, changing speed, spacing, etc. as well as correct folks that try to circumvent the procedure. Seems that would be smoother and safer. The proposal for this is only when the weather is below 1500'

DaleB

03-13-2019, 02:39 PM

That would work... if and only if ADS-B were not mis-configurable by the user. The regs say that after 1/1/2020 I have to have ADS-B OUT. They do NOT say I have to show my actual tail number when squawking VFR. Even if they did, I suspect the number of people with misconfigured gear (intentionally or otherwise) would pretty well negate the improved process. All you need is a dozen or two NCC-1701 flights in the mix. I mean, how many people already come blasting into the place without having read the NOTAM?

Of course there are still all the airplanes that will not be required to have ADS-B... I really don't think you want to try to bar them from Oshkosh, or restrict their arrival times and routes. You'd be fighting a losing battle.

I'm absolutely not trying to trash your ideas, I'm just trying to figure out how any such changes could be actually enforced, at least without having an FAA welcoming committee with tracked Vulcans.

flybuddy

03-13-2019, 05:57 PM

Good points!..As time progresses more people will have adsb and probably have a better configuration rate after 2020 kicks in...This may be ahead of its time but might be more useful in 2020.

MEdwards

03-13-2019, 10:19 PM

Somehow this has moved into the "spin" zone.. No spin, just a so far civil discussion. First, I am a big proponent of ADS-B, have had both Out and In for several Oshkosh visits, and saw the problems on the screen Sunday afternoon last year. i bugged out after one attempt. I use ADS-B In as a third eyeball, and it has been extremely useful in helping me find and see traffic I otherwise might very well have missed. However, I did not find it very useful approaching Ripon last year due to saturation and the need to keep the first two eyeballs intently on nearby traffic.

flybuddy, as I understand it your initial suggestion was an ADS-B-only approach, perhaps to a dedicated runway, with another "chaotic" approach to the other one.

An approach where the Fisk controllers use ADS-B to identify and separate traffic becomes basically an "ADS-B approach control" with the controller staring at a screen rather than the present approach where the controller is looking at the sky through binoculars. I think that would be less efficient and more confusing than the present system. Some form of separation standards would come into play. It also would take more air time dealing with N numbers than "blue cessna." The previous poster's comments about configuration errors and nonstandard IDs are also an issue.

Separate approaches to the different runways is also less practical than the present system. Runways open and close for lots of reasons all the time, and now the controller can react instantly to send people to the open runway and away from the just-closed one.

Basically the problems last year were caused by the weather, as others have noted. Concentration of three days' arrivals into one day and soft shoulders off the runways. Pilots have to deal with weather problems all the time. One year's weather problems are not sufficient reason to completely overhaul a system that has worked well for decades. Improvements are always appropriate, but radical changes are not.

And finally, my suggestion for an improvement: If a mass arrival can't happen, for whatever reason, reasonably close to its schedule (say an hour or so), cancel it. Under no circumstances move it to the next day.

dougbush

03-14-2019, 12:11 AM

And finally, my suggestion for an improvement: If a mass arrival can't happen, for whatever reason, reasonably close to its schedule (say an hour or so), cancel it. Under no circumstances move it to the next day.
Why, is YOUR arrival at Oshkosh more important than mine?

MEdwards

03-14-2019, 12:27 AM

No, and vice versa. I enjoyed flying in with the Bonanzas many years ago. But the mass arrivals close two runways for something like half an hour. The schedules are published so others can avoid those times. When the schedule changes drastically it messes up everybody else. If they get pushed from a Friday to Saturday to Sunday they contribute to the closed runway congestion experienced last year. You can still arrive, just like everybody else, but I think prioritizing mass arrivals when everybody is suffering from weather-induced arrival saturation is not a good idea.

But, suggestions aside, I guess we’ll find out what changes they are going to make in just a few weeks. In the past I think the NOTAM has been released in March or April.

Bill Greenwood

03-14-2019, 02:49 PM

Kyle Boatright

03-14-2019, 05:11 PM

Hey Mike, I think it is. The mass arrivals seem to be a sore spot for some, but remember, even if it takes a half hour, that is a lot of airplanes landed in that time. In the case of the Bonanzas it was 171 of them! I think, so that many are out of the line and out of the congestion. If they came one at a time, it would likely take longer.

The mass arrivals are a great use of runway time. Where they cause distress is if they don't happen in the scheduled window. We've had years where we planned to arrive after or between mass arrivals, and one group or another had a problem, didn't hit the window, and messed up our plans. In that situation, the mass arrivals chewed up 2x the required time - first, their scheduled slot, then whatever runway time they actually used.

FlyingRon

03-15-2019, 05:46 AM

In fact, I don't know of any in-flight collisions outside of airshow performances over the years. Lots of single plane "failure to fly the airplane" situations.

dougbush

03-15-2019, 11:52 PM

The schedules are published so others can avoid those times. When the schedule changes drastically it messes up everybody else. If they get pushed from a Friday to Saturday to Sunday they contribute to the closed runway congestion experienced last year.
Where are the schedules published? The last notam just says late morning to early afternoon Saturday and early morning Sunday. Which mass arrivals are scheduled for Friday?

MEdwards

03-16-2019, 07:15 AM

Kyle Boatright

03-16-2019, 08:40 AM

In fact, I don't know of any in-flight collisions outside of airshow performances over the years. Lots of single plane "failure to fly the airplane" situations.

It has happened. 20+ years ago a Cessna and a T-18 (from memory) had a midair in the arrival stream. One crashed, one made a successful landing.

But the system works pretty well.

dougbush

03-21-2019, 12:03 AM

I’ve always found the schedule on the AirVenture.org web page. I’m pretty certain at least one was scheduled Friday in the past, because it surprised me at the time. I cannot remember which one.
Mike
Well, if you had the schedule and planned to avoid it, I can understand your frustration. However, if you planned a flight for that day, you must be aware of the adverse weather conditions that could cause a mass arrival to be delayed. You may assume a delayed mass arrival group will take the first available opportunity to complete the arrival.

But we certainly don't get "prioritized." You can show up as a flight of three with no reservation or notice, and you'll be given the whole runway and be allowed to park together. You can reschedule due to weather or a whim, even to the next day or the next. We must sign a letter of authorization (LOA) with the FAA nearly a year in advance, phone the tower prior to launch at the negotiated time, and call by radio 20, 10, and 5 miles out. Under the LOA, we have no option to reschedule for another day.