Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....

Ben.

stol wrote:
> Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
>
> Ben.

You mean the guy who "landed" in the tree?

cavelamb himself wrote:
> stol wrote:
>> Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
>>
>> Ben.
>
> You mean the guy who "landed" in the tree?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334270,00.html

Charles

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:09:20 -0600, Charles Vincent > wrote:

> cavelamb himself wrote:
> > stol wrote:
> >> Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
> >>
> >> Ben.
> >
> > You mean the guy who "landed" in the tree?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334270,00.html

Article identifies one aircraft as an RV-8 and the other as being owned by
"Christen Air". FAA Database shows this as a 2002 Velocity XL RG, which would
match the wreckage shown. The Delaware address in the FAA registry probably
doesn't reflect where the plane is based.

Ron Wanttaja

"stol" > wrote in message
...
> Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
>
> Ben.

Elsewhere, I found a video clip of the local (Titusville) EAA President who
witnessed the accident. His summary was that the RV was on a taxiway and
the Velocity departed the runway, and impacted the taxiing RV. The
Velocity's wing went through the RV at canopy height.

KB

On Mar 2, 12:17*pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> "stol" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
>
> > Ben.
>
> Elsewhere, I found a video clip of the local (Titusville) EAA President who
> witnessed the accident. *His summary was that the RV was on a taxiway and
> the Velocity departed the runway, and impacted the taxiing RV. The
> Velocity's wing went through the RV at canopy height.
>
> KB

Thanks guys,,, A very sad day in the experimental/ homebuilt family
today...... Godspeed to all involved..

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> "stol" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
> >
> > Ben.
>
> Elsewhere, I found a video clip of the local (Titusville) EAA President who
> witnessed the accident. His summary was that the RV was on a taxiway and
> the Velocity departed the runway, and impacted the taxiing RV. The
> Velocity's wing went through the RV at canopy height.
>
> KB

The Chapter president you saw was Keith Phillips, president of Chapter
288, Daytona Beach, not the president of the Tutusville Chapter. He is a
retired AF Lt Col, former fighter pilot (F-100, F-101, F-104, F-5) and a
great guy and natural leader.

He was right behind the Velocity, which performed a straight-in between
the RV Flight, which had just landed and Keith's Red Flight (SX-300s).
The accident happened literally in front of his face. Apparently, the
Velocity veered off the runway, the pilot attempted to go around, but
the grass, water and roughness of the median did not allow that. Why
they veered is unknown.

Most of us here have, like many of you, been appalled with the standard
of media reporting of aviation (especially GA) accidents and decided to
do something about it. Keith contacted several TV stations and invited
them to separate briefings here at Spruce Creek.

Here is what he told Fox News:

He explained to them that the briefing consisted of two parts:

1. a pre-brief (in fighter pilot language) explaining the aviation
community's displeasure with the standards of reporting, that it has
been sloppy and unprofessional - especially when they interview some
a$$h**e who says that they were ³performing acrobatics² and
³dive-bombing the place.² First, the term is ³aerobatics² and when dive
bombing takes place, something blows up.

He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
accident.

He explained that the fact that both planes were ³Experimental² had
nothing to do with it either, that it was like being on a street corner
and being hit by a runaway car.

After the pre-brief, he told them that, if they didn't like the
pre-brief, they could pack their gear and go home and that four other
stations had already been briefed.

You saw the result on TV.

I was #2 in a flight of four coming overhead for the break to downwind
when Lead called, ³Everybody GO AROUND! Somebody just went in!² I did
not see the accident, as I was paying attention to Lead, but my
passenger saw the smoke and flames, so we knew that it wasn't good.

We diverted to Titusville, where the cellphones started ringing as soon
as we got on the ground. I later found out who it was.

Bill Hess, the owner and pilot of the RV-8 had built it after retiring
as Chief Pilot for the State of New York, where he was the pilot for
several Governors. Phil Schacht was a retired Northwest Captain.
Reliable witnesses think that both were killed by the impact of the
Velocity's wing on the cockpit of the RV-8. I knew Bill and knew Phil by
sight.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> "stol" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
> >
> > Ben.
>
> Elsewhere, I found a video clip of the local (Titusville) EAA President who
> witnessed the accident. His summary was that the RV was on a taxiway and
> the Velocity departed the runway, and impacted the taxiing RV. The
> Velocity's wing went through the RV at canopy height.
>
> KB

The Chapter president you saw was Keith Phillips, president of Chapter
288, Daytona Beach, not the president of the Tutusville Chapter. He is a
retired AF Lt Col, former fighter pilot (F-100, F-101, F-104, F-5) and a
great guy and natural leader.

He was right behind the Velocity, which performed a straight-in between
the RV Flight, which had just landed and Keith's Red Flight (SX-300s).
The accident happened literally in front of his face. Apparently, the
Velocity veered off the runway, the pilot attempted to go around, but
the grass, water and roughness of the median did not allow that. Why
they veered is unknown.

Most of us here have, like many of you, been appalled with the standard
of media reporting of aviation (especially GA) accidents and decided to
do something about it. Keith contacted several TV stations and invited
them to separate briefings here at Spruce Creek.

Here is what he told Fox News:

He explained to them that the briefing consisted of two parts:

1. a pre-brief (in fighter pilot language) explaining the aviation
community's displeasure with the standards of reporting, that it has
been sloppy and unprofessional - especially when they interview some
a$$h**e who says that they were ³performing acrobatics² and
³dive-bombing the place.² First, the term is ³aerobatics² and when dive
bombing takes place, something blows up.

He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
accident.

He explained that the fact that both planes were ³Experimental² had
nothing to do with it either, that it was like being on a street corner
and being hit by a runaway car.

After the pre-brief, he told them that, if they didn't like the
pre-brief, they could pack their gear and go home and that four other
stations had already been briefed.

You saw the result on TV.

I was #2 in a flight of four coming overhead for the break to downwind
when Lead called, ³Everybody GO AROUND! Somebody just went in!² I did
not see the accident, as I was paying attention to Lead, but my
passenger saw the smoke and flames, so we knew that it wasn't good.

We diverted to Titusville, where the cellphones started ringing as soon
as we got on the ground. I later found out who it was.

Bill Hess, the owner and pilot of the RV-8 had built it after retiring
as Chief Pilot for the State of New York, where he was the pilot for
several Governors. Phil Schacht was a retired Northwest Captain.
Reliable witnesses think that both were killed by the impact of the
Velocity's wing on the cockpit of the RV-8. I knew Bill and knew Phil by
sight.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

stol wrote:
> Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
>
> Ben.

From what Ive gathered from the various forums, reposts, thirdhand,
etc.. (I WAS NOT THERE. I AM MERELY REPEATING WHAT I"VE READ)

There were two flights of four RV's landing on the overhead approach,
landing south. First flight landed. Second flight was approaching. Radio
calls were made to this effect.

The velocity apparently landed northbound, veered to miss oncoming
southbound landing traffic. Velocity left the runway and eventually
tumbled/cartwheeled, and in the process the velocity wing impacted the
fatality RV's canopy on the taxiway (which was not one of the landing
RV's).

Eyewitness suspects the fatalities were from the impact not from the
fire. Engine departed the velocity, and it landed inverted.

Dave

In article >,
Dave S > wrote:

> stol wrote:
> > Any posters here have any additional info,,,, CNN was very vague....
> >
> > Ben.
>
> From what Ive gathered from the various forums, reposts, thirdhand,
> etc.. (I WAS NOT THERE. I AM MERELY REPEATING WHAT I"VE READ)
>
> There were two flights of four RV's landing on the overhead approach,
> landing south. First flight landed. Second flight was approaching. Radio
> calls were made to this effect.
>
> The velocity apparently landed northbound, veered to miss oncoming
> southbound landing traffic. Velocity left the runway and eventually
> tumbled/cartwheeled, and in the process the velocity wing impacted the
> fatality RV's canopy on the taxiway (which was not one of the landing
> RV's).
>
> Eyewitness suspects the fatalities were from the impact not from the
> fire. Engine departed the velocity, and it landed inverted.
>
> Dave

Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith was
lead in Red Flight and saw it all.

BTW -- I apologise for the multiple posts, as I am having trouble with
Newswatcher.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
> accident.

It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
"control" is available at non-towererd airports?

Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
> > that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
> > of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
> > accident.
>
> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>
> Matt

FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
CTAF.

I take it that you do not fly?

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>
> Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
> landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
> they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
> Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith was
> lead in Red Flight and saw it all.
>
> BTW -- I apologise for the multiple posts, as I am having trouble with
> Newswatcher.

Thank you very much for taking the time to share this, and I apologize
for passing along information that turned out to be less than factual.

So this was not a head-to-head on the same runway, leading to a
departure from the runway, as has been alleged?

Dave

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

Thank you Orval, condolences to all...

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Thank you Orval, condolences to all...

Thank you. Flags at Spruce Creek are flying at half-staff. Phil's
services are Friday, in New Smyrna Beach; I don't have info on Bill's
services.

It was like standing on a street corner and being hit by a runaway car.
I don't think that either one saw it coming, as their flight was taxiing
in from their right, so they were probably watching them.

One of the other RV'ers was on the ground, watching. He said that the
Velocity rammed the RV-8 on the left side, in the cockpit area and moved
it about 50 feet. The RV-8 sat there for a moment, engine running, then
burst into flames. Neither occupant moved.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
>>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
>>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
>>> accident.
>> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
>> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>>
>> Matt
>
> FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
> CTAF.
>
> I take it that you do not fly?
>

I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
not in the sense that most use the word. Direction of turns, ROW, etc.,
constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
monitor it really is voluntary. I don't consider the other items you
mention to be forms of control at all.

Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >>
> >>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
> >>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
> >>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
> >>> accident.
> >> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> >> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
> >>
> >> Matt
> >
> > FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
> > CTAF.
> >
> > I take it that you do not fly?
> >
>
> I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
> I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
> not in the sense that most use the word. Direction of turns, ROW, etc.,
> constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
> monitor it really is voluntary. I don't consider the other items you
> mention to be forms of control at all.
>
> Matt

Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?

Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?

1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.

2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.

We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there for
training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.

If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach
instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
>>>>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
>>>>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
>>>>> accident.
>>>> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
>>>> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>> FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
>>> CTAF.
>>>
>>> I take it that you do not fly?
>>>
>> I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
>> I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
>> not in the sense that most use the word. Direction of turns, ROW, etc.,
>> constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
>> monitor it really is voluntary. I don't consider the other items you
>> mention to be forms of control at all.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?

Why do you think that I think we do need control? I never said or even
implied that?


> Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?

Quite well.


> 1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
>
> 2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.

You are just a fount of wisdom. I never heard those lines before!


> We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there for
> training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
> nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.

I never said we did.

On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
> *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > >>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
> > >>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
> > >>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
> > >>> accident.
> > >> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> > >> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>
> > >> Matt
>
> > > FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
> > > CTAF.
>
> > > I take it that you do not fly?
>
> > I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
> > * *I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
> > not in the sense that most use the word. *Direction of turns, ROW, etc..,
> > constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
> > monitor it really is voluntary. *I don't consider the other items you
> > mention to be forms of control at all.
>
> > Matt
>
> Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?
>
> Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?
>
> 1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
>
> 2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.
>
> We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there for
> training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
> nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.
>
> If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach *
> instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
> have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
> landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
> they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
> Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith was
> lead in Red Flight and saw it all.

Ok Now I am confused again, :<)...

The velocity departed from Sebastian Fla, which is south of the field
where the crash happened. He would have been making a straight in on
33. If he did change his plan and land on 15 he would have had to
enter a left or right downwind. turn base and then final... Is it
because your squadran of Rv's might have got him a little rattled?
Did your group make a low pass before they landed? I am guessing they
probably do every time they come down for pancakes. I am not trying to
start a fuss but it does seem strange you did make the point to say
his straight in caused Keith and Red Flight to alter their pattern. It
sounds on face value like this was your sandbox and the Velocity was
an intruder... Jus curious ya know..

In article
>,
stol > wrote:

> On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> > > >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > > >>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
> > > >>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
> > > >>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
> > > >>> accident.
> > > >> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> > > >> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
> >
> > > >> Matt
> >
> > > > FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
> > > > CTAF.
> >
> > > > I take it that you do not fly?
> >
> > > I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
> > > * *I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
> > > not in the sense that most use the word. *Direction of turns, ROW, etc.,
> > > constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
> > > monitor it really is voluntary. *I don't consider the other items you
> > > mention to be forms of control at all.
> >
> > > Matt
> >
> > Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?
> >
> > Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?
> >
> > 1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
> >
> > 2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.
> >
> > We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there for
> > training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
> > nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.
> >
> > If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach *
> > instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
> > have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.
> >
> > --
> > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
> > landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
> > they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
> > Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith was
> > lead in Red Flight and saw it all.
>
> Ok Now I am confused again, :<)...
>
> The velocity departed from Sebastian Fla, which is south of the field
> where the crash happened. He would have been making a straight in on
> 33. If he did change his plan and land on 15 he would have had to
> enter a left or right downwind. turn base and then final... Is it
> because your squadran of Rv's might have got him a little rattled?
> Did your group make a low pass before they landed? I am guessing they
> probably do every time they come down for pancakes. I am not trying to
> start a fuss but it does seem strange you did make the point to say
> his straight in caused Keith and Red Flight to alter their pattern. It
> sounds on face value like this was your sandbox and the Velocity was
> an intruder... Jus curious ya know..

"Our sandbox?" No, but we do frequent their pancake breakfast with 20-30
airplanes, which does strain parking. We do not treat others as
"intruders." We also try to give others room in the pattern, so I really
do not know about the "rattle factor." According to other reports, the
Velocity pilot was a Swiss national, living near Sebastian and was
supposedly an experienced pilot.

The Velocity initially called in from the south, wanting to make a
straight-in for 33; however, everybody else was using 15, so he was so
informed. The RVs did overfly, some with smoke. I am not sure whether or
not they made more than one pass per flight. They broke left from the
overhead to downwind and landed.

The Velocity apparently circled wide and entered a straight-in for 15.
He did NOT enter a standard downwind pattern, otherwise the flights
would have adjusted their break to accommodate him. That is what Keith
did when he followed the Velocity.

I do not know why the Velocity pilot added full power once he left the
runway. Had he not done so, he might have ended up with a bent bird, but
that is about all, as the grass and rough terrain would have stopped him
pretty quickly. According to Keith, he was kicking up a lot of grass and
debris after he left the runway. It is even possible that his prop
impacted the ground and started to come apart.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Mar 6, 9:05*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *stol > wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > > > >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > >>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
> > > > >>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
> > > > >>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
> > > > >>> accident.
> > > > >> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> > > > >> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>
> > > > >> Matt
>
> > > > > FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
> > > > > CTAF.
>
> > > > > I take it that you do not fly?
>
> > > > I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
> > > > * *I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
> > > > not in the sense that most use the word. *Direction of turns, ROW, etc.,
> > > > constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
> > > > monitor it really is voluntary. *I don't consider the other items you
> > > > mention to be forms of control at all.
>
> > > > Matt
>
> > > Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?
>
> > > Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?
>
> > > 1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
>
> > > 2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.
>
> > > We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there for
> > > training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
> > > nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.
>
> > > If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach *
> > > instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
> > > have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.
>
> > > --
> > > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
> > > landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
> > > they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
> > > Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith was
> > > lead in Red Flight and saw it all.
>
> > Ok Now I am confused again, :<)...
>
> > The velocity departed from Sebastian Fla, which is south of the field
> > where the crash happened. He would have been making a straight in on
> > 33. If he did change his plan and land on 15 he would have had to
> > enter a left or right downwind. turn base and then final... Is it
> > because your squadran of Rv's might have got him a little rattled?
> > Did your group make a low pass before they landed? I am guessing they
> > probably do every time they come down for pancakes. I am not trying to
> > start a fuss but it does seem strange you did make the point to say
> > his straight in caused Keith and Red Flight to alter their pattern. It
> > sounds on face value like this was your sandbox and the Velocity was
> > an intruder... Jus curious ya know..
>
> "Our sandbox?" No, but we do frequent their pancake breakfast with 20-30
> airplanes, which does strain parking. We do not treat others as
> "intruders." We also try to give others room in the pattern, so I really
> do not know about the "rattle factor." According to other reports, the
> Velocity pilot was a Swiss national, living near Sebastian and was
> supposedly an experienced pilot.
>
> The Velocity initially called in from the south, wanting to make a
> straight-in for 33; however, everybody else was using 15, so he was so
> informed. The RVs did overfly, some with smoke. I am not sure whether or
> not they made more than one pass per flight. They broke left from the
> overhead to downwind and landed.
>
> The Velocity apparently circled wide and entered a straight-in for 15.
> He did NOT enter a standard downwind pattern, otherwise the flights
> would have adjusted their break to accommodate him. That is what Keith
> did when he followed the Velocity.
>
> I do not know why the Velocity pilot added full power once he left the
> runway. Had he not done so, he might have ended up with a bent bird, but
> that is about all, as the grass and rough terrain would have stopped him
> pretty quickly. According to Keith, he was kicking up a lot of grass and
> debris after he left the runway. It is even possible that his prop
> impacted the ground and started to come apart.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the explanation Orval. Since the Velocity is alot faster
then your RV's it is understandable he made a wider then normal
pattern, That would help with the flow of the pattern for sure. I
still don't fully understand your comments on him doing a "straight
in". It is not like he was on a 20 mile final,, or was he? As for
your " WE also try to give others room in the pattern" comes across
as,( we were here first so eat **** attitude). Most other pilots at
uncontrolled fields do what they can to give others room in the
pattern. I could be wrong here although the FAA will probably read
this as part of the investigation and they might draw a different
conclusion.

Just my opinion ya know.

Tailwinds,
Ben

In article
>,
stol > wrote:

> On Mar 6, 9:05*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *stol > wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > > > > >>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled
> > > > > >>> airport,²
> > > > > >>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some
> > > > > >>> type
> > > > > >>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have
> > > > > >>> prevented the
> > > > > >>> accident.
> > > > > >> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> > > > > >> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
> >
> > > > > >> Matt
> >
> > > > > > FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I
> > > > > > eyeballs,
> > > > > > CTAF.
> >
> > > > > > I take it that you do not fly?
> >
> > > > > I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since
> > > > > 1978.
> > > > > * *I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control",
> > > > > but
> > > > > not in the sense that most use the word. *Direction of turns, ROW,
> > > > > etc.,
> > > > > constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there
> > > > > to
> > > > > monitor it really is voluntary. *I don't consider the other items you
> > > > > mention to be forms of control at all.
> >
> > > > > Matt
> >
> > > > Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?
> >
> > > > Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?
> >
> > > > 1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
> >
> > > > 2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.
> >
> > > > We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there
> > > > for
> > > > training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
> > > > nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.
> >
> > > > If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach *
> > > > instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
> > > > have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > > > Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
> > > > landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
> > > > they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
> > > > Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith
> > > > was
> > > > lead in Red Flight and saw it all.
> >
> > > Ok Now I am confused again, :<)...
> >
> > > The velocity departed from Sebastian Fla, which is south of the field
> > > where the crash happened. He would have been making a straight in on
> > > 33. If he did change his plan and land on 15 he would have had to
> > > enter a left or right downwind. turn base and then final... Is it
> > > because your squadran of Rv's might have got him a little rattled?
> > > Did your group make a low pass before they landed? I am guessing they
> > > probably do every time they come down for pancakes. I am not trying to
> > > start a fuss but it does seem strange you did make the point to say
> > > his straight in caused Keith and Red Flight to alter their pattern. It
> > > sounds on face value like this was your sandbox and the Velocity was
> > > an intruder... Jus curious ya know..
> >
> > "Our sandbox?" No, but we do frequent their pancake breakfast with 20-30
> > airplanes, which does strain parking. We do not treat others as
> > "intruders." We also try to give others room in the pattern, so I really
> > do not know about the "rattle factor." According to other reports, the
> > Velocity pilot was a Swiss national, living near Sebastian and was
> > supposedly an experienced pilot.
> >
> > The Velocity initially called in from the south, wanting to make a
> > straight-in for 33; however, everybody else was using 15, so he was so
> > informed. The RVs did overfly, some with smoke. I am not sure whether or
> > not they made more than one pass per flight. They broke left from the
> > overhead to downwind and landed.
> >
> > The Velocity apparently circled wide and entered a straight-in for 15.
> > He did NOT enter a standard downwind pattern, otherwise the flights
> > would have adjusted their break to accommodate him. That is what Keith
> > did when he followed the Velocity.
> >
> > I do not know why the Velocity pilot added full power once he left the
> > runway. Had he not done so, he might have ended up with a bent bird, but
> > that is about all, as the grass and rough terrain would have stopped him
> > pretty quickly. According to Keith, he was kicking up a lot of grass and
> > debris after he left the runway. It is even possible that his prop
> > impacted the ground and started to come apart.
> >
> > --
> > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for the explanation Orval. Since the Velocity is alot faster
> then your RV's it is understandable he made a wider then normal
> pattern, That would help with the flow of the pattern for sure. I
> still don't fully understand your comments on him doing a "straight
> in". It is not like he was on a 20 mile final,, or was he? As for
> your " WE also try to give others room in the pattern" comes across
> as,( we were here first so eat **** attitude). Most other pilots at
> uncontrolled fields do what they can to give others room in the
> pattern. I could be wrong here although the FAA will probably read
> this as part of the investigation and they might draw a different
> conclusion.
>
> Just my opinion ya know.
>
> Tailwinds,
> Ben

Well, Ben it seems here that YOU are the one with an attitude. Is it
toward formation flight, RVs or what? BTW -- I do not fly an RV, but the
"Velocity is NOT a lot faster than the RVs.

All I know about his straight-in is that he reported "straight in."

If I have an attitude here it is toward those insisting on flying
straight-in approaches -- especially when the traffic is heavy.

A formation doing the overhead break to downwind has an excellent view
of traffic and can adjust entry with precision.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

On Mar 7, 5:16*am, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *stol > wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 9:05*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *stol > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 6, 12:15*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled
> > > > > > >>> airport,²
> > > > > > >>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some
> > > > > > >>> type
> > > > > > >>> of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have
> > > > > > >>> prevented the
> > > > > > >>> accident.
> > > > > > >> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> > > > > > >> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>
> > > > > > >> Matt
>
> > > > > > > FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I
> > > > > > > eyeballs,
> > > > > > > CTAF.
>
> > > > > > > I take it that you do not fly?
>
> > > > > > I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since
> > > > > > 1978.
> > > > > > * *I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control",
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > not in the sense that most use the word. *Direction of turns, ROW,
> > > > > > etc.,
> > > > > > constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > monitor it really is voluntary. *I don't consider the other items you
> > > > > > mention to be forms of control at all.
>
> > > > > > Matt
>
> > > > > Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?
>
> > > > > Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?
>
> > > > > 1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
>
> > > > > 2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.
>
> > > > > We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there
> > > > > for
> > > > > training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
> > > > > nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.
>
> > > > > If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach *
> > > > > instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
> > > > > have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > > > Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
> > > > > landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
> > > > > they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
> > > > > Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith
> > > > > was
> > > > > lead in Red Flight and saw it all.
>
> > > > Ok Now I am confused again, :<)...
>
> > > > The velocity departed from Sebastian Fla, which is south of the field
> > > > where the crash happened. He would have been making a straight in on
> > > > 33. If he did change his plan and land on 15 he would have had to
> > > > enter a left or right downwind. turn base and then final... Is it
> > > > because your squadran of Rv's might have got him a little rattled?
> > > > Did your group make a low pass before they landed? I am guessing they
> > > > probably do every time they come down for pancakes. I am not trying to
> > > > start a fuss but it does seem strange you did make the point to say
> > > > his straight in caused Keith and Red Flight to alter their pattern. It
> > > > sounds on face value like this was your sandbox and the Velocity was
> > > > an intruder... Jus curious ya know..
>
> > > "Our sandbox?" No, but we do frequent their pancake breakfast with 20-30
> > > airplanes, which does strain parking. We do not treat others as
> > > "intruders." We also try to give others room in the pattern, so I really
> > > do not know about the "rattle factor." According to other reports, the
> > > Velocity pilot was a Swiss national, living near Sebastian and was
> > > supposedly an experienced pilot.
>
> > > The Velocity initially called in from the south, wanting to make a
> > > straight-in for 33; however, everybody else was using 15, so he was so
> > > informed. The RVs did overfly, some with smoke. I am not sure whether or
> > > not they made more than one pass per flight. They broke left from the
> > > overhead to downwind and landed.
>
> > > The Velocity apparently circled wide and entered a straight-in for 15.
> > > He did NOT enter a standard downwind pattern, otherwise the flights
> > > would have adjusted their break to accommodate him. That is what Keith
> > > did when he followed the Velocity.
>
> > > I do not know why the Velocity pilot added full power once he left the
> > > runway. Had he not done so, he might have ended up with a bent bird, but
> > > that is about all, as the grass and rough terrain would have stopped him
> > > pretty quickly. According to Keith, he was kicking up a lot of grass and
> > > debris after he left the runway. It is even possible that his prop
> > > impacted the ground and started to come apart.
>
> > > --
> > > Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Thanks for the explanation Orval. Since the Velocity is alot faster
> > then your RV's it is understandable he made a wider then normal
> > pattern, That would help with the flow of the pattern for sure. I
> > still don't fully understand your comments on him doing a "straight
> > in". It is not like he was on a 20 mile final,, or was he? As for
> > your * " WE also try to give others room in the pattern" comes across
> > as,( we were here first so eat **** attitude). Most other pilots at
> > uncontrolled fields do what they can to give others room in the
> > pattern. I could be wrong here although the FAA will probably read
> > this as part of the investigation and they might draw a different
> > conclusion.
>
> > Just my opinion ya know.
>
> > Tailwinds,
> > Ben
>
> Well, Ben it seems here that YOU are the one with an attitude. Is it
> toward formation flight, RVs or what? BTW -- I do not fly an RV, but the
> "Velocity is NOT a lot faster than the RVs.
>
> All I know about his straight-in is that he reported "straight in."
>
> If I have an attitude here it is toward those insisting on flying
> straight-in approaches -- especially when the traffic is heavy.
>
> A formation doing the overhead break to downwind has an excellent view
> of traffic and can adjust entry with precision.
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks again for the further explanation.

Tailwinds

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH

My personal opinion is it is best NOT to do fly bys during a pancake
breakfast. It seems it just clutters the airspace at an already busy
space. I have personally had troubles because most every plane around a
fly in breakfast is faster than my 65 knot Cruise speed and I have
almost been run over from behind by somebody planning a fly by assuming
I will be on the ground before they get there. I think it is just poor
practice. If it weren't, why do they close the airspace during
scheduled airshows? If it weren't an issue, why not just keep the
airspace open (many airshow routines have a plane flying down the runway
before pulling up, etc. which looks suspiciously like a "fly by").

Scott


stol wrote:
> On Mar 6, 9:05 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
>>In article
>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> stol > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 6, 12:15 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
>>>>>>>>that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type
>>>>>>>>of control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
>>>>>>>>accident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
>>>>>>>"control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>>
>>>>>>>Matt
>>
>>>>>>FARs, pilot responsibility, Good Operating practices, Mk I eyeballs,
>>>>>>CTAF.
>>
>>>>>>I take it that you do not fly?
>>
>>>>>I don't fly as much as I would like, but I've had my license since 1978.
>>>>> I'll grant you a few of the FARs could be considered "control", but
>>>>>not in the sense that most use the word. Direction of turns, ROW, etc.,
>>>>>constitute a very, very weak form of control, but with nobody there to
>>>>>monitor it really is voluntary. I don't consider the other items you
>>>>>mention to be forms of control at all.
>>
>>>>>Matt
>>
>>>>Why do you think that we need that much "control" in the first place?
>>
>>>>Know the difference between pilots and Air Traffic Controllers?
>>
>>>>1. If a pilot screws up, the pilot can die.
>>
>>>>2. If an Air Traffic Controller screws up, a pilot can die.
>>
>>>>We don't NEED a tower at most GA airports -- most of those are there for
>>>>training purposes for controllers. In fact, a "controller" "controls"
>>>>nothing -- (s)he is, in reality, a coordinator.
>>
>>>>If the Swiss pilot of the Velocity had made an overhead approach
>>>>instead of straight-in, he would have been behind my flight and I might
>>>>have been sitting at the end of that airport when he dropped in.
>>
>>>>--
>>>>Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>>>Only partially correct. The Velocity initially called in that he was
>>>>landing on 33 but changed to 15 when all other traffic reported that
>>>>they were using 15. The wind was calm. He made a straight-in behind RV
>>>>Flight and caused Red Flight (SX-300s) to alter their pattern. Keith was
>>>>lead in Red Flight and saw it all.
>>
>>>Ok Now I am confused again, :<)...
>>
>>>The velocity departed from Sebastian Fla, which is south of the field
>>>where the crash happened. He would have been making a straight in on
>>>33. If he did change his plan and land on 15 he would have had to
>>>enter a left or right downwind. turn base and then final... Is it
>>>because your squadran of Rv's might have got him a little rattled?
>>>Did your group make a low pass before they landed? I am guessing they
>>>probably do every time they come down for pancakes. I am not trying to
>>>start a fuss but it does seem strange you did make the point to say
>>>his straight in caused Keith and Red Flight to alter their pattern. It
>>>sounds on face value like this was your sandbox and the Velocity was
>>>an intruder... Jus curious ya know..
>>
>>"Our sandbox?" No, but we do frequent their pancake breakfast with 20-30
>>airplanes, which does strain parking. We do not treat others as
>>"intruders." We also try to give others room in the pattern, so I really
>>do not know about the "rattle factor." According to other reports, the
>>Velocity pilot was a Swiss national, living near Sebastian and was
>>supposedly an experienced pilot.
>>
>>The Velocity initially called in from the south, wanting to make a
>>straight-in for 33; however, everybody else was using 15, so he was so
>>informed. The RVs did overfly, some with smoke. I am not sure whether or
>>not they made more than one pass per flight. They broke left from the
>>overhead to downwind and landed.
>>
>>The Velocity apparently circled wide and entered a straight-in for 15.
>>He did NOT enter a standard downwind pattern, otherwise the flights
>>would have adjusted their break to accommodate him. That is what Keith
>>did when he followed the Velocity.
>>
>>I do not know why the Velocity pilot added full power once he left the
>>runway. Had he not done so, he might have ended up with a bent bird, but
>>that is about all, as the grass and rough terrain would have stopped him
>>pretty quickly. According to Keith, he was kicking up a lot of grass and
>>debris after he left the runway. It is even possible that his prop
>>impacted the ground and started to come apart.
>>
>>--
>>Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Thanks for the explanation Orval. Since the Velocity is alot faster
> then your RV's it is understandable he made a wider then normal
> pattern, That would help with the flow of the pattern for sure. I
> still don't fully understand your comments on him doing a "straight
> in". It is not like he was on a 20 mile final,, or was he? As for
> your " WE also try to give others room in the pattern" comes across
> as,( we were here first so eat **** attitude). Most other pilots at
> uncontrolled fields do what they can to give others room in the
> pattern. I could be wrong here although the FAA will probably read
> this as part of the investigation and they might draw a different
> conclusion.
>
> Just my opinion ya know.
>
> Tailwinds,
> Ben

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type of
>> control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
>> accident.
>
> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>
> Matt

Exactly the same "control" as is available for highway traffic. You follow
a prescribed pattern so that traffic can be seen and avoided at the
untowered airport.

On the highway you try to stay on your side of the centerline, and make sure
no one is coming too closely when you cross it to pass someone.

In both cases the "control" requires the informed concensus of the users,
but there is control nonetheless.

Highflyer

PS:
2008 Pinckneyville Rec Aviation Flyin

The annual flyin time is coming around again! I finally got to where I
could find things in the hangar again, which is a sure indication that it is
time to start flyin preparations!

The local motels will be filling up fast again so you may want to get your
reservations in as soon as you can if you want a close motel room.

WHEN: May 16, 17, and 18 this year. Once again, it is the full weekend
prior to the Memorial Day official weekend. This has become the traditional
historical date for the flyin. It allows folks to plan well ahead to this
incredible trek. For many it becomes the cross country trip that they talk
about to everyone that will hold still long enough to listen.

WHERE: Pinckneyville DuQuoin Airport, Pinckneyville, Illinois. PJY is the
airport identifier. Put K in front if you have a fussy GPS. We are about
80 miles southeast of the Arch in St. Louis. There is a 4001 foot ( have to
be over 4000 feet for jets! ) north-south runway ( 18L – 36R ) with an 1800
foot grass runway parallel to the northern half.
( 18R – 36L ) . There is no taxiway. This an access taxiway perpendicular
to the runways. We do have instrument approachs again, but they are GPS
approachs only.

WHAT: The annual t here day get together of the diehards on the
rec.aviation newsgroups. Buddy rides all day and hangar flying all night.
Other entertainment as happens. Beer, soda, and good food. The PJY
barbeque is world renowned, as are the uniquely HOT Italian sausages served
on Thursday night. The Red Lady should be flying this year.

WHO: Pilots, about to be Pilots, wannabe Pilots, and anybody else who is
willing to put up with a bunch of wild eyed folks who talk about airplanes
and flying all day and all night.

COST: This is not one of those “break the bank” flyins. Highflyer and Mary
try to keep the costs in line so that we can have a good time without being
rich. We do that because a lot of people who come to the flyin own
airplanes. We all know that people who own an airplane are not rich
anymore! We try to collect $25 from everyone to defray the cost of the
beverages and the groceries. We do breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day.
Usually we have baby back ribs, steak, and chicken on Saturday night.
Friday night we have something good. No one goes hungry. We do have
something for vegetarians.

ACCOMODATIONS: Pitch a tent next to your airplane if you like. There is no
charge for camping on the field. We have a couple of bathrooms, but no
showers. Generally, if someone really would like to shower one of the folks
in a motel can help you out. We do have a garden hose. There are places
you can park a camper or motorhome near the action. If you are really nice,
we can even run you out an extension cord for an electrical hookup. No
sewer hookups though.

If you want a motel there are several in the area now. The preferred flyin
motel is the Mainstreet Inn, in Pinckneyville. The lady who runs it always
puts up with our group graciously. One year she even shortsheeted every bed
in the place, for a small bribe!
Her phone number is 618-357-2128. The rates are quite reasonable.

A little fancier is the local Oxbow Bed and Breakfast. This is between the
airport and town, right on the edge of town. A number of our folks stay
there every year they come and speak very highly of the establishment.
Their phone number is 618-357-9839.

We always manage to arrange some kind of transportation to and from both of
these places. If they are full there are other motels in the area and
transportation can usually be managed with no particular problems.

HOW: Flying to PJY is the primo way to arrive. If that doesn’t work many
fly commercial to St. Louis and rent a car for the last 90 miles from the
airport. Whatever works for you works for us! Pinckneyville airport is
right on Illinois 127 just six miles south of the town of Pinckneyville.
Route 127 is exit 50 off of I-64. The airport is about 30 miles south of
I-64.

Please send an email to Mary at so that she can get some
idea how many steaks to buy for Saturday night dinner! It makes it a lot
easier when we have some idea of how many people to plan for meals.

Highflyer wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled airport,²
>>> that there are towered and untowered airports, but both have some type of
>>> control. He also explaind that a tower would not have prevented the
>>> accident.
>> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
>> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>>
>> Matt
>
> Exactly the same "control" as is available for highway traffic. You follow
> a prescribed pattern so that traffic can be seen and avoided at the
> untowered airport.
>
> On the highway you try to stay on your side of the centerline, and make sure
> no one is coming too closely when you cross it to pass someone.
>
> In both cases the "control" requires the informed concensus of the users,
> but there is control nonetheless.

If it is voluntary, it isn't control in my book.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Highflyer wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>> He explained that there is no such thing as an ³uncontrolled
>>>> airport,² that there are towered and untowered airports, but both
>>>> have some type of control. He also explaind that a tower would not
>>>> have prevented the accident.
>>> It sounds like an impressive briefing, but I am curious as to what
>>> "control" is available at non-towererd airports?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Exactly the same "control" as is available for highway traffic. You
>> follow a prescribed pattern so that traffic can be seen and avoided at
>> the untowered airport.
>>
>> On the highway you try to stay on your side of the centerline, and
>> make sure no one is coming too closely when you cross it to pass someone.
>>
>> In both cases the "control" requires the informed concensus of the
>> users, but there is control nonetheless.
>
> If it is voluntary, it isn't control in my book.
>
> Matt


So do the towered airports you utilize mount anti aircraft guns or SAMS?
If not, then I think the controls there are no more or less
voluntary than the non-towered airports. My understanding is that the
people in the tower are there to coordinate not enforce. Same logic as
our road system. Small country lanes often have no signage. Traffic
volumes are higher, they have stop and yield signs. If the traffic
volume is high enough they get a light. During peak periods of traffic
they may get a cop on site directing traffic because that level of
coordination is required to keep transit times down and avoid mistakes.
The problem with pancake breakfasts and flyins at really small
airports is that the traffic volume rises to levels that would benefit
from coordination.

Charles