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