Oshkosh arrivals

Larry Dighera wrote:



I am appalled to find that flying to and from the nation's largest
aviation event kills a number of airman each year.

I'm not appalled at all. I've worked as a controller at many airshows,
all much smaller than OSH. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid so
many pilots are. They have no clue how to operate in controlled
airspace. The fact that there's only 10 or so deaths at OSH is remarkable.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:14:06 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::



Larry Dighera wrote:



I am appalled to find that flying to and from the nation's largest
aviation event kills a number of airman each year.

I'm not appalled at all. I've worked as a controller at many airshows,
all much smaller than OSH. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid so
many pilots are. They have no clue how to operate in controlled
airspace. The fact that there's only 10 or so deaths at OSH is remarkable.

It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
their fellows in the eyes of the public.

What can be done to increase their level of competency? Would an FAA
crackdown on the CFIs who signed off on errant airmens' last flight
review help motivate CFIs to provide them with the training they
apparently need?

Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate sicking the Administrator's
minions on any airmen, but I'm unable to conceive of a better way to
sharpen up those airmen who really need it to be safe.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:14:06 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::

I'm not appalled at all. I've worked as a controller at many airshows,
all much smaller than OSH. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid so
many pilots are. They have no clue how to operate in controlled
airspace. The fact that there's only 10 or so deaths at OSH is
remarkable.

It saddens me to hear that depressing news coming from an experienced
Air Traffic Controller. Their misdeeds reflect badly on the rest of
their fellows in the eyes of the public.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at yours and Newps's surprise. Especially his,
since he goes around calling practically everyone stupid anyway.

The truth is, most people are stupid. Half have two-digit IQs. Even among
the supposedly smart people, there's a consistent lack of common sense. And
in spite of those who would like to think we pilots are an elite group,
there's about the same proportion of stupidity in aviation as in the general
population.

Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6 deaths
per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so, with
fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given the huge
amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6 or 10 deaths
per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

What's really annoying is that this sort of predictable outcome is somehow
considered unusually bad by those outside aviation (or those within, for
that matter). People kill themselves doing stupid things all the time. The
only reason we don't have more motor vehicle fatalities each year is that
the vehicles themselves have been made so much safer. We have more
accidents than ever (due to rising population), but fatalities have remained
roughly level at around 50,000 per year. But is that because people have
gotten smarter? Nope...they're just as dumb as they've always been. We've
just engineered some of the risk out of driving.

Similar advancements have not made it to aviation, and of course there are a
variety of reasons that aviation accidents tend to involve higher forces
anyway (airplanes need airspeed to fly, helicopters don't glide very well,
especially if there's been some kind of severe mechanical failure, etc.).
But if the accident rate at Oshkosh, or in GA generally, reflects poorly on
pilots specifically, then it reflects poorly on humanity in general. Those
who look down upon all the people causing accidents forget just what kind of
animal a human is after all.

As long as humans exist, there will be a significant number of them finding
ways to kill themselves. Most of the time, those ways won't even be new and
unique or interesting in any way. They'll just be plain dumb.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[...]
Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
deaths per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so, with
fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given the
huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6 or 10
deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

Sorry...I misread the AOPA article I was looking at. 2000/year is the
accident rate, not the fatality rate. The fatalities are about a third in
number of the total accident rate.

Still...6 or 10 doesn't sound that out of line, especially when you consider
the high-risk environment (naturally, you will see a higher accident and
fatality rate in higher-risk environments, by definition).

In any case, I still hold to my assertion that no one should be surprised
that there are stupid pilots.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[...]
Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6
deaths per year" claim is supported by historical data. But even so,
with fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently), given
the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6
or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA
population.

Sorry...I misread the AOPA article I was looking at. 2000/year is the
accident rate, not the fatality rate. The fatalities are about a third in
number of the total accident rate.

Still...6 or 10 doesn't sound that out of line, especially when you
consider the high-risk environment (naturally, you will see a higher
accident and fatality rate in higher-risk environments, by definition).

In any case, I still hold to my assertion that no one should be surprised
that there are stupid pilots.

A couple of thoughts:

1) For the Saturday flyer, Oshkosh is one of few times each year when
s/he'll load up the airplane to the max, then have to fly the airplane well
in a tight pattern. This greatly increases the risk factor.

2) Beyond that, lots of aircraft arrive at the fly-in with legal CG's, but
loaded well aft of where the pilot is accustomed to flying the aircraft.

Both of these issues are proficiency related, and I'm not sure anyone but
Darwin can address that one.

Next, there is the idiot factor. I believe the FAA can address some of
this. For example, the person who flys the approach completely wrong,
doesn't follow the NOTAM, etc. Those folks should get pulled aside after
their hopefully safe arrival, and the FAA should politely make sure they
have their stuff together...
- Show me your copy of the NOTAM.
- Why didn't you follow the procedures?
- etc.

I'm not calling for this for the guy who bounces a landing, but for the
people who obviously don't have a clue, there should be some remedial action
taken.

KB

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:23:06 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote in
::

A couple of thoughts:

3. The proportion of aircraft building airman who attend AirVenture
is much larger than the general population of pilots. While piloting
requires certain skills and knowledge, home building skills and
knowledge do not significantly contribute to good airmanship. I would
think it would be difficult to MASTER BOTH arts.

Kyle Boatright wrote:


Next, there is the idiot factor. I believe the FAA can address some of
this. For example, the person who flys the approach completely wrong,
doesn't follow the NOTAM, etc. Those folks should get pulled aside after
their hopefully safe arrival, and the FAA should politely make sure they
have their stuff together...
- Show me your copy of the NOTAM.
- Why didn't you follow the procedures?
- etc.

I've never been to OSH, but based on what I've seen at other places the
FAA can't dream of having the manpower available to have a chat with
every pilot that screws up the arrival.

Agree completely. Was listening to the live ATC broadcast, and someone in a
Canadian registered plane calls up and starts talking, also in the wrong
place and completely oblivious. The controller asked him if he had the
arrival notams and where exactly he was, but the guy said he did not have
the information, and was around 5 southwest.

The controller was a model of cool, and went through the normal procedures
to identify the guy and get him sequenced. It's amazing that more crashes
don't actually occur.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:14:37 -0600, Newps wrote:
I've never been to OSH, but based on what I've seen at other places the
FAA can't dream of having the manpower available to have a chat with
every pilot that screws up the arrival.

Considering the number of planes that fly into there during such a
short timespan, I think they do pretty damn good... I've flow in and
out of there 3 times so far... A little research (i.e. read the
****in' NOTAM beforehand) and things go pretty good... Be familiar
enough with the various approaches that you can handle the case where
they change approaches on you and you'll do fine... Nothing quite like
the bit of adrenaline rush of being in the flare and then the
controllers asking you to switch to the parallel runway... Oh yeah,
you should also be familiar with your plane so that you can handle
these impromptu diversions...

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:42:30 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

And in spite of those who would like to think we pilots are an elite group,
there's about the same proportion of stupidity in aviation as in the general
population.

I find that statistic difficult to accept; perhaps I don't exactly
understand what you mean by "the same proportion." (Are you saying
that 50% of airmen have two digit IQs?)

The vast majority of the general population would find mastering the
art and science of aviation beyond their ken. Even metrology alone is
incomprehensible to most folks.

Now, it would surprise me if the "10 deaths per year", or even the "6 deaths
per year" claim is supported by historical data.

I thought the time period under discussion was the week or so during
AirVenture, not per year.

2005 Nall Report information:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html
Total Fixed-Wing GA accidents in 2004: 1,413, 290 fatal. (pp 2)

Personal Flying Accidents: 748 total/ 168 fatal

Personal flying (for example: visiting friends or family,
traveling to a vacation home or for recreation) represents about
half (50.1 percent) of all GA flying (involving fixed-wing general
aviation aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less), but
accounts for 73.8 percent of fatal and 70.6 percent of nonfatal
accidents (Figure 25). This type of flying accounted for nearly
three-quarters (72.9 percent) of all weather-related accidents,
and 75.6 percent of weather-related fatal crashes. Fuel management
is another challenge for pilots on personal flights; three out of
four of the total, and 87.5 percent of the fatal fuel management
accidents occurred during this type of flying. Personal flights
also accounted for 72.1 percent of all descent/approach accidents
(77.1 percent of the fatals), and 72.9 percent of landing
accidents (88.9 percent of the fatals).

But even so, with fatalities running around 2000/year (a little less recently),

Where did you get that figure? The total number of GA ACCIDENTS in
2004 was 1,413, and the total number of fatal accidents was 290
totaling 510 fatalities.

given the huge amount of GA traffic at Oshkosh, I'm not even convinced that 6
or 10 deaths per year is all that out of line with the overall GA population.

First, we should be discussing the number of FATAL ACCIDENTS occurring
at AirVenture, not the number of FATALITIES (for it is an accident
that generates a news story or NTSB report). That error (290 vs 2,000
[your figure]) is probably the source of your lack of concern at the
appalling rate of fatal accidents that occur as a result of
AirVenture.

In any event, one would have to have statistics about the AirVenture
accidents to validate your assertion against the Nall Report.

What's really annoying is that this sort of predictable outcome is somehow
considered unusually bad by those outside aviation (or those within, for
that matter).

The general public bestows a smattering of god status on pilots; after
all, we do hold human lives in our hands to a much greater extent than
say, a bus driver. When we fail to meet those expectations, it shakes
the public trust they have placed in us.

People kill themselves doing stupid things all the time. The
only reason we don't have more motor vehicle fatalities each year is that
the vehicles themselves have been made so much safer. We have more
accidents than ever (due to rising population), but fatalities have remained
roughly level at around 50,000 per year. But is that because people have
gotten smarter? Nope...they're just as dumb as they've always been. We've
just engineered some of the risk out of driving.

That, and the fact that the velocities involved and unforgiving nature
of aviation tend to make what would be a routine matter to a motorist
(say engine failure), a life and death emergency for air travel.

Similar advancements have not made it to aviation,

With the obvious exception of the ballistic parachute, XM real-time
weather information, GPS navigation, ....

But if the accident rate at Oshkosh, or in GA generally, reflects poorly on
pilots specifically, then it reflects poorly on humanity in general. Those
who look down upon all the people causing accidents forget just what kind of
animal a human is after all.

Like I said at the beginning of this follow up article, the general
population doesn't have to pass a written and practical examination
that airmen must. I believe that sets airmen apart from the general
population, just as college grads are a considerably unique group
compared to the general population.

But, my point is, that here we have pilots making a rather large
national statement (AirVenture), but killing themselves in the public
view while doing it. That can't be good PR for GA.