Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's the
RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or the
Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at the
airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.

Ironically, if I were to have to call out the group of pilots who cause the
most trouble around here, it'd be the people flying experimentals, and
primarily homebuilts. Based on that, using your train of thought, I'd want
all experimentals banned from Oshkosh.

I'm thinking that probably wouldn't go over too well, though.

As far as the warbirds themselves, IMHO while there may indeed be a general
attitude problem among them, the real problem is attitude problems
generally. From the various descriptions I've read here alone of events at
Oshkosh, never mind elsewhere, it's clear that the real issue is that
failing to conform to procedures and fly safely is basically condoned.

Would it be a lot of work for the FAA to file actions against each and every
pilot who violates basic safety common sense (the FAA loves 91.13...they
could get to use it a lot at Oshkosh), FARs, and procedures outlined in the
NOTAM? Damn straight it would be. The first year. For that matter, they
need not go after everyone...just triage the offenders, and go after the
worst. Most important: make sure each and every certificate action is VERY
well publicized.

It might take a year or two for pilots to figure out that there just is no
room for screwing around, but I'm sure they would. Each year, there would
be fewer and fewer pilots who need reprimands, and on average the severity
of the incidents should reduce as well. Problems will never be eliminated,
but it sounds as though right now there's a LOT of low-hanging fruit that
needs to be harvested.

Are warbirds a problem? Well...perhaps. But it's not like anyone seems to
be taking the safety issues seriously generally. IMHO, it's a bit premature
to be banning specific classes of airplanes and pilots from Oshkosh, when
huge strides in safety could be made overall by focusing on the BAD pilots
first (and if the majority of the bad pilots are flying warbirds, well then
you help get rid of the warbirds without actually explicitly banning them
).

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's the
RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or the
Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at the
airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've
been watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month.
Nothing looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we
come back from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a
straight-in landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as
you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless
you consider formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side
to be inherently dangerous.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around here,
where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily flying, it's
the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down Lake Sammamish, or
the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead break" to a landing at
the airport, or any number of other pilots doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Then again, maybe we should clarify some terms. My interpretation of
overhead break means entering an upwind over the runway, then flying a
tight pattern from there, usually involving a tight turn from upwind to
cross-/downwind. The rest of the approach is flown as normal. I've been
watching an F-15 squadron fly overhead breaks in SAV for a month. Nothing
looks unsafe about it. We fly the same kind of break when we come back
from some formation work. I do this as an alternative to a straight-in
landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as you announce
what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless you consider
formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side to be
inherently dangerous.

An approach flown from an initial overhead break has a practical side as
well. In the P51 for example, flying a regular pattern with reduced manifold
pressure can really foul up the plugs on you.
An overhead approach allows a tight in circular pattern that can be flown
with the power up in the range that keeps the plugs clean; allows for better
visibility, and allows for easier positioning without losing the runway
under the nose.
This doesn't mean that pilots flying high performance airplanes should
arbitrarily use these approaches without prior approval or radio contact to
clear first. It just means that in high performance airplanes, this type of
approach is requested for practical reasons by practical pilots who know
exactly what they are doing and have no wish to be showing off or violating
anyone's airspace.
Dudley Henriques
Ex P51 pilot........among others :-))

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:54:37 -0400, Bob Martin wrote:

I do this as an alternative to a
straight-in landing, especially if there is other traffic. As long as
you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem... unless
you consider formation flight or patterns smaller than a mile on a side
to be inherently dangerous.

Or there are aircraft in the pattern without radios. Or aircraft in the pattern
tuned to the wrong frequency. Or IFR aircraft flying an approach contrary to
the current traffic flow and listening to Center....as often happens at the
field Peter was talking about.

"The rules and codes and zones they form
Are not for such as I,
Who like the great wild eagles fling
My challenge to the sky,
A bold free spirit charging fierce
Across the fallow land ...
And don't you like these nice white flowers
I'm holding in my hand?"

-Gil Robb Wilson, "The Last Bouquet"

Ron Wanttaja

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
dragging it in for three miles.

This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
pilots may not have been taught to do so.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!

If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
position, rather than the statements you did make.

It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern

In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

keeps you in close

Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

gets you to the downwind

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.

Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
on the ground).

There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
airport traffic safety.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in!

If so, you probably ought to include information in post supporting that
position, rather than the statements you did make.

It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern

In VFR conditions, you can see the whole traffic pattern from final.
Secondly, if you're flying a straight-in, most of the traffic pattern is
moot, especially the upwind and the crosswind.

keeps you in close

Closer than a straight-in? Given that the overhead break necessarily
includes flight over the same ground that the straight-in requires, plus
some more, in what way is this increased time spent aloft better than a
straight-in? And what could be more "in close" than being ON the runway,
rather than flying overhead making your turn to downwind?

Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits. Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.


gets you to the downwind

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

Firstly, the situations I'm talking about are solo planes, not formations.

Secondly, if a particular approach is faster solo, it's faster with a
formation. A formation that can fly all the way to landing (the only way to
actually "get a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one
plane on the ground") can do so using any type of approach, and if the
formation has to split up during the overhead break and enter the pattern as
individual airplanes, then they are occupying just as much of the pattern as
they would had they split up somewhere else (and you certainly are not
getting the whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane
on the ground).

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.


There may indeed be certain types of operations and airplanes for which an
overhead break may be a superior choice but a) you can't generalize those
specific situations to the maneuver overall, and b) pilots need to recognize
that their own operational preferences cannot take priority over general
airport traffic safety.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make t™e runway
if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:25 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
dragging it in for three miles.

This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
pilots may not have been taught to do so.

I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime
in on what they teach you north of the 49th?

Don
[1] San Carlos, CA. Down the road at Palo Alto, they use left and
right patterns for a single runway. I do NOT care for that. I'm
anxious about where the guy in the other pattern is turning base. San
Carlos doesn't do that because there is a lot of helicopter activity
and the helos are segregated on one side of the field and land on the
apron while fixed-wing craft use the other side and land on the
runway.