"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots"

Jim Macklin wrote:
If you fly at
180 mph (Bonanza class)


If I'm throttled back.

On 10 Oct 2006 11:56:56 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com:

Oshkosh is
well run, and continues to have a very good safety record, despite
these few transgressions. Pilots policing themselves (with peer
pressure and harsh articles like Rick's) will ultimately have the
desired effect, and will go a long ways toward stopping the "Morons to
Oshkosh".

All should be aware, that EAA members do not typify airmen in general.
They are a 'special' group of airmen, many of whom do a lot more
building than flying throughout the year, which may account for the
issue Mr. Durden's article addresses.

Larry Dighera wrote:
All should be aware, that EAA members do not typify airmen in general.
They are a 'special' group of airmen, many of whom do a lot more
building than flying throughout the year, which may account for the
issue Mr. Durden's article addresses.

Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error. Homebuilt aircraft admittedly have more accidents
overall due to mechanical failures, but that has nothing to do with what was
going on at Oshkosh. In my opinion, Mr. Durden's article was about too many
pilots with too little concern for safety trying to be in the same place at
the same time.

Tom Young (building the world's safest RV-4)

Tom Young wrote:




Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error.

I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me.
Big EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a
test pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111.
He should know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25
years after his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy
you've ever met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it
up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
pounds over gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just
like on the General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way. Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies
20 miles away and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system.
Then he proceeds to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane
in half. Breaks his back and has to walk out to a road to be found.
Scratch one ****box Kitfox. Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This
is ****box number two. Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel. Takes it out for
taxi practice on another day with a storm approaching, ground loops it
and breaks the spar a couple feet in from the end. Opens up the wing
and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
back up. Not even remotely airworthy. Most EAA guys I've seen aren't
this bad but they are the absolute bottom of the barrel pilot skill wise.

Newps wrote:
Tom Young wrote:




Doubtful. An analysis of homebuilt accidents in Kitplanes magazine a couple
of year ago (October 2004) shows that homebuilders are higher time pilots
than the average GA pilot and have fewer accidents, hour for hour, that
involve pilot error.

I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me.
Big EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a
test pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111.
He should know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25
years after his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy
you've ever met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it
up with so much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50
pounds over gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just
like on the General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time
by the way. Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies
20 miles away and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system.
Then he proceeds to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane
in half. Breaks his back and has to walk out to a road to be found.
Scratch one ****box Kitfox. Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This
is ****box number two. Yoke won't smoothly go in and out because he has
stuff behind the panel interfering with its travel. Takes it out for
taxi practice on another day with a storm approaching, ground loops it
and breaks the spar a couple feet in from the end. Opens up the wing
and screws a metal patch on either side of busted spar and covers it all
back up. Not even remotely airworthy. Most EAA guys I've seen aren't
this bad but they are the absolute bottom of the barrel pilot skill wise.


And this is all perfectly legal under the FARs.

Newps wrote:
I can vouch for that. There's a guy just down the hangar row from me. Big
EAA guy. Thousands of hours as a Navy pilot. He went on to be a test
pilot. He was one of the test pilots for the F14, F18 and F111. He should
know more than mopst of us put together. Now fast forwad 25 years after
his militray career is over. Quite possibly the dumbest guy you've ever
met. He built a Kitfox, which is dumb enough, but loaded it up with so
much crap that with a full tank and him on board he was 50 pounds over
gross. He installed an air horn, yes, an air horn. Just like on the
General Lee. Took off on his first flight, no tailwheel time by the way.
Storms approaching, wind blowing 15 kts at takeoff. Flies 20 miles away
and engine pukes because he screwed up the fuel system. Then he proceeds
to deadstick, with a 30 kt tailwind and busts the plane in half. Breaks
his back and has to walk out to a road to be found. Scratch one ****box
Kitfox.

Good story, but it sounds like the decision of a macho doofus who
overestimated his skills and underestimated the demands of his aircraft, not
your average experimental builder. Most of us -- the ones with brains,
anyway -- work with EAA tech counselors to get building advice and
inspections during the building process, and we work with flight advisors
for checking out the aircraft THOROUGHLY before the first flight and during
the testing phase. Many builders wouldn't even consider being the first to
test fly their airplane, because, yeah, that makes them a test pilot and
they know they don't have the skills.

Now he's rebuilding an Aeronca Chief. This is ****box number two. Yoke
won't smoothly go in and out because he has stuff behind the panel
interfering with its travel. Takes it out for taxi practice on another
day with a storm approaching, ground loops it and breaks the spar a couple
feet in from the end. Opens up the wing and screws a metal patch on
either side of busted spar and covers it all back up. Not even remotely
airworthy.

****box number two is not an experimental aircraft, so this accident goes
into the non-experimental category. From where I'm standing it looks like a
wash: one accident for an experimental aircraft, one for a normal aircraft.

Tom Young

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

The author, Rick Durden, is a regular here, and a straight shooter.
What he says in that article is 100% on the money.

I agree completely. I was there too, and although I haven't been there as many times as Jay has, it was
chaotic enough to really think about the risks involved. We were following two RV's who had no concept
of the traffic pattern, how to hold altitude and speed at the same time, how to follow instructions, how to
wait their turn, etc. I have no idea if they had the Notam, but in short, it was just a mess.

That said, the FAA itself was largely to blame for much of the
confusion over Rush and Green Lakes this year. (I know -- I was
there.) If the controllers had only said "Guys, there's been an
accident on the field, and we don't know how long the hold is going to
be." -- half the planes holding would have diverted to other airports
to wait it out.

Yes, a little information would have gone a long way. I was about "that close" to bailing out of the holding
pattern and going to land somewhere until the rush (no pun) died down. An estimate of the closure time
would have been very helpful, and maybe a calming influence on the rabble.

Mike

On 10 Oct 2006 05:23:16 -0700, "Skylune" wrote:

Thanks to AVweb for this column. The pilot makes the point better than
I.


http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/193321-1.html

And as others have already said, the ones he singles out are a very
small number and small percentage of those flying in.

You also have to remember Oshkosh is a flying environment that few
pilots (relatively speaking) get exposed to and for those that go it's
the only time many of them are exposed to that kind of flying.

For instance and probably the biggest difference: We are all taught
to fly a stabilized pattern and that good landings come from a well
set up pattern. At Oshkosh you are flying *close* to other airplanes
and you have some one else telling you when to turn, where to turn,
and the spot on the runway where _you_are_going_to_put_it_down, or you
had better at least be close. You may need to slow down quickly or
keep the speed up or both. The one thing certain is you won't be
flying a stabilized pattern.

Osh really isn't a place for those who only fly stabilized patterns,
nor is it a place for those who do not have the patience and foresight
to plan ahead and do what they are told, when they are told. They
probably haven't set up in the clouds flying racetrack patterns
(Holds) waiting for a spot to land. They aren't used to carrying a
couple extra hours worth of fuel for the "just-in-case" they have to
hold for a couple of hours. Maybe they have an airsick passenger, or
one that just developed a case of the green apple two step and don't
know how to let ATC know they have a problem Maybe it's a case of
"Get there itis" where they are getting low on fuel and don't think
they'll be able to get into OSH if they leave the pattern and go some
where else to top off the tanks and start the whole thing over again.

All this after having spent 2 hours flying up the rail road tracks,
then flying around the lake, while all the time being far closer to
other airplanes and pilots than they ever have before. They have been
doing this under more pressure than they have ever been under before
while being able to see their destination just off to the right a ways
for the last hour or two while also being just a half a hair from a
panic attack. Then there is the guy in a high performance single
behind a T-craft whose pilot has decided to slow down to minimum
control speed for the single 10 miles out. Or OTOH the guy in the
T-craft that has only flown in and out of couple of grass strips for
the last 10 years and now has traffic piling up behind him. (really
close)

Many on here probably remember the infamous "Blue Bonanza". ATC was
telling him to keep his speed up,keep his speed up, then put the gear
down now, blue bonanza turn base now....Blue Bonanza turn base
now.....BLUE....BONANZA....TURN...BASE...NOW...si gh Awwwww...don't
go clear to the lakeee...Said Bo proceeded to fly all the way to the
edge of Lake Winabago, turn right base which was going to cut off a
twin on IFR to 27, and then proceed to fly a long final to 27. It was
quite obvious the pilot flew nothing but stabilized patterns at
specific air speeds for each leg. That was years back but I'm sure
they had a talk with him.

That is not an excuse or reason for their performance, but rather a
reason they shouldn't be in that situation in the first place.
Like any high pressure environment Osh can bring out the best and
worst in people.

I've been on an IFR approach to 27 coming up on the west lake shore
(meaning I was getting close) when the tower warned me about a 182
coming from the south. He came up the lake shore and turned in for
final on 27. The tower had worked things so the VFR traffic to 27 and
I would dove tail nicely. They hadn't planned on the 182. I don't
remember for sure what happened to the 182. I don't remember if he had
to go around or if he landed but it seems as he landed and the safety
crew had a talk with him, but that was a few years ago. I do know his
right seat passenger got a good look at me as I could see his eyes
open wide as they made the left turn in front of me as I had to alter
course so we didn't occupy the same place at the same time. I don't
think the other pilot knew I was there unless his passenger let him
know.


With this attitude towards fellow aviators, imagine how they feel about
noise abatement procedures, which are purely voluntary!!!

I think a lot more needs to be taken into account with most of those
pilots. True, they shouldn't have been there if they couldn't take the
pressure, follow the rules, or take time to get the NOTAM, but I think
in many cases its probably more than just an attitude. I'd bet that
most of them are "out of their element" (clueless comes to mind) and
are going to get on the ground regardless. Do I think the FAA should
take them to task? You bet I do.

When "in their element" meaning doing the type of flying they normally
do I'd bet most of these pilots do pretty well, but they do not have
the proficiency, or the capacity to be in such a high pressure
environment.

When you consider OSH may be running twice the movements O'Hare in 24
hours and they are doing it in day light only AND with the *reduced*
separation standards, the controllers do one mighty find job and they
have my respect. At times there are so many airplanes in the air it
looks like a swarm of bees or birds coming in.


Excellent article, which will go into the file....
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Dudley explains
You also have to remember Oshkosh is a flying environment that few
pilots (relatively speaking) get exposed to and for those that go it's
the only time many of them are exposed to that kind of flying.

Yuppers. That's me. And that's why last year, when I took the putt-putt
to OSH (instead of that United 747 to ORD, then into ATW) I invited
a couple friends who had flown to OSH a number of times. For the last
leg (about an hour) DS flew the route along the tracks and did the
landing. I kept my head swiveling and was absolutely astonished at
the traffic -- and how close all those other airplanes were!

Would I do the landing next time? I'm not sure. I had been practicing
very small patterns and attempting spot landings but I'm convinced
that I wouldn't have done well at OSH.