Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

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

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.

Bob Martin wrote:
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?"

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like
to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

THANKS, JIM!

-c

Jim,

Most of the warbirds are classed as Experimental. By definition, they
are "our own" as much as the squadrons of glass-cockpit RVs and
Lancairs and the increasingly-rare builder-designed or even plans-built
birds.

Aviation - especially Experimental aviation, VERY especially
high-density Experimental aviation - is a high-risk endeavor.
Situational awareness is never perfect. Accidents DO happen.

A good many T-6 drivers may be hot-doggers. The waddling TBM doesn't
lend itself to that sort of attitude, though. Having seen TBMs and RVs
up close, though, I can understand how it might be hard to see an RV
from a TBM - especially if it was close-aboard.

To the under-30 crowd who "can't relate" to WW2 aircraft, I
respectfully submit the observation that if not for those aircraft -
and the men and women (now in their 80s if they're alive at all) who
built, maintained, and flew them - you would almost certainly not be
reading this post today. Totalitarian states do not permit
experimental aviation.

Those "ancient clattertraps" serve to remind us that freedom such as we
enjoy is not - has never been, will never be - free.

-Corrie

RST Engineering wrote:
So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
this sort of stupidity.

Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

Jim

Jim,

Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate them and the sacrifices of
those who operated them. The vaccuum tube computer was an important
invention in history too and should be preserved. However, it would be
a mere passing curiosity at today's Consumer Electornics Show for
instance.

It's not that they are not important, but that for me _personally_ they
do not hold my interest. They apparently interest plenty of other
people and that's fine.... I'll go look at the Cirrus and Eclipse
exhibits during that part of the airshow!

--Dan



CB wrote:
Jim,

Most of the warbirds are classed as Experimental. By definition, they
are "our own" as much as the squadrons of glass-cockpit RVs and
Lancairs and the increasingly-rare builder-designed or even plans-built
birds.

Aviation - especially Experimental aviation, VERY especially
high-density Experimental aviation - is a high-risk endeavor.
Situational awareness is never perfect. Accidents DO happen.

A good many T-6 drivers may be hot-doggers. The waddling TBM doesn't
lend itself to that sort of attitude, though. Having seen TBMs and RVs
up close, though, I can understand how it might be hard to see an RV
from a TBM - especially if it was close-aboard.

To the under-30 crowd who "can't relate" to WW2 aircraft, I
respectfully submit the observation that if not for those aircraft -
and the men and women (now in their 80s if they're alive at all) who
built, maintained, and flew them - you would almost certainly not be
reading this post today. Totalitarian states do not permit
experimental aviation.

Those "ancient clattertraps" serve to remind us that freedom such as we
enjoy is not - has never been, will never be - free.

-Corrie

RST Engineering wrote:
So this afternoon, one of the WWII warbird people who has more money than
good sense, and who never learned how to clear the taxiway in front of his
aircraft, killed one of our own. There has to be some sort of payback for
this sort of stupidity.

Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

Jim

wrote:


Totalitarian states do not permit experimental aviation.

Not true. The German Nazi regime of the 1930s loved experimental aviation
(and experimental rocketry), they even gave financial support. A lot of the
amateur designers and pilots then went on to play a big part in the Second
World War. The contemporary British government tried everything it could to
stop amateurs getting into the air.

As a result, surviving the Battle of Britain (1940) was as much a matter of
luck as judgment. Later on we had to put up with bombs mysteriously falling
out of the sky (the V2 long range rocket). If the war in Europe had gone on
much longer the first man in space would have been a German piloting a
two-stage missile to New York.

BTW this difference in attitude between British and German governments
continues to this day. This explains why German radio hams are putting
together a Mars lander, and we can't fly a suitably-equipped Lancair in IFR.