Oshkosh arrivals

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.

Viperdoc wrote:

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.


That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff
and fly the procedure."

Newps wrote:


Viperdoc wrote:

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.


That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff
and fly the procedure."

You have no idea how much I wish controllers at ADS would start doing
that. It's no Oshkosh, but for crying out loud, people, how hard is it
to a)comprehend the requirements for entering class D and b)learn to
read a map and figure out whether we are north or south of the airport?

Increasing competency is not necessary to increase safety. Flying within
your competency level is sufficient.

Sticking more toes in the water is a way of gaining more experience with
reasonable risk. Decisions made with personal awareness and good judgment
are necessary to limit the risk to oneself and to others. Some pilots may be
willing to take on more risk than others but they should be aware that the
public they fly over may not share their passion.

Airplanes are becoming another gun control issue. Looking at accident
statistics, planes don't kill people, pilots do. Accidents do happen and, in
general, the public can handle that. But, when so many accidents occur with
explanations that point to pilot competency, even I start looking for ways
to regulate the jerks from the cockpit.

I used to rent from a club that required logged time or a flight with one of
their instructors within the past 3 months to rent a plane. I have
maintained that rule of thumb as a personal minimum. If I haven't flown in
three months, I'll hire a CFI with the instructions that he or she hold me
up (or bring me up) to flight review standards.

I use NTSB headlines as my mantra during pre-flight. If I think that some
action would look bad as a headline the next morning, I'll do something
about it.

Some might call it paranoia. But I've got six other voices in my head that
says it's not!

Fly as if your life depends on it!

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

FlipSide wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:24:13 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


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.

The certificate the FAA issues is only a "license to learn". They and
the CFI's naturally have to leave most of the compentency issues up to
the individual pilot to step up to the plate and take this "business"
of flying seriously. To practice, read, study, and think critically
about this privilege the government has given them.

But as a low time aviator I am always questioning how to gain the
experience. I love the idea of flying, but more importantly for me, as
it is with any endeavor I undertake, I want to, no...I NEED to be
exceptional at this.

But these questions always arise every time I call out "clear prop":

With limited resources that can only allow me to fly 5 or 6 hours a
month, am I deluding myself that I can ever be truly competent? What
are my limitations? How will I ever know them unless I actually get to
the edge of those limitations? And if I miscalculate even the
slightest amount it could mean disaster.

As I gain more experience, the thing I want to learn most is in
understanding how far to go to expand the experience. To stick the
proverbial toe in the water further and further. But how far?

Those are the questions I have.

The training has to be self-motivated. I don't think this is something
that can be regulated by the FAA or by the CFI's when it comes to
flying, especially for pleasure.

The pliot HAS to take the responsibility. I don't think this level of
commitment is something that can be taught. It has to come from the
individual.

Unfortunately, according to the what the statistics bear out, it
appears that there are some "certificated pilots" that do not have the
level of commtiment that others have.

Emily wrote:


You have no idea how much I wish controllers at ADS would start doing
that. It's no Oshkosh, but for crying out loud, people, how hard is it
to a)comprehend the requirements for entering class D and b)learn to
read a map and figure out whether we are north or south of the airport?

Emily, I fly in/out of KADS often, my club is based there. When not
flying, I'm often monitoring tower. It is very infrequent that I hear a
pilot who has not checked in with approach for sequencing. What exactly
are you describing? Pilots who are sequenced, but not following vectors
to the field, or pilots who are calling ADS tower without checking in
with approach first?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:16:17 GMT, "Travis Marlatte"
wrote:



I used to rent from a club that required logged time or a flight with one of
their instructors within the past 3 months to rent a plane. I have
maintained that rule of thumb as a personal minimum. If I haven't flown in
three months, I'll hire a CFI with the instructions that he or she hold me
up (or bring me up) to flight review standards.

But those standards are very basic. When I got did my BFR in April and
later got checked out at the last two flight schools, we went out and
did some steep turns, slow flight, power off and power on stalls, a
simulated emergency and some T&G's. The basics.

But that just barely scraped the surface IMO. Those 1 hour flights met
the FAA minimum requirement and the FBO's insurance requirements but
to me it's not really adding anything towards real compentency.

I am finding that the CFI's that I have flown with lately do not
"hold" anyone to a good enough standard. I have to do that on my own.

A co-worker / friend of mine also got checked out at the same FBO. I
went along for the ride in the back seat. The instructor had him do
the typical maneuvers. During two steep turns, reversing directions,
my friend gained 350 feet in altitude. But the instructor never said
a word to him about it. There were some other things during that
flight that were not as precise as I would have expected them to be.
If I had been the instructor, I would have at least mentioned the fact
that he was not within the standards set out by the FAA.

But I wasn't the instructor so I kept my mouth shut thinking that my
friend is not really gaining anything from this guy. Neither was I.

Perhaps for the insurance requirements it's enough to show that you
can at least get the airplane in the sky, fly it slow and then get it
back on the ground, no matter how sloppy you are at doing it.


Fly as if your life depends on it!

It does.

Bruce Riggs wrote:
Emily wrote:

Emily, I fly in/out of KADS often, my club is based there. When not
flying, I'm often monitoring tower. It is very infrequent that I hear a
pilot who has not checked in with approach for sequencing. What exactly
are you describing? Pilots who are sequenced, but not following vectors
to the field, or pilots who are calling ADS tower without checking in
with approach first?

Mostly the second.

I agree with you- if I had been the controller I would have been sorely
tempted to tell the pilot to get an effing clue and go away until you had
some idea as to what was going on.The idiot tied up a lot of valuable radio
time with his "ah's, uh, I'm not so sure where I am, what do I do next, etc"

Perhaps this is why the OSH controllers are hand picked volunteers.

This reminds me of a time when I was flying at St. Augustine, before they
had a tower. They used multiple simultaneous intersecting runways, and
there was a lot of student training activity as well. Some guy was mumbling
on the CTAF about where he was "over the river" trying to land, blah, blah,
blah, Cessna blah, blah, blah, a 172 blah, blah, blah- you get the picture

.. I announced that I was entering the midfield downwind for another runway,
and he started going through 60 questions as to where I was, what color
airplane, the name of my firstborn, and other quesitons, tying up a lot of
airtime during a busy day.

I told him over the air maybe he should talk less and look out the window
instead.

One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used to
read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less chance
of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have to repeat
is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say again"

It seems to work pretty well so far.


"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Viperdoc wrote:

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.


That's BS.. "Sir, turn around and fly at least 100 miles in the opposite
direction. Land. Get the notam. Study it and know it. Then takeoff and
fly the procedure."

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
t...

I agree with you- if I had been the controller I would have been sorely
tempted to tell the pilot to get an effing clue and go away until you had
some idea as to what was going on.The idiot tied up a lot of valuable
radio time with his "ah's, uh, I'm not so sure where I am, what do I do
next, etc"


The quickest way to solve a problem like this is to get the pilot on the
ground.



One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used
to read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less
chance of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have
to repeat is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say
again"



I'm a controller at a field with Class C airspace. Some common problems are
pilots talking too much, taxiing too slow, and flying big patterns. When I
began work on my commercial last year I was informed that I broadcast too
little, taxied too fast, and my patterns were too big.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:18:57 GMT, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
::

One of my friends and aerobatic instructors who now works in a contract
tower but is retired from the FAA gave me some great advice, when I used to
read back every instruction: the less you say over the air, the less chance
of screwing something up. The only thing that you absolutely have to repeat
is a hold short instruction, the rest can be "roger", or "say again"

It seems to work pretty well so far.

But that technique denies the possibility of the controller correcting
any misunderstanding you may have made.