Oshkosh arrivals

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:09:03 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .

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

Last I checked, AirVenture happens only once a year.

But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

[...]
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.


The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
(based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture. This
seems like a disproportionately large percentage of weekly fatal
accidents, but without AirVenture operational statistics, it's
difficult to quantify the magnitude of that percentage.

* http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom.../activity.html


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.

So what?

So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
GA fatalities and incompetence.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

We disagree.

Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
correct.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:06:05 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
::

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.

While the certificate may be a license to learn, it is the FAA
examiner's duty to assure that the flight instructor has prepared the
student adequately to operate within the NAS without committing
violations, and that the student understands the gravity of his
command responsibilities.

With regard to calling exercising your _right_ to traverse the
navigable airspace a _privilege_, there is room for debate.*

But as a low time aviator I am always questioning how to gain the
experience.

Experience is gained one hour aloft at a time. Increasing knowledge
is a result of researching questions that occur as a result of those
hours of operation, and immersing one's self in aviation activities
like participating in the discussions here in rec.aviation.piloting,
hangar discussions with other pilots and CFIs, adding additional
ratings, ...

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.

I find it very encouraging to hear that attitude being expressed by a
newly certified airman. It is far more important than perfectly
executing maneuvers alone. Your instructor did a good job.

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

Count yourself among those who will live to gain expert abilities and
knowledge. Too many airmen fail to fully appreciate their aviation
responsibilities, IMHO. These are the fellows who bust airspace,
because they fail to prepare adequately for a flight, don't
know/follow the regulations, and are so complacent, they don't even
know they don't know. An airman can never cease questioning,
learning, and THINKING.

Here's what another pilot had to say on the subject:

From: "Colin Southern"
Subject: Need some advice...Suddenly not so sonfident...
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:46:43 +1200

Every pilot gives themselves a fright from time-to-time - and
every time it shakes their confidence. I remember a time when I
flew solo to the training area to practice forced landings without
power - botched them all up - nearly had a mid air collision
rejoining the circuit on the way back - then got the aircraft
stuck in mud at the taxiway after heavy rain - then got the
dreaded call from the tower "... and give us a call on the phone
when you get back to the club". Had me wondering for a while if
flying really was for me - but I got over it, and was glad that I
did.

There's an old saying that every pilot starts with a full bag of
luck, and empty bag of experience - the trick being to fill the
bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck"

Sounds like you used a little luck - got back safely - and gained
a lot of experience. Take a little time to analyze your decisions
- have a good think about the decisions you made - and why you
made them - and what you'd do in similar circumstances next time -
so that next time you can apply what you've learned - from the
sound of it you've probably already learned several very valuable
lessons. ...

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?

An hour or more of flying per week should be adequate to keep your
skills current, but increasing competency will require those hours to
contain new challenges and experiences. Think up new destinations,
and operations for your practice flights if you want to continue
growing.

What are my limitations?

There two sources for the answer to that question: the words of a CFI,
and the results of experiences that challenge your latent limitations.
Flying with an instructor never fails to reveal critique of your
performance. Gradually pushing your experience beyond the familiar
will reveal the path beyond your current operational limitations.

How will I ever know them unless I actually get to
the edge of those limitations?

Reading and research can help, but edging toward the edge will provide
more indelibly etched knowledge.

And if I miscalculate even the slightest amount it could mean disaster.

That is true for a PIC all the time. Complacency is a killer in
aviation, just as inattention is for the motorist.

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?

Only you, or your instructor, can answer that, because the answer is
unique to your personal skill set.

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.

Agreed, but a CFI who passes an airman undergoing a flight review,
despite the airman's demonstration of a lack of knowledge, skill, or
ability, is not doing that airman a favor.

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.

If the airman fails to appreciate how crucial commitment and
responsibility are to aviating, he will be eliminated from the ranks
of airmen either voluntarily or involuntarily.

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

The spectrum is broad. There are those who let their egos and
ignorance cloud their judgment and are unjustifiably overconfident,
and there are those who are so apprehensive about committing a fatal
error, that they cease flying altogether.



* Federal Aviation Act of 1958:


PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT


Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
of the United States.


Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938.


Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply
recognizes that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the
government, we simply have them. Now, there are certainly rules
to be followed, but those rules don't take away from your rights,
they protect the rights of others.


You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all
the requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate,
you have a right to it.


However, it seems the Law Judge sees it otherwise:


From: "Rick Cremer"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Arrrgghhh!! FAA strikes again...
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0500
Message-ID:


[...]
NTSB Hearing Order EA-4232; Docket SE-13136. Here is [sic] the
pertinent parts of that Law Judge's finding:


The FAA is charged with being sure that it fulfills its mission to
the public and that is keeping the airways and aircraft that use
these airways safe. Flying is a privilege, it is not a right and
all airmen are charged with discharging their duties in a highly
conscientious, responsible and prudent manner and at all times.
[...]


--
There is no expedient to which a man will not resort
to avoid the real labor of thinking.
-- Sir Joshua Reynolds

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:02:02 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:06:05 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
::


While the certificate may be a license to learn, it is the FAA
examiner's duty to assure that the flight instructor has prepared the
student adequately to operate within the NAS without committing
violations, and that the student understands the gravity of his
command responsibilities.

Interesting that you mention the role of the DE. The one that gave me
my oral exam and the flight test left me wondering to this day about
his abilities.
During a 2 hour oral exam he asked me maybe 5 or 6 direct questions.
Most of the time we spent talking about his flying career as a naval
aviator. Then during the check ride I didn't think that he was as
tough as he should have been. He seemed so "whatever" about everything
I needed to do and in my mind it seemed I never really performed as
competently as I should have.
But I wonder if he was either so experienced and bright that he could
see and recognize my abilities, or if he was completely incompetent. I
will never know.


I find it very encouraging to hear that attitude being expressed by a
newly certified airman. It is far more important than perfectly
executing maneuvers alone. Your instructor did a good job.

The instructors tought me the skill sets. From them I learned the
technical aspects of how to get the airplane up and down safely, but
the attitude I have about flying did not come from my instructors.
It's all about being a perfectionist, and not a satisfactionist.

The want and desire to be "perfect" at every thing you do, even though
it's never unattainable, should nontheless motivate all Airmen all the
time.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
But the time period is one week. The frequency of AirVenture is once
annually, and not germane to this branch of the discussion tree.

Says you. Given that the traffic surrounding Oshkosh is not limited to a
single week, and given that GA traffic in general has a significant increase
during the period that is affected by Oshkosh, and given that the quoted
statistics are stated for "Oshkosh" and not for a specified time period, I'd
say it makes quite a lot of sense to look at Oshkosh incidents relative to
the total annual count. Otherwise, you have do a LOT more statistical
analysis than your simplistic "per week" count, controlling for all the
variables that make an Oshkosh week very different from other weeks during
the year.

I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
specifically. And comparing on an annual basis shows that pilots are quite
effective at crashing planes and killing people year-round. We could stop
Oshkosh altogether, and not make any noticeable change in the annual
accident rate.

The point is, that the average rate of fatal accidents is 5.6/week,
but out of all the ~800,000* GA flying operations that occur each
week, 36% of the fatal operations occur during the AirVenture week
(based on two fatal accidents per event) occur at AirVenture.

You are assigning any fatalities associated with Oshkosh, but are
arbitrarily assigning the time period as a week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during the week of Oshkosh are
comparable to flying operations during every other week of the year. That's
a flaw in your thinking.

Also, you are assuming that flying operations during a summer week are
comparable to flying operatings during a winter week. That's a flaw in your
thinking.

Also, you are assuming that the relative hazard associated with Oshkosh,
where there's an *extremely* high density of air traffic, is comparable to
the relative hazard at any other airport, regardless of how few operations
that airport may see. That's a flaw in your thinking.

Your thinking has a lot of flaws in it.

So a nationally publicized GA event shouldn't be the poster child for
GA fatalities and incompetence.

Why not? It's a poster child for every other aspect of GA. Why should it
not be a poster child for the truth that GA is filled with incompetent
pilots?

The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
and not excluded from GA.

My point is simply that you people who are surprised and dismayed crashes
happen at Oshkosh need a reality check. Especially about the "surprised"
part.

We disagree.

Of course you disagree. You're surprised and I'm saying you shouldn't be.
I would be surprised if you *didn't* disagree.

Without the AirVenture operational statistics, we'll never know who's
correct.

The operational statistics of AirVenture have nothing to do with whether you
should be surprised or not.

Pete

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:43:53 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
::

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:02:02 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:06:05 -0400, FlipSide wrote in
::


Interesting that you mention the role of the DE. The one that gave me
my oral exam and the flight test left me wondering to this day about
his abilities.
During a 2 hour oral exam he asked me maybe 5 or 6 direct questions.
Most of the time we spent talking about his flying career as a naval
aviator. Then during the check ride I didn't think that he was as
tough as he should have been. He seemed so "whatever" about everything
I needed to do and in my mind it seemed I never really performed as
competently as I should have.
But I wonder if he was either so experienced and bright that he could
see and recognize my abilities, or if he was completely incompetent. I
will never know.

There's a good chance that the CFI, who trained you and signed-off on
your checkride with the DE, spoke to the DE in advance, and related
his assessment of your skills. Perhaps that's what put the DE at ease
in your case.


I find it very encouraging to hear that attitude being expressed by a
newly certified airman. It is far more important than perfectly
executing maneuvers alone. Your instructor did a good job.

The instructors tought me the skill sets. From them I learned the
technical aspects of how to get the airplane up and down safely, but
the attitude I have about flying did not come from my instructors.
It's all about being a perfectionist, and not a satisfactionist.

The want and desire to be "perfect" at every thing you do, even though
it's never unattainable [sic] , should nontheless motivate all Airmen all the
time.

If you meant 'attainable' there, I agree, and you have provided an
example. :-)

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


That used to be true. As I understand it now, it is a simple time-in-grade
procedure. That is, if you work in the Great Lakes region, the folks who
have been ATC the longest get preference over the younger (but perhaps
"better") controllers. Please correct me if I am wrong. I've heard a
couple this year who were absolutely excellent and a couple I wouldn't trust
to control a bicycle.

While I'm on a rant, there was an @$$#0!e yesterday who called in "at the
shoreline" asking for landing clearance at OSH. This with the normal noon
heavy inbound and outbound, the NS airspace with the flyby demonstrations,
Blue Angel #7 making a few passes for the crowd, and the normal gaggle of
folks flailing about the airspace doing their best to keep the flow going.
The "shoreline" of Lake Winnebago is what, 50 miles long? Above Appleton to
below FondDuLac?

Controller tells the idiot to follow the Ripon approach procedures. "I ...
um ... left the ... um ... notam ... on the ... um ... breakfast ... um ...
table ... um ... could ...um ... you ... um ... read the procedure ... um
.... to me?"

Controller: "Sir, there are ten airports within a 20 mile radius of Oshkosh.
Please land at one of them and get a notam procedure. And the field is
closed to general aviation aircraft."

Idiot: "...um ... I've got special parking ... um ... permission ... and ...
um ... I don't ... um ... think (SQUEEL as tower tries to control traffic
over the idiot's transmission) ... get there before ... um ... you close the
.... um ... airport for the ... um ... airshow.

Controller: "OK, sir, go to Ripon and follow the railroad tracks to Fisk.
Monitor 120.7 and follow the Fisk controller's directions.

Idiot: " ... um ... where's Ripon?"

Controller: "Sir, look on your sectional chart. It is about fifteen miles
southwest of Oshkosh."

Idiot "... um ... I've only ... um ... got instrument charts ... um ... with
me. Is ... um ... Ripon ... an ... intersection?"

Controller: "Yes sir, you ought to be able to call it up on your GPS."

Idiot: " ... um ... ... um ... Oh, yeah, there it is. Now I ... um ...
follow the railroad ... um ... tracks southwest ... to find ... Fisk?"

Controller: "No, sir, Fisk is northeast of Ripon."

And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
then something is rotten in Denmark.

Jim

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:29:09 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote in ::

And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
then something is rotten in Denmark.

It's pretty clear from the information you provided, that the airman
in question was at least in violation of:


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.10&idno=14
§ 91.103 Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight.
This information must include— ...

When ATC fails to issue a "call the tower" request in these
situations, I wonder if it's kindness, or irresponsibility.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:28:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


The want and desire to be "perfect" at every thing you do, even though
it's never unattainable [sic] , should nontheless motivate all Airmen all the
time.

If you meant 'attainable' there, I agree, and you have provided an
example. :-)

oops....did some editing at the last minute and left a combination of
two different sentences....indeed.... it's never attainable.

I agree that comparing to annual statistics is a simplification as well, but
it's a simplification that removes all of the variables that you'd have to
correct for if you're going to analyze it based on the Oshkosh time period
specifically.

The more flights, the more crashes. It's that simple. At the very
least, dividing the number of accidents by the number of airport
operations would make a much more enlightening comparision. Yes, there
are other variables, as you indicated. But I suspect that the sheer
number of operations at Oshkosh would overwhelm most of the other
variables to first order.

The only real surprise here might be that many people might be surprised to
find that GA has so many incompetent pilots. But since so many people are
incompetent generally, in truth it's not even a surprise that so many people
are incompetent to recognize that incompetence is a general human condition,
and not excluded from GA.

There's also a difference between "incometent" and "imperfect". Where
is the line? Sure I can find clear examples in each camp, but what are
the examples for which you (or anyone else) would not be sure which camp
it belongs in?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I heard that guy too. They also had to spell Ripon for him. There was no
point in his radio communication that he showed the least bit of skill. I
really thought that it was going to end badly.

Since he said he was coming in IFR I looked around on Flight Aware to see if
I could figure out who he was and what he was flying. But there is no way to
look up a partial N# and I couldn't find anything listed with the partial he
called.



"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

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


That used to be true. As I understand it now, it is a simple
time-in-grade procedure. That is, if you work in the Great Lakes region,
the folks who have been ATC the longest get preference over the younger
(but perhaps "better") controllers. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I've heard a couple this year who were absolutely excellent and a couple I
wouldn't trust to control a bicycle.

While I'm on a rant, there was an @$$#0!e yesterday who called in "at the
shoreline" asking for landing clearance at OSH. This with the normal noon
heavy inbound and outbound, the NS airspace with the flyby demonstrations,
Blue Angel #7 making a few passes for the crowd, and the normal gaggle of
folks flailing about the airspace doing their best to keep the flow going.
The "shoreline" of Lake Winnebago is what, 50 miles long? Above Appleton
to below FondDuLac?

Controller tells the idiot to follow the Ripon approach procedures. "I
... um ... left the ... um ... notam ... on the ... um ... breakfast ...
um ... table ... um ... could ...um ... you ... um ... read the procedure
... um ... to me?"

Controller: "Sir, there are ten airports within a 20 mile radius of
Oshkosh. Please land at one of them and get a notam procedure. And the
field is closed to general aviation aircraft."

Idiot: "...um ... I've got special parking ... um ... permission ... and
... um ... I don't ... um ... think (SQUEEL as tower tries to control
traffic over the idiot's transmission) ... get there before ... um ... you
close the ... um ... airport for the ... um ... airshow.

Controller: "OK, sir, go to Ripon and follow the railroad tracks to Fisk.
Monitor 120.7 and follow the Fisk controller's directions.

Idiot: " ... um ... where's Ripon?"

Controller: "Sir, look on your sectional chart. It is about fifteen
miles southwest of Oshkosh."

Idiot "... um ... I've only ... um ... got instrument charts ... um ...
with me. Is ... um ... Ripon ... an ... intersection?"

Controller: "Yes sir, you ought to be able to call it up on your GPS."

Idiot: " ... um ... ... um ... Oh, yeah, there it is. Now I ... um ...
follow the railroad ... um ... tracks southwest ... to find ... Fisk?"

Controller: "No, sir, Fisk is northeast of Ripon."

And so on for at least 15 minutes. If the feds don't track that guy down
and give him a little lesson in preflight planning and radio procedures,
then something is rotten in Denmark.

Jim