Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Well, for better or worse, flying straight-in, it's the other traffic that
has to sequence for you. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing
(it's one of the reasonable arguments against flying a straight-in), but
it's not a complication that exists for a straight-in approach.


So a "reasonable argument" against flying a straight-in is it forces other
traffic to yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final?

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
So a "reasonable argument" against flying a straight-in is it forces other
traffic to yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final?

No. A straight-in approach does not in and of itself force other traffic to
yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final. The FARs do that.

What a straight-in does is *possibly* inconvenience traffic already in the
pattern by requiring them to adjust their flight path in the pattern to
accomodate the aircraft flying the straight-in, as a result of the
afore-mentioned FAR requirement.

The way the argument goes, it's a "they were there first" situation (where
"they" are the airplanes who have to deviate, who were "in the pattern
first"). I'm not personally motivated strongly by the argument, both
because aviation isn't always about who was "there first", and because
depending on how one looks at it, the airplane on final was "there first"
(on final first, that is). But I acknowledge it as a reasonable
philosophical position, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

I understand that you don't have a concept of a "reasonable philosophical
position", and so you may not comprehend any of the above. I simply provide
it here in case anyone else is interested in an elaboration of my point.

Pete

The Warbirds division is still a part of the EAA.

Because the EAA refuses to release any financial information, you'll have a
tough time convincing me that the Warbirds division does not get funding
from the EAA parent organization.


"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:SuAzg.91

Warbirds division of what? Who is paying for the gas?


Go to the EAA site and educate yourself.

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:29:38 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete


Whatever....

Bela P. Havasreti

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done
at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as
safe
as straight-ins.

Pete


IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an overhead
break or an overhead approach. My best guess is that a couple of local "hot
doggers" are simply calling their activity an overhead aproach in an attempt
to give it a legitimate sounding name. Clearly, trading speed for altitude
and popping up into the pattern around mid-field is not an approved
maneuver, and is only slightly less insane than spinning down into the
pattern.

OTOH, an overhead approach (as normally described) has a lot of utility as
has been pointed out eslewhere in this thread.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
IMHO, the ones you are complaining about are not properly called an
overhead
break or an overhead approach.

It may well be that the term I used is more commonly reserved for something
else. The moment someone else made an indication that the maneuver I
referenced was different from what most people consider the maneuver of the
same name, I acknowledged that they were different and made clear which I
was talking about. I have tried in each and every post to continue to make
that distinction.

AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve flight
directly over the runway, as well as a form of a "breaking" turn (or even
"braking turn" if you like ), I don't have a better term than the
confusing one, and simply follow what I have heard used on the radio, when
I've had the opportunity to hear the radio calls of these folks.

I have at every step of the way tried to make as clear as possible what
maneuver I'm talking about and how it differs from the maneuver other people
appear to be talking about. I cannot help it if people insist on continuing
to be confused.

Pete

Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.

I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
"church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
"hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.

Jim

That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go WAY
back with some of these folks.
Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you join
the organization.

As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says you
have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF, even
with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could be
mistaken however. It's been a long time.
As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually believe
that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when in
the CAF?
Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly as
possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for you
to leave :-)
Dudley Henriques
ex- P51 Mustang
(Just an old friend of the CAF)

Is it really possible you could get my money back???

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dudley Henriques wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced.

I used to be a big warbird fan until I joined the Confederate (back
then) Air Force. Once they had my money it seemed like things changed.
It felt as though my only reason for being there was to milk my money
and labor to offset the operating costs so arrogant airline pilots
could continue to play with (and occasionally crack up) irreplaceable
antique military "toys". Even as a full member I wasn't allowed
to tour any of "their" aircraft at any shows without forking out
the "donation" like any other Joe Blow off the street. I felt like
I got suckered into some kind of religious cult. I get to toil in the
fields all day and give all my earnings, and worship, to the
"church" so those at the top could live like "gods". Now I've
turned into one of those bleeding heart conservationist types who feels
that the planes should be kept from flying (in museums) before some
"hot shots" eventually destroy them all. I was much happier before
I got too close to what was going on. Of course, that's just me.

Jim

That's funny; I never have known things like this to be true, and I go
WAY
back with some of these folks.
Most of the people who join the CAF do so in the spirit of backing the
organization. The "benefits" were never meant to be your prime reason for
joining. They are there of course and plainly stated for you before you
join
the organization.

As for paying at the shows, there is nothing that I know about that says
you
have a get in free card anywhere but the museum when you join the CAF,
even
with a full membership....or a life membership for that matter. I could
be
mistaken however. It's been a long time.
As for the "airline pilots crashing the hardware"; do you actually
believe
that your donation qualifies you to have a say on who flies what and when
in
the CAF?
Frankly, from what I just read from you, if I were still in the CAF, I'd
make it a point to see to it that you were refunded your money as quickly
as
possible and thank you for your "precipitation" as I opened the door for
you
to leave :-)
Dudley Henriques
ex- P51 Mustang
(Just an old friend of the CAF)

Is it really possible you could get my money back???

There was a time when I'm quite sure I carried enough weight arond the CAF
hangar to get that done. Today, probably not.
Tell you what. Why don't you simply copy your own post from this thread and
print it out; then take it with you to CAF and let them read it. Then ask
them if its possible for them to possibly refund your money. I think you
might just have a shot :-))
Dudley Henriques