Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

RST Engineering wrote:
I'm prejudiced. Of course I'm prejudiced. In 5000+ flight hours, I've
never come as close to a midair as I did at Oshkosh 1999. Oshkosh Tower:
"BlueOnBlue Cessna, number three for runway 27. Ercoupe put it on the
numbers. Flight of three T6s, cross over runway 27, right downwind for
runway 27, caution the Cessna at the gravel pit."

(Warbird flight leader) "OK fellers, let's show them what a warbird arrival
is like."

The Cessna is looking, looking, and turns downwind. The copilot screams,
"Oh, my God " and the pilot turns hard left, only to see two wings perhaps
fifty feet below. Tower tells warbirds that they nearly had a midair with a
Cessna. Warbird flight leader, "Then tell tell the little b@$+@rd to get
out of our way."


Is there more to this story, like what the FAA or the folks at Oshkosh
had to say to the pilot?

If it were up to me, I'd get escort him off the premises and get a
TRO forbidding him from setting foot there again. If he wanted his
plane back, he could send somebody else to fly or truck it out.

--

FF

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.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
From this post and others, sounds like everyone would be better served
to keep stupid pilots from Oshkosh. But how to do that? There's the rub,
eh?

As I said in my previous post to this thread, assuming the various
descriptions of the situation at Oshkosh are accurate (and there's enough
similar ones to have every reason to believe they are), the first step would
be for the FAA staff (controllers and inspectors) to stop putting up with
the stupid pilots.

Pilots who can't comply with the published and transmitted instructions
should be refused entry into the Class D, never mind allowed a landing
clearance, and FAA inspectors should be filing actions where pilots are
actually in violation of the FARs.

Pete

Skylune wrote:
its the 98% of pilots who give the rest a bad reputation.

Quit yer bitchin' Loon, nobody crashed into any houses... You're
repeating yourself (once again)

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

I've about had it with the arrogant warbird *******s. The only reason that
there are warbirds at Oshkosh is that Pope Paul flew a warbird and wanted
to invite his cronies.


One might argue that puddle-jumping Cessnas have no place at Oshkosh, after
all, how many people go there to look at lines of parked Skyhawks and
Cherokees?




Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.



Speak for yourself.
Looks like Pope Paul has been replaced by Lord jim.

"RST Engineering" wrote in message news:AVezg.34

Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

Jim

Never been there, possibly never will. But I suspect if the EAA has to
choose between warbirds and Jim -- well, you might just have some extra time
on your hands next summer. :-)

"Canal builder" wrote in message
...
| 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.
|

I read where the Germans emphasized sailplanes and their power planes
didn't carry much fuel.

--
Jarhead




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I appreciate what you're saying, but couldn't penalty enforcement save
lives if it discourages miscreants. For example, in the scenario
presented in the OP, if accurate and assuming that the Cessna pilot was
following all ATC instructions and assuming that ATC didn't err,
wouldn't some sort of action against the warbird pilots for breaking a
FAR (a federal action) or for just being rudely aggressive (an airshow
organizers issue) help prevent further such behavior from others that
might get a testosterone moment at the next airshow?

Dudley Henriques wrote:
I completely agree with your comment with one addition.
Penalty enforcement is fine, and should be encouraged, but its not what will
save lives. Pre-emptive analysis of the entire flight and ground safety
issue at Oshkosh is the only approach to this issue that will save lives.
The safety program in general at Oshkosh needs a serious and in depth
review. The traffic situation vs the space available both in the air and on
the ground has reached the point where absolute control is necessary.
Without this taking place, I'm afraid there might very well be a need for
more "enforcement" after the fact.....down the line.
Dudley Henriques


"RomeoMike" wrote in message


To imply that warbird pilots as a group are hotdogging idiots to be banned
is as valid as saying that all Cessna pilots are fine, professional types
that do no wrong. Ban a whole group...never. How about some enforcement
against the show-offs and rules breakers that form the minority of all
pilot groups?!

Absolutely! I'm not against punative action against violators. In fact, I
agree with you on that issue. Its imparative that violatations be addressed
and addressed hard. Its been my experience working in this arena however
that punative action only goes just so far in enhancing the safety
situation. You "punish" a violator and you reach the violator and a few
peripheral pilots who "get the message".
On issues like Oshkosh, the situation is so unique and so complex, that to
make any headway at all in getting into the guts of the safety issues found
in this highly inflammable environment, you will have to take the existing
safety program and tear into it piece by piece, finding the weak links and
correcting them. Then, after all this has been addressed, the whole thing
will have to be distributed throughout the entire EAA community by its own
members; literally an Oshkosh education program that reaches down into the
heart of the community so that everyone not only knows what's going on, but
is an active part in seeing that it goes on properly.
This is the only way to clean up something as complicated as the traffic
situation that occurs every year at Oshkosh. Safety has to be so high a
priority, that nobody will want to be the subject of the community's ire by
not adhearing to the established safety policies.
In other words, what EAA has to do is supercede the FAA's minimum
requirements for flight safety and create a level above that mimimum.
Hell...I've been teaching pilots to fly airplanes above the minimum FAA
requirements all through my career. Its the "only way to fly".
:-))
Dudley Henriques

"RomeoMike" wrote in message
...
I appreciate what you're saying, but couldn't penalty enforcement save
lives if it discourages miscreants. For example, in the scenario presented
in the OP, if accurate and assuming that the Cessna pilot was following all
ATC instructions and assuming that ATC didn't err, wouldn't some sort of
action against the warbird pilots for breaking a FAR (a federal action) or
for just being rudely aggressive (an airshow organizers issue) help prevent
further such behavior from others that might get a testosterone moment at
the next airshow?

Dudley Henriques wrote:
I completely agree with your comment with one addition.
Penalty enforcement is fine, and should be encouraged, but its not what
will save lives. Pre-emptive analysis of the entire flight and ground
safety issue at Oshkosh is the only approach to this issue that will save
lives.
The safety program in general at Oshkosh needs a serious and in depth
review. The traffic situation vs the space available both in the air and
on the ground has reached the point where absolute control is necessary.
Without this taking place, I'm afraid there might very well be a need for
more "enforcement" after the fact.....down the line.
Dudley Henriques


"RomeoMike" wrote in message


To imply that warbird pilots as a group are hotdogging idiots to be
banned is as valid as saying that all Cessna pilots are fine,
professional types that do no wrong. Ban a whole group...never. How
about some enforcement against the show-offs and rules breakers that
form the minority of all pilot groups?!

The T-6 were performing a missing man formation for the Memorial wall
service that EAA does to remember the pilots that have gone west....


Ps. just got back and boy am I burnt and tired.

Dave Zera
Co-Chair
Safety/ Flight line
AirVenture
"flyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'd vote to get rid of the Warbirds too. This year [this morning in
fact] a small window opened in the extreme weather experienced this
year as we were trying to depart. As we lined up on the taxi way,
someone decided it would be a great time for some t6s to preform some
sort of 'airshow'. We waited and waited with engines running thinking
we would be going soon. Twenty minutes later, some of us were let out
of the penalty box.

After 20 minutes of idle, then applying take off power among aircraft
with very different speeds [I was in my Lancair] this is NO time for a
hic up!

There is a place for this warbird thing but the timing today was way
out of line. I've already written EAA Hwq stating my displeasure.

Earl Schroeder