If you're flying in...

flyingcheesehead said:
I have flown the arrival around three dozen times, and I haven't had trouble with someone not doing 90 knots on the low approach.

I have seen a Cirrus fly the "high" approach at 1900 MSL because the clouds were at 2300. I've had a plane that wasn't talking to anyone land on 27 when everyone else was landing on 9, and then take off into the flow of traffic on final. I've seen countless people ignore the departure instructions and fly right through the arrivals. I've seen lots of go-arounds because people can't get it through their thick skulls that get off the runway means GET OFF THE RUNWAY.

But I have never seen anyone doing 70 on the low approach.
Click to expand...
I've been stuck behind people going 70.

Drop some flaps, hang 'er on the prop. Do what you must to make it work. It's Oshkosh!

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
 
jbDC9 said:
Also, flying the high/fast arrival actually complicates things for the controllers, as you're using the same runways as the 90 knot crowd; at some point on the arrival you must descent through the 90 kt/1800' arrival, which means the controllers have to make a hole for you to descend.
Click to expand...

Actually no ... there is no complication. Your comment is not consistent with reality.
The high performance arrival exists for aircraft flying at that speed and altitude. It is not based on type, but capability and the pilots choice. It is part of the 3D puzzle of Oshkosh. Fisk always (almost always) splits off 2300/135 to 36 L or R, and 1800/90 to 27. If you are on 36, you need to be comfortable mixing with bigger boys and keeping your speed up.
In every case, except once, I have flown in at 2300/135 I have been directed at 36 R or L with all of the 1800/90 traffic going to 27. Never "had to make a hole" for me, nope, not once. I have never been dropped into or through the 1800/90 flow. I have never impeded the 135/2300 flow either.
My plane (since you asked):
182RG, cruse 145 knots, Easy to fly base and final at 135 to keep the spacing and still slow down to land on the assigned dot. I do it all the time at my home airport due to the mix of commercial passenger and GA. Easy to fly at 90 or even 60, but that's not the point.
 
leokno said:
Actually no ... there is no complication. Your comment is not consistent with reality.
The high performance arrival exists for aircraft flying at that speed and altitude. It is not based on type, but capability and the pilots choice. It is part of the 3D puzzle of Oshkosh. Fisk always (almost always) splits off 2300/135 to 36 L or R, and 1800/90 to 27. If you are on 36, you need to be comfortable mixing with bigger boys and keeping your speed up.
In every case, except once, I have flown in at 2300/135 I have been directed at 36 R or L with all of the 1800/90 traffic going to 27. Never "had to make a hole" for me, nope, not once. I have never been dropped into or through the 1800/90 flow. I have never impeded the 135/2300 flow either.
My plane (since you asked):
182RG, cruse 145 knots, Easy to fly base and final at 135 to keep the spacing and still slow down to land on the assigned dot. I do it all the time at my home airport due to the mix of commercial passenger and GA. Easy to fly at 90 or even 60, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...

Except when it's crazy busy and the controllers need to split the 90-knot traffic between both runways and here you come... And they need to make a hole. As mentioned earlier, I've flown the arrival around 3 dozen times, all but one at 1800/90, and I've been to every runway, in about equal measure, when they don't ask me which I want (in which case I usually ask for 27 for shorter taxi to GAC or GAP). The only thing I haven't done is the crossover tracks-to-18 approach.

And yes, that IS the point. You are supposed to fly at 1800/90 unless you are *UNABLE* to do so comfortably.

Also, all the vintage guys are going to be asking for 36. I'd bet a higher proportion of them not only can't do 135, but can't do 90.

You are causing them a higher workload, you just don't realize it.
 
Somehow it is a higher workload to direct an aircraft to 36 vs. 27?
I don't buy it.
I have around three dozen arrivals under my belt as well. About 18 each HP/LP. So with only one HP arrival on your score card, I think I am more qualified to judge the controller response to the HP arrival procedure. ;-)
 
leokno said:
Somehow it is a higher workload to direct an aircraft to 36 vs. 27?
I don't buy it.
I have around three dozen arrivals under my belt as well. About 18 each HP/LP. So with only one HP arrival on your score card, I think I am more qualified to judge the controller response to the HP arrival procedure. ;-)
Click to expand...

No, it's not higher workload to direct a single aircraft to one runway or the other. It's higher workload to make a hole big enough for a fast arrival to fit in.

FWIW, I think every single one of my arrivals has been in an aircraft that is capable of both speeds. But, I like to understand the system I'm a part of, and because I understand the reasons for the rules, I'm able to follow their intent. And in my book, intent is greater than letter when it comes to rules.
 
leokno said:
182RG, cruise 145 knots, Easy to fly base and final at 135 to keep the spacing and still slow down to land on the assigned dot. I do it all the time at my home airport due to the mix of commercial passenger and GA. Easy to fly at 90 or even 60, but that's not the point.
Click to expand...

Wrong. As others have said, that's exactly the point. The 182RG is not a fast ship, it'll fly all day at 90 knots. So, fly the arrival at 90.

kyleb said:
Ever think we're being trolled?
Click to expand...

You'd think he were trolling us, but there are lots of entitled, self-important people flying into OSH, and I think we're looking at one. I'd refute his claims as to flying the arrivals and runway assignments, but what's the point? With his arrogance and ego, no one will change his mind.

leokno said:
Somehow it is a higher workload to direct an aircraft to 36 vs. 27?
I don't buy it. I have around three dozen arrivals under my belt as well. About 18 each HP/LP. So with only one HP arrival on your score card, I think I am more qualified to judge the controller response to the HP arrival procedure. ;-)
Click to expand...

See what I mean? He's more qualified that we are, so we should all just STFU.

flyingcheesehead said:
No, it's not higher workload to direct a single aircraft to one runway or the other. It's higher workload to make a hole big enough for a fast arrival to fit in.

FWIW, I think every single one of my arrivals has been in an aircraft that is capable of both speeds. But, I like to understand the system I'm a part of, and because I understand the reasons for the rules, I'm able to follow their intent. And in my book, intent is greater than letter when it comes to rules.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!
 
The entire point of requesting aircraft that CAN fly slower to do so, is closure rates. When someone screws up and the two of you are headed at each other at 90 knots, there's a second or two more for someone to catch it and do something about it than if you're doing 135.

Bombing in at 135 in an aircraft that doesn't need to do so, just lowers the safety margin for yourself if someone isn't where they're supposed to be.

Time, speed, distance.

If it didn't matter, the NOTAM would say "pick whatever speed you like". And this is why it doesn't.
 
Well, to Mrs. DC9 and Cheesehead, what choice do I have but to humble myself and bow down to greater self appointed wisdom and intellect???
From here on in 90/1800 it is, so as not to create a greater workload and/or offend the defenders of intent.
It's been fun tweaking you a bit.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Next year, I'm doing the faster high approach into OSH.

Inverted.
Click to expand...

We're depending on you Jay!;):p

jsstevens said:
Just make sure the gopros are working...
Click to expand...

And we expect Jay to overtake the first AC doing 70 and get us a canopy on canopy photo of him giving the guy "the bird" ... once completed, Jay's new POA name will be Maverick:eek:;)
 
danhagan said:
We're depending on you Jay!;):p



And we expect Jay to overtake the first AC doing 70 and get us a canopy on canopy photo of him giving the guy "the bird" ... once completed, Jay's new POA name will be Maverick:eek:;)
Click to expand...
That would be my back seater flipping them off, er, "communicating".

I'm not sure how Mary will react to being called "Goose"...

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
 
Timbeck2 said:
I hate camping and feeling like I need a shower and I've done a lot of it over my years and have decided that I like air conditioning and electricity way too much to sleep in a tent in the bugs and weather.

There, I said it.
Click to expand...

Been going to OSH since 1985. I've never camped... Convention and Visitor Bureau does room/house rental matching. Have been offered extra hotel rooms by vendors I know... they rent a set number each year, sometimes don't need 'me all.

Camping is not intrinsic to the OSH experience.

Paul
 
It used to be that the controllers did a pretty good job of sorting out the planes between the runways. Now unless you're clearly flying an antique they will just as soon send you to 27. I've had to have the long taxi in the Navion a few times.
 
PaulMillner said:
Been going to OSH since 1985. I've never camped... Convention and Visitor Bureau does room/house rental matching. Have been offered extra hotel rooms by vendors I know... they rent a set number each year, sometimes don't need 'me all.

Camping is not intrinsic to the OSH experience.
Click to expand...

IMO, you only say that because you haven't done it.

It really is a different experience to be there and live and breathe aviation 24/7 for the entire week. If you don't camp, it ends every day when you leave the grounds. If you camp, it doesn't end until the end of the week.

I also find that my favorite times at Oshkosh are the times where I'm in the campground talking with old friends, new friends, and brand-new friends. The show itself is just the icing on the cake.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
IMO, you only say that because you haven't done it.

It really is a different experience to be there and live and breathe aviation 24/7 for the entire week. If you don't camp, it ends every day when you leave the grounds. If you camp, it doesn't end until the end of the week.

I also find that my favorite times at Oshkosh are the times where I'm in the campground talking with old friends, new friends, and brand-new friends. The show itself is just the icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
This is the very essence of Oshkosh.

If you leave the grounds each night, it is not the same. I've done it many times, in the early years, staying everywhere from a friend's couch to a hotel, and you lose much of the experience.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
 
PaulMillner said:
Been going to OSH since 1985. I've never camped... Convention and Visitor Bureau does room/house rental matching. Have been offered extra hotel rooms by vendors I know... they rent a set number each year, sometimes don't need 'me all.

Camping is not intrinsic to the OSH experience.

Paul
Click to expand...

Yes it is! No it isn't!

I'd have to agree with you and yet I've only camped there. If one is looking for the "Oshkosh as aviation Woodstock", camping with your plane can provide the ultimate experience. The first time I went I camped with an acquaintance and barely remember the experience. I was there to look for a plane to build and even that experience was barely memorable. I recall not really being taken seriously.

The next time I had just started building my '10 and I camped with my mate and the RV10 group... and it was fantastic! These were folks pursuing the same dream as I and it was special.

I went and camped 2 more times and it was, well, camping. The thing is I have had several other affinity groups I've 'camped' with over the years. The magic is in the affinity and Oshkosh as an overall event doesn't do it for me. I'm ultimately a sailplane guy and there aren't many there. I saw Hoover at Reading many years ago and air shows haven't really caught my attention since.

I camped with my plane at Triple Tree for the eclipse... that was super cool!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top