If you're flying in...

[steingar]

Taxiing in the grass was utterly nerve-racking. My Mooney's prop is inches from the ground, one sinkhole and I've tens of thousands in repairs. I did it, lots of Mooneys did. But I bet a few needed those repairs after some of the sinkholes I saw.

And I was taught that flying in formation was done radio silent. I think the only exception was if you have an issue in flight, our aircraft are less than conductive to hand signals.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So I guess we should have told those probably 50 J3 cubs that flew in to stay out of Oshkosh because they likely inconvenienced another pilot or controller by not doing 90 knts. While we are at it, let's cut the mass arrivals out too since those inconvenience other pilots who have to hold while they land 50 Mooneys. No more Blue Angles since those guys cut an hour from the arrival and departure times inconveniencing some pilots. The guy in the Yellow DC3 must be a real douche for asking to do low passes causing the controllers to move other aircraft around to fit them in. I tell you what, there is a bunch of "entitled" people around here. The fact that you can see every type of aircraft known to man at Airventure is what makes it such a great event. If I have to break out and go back to Fisk because one of the last few Porterfields is doing 70 knots on his way to the greatest aviation show on earth who cares, I will be taking pictures of it after I land. When we pulled the Venture out of Charlie Sandbox for the Experimental in Review not a single volunteer complained. In fact there were more there to help than we needed.

You're trying to use the exceptions to prove the rule.

The Cubs can't do 90 knots. That's accounted for in the NOTAM.
Mass arrivals *help* the traffic flow.
Blue Angels bring in huge crowds.
Flyovers of unusual aircraft do the same (and generally aren't done at the highest-traffic times anyway).

Some jerk doing 70 knots in a 172 (or 170 in a Cirrus) because he didn't read the NOTAM or know his aircraft does none of the above... And that's what drives me nuts, because there are 50 Cubs, a few hundred doing mass arrivals, six Blue Angels, two B-29s, a couple of DC-3s... And easily twice as many as all of those combined who aren't properly following the NOTAM for no good reason.

 

[steingar]

Truth be told I think the majority of Oshkosh fly in participants are indeed following the NOTAM. I doubt it would work anywhere near as well as it does were it otherwise.

 

[Grum.Man]

You're trying to use the exceptions to prove the rule.

The Cubs can't do 90 knots. That's accounted for in the NOTAM.
Mass arrivals *help* the traffic flow.
Blue Angels bring in huge crowds.
Flyovers of unusual aircraft do the same (and generally aren't done at the highest-traffic times anyway).

Some jerk doing 70 knots in a 172 (or 170 in a Cirrus) because he didn't read the NOTAM or know his aircraft does none of the above... And that's what drives me nuts, because there are 50 Cubs, a few hundred doing mass arrivals, six Blue Angels, two B-29s, a couple of DC-3s... And easily twice as many as all of those combined who aren't properly following the NOTAM for no good reason.

My response was directed at the people who feel that pilots who "inconvenience" other pilots shouldn't be attending KOSH. And I was exaggerating to get my point across. In every one of those scenarios someone was inconvenienced so don't complain if you have to change course, or go around, or what ever, just be happy to be at KOSH with all of those airplanes.

 

[Jay Honeck]

You're trying to use the exceptions to prove the rule.

The Cubs can't do 90 knots. That's accounted for in the NOTAM.
Mass arrivals *help* the traffic flow.
Blue Angels bring in huge crowds.
Flyovers of unusual aircraft do the same (and generally aren't done at the highest-traffic times anyway).

Some jerk doing 70 knots in a 172 (or 170 in a Cirrus) because he didn't read the NOTAM or know his aircraft does none of the above... And that's what drives me nuts, because there are 50 Cubs, a few hundred doing mass arrivals, six Blue Angels, two B-29s, a couple of DC-3s... And easily twice as many as all of those combined who aren't properly following the NOTAM for no good reason.

I've been saying this since at least 1999: There should be a third altitude for aircraft that cannot do 90 knots. It seems pretty simple and...obvious...yet EAA/FAA has never done it.

This, along with insufficient fire equipment on the field (which results in the entire airport being closed for even minor incidents on widely separated runways) are really my only minor nits with the Oshkosh arrival procedure. It is just a spectacularly easy and safe procedure, despite the events enormous size.

Edit: One more nit to pick. EAA needs to rent a nearby farmer with a big roller, and ROLL THE NORTH 40 grass on the day after it rains. One of our Wisconsin friends just happens to be a potato farmer, and commented on this while looking at all the potential prop strikes those ruts could cause. It is simple, fast, and cheap to roll those ruts smooth.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

 

[tmcquinn]

I agree completely. A different altitude, a different route, something more than 'do the best that you can and hope to not get a light aircraft enema' on your way in.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

90 isn't the problem....it's those not doing 90 that's the problem...

 

[Grum.Man]

I'm thinking next year I will do the Warbird/Turbine arrival. I heard several Lancair's during the week use the arrival so they must not mind. Worst case you have to hold waiting on an opening but at least you are going to be around similar speeds.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I like the fast arrival. Because of all the slow pokes doing 70....I'll always do the fast arrival.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm thinking next year I will do the Warbird/Turbine arrival. I heard several Lancair's during the week use the arrival so they must not mind. Worst case you have to hold waiting on an opening but at least you are going to be around similar speeds.

From the NOTAM: "This procedure is restricted to high- performance turbojet, turboprop, and Warbird aircraft capable of cruising at 130 knots or greater. Slower Warbird aircraft shall use the VFR Arrival from Ripon."

Unless you're flying a turbine or a (fast) warbird, it ain't for you. Fly the normal approach like the rest of us.

BTW, just because you heard it doesn't mean "they must not mind." The controllers don't argue with or scold anyone, really. However, they are in communication with FSDO inspectors to hand out violations after landing to egregious violators. No, they won't do anything to inadvertent violators, but if you blatantly ignore the NOTAM, you might get to think about it on the ground for 90-180 days.

Also, if people start using the turbine/warbird arrival "because they can" or "because they must not mind" it will go away. That happened with the NORDO arrival, which didn't exist at all for several years and now has come back in "land nearby and phone the tower" form. If people start thinking "I can go 130 knots so I'll fly the warbird arrival" there will be too much traffic on that arrival to handle the way it's currently done and it'll go away and legitimate turbine/warbird operators will have to jump through more hoops to get in. In my book, that's a real dick move on the part of the abusers.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've been saying this since at least 1999: There should be a third altitude for aircraft that cannot do 90 knots. It seems pretty simple and...obvious...yet EAA/FAA has never done it.

Where exactly would you put them? The airspace around OSH is pretty much saturated. If you look at all the procedures - VFR and IFR, arrivals and departures, airplanes, helicopters, ultralights, warbirds, jets, demo aircraft, based aircraft, etc (not all of which are published to deter abuse), there really isn't much of anywhere to put them.

 

[denverpilot]

I'm still waiting for the military Cirrus to do a warbird arrival. LOL.

 

[N659HB]

So, how do they accommodate ultralights? No, I haven't read the NOTAM. I'd like the expert(s) to explain.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

the ultralite arrivals.....

 

[N659HB]

the ultralite arrivals.....

Explain.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

It's in the NOTAM....pg 19.

 

[N659HB]

It's in the NOTAM....pg 19.

I clearly said I haven't read the NOTAM. But, thanks for the link. There may be others reading the thread who don't care to read the NOTAM but are curious about how the controllers separate all the traffic arriving at different speeds.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I clearly said I haven't read the NOTAM. But, thanks for the link. There may be others reading the thread who don't care to read the NOTAM but are curious about how the controllers separate all the traffic arriving at different speeds.

once you read it ....it'll become clear. They have a different altitude and approach path to separate them from the faster movers.

 

[danhagan]

Edit: One more nit to pick. EAA needs to rent a nearby farmer with a big roller, and ROLL THE NORTH 40 grass on the day after it rains. It is simple, fast, and cheap to roll those ruts smooth.
Tapatalk

Haven't got to attend yet, but this is a great suggestion Jay

 

[flyingron]

They do have actual highway style rollers that they use, but it's not always enough. They've been rolling the newer "reclaimed" areas of the south for a while and it's still pretty rough. What passes for flat on farm land ain't the same as flat for taxiing aircraft.

 

[Jay Honeck]

They do have actual highway style rollers that they use, but it's not always enough. They've been rolling the newer "reclaimed" areas of the south for a while and it's still pretty rough. What passes for flat on farm land ain't the same as flat for taxiing aircraft.

Yeah, as usual the riskiest part of flying into Oshkosh was taxiing a mile in the rough North 40 grass. My little kickstand nose gear was never designed for that sort of abuse, and I cringe the whole way, awaiting the worst.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Yeah, as usual the riskiest part of flying into Oshkosh was taxiing a mile in the rough North 40 grass. My little kickstand nose gear was never designed for that sort of abuse, and I cringe the whole way, awaiting the worst.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

I thought the whole point of having a EXP aircraft was that you could design and implement a fix for that?

I don't know if that's worth it for you, but OSH grass seems like it'll be a permanent mission annually for your aircraft.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I thought the whole point of having a EXP aircraft was that you could design and implement a fix for that?

I don't know if that's worth it for you, but OSH grass seems like it'll be a permanent mission annually for your aircraft.

lol The fix is to get rid of the nosewheel on an RV.

Sadly, momma likes the tricycle gear. And if momma ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy...

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

lol The fix is to get rid of the nosewheel on an RV.

Sadly, momma likes the tricycle gear. And if momma ain't happy, ain't NO ONE happy...

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

Understand. I can't convince my co-owner to remove the wheel pants forever on the 182 either. Haha. He says it makes the airplane "look like a rental". I joked that we could fix that by putting bigger tires and the big nose fork on it.

 

[leokno]

I have now heard from several people that the FISK high performance arrival is "only if you can't safely maintain 90 knots" ......
I call BS on that;
Quote from page 4 NOTAM :

"Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1,800’. For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots:


Slower aircraft should use maximum cruising speed. ATC recommends that you arrive at Fisk between 7:00-7:30 AM CDT daily, if practicable.

Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2,300’. " (highlight and underline my own)

Nothing about can/can't 90 knots etc....... 'Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2300'
Don't confuse this with the 'War Birds Arrival' which is not via Fisk.
Much easier arrival with NO risk of dragging it in behind a 70 knot 172. I fly it every year (clouds permitting) and will continue to fly it as long as I can do 135 knots. You will almost always get runway 36 L or R. Good or bad depending on parking.

My recommendation to those who don't like 'the swarm'. Avoid arriving just after weather clears, arrive Saturday or midweek, stay away from the scheduled mass arrival times.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Understand. I can't convince my co-owner to remove the wheel pants forever on the 182 either. Haha. He says it makes the airplane "look like a rental". I joked that we could fix that by putting bigger tires and the big nose fork on it.

Why would you want to permanently remove the wheel pants?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I have now heard from several people that the FISK high performance arrival is "only if you can't safely maintain 90 knots" ......
I call BS on that;
Quote from page 4 NOTAM :

"Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1,800’. For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots:


Slower aircraft should use maximum cruising speed. ATC recommends that you arrive at Fisk between 7:00-7:30 AM CDT daily, if practicable.

Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2,300’. " (highlight and underline my own)

Nothing about can/can't 90 knots etc....... 'Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2300'
Don't confuse this with the 'War Birds Arrival' which is not via Fisk.
Much easier arrival with NO risk of dragging it in behind a 70 knot 172. I fly it every year (clouds permitting) and will continue to fly it as long as I can do 135 knots. You will almost always get runway 36 L or R. Good or bad depending on parking.

My recommendation to those who don't like 'the swarm'. Avoid arriving just after weather clears, arrive Saturday or midweek, stay away from the scheduled mass arrival times.

Oooh, I can highlight and underline too! And I even made it bigger!

Are you *UNABLE* to operate comfortably at 90 knots? What are you flying?

Plenty of planes that are perfectly able to operate comfortably at 90 knots still fly the high arrival, which leads me to believe their pilots don't have the skill to do so.

 

[mkosmo]

I have now heard from several people that the FISK high performance arrival is "only if you can't safely maintain 90 knots" ......
I call BS on that;
Quote from page 4 NOTAM :

"Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1,800’. For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots:


Slower aircraft should use maximum cruising speed. ATC recommends that you arrive at Fisk between 7:00-7:30 AM CDT daily, if practicable.

Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2,300’. " (highlight and underline my own)

Nothing about can/can't 90 knots etc....... 'Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2300'
Don't confuse this with the 'War Birds Arrival' which is not via Fisk.
Much easier arrival with NO risk of dragging it in behind a 70 knot 172. I fly it every year (clouds permitting) and will continue to fly it as long as I can do 135 knots. You will almost always get runway 36 L or R. Good or bad depending on parking.

My recommendation to those who don't like 'the swarm'. Avoid arriving just after weather clears, arrive Saturday or midweek, stay away from the scheduled mass arrival times.

Safe and comfortable may often be synonyms in this case. Hopefully you're comfortable flying your airplane in any safe corner of the envelope.

 

[denverpilot]

Why would you want to permanently remove the wheel pants?

Because they're nearly useless on a 182 and cause more problems than they gain.

 

[jbDC9]

I have now heard from several people that the FISK high performance arrival is "only if you can't safely maintain 90 knots" ......
I call BS on that;
Quote from page 4 NOTAM :

"Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1,800’. For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots:
Slower aircraft should use maximum cruising speed. ATC recommends that you arrive at Fisk between 7:00-7:30 AM CDT daily, if practicable.
Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2,300’. " (highlight and underline my own)

Nothing about can/can't 90 knots etc....... 'Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2300'
Much easier arrival with NO risk of dragging it in behind a 70 knot 172. I fly it every year (clouds permitting) and will continue to fly it as long as I can do 135 knots. You will almost always get runway 36 L or R. Good or bad depending on parking.

So, Mr BSer; what type are you flying in to OSH, if we may inquire? An Aerostar? A Cessna 421 perhaps? If it's something along those lines, then yes, I can see using the "high, fast" arrival. But if it's a Mooney or Bonanza type, then IMHO you're merely interpreting the verbiage from page 4 in the NOTAM to fit how you'd prefer to operate.

My RV-8 will do 135 knots at 2300 feet all day long (or until outta gas), but I can easily (and comfortably) operate at 90 knots and 1800', so, I fly the dreaded low and slow arrival in my somewhat speedy RV-8. Methinks this is the intent in the wording of the NOTAM. So, in your case, which is it? You can't fly the low/slow or just don't want to?

 

[kyleb]

I have now heard from several people that the FISK high performance arrival is "only if you can't safely maintain 90 knots" ......
I call BS on that;
Quote from page 4 NOTAM :

"Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1,800’. For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots:


Slower aircraft should use maximum cruising speed. ATC recommends that you arrive at Fisk between 7:00-7:30 AM CDT daily, if practicable.

Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2,300’. " (highlight and underline my own)

Nothing about can/can't 90 knots etc....... 'Faster aircraft use 135 knots and 2300'
Don't confuse this with the 'War Birds Arrival' which is not via Fisk.
Much easier arrival with NO risk of dragging it in behind a 70 knot 172. I fly it every year (clouds permitting) and will continue to fly it as long as I can do 135 knots. You will almost always get runway 36 L or R. Good or bad depending on parking.

The speeds/altitudes are an "If, Then, Else" logical construction. If you can safely fly 90 knots, then do so. Else, fly the 135 knot approach.

 

[leokno]

"operate comfortably" is a subjective term, not an "if then else' logic function.
If that statement was a requirement, then I would have expected much more precise language. So, even though I am comfortable operating the aircraft over the entire flight envelope, I choose to operate at the 135 knots.

"then IMHO you're merely interpreting the verbiage from page 4 in the NOTAM to fit how you'd prefer to operate."

You are correct. The statement in the NOTAN is not a prohibition on making that choice.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So, Mr BSer; what type are you flying in to OSH, if we may inquire? An Aerostar? A Cessna 421 perhaps? If it's something along those lines, then yes, I can see using the "high, fast" arrival. But if it's a Mooney or Bonanza type, then IMHO you're merely interpreting the verbiage from page 4 in the NOTAM to fit how you'd prefer to operate.

My RV-8 will do 135 knots at 2300 feet all day long (or until outta gas), but I can easily (and comfortably) operate at 90 knots and 1800', so, I fly the dreaded low and slow arrival in my somewhat speedy RV-8. Methinks this is the intent in the wording of the NOTAM. So, in your case, which is it? You can't fly the low/slow or just don't want to?

ya but....can you comfortably slow to 70?....or 65? Cause that's what the slow lane is doing.....not 90.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

ya but....can you comfortably slow to 70?....or 65? Cause that's what the slow lane is doing.....not 90.

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.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

well.....you're not called an internet expert for nuthin.

 

[Grum.Man]

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.

You my friend have lived a blessed life! lol My experience is that most treat it as a limit not a directive and are afraid to get too close to it.

 

[Sam D]

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.

In 2015, I departed next to and shortly after a bonanza on 27. While I stopped at 1300, he continued right up to 1800. Meanwhile another plane was coming in from Fisk. I actually sidestepped a little because I was convinced it was shortly going to be raining airplane parts!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In 2015, I departed next to and shortly after a bonanza on 27. While I stopped at 1300, he continued right up to 1800. Meanwhile another plane was coming in from Fisk. I actually sidestepped a little because I was convinced it was shortly going to be raining airplane parts!

Yup. That is probably the most common error I see at Oshkosh, and when I bring others in, I brief them on it because when you're the guy over the tracks and you're in the left seat, you're probably blind in the direction that the 27 departures would be coming from.

I kinda wish I was better at 3-D graphics and/or KML because I'd love to put together a representation of how all the OSH traffic fits together. It is a giant 3-D puzzle, and if you don't follow the procedures, you're going to end up in someone else's piece of the puzzle.

 

[jbDC9]

"operate comfortably" is a subjective term, not an "if then else' logic function.
If that statement was a requirement, then I would have expected much more precise language. So, even though I am comfortable operating the aircraft over the entire flight envelope, I choose to operate at the 135 knots.

"then IMHO you're merely interpreting the verbiage from page 4 in the NOTAM to fit how you'd prefer to operate."

You are correct. The statement in the NOTAN is not a prohibition on making that choice.

You stated, "So, even though I am comfortable operating the aircraft over the entire flight envelope...". Let's discuss your aircraft's envelope. First, What. Type. Are. You. Flying? A Cirrus? Bonanza? Mooney? Something similar? They'll fly comfortably at 90 knots. The NOTAM states "Arrive at Ripon at 90 knots and 1800'. For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots..." If you can operate at 90 knots, then operate at 90 knots. If you're in a twin, then I get flying the "high/fast" arrival. 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. But hey man, it's all about you and how YOU want to operate I guess.

ya but....can you comfortably slow to 70?....or 65? Cause that's what the slow lane is doing.....not 90.

Yep, no problem slowing to 65-70. If that's not working, I could follow the NOTAM (pg 4), break out of the line, go back to Ripon to start over. That's a bummer, but that's what it says to do.

 

[steingar]

My Mooney can cruise at 135 knots all day long. Fortunately, I'm a good enough pilot that I'm able fly it at 90 knots as well. I think Dirty Harry summed it up best: