Oshkosh 2019 Notam

[flibmeister]

It's good for those who are in the air when the field closes, show up at Fisk and can't land at OSH...

Exactly. And as incentive to use the Bailout procedure, those pilots that choose to use it will not "lose their place in line" for arrival at OSH-- when OSH reopens, FLD Bailout airplanes will be released first, direct to OSH, before releasing traffic in the holding patterns. If conditions permit, the Ripon/Fisk traffic MAY be released simultaneously-- but they'll be restricted to a single runway (likely 9/27) until all the FLD Bailout airplanes are on the ground at OSH (likely on 36L and 36R).

 

[steingar]

Yeah, except for all the other aircraft inbound. And if you really think everyone is going to calmly fly 1/2 mile in trail to FDL I’d like a sample of what you’ve been smoking.

 

[flyingron]

Brennand Airport (79C) is a great place to bail to. Not only is it the closest airport to Oshkosh, they've got a pool table, and a bowling alley to whittle way the time. We shot pool there waiting for the field to repoen after the malibu crash a few years ago.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yeah, except for all the other aircraft inbound. And if you really think everyone is going to calmly fly 1/2 mile in trail to FDL I’d like a sample of what you’ve been smoking.

Again... If you aren’t a half mile in trail, you don’t get to go to FLD. Plain and simple.

 

[steingar]

Again... If you aren’t a half mile in trail, you don’t get to go to FLD. Plain and simple.

And who's going to stop them?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And who's going to stop them?

Fisk approach will tell them to go to Rush Lake... And if they don't, then the tower at FLD will be happy to take down their tail number and provide it to the Friendly Aviation Agency.

 

[SC_Flyboy]

I'm likely opening a can of worms, but since there are 3 active runways, why not have 3 distinct initial approach fixes (1 for each runway) instead of having 1 fix (Fisk) for all 3 runways? Seems that might help with spacing.

 

[tsts4]

I'm likely opening a can of worms, but since there are 3 active runways, why not have 3 distinct initial approach fixes (1 for each runway) instead of having 1 fix (Fisk) for all 3 runways? Seems that might help with spacing.

How would you have ATC assign the runways? IMO what you propose would be more complex that the current procedure. However, I also think that the current procedure works just fine for the most part and that we’d be better served if somehow we could get 100% of pilots flying into Osh to read the damn thing, follow it, and be able to hold altitude and airspeed.

 

[SC_Flyboy]

How would you have ATC assign the runways? IMO what you propose would be more complex that the current procedure. However, I also think that the current procedure works just fine for the most part and that we’d be better served if somehow we could get 100% of pilots flying into Osh to read the damn thing, follow it, and be able to hold altitude and airspeed.

I totally agree on following the NOTAM...just not hearing any proposals on alternatives to what folks are frustrated with. Just one example on runway assignment - up to 89 kts goes to 36R. 100 kts goes to 36L. 135 kts to 27. Just thinking about spacing and separation. Just putting out one alternative.

 

[kyleb]

I totally agree on following the NOTAM...just not hearing any proposals on alternatives to what folks are frustrated with. Just one example on runway assignment - up to 89 kts goes to 36R. 100 kts goes to 36L. 135 kts to 27. Just thinking about spacing and separation. Just putting out one alternative.

One of the benefits of the one arrival stream/multiple runways is the folks at Fisk can play the sorting hat game. If the winds are strong from the West, they can send the taildraggers and relatively light aircraft to 27 and the more crosswind capable stuff to 36. If spacing is tight, they can alternate sending aircraft to the different runways to create acceptable spacing. If they see a homebuilt or antique, odds are 3:1 that ground logistics for those aircraft are better on 18/36 than 9/27, so route them that way. It really works.

The longstanding procedures work very well. People (FAA types included) need to follow them, and the EAA needs to do a very careful job of shepherding runway time on busy arrival days. For example, I love the trimotors, but they shouldn't be operating on Saturday or Sunday at the beginning of the show. They chew up scads of runway time.

One thing that doesn't work well is the low and slow crowd is in the way. A 70 knot Cub doesn't have a happy place in the arrival stream. They aren't welcome at the ultralight strip and are too slow to blend in the normal arrival. EAA has plans to acquire land just South of OSH for a grass strip suitable for the low/slow crowd. That's at least a year or two away...

 

[SC_Flyboy]

[QUOTE="One thing that doesn't work well is the low and slow crowd is in the way. A 70 knot Cub doesn't have a happy place in the arrival stream. They aren't welcome at the ultralight strip and are too slow to blend in the normal arrival. EAA has plans to acquire land just South of OSH for a grass strip suitable for the low/slow crowd. That's at least a year or two away...[/QUOTE]

Appreciate the info, Kyle. This is my first year trying to fly in, and I'm one that will be fire walled to maintain 90. Good to know there is something in the works for the slower crowd. Regardless, I'll know the NOTAM inside & out before departing home...going to try for a 7am Fisk arrival.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You missed out on one thing that the bike ride seemed to have and I would guess is missing at Oshkosh......

If you're talking about hot chicks, there are plenty of those at OSH. Now, they're not likely going to be taking a "shower" in a bikini right in front of you, but if you really need that, there's plenty of it on the Internet.

I'm likely opening a can of worms, but since there are 3 active runways, why not have 3 distinct initial approach fixes (1 for each runway) instead of having 1 fix (Fisk) for all 3 runways? Seems that might help with spacing.

Not really. Often, the ATC folks at Fisk will relieve spacing issues there by putting the middle plane of a group of three that's spaced too closely on a different runway than the other two. If that happens with three distinct arrivals, now ATC is having to send somebody around at the airport, which is going to create way more issues if it happens much at all. Go-arounds at the airport already kind of suck because, for example, if you are coming in to 36 and go around, you need to make an immediate right turn to stay out of everyone else's way, and you'd best make another right turn before you run into the turbine/warbird arrivals coming up the shore of Lake Winnebago. If ATC had to have a go-around on every half-dozen airplanes, IMO it would drastically reduce safety.

I totally agree on following the NOTAM...just not hearing any proposals on alternatives to what folks are frustrated with. Just one example on runway assignment - up to 89 kts goes to 36R. 100 kts goes to 36L. 135 kts to 27. Just thinking about spacing and separation. Just putting out one alternative.

Really, what would probably work better is to reverse the turbine/warbird arrival and the Fisk arrival. That is, put all the turbines/warbirds over Fisk and everyone else starts at Fond du Lac and flies up the lakeshore. That way, the little GA stuff could land on 36R and the big stuff on 36L (with both using 9/27 as they currently do) without having to cross paths when turning final. However, that would likely not work as well when landing to the South.

FWIW, here's a graphic I made last year for a presentation I gave on flying into Oshkosh that shows where the traffic should be at 500 AGL, 1000 AGL, and combined. There's not a lot of spare room near the airport:

 

[EdFred]

Seems like if landing 27 they need a "FISK" on the east side of the lake. Announce which one is being used on ATIS.

 

[kyleb]

Seems like if landing 27 they need a "FISK" on the east side of the lake. Announce which one is being used on ATIS.

Why? Flying a downwind, with a base and final turn provides another opportunity to manage spacing. ATC can adjust downwinds to put everyone where they need to be...

 

[EdFred]

Why? Flying a downwind, with a base and final turn provides another opportunity to manage spacing. ATC can adjust downwinds to put everyone where they need to be...

You end up crossing departures on 27 according to Kent's graphic.

 

[kyleb]

You end up crossing departures on 27 according to Kent's graphic.

Which is true. But departures are given a "not to exceed" altitude to prevent conflicts. Believe it or not, it works.

 

[EdFred]

Which is true. But departures are given a "not to exceed" altitude to prevent conflicts. Believe it or not, it works.

So his graphic isn't as crowded as he makes it out to be.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You end up crossing departures on 27 according to Kent's graphic.

That's why I provided the 500 AGL and 1000 AGL graphics in addition to the combined one. Arrivals are at 1000 AGL (TPA) while departures are supposed to be at 500 AGL.

However, I've found that's the most frequent conflict spot - Some ******* trying to show off his over-powered experimental thingamabob and didn't bother to read the departure procedure takes off from 27 and blows right through the traffic coming up the tracks. You can be sure I'm keeping an eye out for that if I'm coming in for 27.

 

[flyingron]

I'm likely opening a can of worms, but since there are 3 active runways, why not have 3 distinct initial approach fixes (1 for each runway) instead of having 1 fix (Fisk) for all 3 runways? Seems that might help with spacing.

Because ATC wants to do the load distribution between 27 and 36. 36L and R are too close together to be considered independent runways. Those need to share a tower frequency no matter what.

 

[steingar]

Don't know why anyone would want to redesign the wheel. Last year was as bad as I've ever seen it, Zillions of airplanes in the air, and no one hit anyone else. The rules work.

 

[EdFred]

Don't know why anyone would want to redesign the wheel. Last year was as bad as I've ever seen it, Zillions of airplanes in the air, and no one hit anyone else. The rules work.

Yeah, we should just keep using chariot wheels on our cars.

The fact there was a "zillion" planes in the air, shows there is a problem.

 

[steingar]

Yeah, we should just keep using chariot wheels on our cars.

The fact there was a "zillion" planes in the air, shows there is a problem.

There was no way to get around the aircraft in the air, other than not host an airshow. But because of the NOTAM they were all there and no one ran into anyone else. Why do you care anyway? I don't think I've ever seen you at Oshkosh. Reminds me of all the folks trashing Mexico who've never been there.

 

[EdFred]

There was no way to get around the aircraft in the air, other than not host an airshow. But because of the NOTAM they were all there and no one ran into anyone else. Why do you care anyway? I don't think I've ever seen you at Oshkosh. Reminds me of all the folks trashing Mexico who've never been there.

I don't have cancer either, but I fly complete strangers to clinics so they can get treatment. Maybe I should adopt your philosophy of "why should I care, I don't know them." Yeah, I'll do that and let the organizations know that steingar says since things don't affect me, I should say F it.

The NOTAM generally works, but they are short sighted on contingency plans.

 

[flyingron]

When the runways are open, the FISK procedure works fine, even in the busiest of times. If the RIPON-FISK is too congested, so will the path to the runways because people tend to slow down once they get to FISK (not all of us are used to being at the primary airport of a class B where we blast up to short final at full power). The problems occur when there are a bunch of people loaded up in the procedure and a runway closes (either because of an incident on the runway or a mass arrival). None of the existing hold procedures make sense. The bailout is an attempt at a workable plan on its face. Time will tell.

 

[tsts4]

I don't have cancer either, but I fly complete strangers to clinics so they can get treatment. Maybe I should adopt your philosophy of "why should I care, I don't know them." Yeah, I'll do that and let the organizations know that steingar says since things don't affect me, I should say F it.

The NOTAM generally works, but they are short sighted on contingency plans.

Possibly but I think most pilots flying into Osh are just as shortsighted if not more so since they are the ones in the air. Why anyone would drone for hours in a bastardized hold is beyond me--that's on pilots not the FAA.

 

[EdFred]

Possibly but I think most pilots flying into Osh are just as shortsighted if not more so since they are the ones in the air. Why anyone would drone for hours in a bastardized hold is beyond me--that's on pilots not the FAA.

I still like the idea of a slot reservation system, and having something better than a "go fly around the swamp" when Jack Roush flies in.

 

[tsts4]

I still like the idea of a slot reservation system, and having something better than a "go fly around the swamp" when Jack Roush flies in.

There are a dozen airports within 30-40nm radius of RIPON--just divert, sit on the ground, relax, get some water, make some new friends and launch when OSH is open and/or the approach is more amicable. I already participate in the eSTMP IFR reservation system required for OSH and the surrounding airports which provides only 4 slots per hour -- don't see a way a VFR reservation system could ever work with the volume of VFR traffic. Shoot we have trouble with pilots being able to hold 1800 ft and 90 kts consistently for a few miles. Add in a time variable too -- Oy Vey!

 

[kyleb]

I still like the idea of a slot reservation system, and having something better than a "go fly around the swamp" when Jack Roush flies in.

The challenge of a slot system is the unpredictability of light GA. I think a lot of slots would be missed due to weather and other factors so the runways would be underutilized.

 

[steingar]

Again, the rules work. last year proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. One of my favorite old sayings is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

[EdFred]

There are a dozen airports within 30-40nm radius of RIPON--just divert, sit on the ground, relax, get some water, make some new friends and launch when OSH is open and/or the approach is more amicable. I already participate in the eSTMP IFR reservation system required for OSH and the surrounding airports which provides only 4 slots per hour -- don't see a way a VFR reservation system could ever work with the volume of VFR traffic. Shoot we have trouble with pilots being able to hold 1800 ft and 90 kts consistently for a few miles. Add in a time variable too -- Oy Vey!

We do it (slot reservations) at PTK when we run Operation Good Cheer. I want to say it was every 3 minutes, and we didn't have dots to land on.

"if it ain't broke don't fix it" says the geneticist. The irony is probably lost on you. (not you tst4)

 

[tsts4]

Just got my IFR reservation slot for OSH for this Friday afternoon per the eSTMP process listed in the NOTAM. The website wasn't working (apparently a known issue) so the help desk directed me to call the reservation phone number which I did and made the reservation telephonically. The weather Friday is looking good, at least in Wisconsin, and I'll probably cancel IFR once I get close and complete the arrival VFR.

 

[Groundpounder]

If you're approaching from the Northeast, what is the best way to approach RIPON? Go south of GRB and north of ATW and arrive RIPON from the north, or fly over MTW and south of FDL, and arrive at RIPON from the east?

 

[sourdough44]

I think one should maneuver a bit S.W. of RIPON and be close to the inbound track crossing RIPON. That is, compared to being in a belly-up angle of bank over RIPON. May depend on how busy it is.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If you're approaching from the Northeast, what is the best way to approach RIPON? Go south of GRB and north of ATW and arrive RIPON from the north, or fly over MTW and south of FDL, and arrive at RIPON from the east?

There will be fewer people approaching from the north, maybe by an order of magnitude. @sourdough44 makes an excellent point as well. Maybe put WS46 in your GPS (there don't seem to be any convenient intersections) so that you're making your turn a couple miles west of Ripon and then not changing your heading too much at Ripon.

But yes, I would favor a north approach over an east approach any day of the week. There will be far more traffic conflicts coming from the east.

 

[Somedudeintn]

Agreed. I was approaching from the east and had to break off before Ripon because there were already a few planes flying direct to/past Ripon. It would be better to join the correct heading a mile or two south west of Ripon.