Thoughts on FAA/EAA's response to Jack Roush's Accident

roncachamp said:
Why? If the ATIS can transmit a "live" voice but can't transmit a recorded message the ATIS is unusable.
Click to expand...
You'd have trouble fixing the system. I don't know if you are deliberately acting obtuse. If the ATIS can transmit a live voice, but can't transmit the recording, the problem isn't in the transmitter. I'd then start looking for the problem in a component of the system prior to where the recorded audio gets to the transmitter.
 
mitchellfstafford said:
I love how everyone on here is nitpicking arguing with each other whether or not they can broadcast "live" on ATIS Frequency. Obviously if they were on there going "testing 1,2,3..." they are able to get on the frequency "live" and check it out. Why don't we stop arguing with each other and trying to one up one another.
Click to expand...

You must be new here. :wink2:

Steven goes way back in the nitpicking department. If you said "They are black-eyed peas" he would spend the rest of the day arguing that "No, they are black-eyed BEANS".

Doesn't matter the topic, Steven is always the foil, the devil's advocate. That was his role on the old newsgroups, and he's picked right up here.

That's what makes him so danged fun, BTW. After all, where would this place be, if we all sat around AGREEING with each other? :D
 
roncachamp said:
Well, don't keep it to yourself. 'Splain it!
Click to expand...

Bifurcation is the simple process of breaking a system in the middle and taking a methodical approach to seeing where a problem is.

In the case of an amplitude modulated transmitter, you can split it into carrier and modulation. Obviously since a distant receiver was full quieted with the carrier, there was a problem with the modulation.

The system is then further bifurcated into audio and power modulator. If you insert a microphone in place of the tape recorded audio, you can see if the transmitter is modulating. Obviously from the comments it was.

You have now isolated it to the tape recorder circuitry and if you are a component or subsystem qualified technician you can find and replace the defective part(s). That is presuming you have the part(s) available to you. At the very least you can call the parts depot and tell them what to send out.

I do not know the evolution of the "tape" recorder. My last acquaintance with the system was a continuous loop of "real" ferrous oxide tape, much the same as the reel-to-reel or cassette recorders of the day, but with a mobius twist in the tape to let it go round and round with no apparent end. The tape itself broke on quite a regular basis.

As I understand it today, it is a RAM chip optimized for audio recording with lifetime measured in dozens (if not hundreds) of years. Google "isd voice recorder integrated circuit" if you need more information. On the other hand, it is a CMOS part and static electricity sensitive. Perhaps the tower took a direct hit sometime in the prior weeks and crippled the little rascal, only to completely fail at the worst possible time. Just a SEWAG, mindya.

Jim
 
Palmpilot said:
If you have a malfunction in a system and don't know where the problem originates, you can often divide the system into two smaller subsystems (hence "bifurcation") and test each individually to find out which works and which doesn't. That narrows down the search for the cause. The process can then be repeated on the half of the system that is malfunctioning.
Click to expand...

Okay, so I lay down a new ATIS broadcast on the track not in use. It's reviewed before being selected for broadcast, it sounds good, the new recording is selected for broadcast, and shortly thereafter pilots start reporting no ATIS.

I already know the recording subsystem works, why do I need the capability to broadcast live to check the transmitter subsystem?
 
weirdjim said:
I never quite got the hang of texting attachments. Could'ya attach it to a regular email to jweir43@gmail.com ?

Thanks,

Jim
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Must be your cellular plan, cuz you shouldn't have to "get the hang" of anything to view the pic. It's supposed to just show up there, for you to see.

I'll try to dig it out of my phone and email it...
 
Jay Honeck said:
Hmmm. Must be your cellular plan, cuz you shouldn't have to "get the hang" of anything to view the pic. It's supposed to just show up there, for you to see.

I'll try to dig it out of my phone and email it...
Click to expand...


Jay, old buddy, I just spent the hardest 8 weeks of my life ... 5 weeks of 6 hours a day teaching 2 hours from home, prior to which a week in NOLA getting up at 6 and going to bed at midnight. I just finished the class yesterday and looked at my cell for the first time in 8 weeks...1487 messages that I have to delete one at a time. I'm sure yours is in there somewhere.

Jim
 
Jay Honeck said:
The reason given for this? Because Oshkosh Airport had "insufficient emergency response vehicles and personnel to handle TWO accidents, should a second one occur."
Click to expand...

How much more would you pay for admission for the convenience of duplicating the fire/paramedic/other services?

All because ONE runway, over a mile away from Rwy 27, was closed? The ignorance and stupidity boggles the mind. The excuse that OSH simply could not handle another emergency should one occur is unacceptable, given the consequences of closing the airport, and IMHO this sort of unsafe reactionary procedure MUST be corrected if Airventure is to continue in Oshkosh.
Click to expand...

The consequence of closing the airport is sending people somewhere else. Big deal. If you want convenience, pony up.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That's a cool idea, although I have no idea how to implement it. Ideas, anyone?
Click to expand...

I don't know either. My thinking was that SOMEONE must be counting operations, I assume someone in the tower (with a pink shirt? :wink2:.

Put a computer in front of that person with an update every hour to the EAA website. Heck, even stick it behind the member portal at OSHKOSH365 to encourage subscriptions.

Maybe NATCA could sponsor it as a way to show the super job the controllers do.

Put it side by side with a graph of ORD/LGA/LAX, whatever.

If it's a question of manpower to compile and enter the data, I'm sure we can get EAA volunteers to donate an hour at a time. Especially if you let us sit in the tower :wink2:

It should be possible to have EAA do it out of the data it has with camping/parking registrations. Unfortunately there's a delay of indeterminable time between when an aircraft is parked and when it's paid for. Arrivals are when the registration starts, departures could be when the refunds are issued.
 
roncachamp said:
Okay, so I lay down a new ATIS broadcast on the track not in use. It's reviewed before being selected for broadcast, it sounds good, the new recording is selected for broadcast, and shortly thereafter pilots start reporting no ATIS.

I already know the recording subsystem works, why do I need the capability to broadcast live to check the transmitter subsystem?
Click to expand...

Electronics troubleshooting can be tricky business. It's not always possible to know in advance what troubleshooting tools you are going to need, so it's best to be equipped with all of the tools that can be economically provided. If you have the capability to test either the first half of a system by itself, or the second half by itself, it's often completely arbitrary as to which you test first.

It's also not valid to assume that one half of the system working proves that the problem is in the other half, because that doesn't rule out the possibility of an intermittent defect, which is very common in electronics. So yes, you do need the capability of testing both halves independently.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You'd have trouble fixing the system. I don't know if you are deliberately acting obtuse. If the ATIS can transmit a live voice, but can't transmit the recording, the problem isn't in the transmitter. I'd then start looking for the problem in a component of the system prior to where the recorded audio gets to the transmitter.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to fix the system, that's a Tech Ops job. If the system records but doesn't transmit that's what I'm going to tell them when I report it out of service.
 
weirdjim said:
What was the make and model of the distributor on your automobile that you were driving in 1970?
Click to expand...

Make and model of the ATIS would be analogous to make and model of automobile, not to the distributor.
 
Palmpilot said:
Electronics troubleshooting can be tricky business. It's not always possible to know in advance what troubleshooting tools you are going to need, so it's best to be equipped with all of the tools that can be economically provided. If you have the capability to test either the first half of a system by itself, or the second half by itself, it's often completely arbitrary as to which you test first.

It's also not valid to assume that one half of the system working proves that the problem is in the other half, because that doesn't rule out the possibility of an intermittent defect, which is very common in electronics. So yes, you do need the capability of testing both halves independently.
Click to expand...

But I don't have the capability of testing both halves independently. I can record and playback without transmitting, but I cannot transmit anything but a recording.
 
roncachamp said:
I'm not going to fix the system, that's a Tech Ops job. If the system records but doesn't transmit that's what I'm going to tell them when I report it out of service.
Click to expand...
A few people explained why they would use voice and how to troubleshoot...your quote above suggests you are blissful in ignorance.

roncachamp said:
But I don't have the capability of testing both halves independently. I can record and playback without transmitting, but I cannot transmit anything but a recording.
Click to expand...

The TechOp probably can.

WierdJim called it right. You can stay in the mud.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The equipment is made in town. I suspect Oshkosh Truck could be persuaded to donate a truck or three for the week.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much that the factory keeps a fleet of finished trucks sitting around. I think they are made to order, and are shipped immediately on completion.

-Skip
 
It's positively phenomenal how much bandwidth has been squandered on a petty argument about whether "1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5 ..." was recorded or live when it don't make one hill of beans difference to anybody.

(And I still haven't figured out which of the participants has demonstrated they can pi$$ the highest, or the farthest, or whatever the contest was about. Can somebody tell me who won??)
 
Tom Veatch said:
It's positively phenomenal how much bandwidth has been squandered on a petty argument about whether "1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5 ..." was recorded or live when it don't make one hill of beans difference to anybody.

(And I still haven't figured out which of the participants has demonstrated they can pi$$ the highest, or the farthest, or whatever the contest was about. Can somebody tell me who won??)
Click to expand...
That's a good question...certainly I'm not going to play anymore- I got sucked in before I realized it was a game. There's more useful things to waste time on.
 
Tom Veatch said:
(And I still haven't figured out which of the participants has demonstrated they can pi$$ the highest, or the farthest, or whatever the contest was about. Can somebody tell me who won??)
Click to expand...

The "highest" reminds me of the story about the office group sitting at the bar on Friday night drinking a LOT of beer when they decided to have a contest to see how far up the alley wall they could pi$$. One of the females in the group asked if she could play the game. Well, she was pretty athletic, so she took a running start, did a vertical plant on the wall, squeezed out a few drops and hit about 6' up the wall. The fellows all agreed that FOR A GIRL it wasn't a bad shot. The first guy gets up to compete, unzips, and she says, "No, no, no hands".

As to who won, the Cherokee tell the story about the grandfather talking to the grandson. THe grandson asked what goes on inside a person. Grandfather says that it is a continual fight between the good wolf and the bad wolf. THe good wolf is characterized by charity, helpfulness, cheerfulness, and good deeds. The bad wolf is characterized by greed, deceit, lies, and cheating. The grandson asked who would win. The grandfather took a deep breath, looked the kid in the eyes, and said, "the one you feed."

Jim
 
Sounds like a real cluster frick. Been to OSH when there were several delays before, like rain and had to go to another airport and try to find out when arrivals would be allowed again only to get into the air and find out they weren't allowed.

The fire fighters have to be certified not just on the equipment, but also on AC accidents. Different treatments for different kinds of fire and accidents. I have no idea what it would take to have a second certified crew there. If one was on call, it could take a long time to get them in and they wound need to get equipment there.

Communications sure needed to be improved from what you said.

Am I recalling correctly or do many of the controllers volunteer to work OSH? Don't know why they left right at eight, but it may be an airspace issue; police and city issue; folks having to be elsewhere or whatever. Operating beyond 8:00 may not have been a controller discretionary issue.

Sounds like a real mess. Hopefully, you'll get more details and be able to separate out what could have been done better and what was out of the control of tower. I don't think tower would control a fire equipment/crew issue. EAA and the city may have that distinction.

Best,

Dave
 
Skip Miller said:
I doubt very much that the factory keeps a fleet of finished trucks sitting around. I think they are made to order, and are shipped immediately on completion.

-Skip
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right -- those things are pretty spendy. I wonder what the regulations are about bringing in some extra help from (for example) Austin-Straubel Airport in Green Bay? Or maybe some Air National Guard guys?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
That's a good question...certainly I'm not going to play anymore- I got sucked in before I realized it was a game. There's more useful things to waste time on.
Click to expand...

Well, it would be nice to actually discuss the topic of my thread, rather than some minutiae about ATIS that seems to have stuck in Steven's craw....
 
so when everything gets backed up don't join the conga line over the lake. go somewhere else.
 
How much more would you pay for admission for the convenience of duplicating the fire/paramedic/other services?
Click to expand...

That policy is just lawyer-speak, dictated by some bitchy "risk manager" who was hired to make sure that no "risk" is ever assumed. I, for one, refuse to live in their world.

Further, I defy anyone to come up with the odds of having two serious crashes on Wittman Field simultaneously, where the second accident occurs before the first one is properly dealt with. I suspect that your odds of winning the lottery are significantly greater than of this happening, but we'll have to ask an actuary to chime in here.

If the odds are, say, a million to one against it happening, should we still close the airport when there's a single incident? 10 million to one? When is the risk low enough to satisfy a person who is paid to assess risk?

However, even if you allow these people to dictate your reality, there is little or no extra cost IF you can obtain volunteer airport fire fighters from, oh, say, Mitchell Field in Milwaukee, or the Air National Guard in Madison. I suspect that would take a few phone calls, and a few free passes.

The consequence of closing the airport is sending people somewhere else. Big deal. If you want convenience, pony up.
Click to expand...

No, the consequences are the greater risk of a mid-air collision somewhere over the tracks between Ripon and OSH or around the lakes due to sudden saturation. I'm no mathematician, but I suspect the odds of that happening are significantly higher (due to airport closure) than the odds are that something bad will happen elsewhere on the airport because they left the other runway(s) in operation after an accident at the other end of the airport.

And, of course, there is no cost for the FAA to implement common sense. (Although rumor has it that there will be a new tax on it in the 2011 Federal budget...)
 
tonycondon said:
so when everything gets backed up don't join the conga line over the lake. go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's always a good option. However, human nature is inclined toward "hope", and most pilots I know will join the hold in the "hope" that the airport will re-open soon, since they don't want to spend another night somewhere other than where they planned to be.

That was a real danger in this instance -- pent up demand and frustration, with thousands of pilots unable to get into the show for several days before this accident occurred. Finally, the field was opened to arrivals -- only to be closed abruptly after the Roush accident due to intransigent bureaucrats dictating airport policy, rather than pilots.

Thankfully, everyone performed admirably and there were no incidents that I know of, but that doesn't change the fact that unnecessary risks were taken by abruptly closing the airport after Roush's accident. The FAA ended up being the problem here, rather than Roush, and people could have died because of it. That's just unacceptable, IMHO.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Further, I defy anyone to come up with the odds of having two serious crashes on Wittman Field simultaneously, where the second accident occurs before the first one is properly dealt with. I suspect that your odds of winning the lottery are significantly greater than of this happening, but we'll have to ask an actuary to chime in here.

If the odds are, say, a million to one against it happening, should we still close the airport when there's a single incident? 10 million to one? When is the risk low enough to satisfy a person who is paid to assess risk?
Click to expand...

If the events are independent, the odds of two events happening are the square of the odds of one event happening, IIRC. But once you have one accident, the odds of the second accident may go up, due to factors such as distraction, and the possibility of people and/or emergency vehicles being in locations where they might not otherwise be, so it's not completely obvious to me that closing the entire airport was the wrong decision.

What is obvious to me is that witholding information from inbound aircraft creates an unnecessary safety hazard, because pilots need accurate information in order to make safe decisions.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If nothing else, it would prove the transmitter was working properly.
Click to expand...
You lost me on this one Greg, I am not following your line of thinking on this at all. If the transmitter is working it would transmit a recorded voice as well as a live voice. If you heard anything you would know that the transmitter is working.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That policy is just lawyer-speak, dictated by some bitchy "risk manager" who was hired to make sure that no "risk" is ever assumed. I, for one, refuse to live in their world.
Click to expand...

That's an assumption on your part. But if you don't want to live in their world, don't go to OSH, lest you potentially be inconvenienced for a brief time.

Further, I defy anyone to come up with the odds of having two serious crashes on Wittman Field simultaneously, where the second accident occurs before the first one is properly dealt with. I suspect that your odds of winning the lottery are significantly greater than of this happening, but we'll have to ask an actuary to chime in here.

If the odds are, say, a million to one against it happening, should we still close the airport when there's a single incident? 10 million to one? When is the risk low enough to satisfy a person who is paid to assess risk?
Click to expand...
So, if you crash while the rescue crew is busy, and your spouse or one of your kids die because there was no one to extricate them from the wreckage, of course you wouldn't sue...

However, even if you allow these people to dictate your reality, there is little or no extra cost IF you can obtain volunteer airport fire fighters from, oh, say, Mitchell Field in Milwaukee, or the Air National Guard in Madison. I suspect that would take a few phone calls, and a few free passes.
Click to expand...
Between your expectation of Oshkosh Truck providing equipment gratis and volunteer firefighting help, it sound like you have a case of entitlement culture.

No, the consequences are the greater risk of a mid-air collision somewhere over the tracks between Ripon and OSH or around the lakes due to sudden saturation. I'm no mathematician, but I suspect the odds of that happening are significantly higher (due to airport closure) than the odds are that something bad will happen elsewhere on the airport because they left the other runway(s) in operation after an accident at the other end of the airport.
Click to expand...
No, as Tony so aptly put it, you go somewhere else. Why should FAA or EAA be responsible for a bunch of pilots' bad decision making?

And, of course, there is no cost for the FAA to implement common sense. (Although rumor has it that there will be a new tax on it in the 2011 Federal budget...)
Click to expand...
waaambulance.jpg
 
Jay Honeck said:
Yeah, you're probably right -- those things are pretty spendy. I wonder what the regulations are about bringing in some extra help from (for example) Austin-Straubel Airport in Green Bay? Or maybe some Air National Guard guys?
Click to expand...

Those things are pretty spendy for everyone so the tendency is not to have more than is required. Bring in extra help from other airports and those airports fall below their required index. See FAR Part 139 Certification of Airports.

No hyphen in Austin Straubel.
 
Jay Honeck said:
However, even if you allow these people to dictate your reality, there is little or no extra cost IF you can obtain volunteer airport fire fighters from, oh, say, Mitchell Field in Milwaukee, or the Air National Guard in Madison. I suspect that would take a few phone calls, and a few free passes.
Click to expand...

How many is a few? You're talking about two full crews for at least two weeks. How many firefighters is that?

What would these folks have to do in order to volunteer for Oshkosh? They'd have to get time off from their present positions, that means using their vacation leave. It also means spousal support. They also need a place to stay, is that to be at their own expense or is that to be donated? Either way, what's the availability? Housing's pretty scarce in that area at that time.

That's just part of the personnel problem, you still haven't found any vehicles or equipment.
 
Last edited:
Being a member of the WI ANG, and knowing the former fire chief of the MKE unit, I can tell you there are WIANG members there to advise the OSH fire department regarding hazmat and rescue issues, esp from the military planes. There is no extra equipment sitting around that can be taken up to OSH, nor are there crews available, without depriving another facility of rescue and fire fighting capabilities. The decision to close the airport and for how long was an FAA issue, based upon the evaluation as to the extent of risk from the incident commander. Giving some guard guys free tickets and asking them to work for free is not realistic-who supplies the equipment and who trains them to work with the local FD? What happens if one of them got hurt or injured while there? Who pays their medical expenses and lost wages- not the OSH fire department (not an employee), not the ANG (not on orders). The fire and rescue personnel did their job- it comes back on the airport management and FAA to deal with the downstream effects of a crash.
 
dmccormack said:
The regulations covering such assistance are legion.

The National Guard (Army and Air) is not a free labor pool (despite implementation as such from time to time).
Click to expand...

Okay, let's think outside the box here.

There is lots of Air National Guard stuff already on Aeroshell Square every year, including F-16s and KC-135s. Why not do a display of airport firefighting equipment, too? Bring the truck(s) up from Madison for the week, slip the guys a half-dozen week-long passes, and I'll bet you get your quota of volunteers.

Then, if there is an incident on one runway, this "display" becomes "active", moving out to position near the runway until the other accident is cleaned up.

Result: The airport reopens after a very brief closure, the danger to airborne pilots is thus mitigated, and Aeroshell Square gets a cool new display. Heck, you could even count the time as "training" for the guys...

Sounds like a win-win to me.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Okay, let's think outside the box here.

There is lots of Air National Guard stuff already on Aeroshell Square every year, including F-16s and KC-135s. Why not do a display of airport firefighting equipment, too? Bring the truck(s) up from Madison for the week, slip the guys a half-dozen week-long passes, and I'll bet you get your quota of volunteers.

Then, if there is an incident on one runway, this "display" becomes "active", moving out to position near the runway until the other accident is cleaned up.

Result: The airport reopens after a very brief closure, the danger to airborne pilots is thus mitigated, and Aeroshell Square gets a cool new display. Heck, you could even count the time as "training" for the guys...

Sounds like a win-win to me.
Click to expand...

Of course it does...

But the Devil is in the details, and my guess is lots of pretty smart and experienced people have looked at the details and said, "This won't work because..."

I haven't attended Av and don't have a big itch too, quite frankly, but I know a bit about Guard assignments and think there are likely a host of MOAs and MOUs would need to be crafted before such a "win-win" would become reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top