The International Cessna 170 Association

In the tape of the local control frequency when Mr. Roush crashed, you can hear that he was given a left downwind for 18 right, and turn base opposite the tower. Is that a pretty tight pattern for an aircraft like that, assuming he wasn't planning to land halfway down the runway? I'm accustomed to seeing small jets flying very wide patterns or straight-in approaches. Would a base leg at the tower be challenging for that aircraft?

What physical distances are involved. The Premier can certainly manuever within 1/2 mile circle in good wx/light winds, but 1 mile is more reasonable/accomodating.

The tower is marked on the airport diagram, west of runway 18 (18R during Airventure, because taxiway A is used as 18L). It's about two-thirds of the distance from P1 to P2. During Airventure the 18R threshold is displaced south to a point abeam the tower. Most aircraft for 18R are told to land on one of several spots painted on the runway south of that point. The field uses split control frequencies during Airventure. No traffic for 18/36 is supposed to be north of the tower, and none of the 9/27 traffic is supposed to be south of the intersection of runways 13/31 and 4/22.

jrenwick wrote:The tower is marked on the airport diagram, west of runway 18 (18R during Airventure, because taxiway A is used as 18L). It's about two-thirds of the distance from P1 to P2. During Airventure the 18R threshold is displaced south to a point abeam the tower. Most aircraft for 18R are told to land on one of several spots painted on the runway south of that point. The field uses split control frequencies during Airventure. No traffic for 18/36 is supposed to be north of the tower, and none of the 9/27 traffic is supposed to be south of the intersection of runways 13/31 and 4/22.

Then, in my opinion, this non-standard pattern is inadequate for jet aircraft, regardless of model..... Still more support for my contention that Oshkosh has superceded commonly acceptable operational safety guidelines of our industry. (The blame may be legally placed upon the individual operator, but the airport authority and the FAA contribute to the hazard. Mix in the level of experience of most operators ....and you have a disaster-by-design.) IMO

gahorn wrote:Then, in my opinion, this non-standard pattern is inadequate for jet aircraft, regardless of model..... Still more support for my contention that Oshkosh has superceded commonly acceptable operational safety guidelines of our industry. (The blame may be legally placed upon the individual operator, but the airport authority and the FAA contribute to the hazard. Mix in the level of experience of most operators ....and you have a disaster-by-design.) IMO

Full information about the arrival and departure patterns is here: http://www.airventure.org/flying/2010_NOTAM.pdf. The pattern for 18R used by Roush is shown on page 10. The one on page 11 would have been easier, if he could have used it, or even better, the straight-in to 27, which I'm more used to seeing for jet aircraft.

I didn't mind flying down the Hudson River corridor in NYC. Lot's safer, was fun and I hope to do it again, soon.

I think it is great that you did this and regardless if I might think it is unsafe or not, I would never criticize anyone for doing it.

The International Cessna 170 Association should be very proud that 41 170's went to OSH this year and that 3 170s won awards. It is unfortunate that the event was categorized as being associated with "accident-prone crazies".

I for one think it is great 41 170s safely attended Oshkosh. 3 awards in the group is a fantastic accomplishment.

This thread while showing two very nice 170s is about that other aircraft and it's operation. I don't think it unfair to comment on the accident and events leading to it. The truth is when two or more aircraft operate in the same airspace the risk goes up. At large events the risk and therefor occurrence of bad events is higher. And it doesn't take really large events either. I've seen the worst in pilots normally safe and reliable in these circumstances. I've been caught myself doing something crazy in hind site myself.

I think it an unfair generalization to call all folks who attend large events whether they are flying related or not "accident-prone" but statistically there are more accidents per operation than other places or it would seem. Paraphrasing John who reports "only" a mid air and one landing accident this year, a much safer year than most. As for being crazy well that can be an easy label applied to lots of folks who are as passionate about aviation as folks who attend any aviation event let alone the larger ones.

As a person who has spent over 2000 hours flying up and don't the Hudson and attended several Sun N Fun events and perhaps one day Oshkosh where I would plan to fly in, George's statement really doesn't bother me because I read his statement very closely.

gahorn wrote: I don't want to be around all the other accident-prone crazies

Including the word "other" implies to me that George considers himself part of the group. I think I'm in pretty good company.

Correction to the 170's on the field. If I recall correctly, I counted 48 and Jan has the list. I also have pictures of the 170's that were parking on Tues morn where they crossed the tram route south. If anyone wants their picture that I have, you can email me. jh at evenlink dot com

John

Bruce: Thanks for your response
John: I would appreciate the pictures, email at the bottom of the post.
Thx,
Dan

My previous comments were not intended to personalize or point to anyone in particular, nor were they intended to imply that anyone who attends large fly-ins are "crazy".

My comment was in reference to the many times at such fly ins I've witnessed crazy people doing crazy antics and thereby endangering others. For that reason I pick and choose which fly ins I attend. It is a proud moment that so many of our group attended. I did not think any of them were crazy to do so.

The crazy ones are the ones who fly amatuerishly, sometimes easy to rise to anger and subsequently operate in anger, thereby endangering others.
THOSE are the crazies I'm avoiding.

It doesn't take a mathmatician to look over the statistics of the last decade or so of Oshkosh/SunNFun to see they are accident-prone activities. I don't consider anyone
who weighs those statistics and considers the benefit/risk of attendance to be imprudent. Nor should their choice be criticized personally for choosing not to jump into that beehive.

gahorn wrote:...It doesn't take a mathmatician to look over the statistics of the last decade or so of Oshkosh/SunNFun to see they are accident-prone activities. I don't consider anyone
who weighs those statistics and considers the benefit/risk of attendance to be imprudent. Nor should their choice be criticized personally for choosing not to jump into that beehive.

It might require some mathematical sophistication to understand the statistics, however. As I've always understood it, the accident rate at these events, relative to the number of operations, is no worse than for GA in general. I don't have a reference for that, so I can't vouch for it. But it might well be that flying in to Oshkosh and flying out again doesn't expose me to any more danger than flying in the pattern at my local airport.

Most of my arrivals at Oshkosh have been during not-very-busy periods, so I've never before seen traffic like what I encountered on the morning of Monday the 26th of July. That moment was just a little bit crazy, due to the field having just opened up at 10:00 AM, less than an hour before I arrived. Maybe if I'd held off a little longer it would not have been so busy.

George:
Thanks for your response as I too am a very careful pilot. I prepare for hours before OSH or Sun N Fun even though I have flown into each atleast 20 times. Most of the time that I arrive, I fly right in without traffic. On rare occations, I have to slow down to follow someone. I avoid the peak times such as after the air shows as that was one time when I was cut off on final and did have to do a go around. The arrival procedure is excellent and the controllers are accomodating even if you ask for an alternative runway due to wind. I feel safer flying into OSH than I do at most uncontrolled fly-ins.

John:
I suspect you're exactly right on the stats. I had that same thought when I read George's response. I would like to see the numbers if anyone has them.
Thx,
Dan

gahorn wrote: I'm not about to hang it up simply because I weigh benefit/risk and make a choice.

George-
I have to agree with you on this one. If a certain fly-in gets out of control, don't go. This is where Reklaw has gone in my opinion.

Last year while arriving at Reklaw I was twice cut-off on final while flying a standard pattern in-line with about 10 other planes who were flying sanely. Out of nowhere these two idiots swoop in and insert themselves between two adequately spaced aircraft. The first time I went around. The second time I went AWAY! Not worth it to me either so I'm not going back. It's too bad too, it's a very good fly-in otherwise, lots of nice airplanes and people (except for the other idiots you have to dodge who are walking across the runway while active operations are in progress) !!!

Maybe your earlier arrival procedure of coming in after dark with dual landing lights blazing IS actually safer. Can you really see the whites of their eyes?

Statistics can be twisted in any number of ways.

Accidents per operation may not be any worse when operations are considered for example if there is one accident per 1000 operations in 365 days but on one day you are surrounded by and part of 10,000 operations the likely hood you will see or be involved in one of the 10 accidents that day is higher.

Bruce Fenstermacher wrote:Statistics can be twisted in any number of ways.

Accidents per operation may not be any worse when operations are considered for example if there is one accident per 1000 operations in 365 days but on one day you are surrounded by and part of 10,000 operations the likely hood you will see or be involved in one of the 10 accidents that day is higher.

Far more likely that you will see an accident than be involved in one.