Good Oshkosh 170 pictures bad Beechcraft pictures

[N8293A]

Comparing OSH to Recklaw is not a relevant comparison. OSH has approved arrival and departure proceedures developed by a collaboration between the EAA and the FAA. These proceedures developed by professional personell whos job it is to move aircraft as safely, and expeditiously as possible. The proceedures have evolved, and are improved all the time. There are no fly-bys, low passes, touch-and-gos, going on while arrivals and departures are happening. When it is time for these activities to take place the FAA relinquishes 18-36 to the EAA, they then have control of the flyby pattern, for showcase aircraft. Runways 9-27 and 18-36 don't intersect, they are treated, and controlled as two seperate entities, each with its own frequency. Almost considered two seperate airports. Once the official daily airshow begins the airspace is sterilized, and the FAA turns the airport over to the EAA and their show boss. I've never been to Recklaw, but from what I gather, it is uncontrolled, and is utilizing standard traffic pattern proceedures, and ettiquette. These standard proceedures are designed to accomodate light traffic and not intended to be used for a high volumes of traffic. Two very different situations that shouldn't be compared.
It appears at this point the aircraft accident that occured at OSH was no different than any other slow flight, overshoot of base to final, the pilot made a mistake. The airplane stalled. The PIC could have refused the landing clearance, asked for a different runway, or decided to go-around sooner, if he tried at all. The PIC is just that, he has the final say. IMHO, the proceedures, nor the traffic volume have any bearing on this incident. Like any other accident of this type, I am sure pilot training, and experience in type will be closely scrutinized. Obviously I'm not an NTSB investigator so all this speculation could be nothing but rubish, after the total investigation is complete, and they found the airplane malfunctioned in some manner. Who knows?
One question I do have is; why was there an arrival aircraft inbound at that time? In the past, the airspace was sterilized for departures only immediatly after the airshow ended. The NOTAM stated, at the conclusion of the daily airshow, around 6:00 pm until 7:00 pm Wittman field will open for departure traffic only. Between 7:00 and 8:00 pm, the field will be open to both arrival and departure traffic. At 8:00 pm the field is NOTAM'd closed to all aircraft operations. The accident occured at approximatly 6:15 PM. I know in the past exceptions were made, and the controllers had the authority if the departure volume was light, and arrivals were waiting to get in, to open the field for all operations. In order to utilize the airspace to its design capacity.
Here may be a case where deviating from the published proceedures contributed to the situation. We all make many risk-reward decisions every day, it is another burden on the PIC. Flying to OSH carries an increased risk, but usually the reward is far greater because of the friends you meet, the relationships you form, and the airplanes you see.
Fly safe, see you at AIrventure '11!

[DaveF]

Since the word was mentioned, here are some "statistics" ...

The NTSB web site lists 29 accidents and incidents at Oshkosh or Ripon for the years 2000 through 2010 occurring in late July or early August. Let's assume those are all OSH-related events. Of those, six are airplanes involved in collisions or near collisions, so that reduces the number of actual events to 26. Roush isn't listed yet, so add one to get 27. Divide by 11 and you get 2.5 accidents/incidents per year. That doesn't seem bad considering 10000 airplanes attend the show, plus the airshow and all the ground movements.

Not one of those accidents or incidents was attributed to buzzing or reckless operation.

I've flown to OSH more than 10 times in the past 20+ years. I don't consider it dangerous. On the contrary, it's a great example of how well things can work when people read and follow the NOTAM, pay attention, and cooperate. I'll happily take my kids there as long as they remain airplane "crazies" . I've never been to Reklaw, but that sounds like, um, an entirely different kind of event.

[DWood]

Here is another way to look at the data:
From 7/15/2010 thru 8/5/2010 there were 47 incidents in the US
Only 2 were in Wisconsin (I did not include the Roush incident as it is not in the data)
There were 3 incidents in Utah and Washington during the same time.
There were 2 in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, illinois, Maine, Mississipi,Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas.

2 were in Alaska
2 were in Arizona
none is Arkansas
2 were in California
1 in Colorado
none is Connecticut
none is Delaware
none in DC
2 in Florida
none in Georgia
none in Guam
none in Hawaii
none in Idaho
2 in Illinois
none in Indiana
1 in Iowa
none in Kansas
none in Kentucky
none in Louisiana
2 in Maine
1 in Maryland
1 in Mass
none in Michigan
1 in Minnesota
2 in Mississippi
none in Missouri
none in Montana
2 in Nebraska
2 in Nevada
none in New Hampshire
none in New Jersey
1 in New Mexico
1 in New York
2 in North Carolina
none in North Dakota
1 in Ohio
none in Oklahoma
1 in Oregon
1 in Pennsylvania
none in Puerto Rico
none in Rhode Island
2 in South Carolina
2 in South Dakota
1 in Tennessee
2 in Texas
3 in Utah
none in Vermont
none in Virgin Islands
1 in Virginia
3 in Washington
none in West Virginia
1 in Wyoming

[jrenwick]

Here is another way to look at the data:
From 7/15/2010 thru 8/5/2010 there were 47 incidents in the US
Only 2 were in Wisconsin (I did not include the Roush incident as it is not in the data)
....

And when you look at the two Wisconsin incidents currently in the database, they both refer to the same mid-air event -- one incident for each of the aircraft involved. So all of the thousands of operations associated with Airventure 2010 contributed minimally to the accident rate -- one accident (Roush), one incident (the mid-air northeast of Ripon), two people injured (seriously) and no fatalities. That's something to be proud of.

[GAHorn]

Like Bruce said, one can make what one wishes out of statistics.

Comparing OSH to Recklaw is not a relevant comparison. OSH has approved arrival and departure proceedures developed by a collaboration between the EAA and the FAA. These proceedures developed by professional personell whos job it is to move aircraft as safely, and expeditiously as possible. ...

And yet, the Oshkosh accident rate is 2.5 each event for ten years straight. In 20 years there has been only one fatal accident at Reklaw. By the logic offered previously, uncontrolled Reklaw is a virtual haven of safety.

...The NTSB web site lists 29 accidents and incidents at Oshkosh or Ripon for the years 2000 through 2010 occurring in late July or early August. Let's assume those are all OSH-related events. Of those, six are airplanes involved in collisions or near collisions, so that reduces the number of actual events to 26. Roush isn't listed yet, so add one to get 27. Divide by 11 and you get 2.5 accidents/incidents per year. That doesn't seem bad considering 10000 airplanes attend the show, plus the airshow and all the ground movements.....

Forget Roush. What about the mid-air that occured this year?
The plain fact is that Oshkosh's 2.5 yearly accidents occur DURING their event. I'm not worried about flying into/out of Oshkosh the rest of the year..... only DURING their annual event, which is when they have their 2.5 accidents. That means that the odds during Oshkosh-week is 52 TIMES worse than the rest of their 2.5 accidents-year.

[DWood]

The plain fact is that Oshkosh's 2.5 yearly accidents occur DURING their event. I'm not worried about flying into/out of Oshkosh the rest of the year..... only DURING their annual event, which is when they have their 2.5 accidents. That means that the odds during Oshkosh-week is 52 TIMES worse than the rest of their 2.5 accidents-year.

One might be worried about flying in Texas as from 8/14/2009 to 8/13/2010 there were 110 incidents (48 fatal) where there were only 17 (all non fatal) in Wisconsin.

[GAHorn]

...One might be worried about flying in Texas as from 8/14/2009 to 8/13/2010 there were 110 incidents (48 fatal) where there were only 17 (all non fatal) in Wisconsin.

So... you can understand why a Texan might be a bit more concerned about flying around crowds...

[johneeb]

The plain fact is that Oshkosh's 2.5 yearly accidents occur DURING their event. I'm not worried about flying into/out of Oshkosh the rest of the year..... only DURING their annual event, which is when they have their 2.5 accidents. That means that the odds during Oshkosh-week is 52 TIMES worse than the rest of their 2.5 accidents-year.

One might be worried about flying in Texas as from 8/14/2009 to 8/13/2010 there were 110 incidents (48 fatal) where there were only 17 (all non fatal) in Wisconsin.

But Dan remember Texas is bigger then Wisconsin!!!!!!

[DWood]

I want to comment before others find it in my last post. The 110 incidents in Texas included 48 fatalities. there were not 48 incidents with fatalities.
NTSB.gov has all the raw data and anyone can run statistics from it. However, statistics as most everyone knows really needs to be understood or it can be misleading. I have only reported raw data.

[DWood]

DWood wrote:
...One might be worried about flying in Texas as from 8/14/2009 to 8/13/2010 there were 110 incidents (48 fatal) where there were only 17 (all non fatal) in Wisconsin.

So... you can understand why a Texan might be a bit more concerned about flying around crowds...

Yes George, it all makes perfect sense now.
Thx,
Dan

[hungstart]

My grandaughter and I were in the third 170 just on back down the taxiway about 100 yards. We watched the whole scenario develop. As Roush over corrected back to the runway I saw the nose pitch up and I said my granddaughter, good decision he's going around, but the aircraft then rolled right and impacted right wing down. He was very lucky that he impacted in the soft mud instead of the hard taxiways. It did an excellent job of stopping the aircraft and preventing any sparks that could have started a post-crash fire.
We sat on the taxiway for two hours before they sent us to the east side of runway 18 to taxi to runway 27. We took off after the other 170 and got home about 02:00.

[GAHorn]

...I think it an unfair generalization to call all folks who attend large events whether they are flying related or not "accident-prone" ....

That's NOT what I said.

I was surprised to see the amount of (defensive?) personal criticism over my choice to avoid crowded fly-ins with high accident-records , and in an attempt to understand the opposing attitudes, I re-read this thread.

I wish to clarify that I did not categorize "all folks who attend large events" as accident-prone OR crazy. I would ask those who mis-read my comments and thought that was my statement to also re-read this thread.

I was only pointing out that SOME of the attendees are accident-prone/crazies. Those are the ones who are discourteous, reckless, and endanger all the rest of the folks who read the briefings, follow instructions, and operate prudently.

There was no reason for any of you to feel threatened or criticized by my comments, and no reason for anyone to disparage my view of the hazards attached to operating in that environment. If you read my comments as critical of you... then you got them wrong.

[c170b53]

I didn't mention this but on the way back from Benton Harbor, I had a near miss with a DC-3. The weather had been deteriorating, the two of us were looking for a place to land and it didn't help that the plane had a WWII camouflage paint job. I was manouvering for KSQI Sterling/ Rock falls, the 3 was landing at Dixon (C73). I think he was 80 feet below me and 200 feet to my left and albeit there was space between us, we flew past each other so fast that we were both, just spectators (at least I was). This near miss has me re-evaluating my thoughts on small TCAS units as well
I think there was significant pressure on many fields and hotels near OSK when they closed the runways early and bad weather didn't help.

[c170b53]

When most of us were posting in the beginning often there was a lack of awareness of how easy it is to miscommunicate in our forums. With time most of us have learned to try to be tolerant of jumping on a poster especially if it seems that that poster posts alot. The convention is a great element of the association in that it provides an opportunity for individuals to meet each other. Its here that friendships, often strained by distance are renewed and where there's an opportunity to appreciate the finer things that many bring to our gatherings. (I've always felt like I was Junior around the long standing members but I'm slowly getting used to it and it will probably be gone in four years when I'm sixty)
I've discovered an interesting phenomenon when I read posts lately and I'm wondering whether its an affliction shared by others. It's obviously a byproduct of attending the conventions and something that has just sneaked up on me. When looking at posts, and knowing the poster, instead of hearing my voice in my head, I now read the post in my mind with the intonations of the poster!
It's a bit scary and I'm going to have to blame this in tire sit you asian on Ole Gar.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

When most of us were posting in the beginning often there was a lack of awareness of how easy it is to miscommunicate in our forums.

This is day six of this thread and into it's 3rd page it has taken on many characteristics of some threads this long. The first thing that happened is that early one a poster made a statement which others did not agree. Perhaps it was intended, maybe unintended, maybe a poor choice of words or it was miss read by the readers. In any case we are off to the races in a direction completely different that the subject line.

At about page two we might discover that the person who posted the early renegade thought either has dug in their heels with data to support their claim and their position is supported with a second or third by others but those disagreeing aren't taking it lying down. About this time the thread sometimes shoots off in another direction.

About page three we discover that the renegade had his fingers on the wrong keys when he typed his first thought and it didn't come out the way intended. But of course half those following the thread by know have been convinced and agree with the unintended thought.

Then the thread goes yet another direction where we discuss the art of quick written communication and it's inability to sometimes convey the intended message. This is where we are now six days and three pages of posts. An eternity in quick computer pace world we live in. Had this same topic been brought up among the same friends at the local water hole the same entire thoughts and communication would have taken 15 seconds soon forgotten among most and no one would have given it much second thought.

.....

Yes Jim, I hear the voices of those I know when I read their posts. Ol Gar, George, Frank and Ron each with different southern accent I have down pretty well. Now your softer spoken western Canadian voice I'm still working on.