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

[Trapper John]

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.

An ANG squadron may have 16-24 or more aircraft, but they don't have multiple fire-fighting apparatus to put on display.

 

[Jay Honeck]

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.

Thanks for chiming in, Jim. We're hearing lots of reasons to explain the current situation on the field, and that's a great place to start the conversation.

However, IMHO we need to come up with suggestions for how to fix this problem, before someone gets hurt or killed. The bottom line is that the FAA, in an effort to ameliorate risk on the field, is creating a greater risk in the air -- and that's just not good policy.

To me this whole thing stinks of CYA by the FAA. They are closing the field in a snap after an accident to cover their butts, figuring that if someone augers in over FISK as a result that's "not their problem".

Well, as pilots and participants in Airventure, it's OUR problem, and no one inside EAA or FAA is going to fix it if we don't bring it to their attention.

 

[Jay Honeck]

An ANG squadron may have 16-24 or more aircraft, but they don't have multiple fire-fighting apparatus to put on display.

Would it be unacceptable for the Madison ANG squadron to stand down for the week of OSH?

Wait, they wouldn't be "standing down" -- they would be "deploying". Make the whole thing an "exercise", or something. If they are like firefighters I've met, they would jump at the chance to do something new and different.

 

[roncachamp]

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.

Does the ANG have firefighting equipment to spare at MSN? What do they have? How does stripping the ANG of these six guys and their equipment affect operations at MSN? Who pays the cost of moving the equipment to OSH? Who houses these six guys? Can you man two shifts daily with six guys? What aircraft displays are displaced from Aeroshell Square by this display? Why would these six guys give up two weeks of vacation for a free weekly pass to AirVenture?

 

[AcroBoy]

Again, there is no way any firefighter would work on a volunteer status- there are simply too many issues regarding liability and insurance, as in my previous post. It is possible to set up something for coverage with a lot of negotiating, MOU's, JAG, and ANG approvals. Any ANG member in OSH in uniform is on orders- they are not volunteers.

Having firefighters in OSH to augment the OSH fire department is in principle a good idea. However, it would take them away from their other responsibilities, like protecting the airport in MSN or MKE. It would cost a lot, when it is difficult and nearly impossible to comply with all of our other training requirements, let alone having them support two ongoing wars. Should we be sending trained Air Force fire fighters to support a civilian activity that is largely an avocation for most attendees while taking them away when they are more needed at home station or overseas in Afghanistan or Iraq?

 

[roncachamp]

Thanks for chiming in, Jim. We're hearing lots of reasons to explain the current situation on the field, and that's a great place to start the conversation.

However, IMHO we need to come up with suggestions for how to fix this problem, before someone gets hurt or killed. The bottom line is that the FAA, in an effort to ameliorate risk on the field, is creating a greater risk in the air -- and that's just not good policy.

To me this whole thing stinks of CYA by the FAA. They are closing the field in a snap after an accident to cover their butts, figuring that if someone augers in over FISK as a result that's "not their problem".

Well, as pilots and participants in Airventure, it's OUR problem, and no one inside EAA or FAA is going to fix it if we don't bring it to their attention.

What makes you think it's the FAA that closed the field? Closing a runway or an airport is generally a decision of the owner.

 

[roncachamp]

Would it be unacceptable for the Madison ANG squadron to stand down for the week of OSH?

Wait, they wouldn't be "standing down" -- they would be "deploying". Make the whole thing an "exercise", or something. If they are like firefighters I've met, they would jump at the chance to do something new and different.

Why do you assume the WI ANG has the responsibility for CFR at MSN?

 

[Trapper John]

Would it be unacceptable for the Madison ANG squadron to stand down for the week of OSH?

Since ANG squadrons are tasked with defending the country, I'd say it's totally unreasonable, especially considering they'd be "standing down" just for the convenience of a bunch of show-goers.

Wait, they wouldn't be "standing down" -- they would be "deploying". Make the whole thing an "exercise", or something. If they are like firefighters I've met, they would jump at the chance to do something new and different.

Again, spending a bunch of taxpayer money just for your convenience...it's a significant undertaking to deploy a squadron anywhere - it takes a whole lot more than just shuttling the planes and fire trucks.

 

[Jay Honeck]

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.

I'm sure you're right. But somehow, some way the ANG manages to get pilots and air crew to stand by their planes all week in Aeroshell Square, handing out posters and answering questions.

I can't think of a good reason why ANG firefighters wouldn't be any different, but maybe there are different rules for them?

 

[Trapper John]

However, IMHO we need to come up with suggestions for how to fix this problem, before someone gets hurt or killed. The bottom line is that the FAA, in an effort to ameliorate risk on the field, is creating a greater risk in the air -- and that's just not good policy.

You haven't established that there's even a problem, other than inconvenience. Maybe you should wait until you see all the ASRS forms recounting near-miss experiences from the impatient bunch holding at the fixes before you declare a safety problem.

To me this whole thing stinks of CYA by the FAA. They are closing the field in a snap after an accident to cover their butts, figuring that if someone augers in over FISK as a result that's "not their problem".

You don't even know that the FAA decided to close the field. My guess is that it was the county or whoever manages the airport.

 

[AcroBoy]

Yes, all of the fighter wing could stand down for a week during OSH. Of course, all of the full timers would still need to be paid out of our tax dollars, training would be delayed, and the coverage that the MSN AF firefighters provide at the MSN airport would be diminished during OSH- remember that the Air Force fire departments in both MKE and MSN are integral parts of the emergency response capabilities of both airports- their equipment rolls for both civilian and military emergencies. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul- should we be limiting our support of the business and commerce at MKE and MSN in support of a private and voluntary operation at OSH. What part of our training and operational budget should be compromised to support this? As it is now, taking planes up to OSH also takes them out of the inventory, along with the crews. Yes, it is great for recruiting, but there is also a big cost associated with doing this.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Again, spending a bunch of taxpayer money just for your convenience...it's a significant undertaking to deploy a squadron anywhere - it takes a whole lot more than just shuttling the planes and fire trucks.

Really? Driving three Oshkosh trucks from Madison to Oshkosh is going to cost a "bunch of taxpayer money"?

I'm sure they get lousy gas mileage, but I'll bet it's not more than 20 gallons of gas apiece.

Looks like it's about 82 miles:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1pn=Dane+County+Regional+Airport-Msn&1c=Madison&1s=WI&1a=4000+International+Ln+%23+3&1z=53704&1y=US&1l=43.135063&1g=-89.346497&1v=ADDRESS&1id=262243224&2pn=Wittman+Regional+Airport+(OSH)&2c=Oshkosh&2s=WI&2a=525+W+20th+Ave&2z=54902&2y=US&2l=43.99567&2g=-88.54917&2v=ADDRESS&2id=7062057#initPgSt

I don't know the specifics about Oshkosh trucks, but if all they ever do is run 'em around the airport, it would probably do them good to get them out on the highway for an hour or two...

 

[roncachamp]

You don't even know that the FAA decided to close the field. My guess is that it was the county or whoever manages the airport.

Wittman Field is owned and operated by Winnebago County.

 

[AcroBoy]

The way to determine who closes the airport is to look at their emergency plan. Controlling the airplanes at and around Fisk and how to handle them when stacked up seems to me to be an FAA responsibility.

 

[Trapper John]

Really? Driving three Oshkosh trucks from Madison to Oshkosh is going to cost a "bunch of taxpayer money"?

I'm sure they get lousy gas mileage, but I'll bet it's not more than 20 gallons of gas apiece.

Looks like it's about 82 miles:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1pn=Dane+County+Regional+Airport-Msn&1c=Madison&1s=WI&1a=4000+International+Ln+%23+3&1z=53704&1y=US&1l=43.135063&1g=-89.346497&1v=ADDRESS&1id=262243224&2pn=Wittman+Regional+Airport+(OSH)&2c=Oshkosh&2s=WI&2a=525+W+20th+Ave&2z=54902&2y=US&2l=43.99567&2g=-88.54917&2v=ADDRESS&2id=7062057#initPgSt

You were talking about deploying the squadron, not just the fire trucks. That a whole lot of people and stuff and it costs money. All to solve a non-existant problem. And if there even is a problem, it's pilots crashing, so why not fix the problem at the source?

 

[Jay Honeck]

You haven't established that there's even a problem, other than inconvenience. Maybe you should wait until you see all the ASRS forms recounting near-miss experiences from the impatient bunch holding at the fixes before you declare a safety problem.

I've established the fact based on my own personal experience and observation, as well as the experience and observations of some other very experienced pilots. A problem exists that needs to be addressed.

Just did some quick math in my head, and came up with 53. That's the number of times the guys and gals in my group have flown into Airventure.

How many times have YOU flown into Airventure again?

You don't even know that the FAA decided to close the field. My guess is that it was the county or whoever manages the airport.

Irrelevant. It matters not which set of bureaucrats is dictating the closure -- the only thing that matters is changing their perception of the problem, either by convincing them that their problem is outweighed by others, or by addressing their concerns.

 

[roncachamp]

The way to determine who closes the airport is to look at their emergency plan. Controlling the airplanes at and around Fisk and how to handle them when stacked up seems to me to be an FAA responsibility.

Yup, the FAA is responsible for the airspace, but the airport is on the surface.

 

[Jay Honeck]

You were talking about deploying the squadron, not just the fire trucks. That a whole lot of people and stuff and it costs money. All to solve a non-existant problem. And if there even is a problem, it's pilots crashing, so why not fix the problem at the source?

Why would you need to deploy the whole squadron? All that's required would be the firefighters, and the aircraft they choose to display in Aeroshell Square.

There is no reason to make this complicated.

 

[AcroBoy]

It might be possible to call sending firefighters and their equipment to OSH a deployment, or training exercise. It still would require reams of paperwork, JAG and ANG approval regarding liability issues, insurance coverage, defining scope of practice, etc. Again, this would all cost a lot of days and dollars, money that is desperately needed for training and real world operational support. I just can't see this generating a lot of enthusiasm at higher levels when there is a big crunch just getting enough to accomplish our required training.

 

[roncachamp]

I've established the fact based on my own personal experience and observation, as well as the experience and observations of some other very experienced pilots. A problem exists that needs to be addressed.

No, you've presented an opinion based on your own personal experience and observations.

Just did some quick math in my head, and came up with 53. That's the number of times the guys and gals in my group have flown into Airventure.

What is your group's cumulative experience with airport crash/fire/rescue?

 

[Trapper John]

I've established the fact based on my own personal experience and observation, as well as the experience and observations of some other very experienced pilots. A problem exists that needs to be addressed.

No, you haven't established a thing, other than you're now trying to hold your opinion as fact, and it isn't working.

Just did some quick math in my head, and came up with 53. That's the number of times the guys and gals in my group have flown into Airventure.

How many times have YOU flown into Airventure again?

Ahhh...the good old "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. But to answer your question, I've seen enough fanny packs and Pratt and Whitney belt buckles to last a lifetime, so OSH isn't exactly high on my list.

Irrelevant. It matters not which set of bureaucrats is dictating the closure -- the only thing that matters is changing their perception of the problem, either by convincing them that their problem is outweighed by others, or by addressing their concerns.

There's no statute against crackpottery, so go ahead and write a letter describing this dramatic "problem" and the resultant human carnage along with your cost-effective "solution" that involves misappropriating military assets.

 

[Trapper John]

Why would you need to deploy the whole squadron?

That was your idea, not mine. You were the one talking about "standing down" and "deploying", not me.

All that's required would be the firefighters, and the aircraft they choose to display in Aeroshell Square.

And that presumes that the squadron has enough spare firefighting apparatus to send somewhere else. I don't think that's the case. And besides, even if they had the fire equipment, do you think anyone would be stupid enough to stage it in a sea of people that would have to be shooed out of the way so they could respond to whatever incident needed responding to?

There is no reason to make this complicated.

That's why people like engineers define problems before attempting to solve them.

 

[TMetzinger]

I think that it would be a good idea to have a plan to shut down arrivals and to send airplanes holding on the visual arrival worked out in advance and published in the NOTAM, to be implemented when the airport will be closed for more than 30 min (daylight VFR reserves). Then the incident commander can simply say "we're going to be closing, activate the scatter plan.", and let the controllers pass the word along. Folks will then know where to go, and Jay's (rightful) concern about a lot of airplanes in little space for an unknown time is addressed.


The plan really needs to just give a route OUT of the holding area to a spot where the airplanes can then divert to their preferred destination.

 

[AcroBoy]

I'm not convinced this is going in the right direction- the problem seems to be with the seemingly lengthy closure of the airport, and the downstream effects. How does this result from a perception of inadequate fire and rescue coverage during AV? Again, the AV and OSH emergency plan will spell out who has the authority to open and close the field. At least field closure probably rests with the incident commander, whose first priority is with rescue, public safety, and then protection of property. Traffic flow out of the field is secondary to his or her assessment of the safety of the situation.

If stacking planes at Fisk is an issue and creates a safety risk, this should be taken up with the FAA, since Steve has said they have the responsibility for the airspace. Again, this is not a fire rescue problem.

If the OSH airport chief or OSH fire department feel their resources are inadequate to handle any potential issues during AV, they should be telling the city of OSH and the people who run AV that they cannot safely support all of the activities associated with AV.

If I were seeking out a lot of hassle and aggravation, I can always go back to work. However, flying is an avocation to me and is supposed to be fun and enjoyable, and this is why I always choose to drive to OSH rather than fly.

 

[Trapper John]

I'm not convinced this is going in the right direction- the problem seems to be with the seemingly lengthy closure of the airport, and the downstream effects. How does this result from a perception of inadequate fire and rescue coverage during AV? Again, the AV and OSH emergency plan will spell out who has the authority to open and close the field. At least field closure probably rests with the incident commander, whose first priority is with rescue, public safety, and then protection of property. Traffic flow out of the field is secondary to his or her assessment of the safety of the situation.

Yep, but this makes entirely too much sense and constitutes "rant interference".

If stacking planes at Fisk is an issue and creates a safety risk, this should be taken up with the FAA, since Steve has said they have the responsibility for the airspace. Again, this is not a fire rescue problem.

Is it even an FAA problem? If the aircraft are operating VFR, see and avoid is in effect, so it's a PIC issue. Too much traffic around to be comfortable? Get out of there and go somewhere else.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yep, but this makes entirely too much sense and constitutes "rant interference".

Is it even an FAA problem? If the aircraft are operating VFR, see and avoid is in effect, so it's a PIC issue. Too much traffic around to be comfortable? Get out of there and go somewhere else.

Assuming the pilots get accurate info to make the decision, then yes it's a PIC issue.

 

[kevin47881]

Which ones are those?

At the same airports that berate you for not contacting C&D prior to ground.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm sure you're right. But somehow, some way the ANG manages to get pilots and air crew to stand by their planes all week in Aeroshell Square, handing out posters and answering questions.

I can't think of a good reason why ANG firefighters wouldn't be any different, but maybe there are different rules for them?

Yes -- there is a recruiting budget and there is an operations budget.

Different pots of $ with different focus.

Let me head off the "TAX DOLLARS BEING WASTED rant -- That's how all Really Big Organizations work.

 

[dmccormack]

Wait, they wouldn't be "standing down" -- they would be "deploying". Make the whole thing an "exercise", or something. If they are like firefighters I've met, they would jump at the chance to do something new and different.

The Guard "Deploys" under different orders -- Federal and State.

The Guard has been over-used since 2001. And you want to add another "deployment?"

 

[ScottM]

The Guard "Deploys" under different orders -- Federal and State.

The Guard has been over-used since 2001. And you want to add another "deployment?"

But this will be fin for them. Sure many have been away from their families and jobs, but they'll get free passes to Oshkosh and get to hang with a bunch of know it all pilots who will tell them how to do their jobs better. Why wouldn't they want to volunteer for that?

 

[dmccormack]

But this will be fin for them. Sure many have been away from their families and jobs, but they'll get free passes to Oshkosh and get to hang with a bunch of know it all pilots who will tell them how to do their jobs better. Why wouldn't they want to volunteer for that?

So you were in the Guard too?

B)

 

[TMetzinger]

Jay, I thank you for raising the topic and trying to think outside the box a little.

We should remember that there are thousands of ways or reasons that things don't/won't work, and far fewer "new" ways to do things that DO work. And that when somebody (else) finds that way through luck or persistence or talent - we all say "D'oh! That's so simple! Why didn't I think of it?"

 

[Greg Bockelman]

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.

My point was that the recorded message, IIRC, was not getting through. So was it the Recording or the Transmitter? If the transmitter can transmit a live message, then it must be in the recording circuit. Or the interface between the recording and the transmitter.

 

[ScottM]

My point was that the recorded message, IIRC, was not getting through. So was it the Recording or the Transmitter? If the transmitter can transmit a live message, then it must be in the recording circuit. Or the interface between the recording and the transmitter.

Well that makes sense. Yep if anything was being heard you knew the transmitter works and would look elsewhere.
It could still be something in common with a recorded audio or live. The audio probably is getting to the transmitter on twisted pair and the recorder is in the tower equipment room somewhere. If the phone lines were cut somewhere neither would get through. You would still need a tech at the transmitter site to see if audio was coming in.

 

[PilotAlan]

I don't understand why this has become a nitpicking festival.

1 - WIS ANG crash fire rescue crews already were supplementing OSH CFR. They were in the red CFR truck and were responding to calls. So yes, it CAN be done and is currently being done.

2 - Mutual aid is a standard fact of life in the emergency response world. If they wanted to provide extra coverage. they could. Especially seeing as how they already have supplemental coverage for the event. The question would be cost of coverage and who is paying for it, and how much you want.

3 - There are potential issues. I don't know if there are supplemental CFR resources supplied for Appleton and FDL, due to the additional traffic. So there's more than just KOSH needing additional resources.

If OSH wanted to do it badly enough, they could. It's simply a matter of cost. How much do you want to pay for a supplement to the supplement, and what is the cost effectiveness of that?
It is true that in the emergency response world, the initial reaction is to close everything until the situation is stable. That's true with road closures for car accidents and airport closures for plane crashes. It may simply be an issue of adjusting the emergency response plan to emphasize the importance of reopening a runway as soon as possible.

Also, consider it is perfectly reasonable to immediately close when there is an accident and emergency vehicles are moving around and onto the airport. You have police vehicles, ambulances, and other responders who are not intimately familiar with airport ops the way CFR crews are. Heck, during an exercise, with written instructions, pre-briefings, pre-identified movement staging areas, and extra airport ops staff to escort people around, we still had three incursions (two forcing jets to go around) during a four hour exercise.
So no, I don't fault them for the immediate closure and would not expect them to reopen until the knew that they had the emergency vehicle situation under control.

In my opinion, however, there is no good reason to NOT give the information to inbound or holding aircraft so that the PIC can make an informed decision about what to do. Even if it's "There's been an accident, and the airport is closed until further notice."

 

[Dave Siciliano]

There are lot of unique challenges that go with one time (once a year) huge events like this. All resources have to be planned, allocated and paid for within the short period of the event (with pre and post efforts also). I was involved in a few charitable annual events that had unique challenges because of the once a year nature of them. You need what you need when you need it, but others may not want to give what you want when they don't want to. It can lead to a much higher cost.

The National Guard has plenty to do. I served and a close friend commanded the Texas Air Guard: they received myriad requests for troops and equipment--course no one wanted to pay for anything most of the time.

This is a private, for profit event. If they need more, they should pay for it.

Best,

Dave

 

[kyleb]

If stacking planes at Fisk is an issue and creates a safety risk, this should be taken up with the FAA, since Steve has said they have the responsibility for the airspace. Again, this is not a fire rescue problem.

Getting stacked up in the arrival hold at Oshkosh or SnF only happens if the pilot chooses to participate. I decided long ago NOT to participate in any of the arrival holding processes - I can always fly to a nearby field and wait out the hold, then return when arrivals are flowing.

Much less stressful and dangerous than flying around in circles with dissimilar aircraft and pilots of extremely varied skill levels.

 

[Palmpilot]

Getting stacked up in the arrival hold at Oshkosh or SnF only happens if the pilot chooses to participate.

This is true, but it is also true that by witholding information from the inbound traffic, ATC contributed to the hazard. Saying "There's been an accident on the field, and we don't know how long it will be closed" as the OP suggested would have allowed pilots to make informed decisions about whether to divert. Instead pilots were told "the field is closed, and we expect it to reopen any time," thus encouraging more planes to hold.

 

[alaskaflyer]

As stylish as it is to bash government agencies, I believe the decision to close runways or airfields for emergencies or maintenance needs is certainly not made by the FAA. Neither is deciding what crash-rescue services are needed for a special event of this magnitude.

Aside from the bizarre side discussion about the ATIS I'm wondering what true complaint there is about FAA operations during this unfortunate event?

 

[Palmpilot]

Aside from the bizarre side discussion about the ATIS I'm wondering what true complaint there is about FAA operations during this unfortunate event?

Keeping inbound pilots in the dark about the true nature of the situation.