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

Palmpilot said:
Keeping inbound pilots in the dark about the true nature of the situation.
Click to expand...
The "airport is closed, could open at anytime"

What is factually wrong with that sentence?

Would you have preferred "Airport is closed"?

I don't think anyone was "kept in the dark. I do think there is some Monday morning quarterbacking going on. Since this was not a major issue the incident commander could have let the airport or other runways open at any minute. Had they closed and stated a pessimistic report I am sure the same Monday morning quarterbacks would be complaining about how a mountain was made out of a mole hill and a whole bunch of pilot were needlessly diverted.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Had they closed and stated a pessimistic report I am sure the same Monday morning quarterbacks would be complaining about how a mountain was made out of a mole hill and a whole bunch of pilot were needlessly diverted.
Click to expand...

Sounds almost EXACTLY like what happened with the dissemination of field conditions and whether or not they were accepting arrivals.
 
ScottM said:
The "airport is closed, could open at anytime"

What is factually wrong with that sentence?

Would you have preferred "Airport is closed"?

I don't think anyone was "kept in the dark. I do think there is some Monday morning quarterbacking going on. Since this was not a major issue the incident commander could have let the airport or other runways open at any minute. Had they closed and stated a pessimistic report I am sure the same Monday morning quarterbacks would be complaining about how a mountain was made out of a mole hill and a whole bunch of pilot were needlessly diverted.
Click to expand...

There's nothing factually wrong with that sentence. There's nothing wrong with me telling you I know where you got your shoes, and then saying "You got 'em on your feet", either. But more context is helpful. Being told "we've had an aircraft incident and the field is closed" is a lot different than (for instance) "we've got FOD on the runway" or "we have to move something on the ground". And "could repoen any time" is different than "we expect it to reopen any time".

Ideally I'd like to hear the controllers give either "ETA for reopening unknown" or give a specific timeframe to within 15 minutes.

As for the people who would whine that the field reopened "early", and they'd gone elsewhere, they should be reminded that it's better to be at the alternate field wishing you were at OSH than in the air wishing you'd gone to the alternate.
 
From an accident investigator on AvSig:

Best,

Dave
================================================================


We have a reasonably good HD video taken from the EAA Radio building that shows the aircraft turning base, final, and striking the ground. It's interesting.

As noted, the communications were the pilot asking about whether it's going to work, and the controller saying "affirmative." I'm working on establishing exactly where the preceding Cub departure was during the Premier's pattern ops (it shows up in the video we have, but I'd like to get another angle from further south...) and good eyewitnesses that can speak to that would be welcome if you guys know of any. (We have three, but the more the better...)
 
ScottM said:
The "airport is closed, could open at anytime"

What is factually wrong with that sentence?
Click to expand...

"Factually wrong" is not the issue. The information provided is incomplete, because there's no information about the reason for the closure, and the prognosis for reopening has a connotation of optimism.

Would you have preferred "Airport is closed"?
Click to expand...

No, I would have preferred "There's been an accident on the field, and we don't know how long it will be closed," as suggested by the OP.

I don't think anyone was "kept in the dark.
Click to expand...

According to the OP, inbound pilots were kept in the dark as to the reason for the closure.

I do think there is some Monday morning quarterbacking going on.
Click to expand...

How else are better ways of doing things in the future going to be devised?

Since this was not a major issue the incident commander could have let the airport or other runways open at any minute. Had they closed and stated a pessimistic report I am sure the same Monday morning quarterbacks would be complaining about how a mountain was made out of a mole hill and a whole bunch of pilot were needlessly diverted.
Click to expand...

People will complain no matter what, so we might as well do the right thing, which is provide all relevant information and a NEUTRAL prognosis for reopening in the absence of a definite decision about reopening time.
 
Palmpilot said:
"Factually wrong" is not the issue. The information provided is incomplete, because there's no information about the reason for the closure, and the prognosis for reopening has a connotation of optimism.
Click to expand...
Why do you even need a reason for the closure?

Is the airport any more or less closed if you knew the reason?

Can you circle longer if you know the reason?

Of course not, so make your PIC decision.

If the ATIS is saying the airport is closed you could have always asked approach what was going on or go to your number 2 radio and listen to tower for more info. If you were not getting it, then divert, land and find out what was going on. No one is forcing anyone to circle for hours on end.


Palmpilot said:
People will complain no matter what, so we might as well do the right thing, which is provide all relevant information and a NEUTRAL prognosis for reopening in the absence of a definite decision about reopening time.
Click to expand...
The 'airport is closed' is a neutral response. Anything more colors the expectations
 
I think the real problem is that pilots gong to OSH are thinking they'll be gettting to OSH. They need to have the plan that, "well no, right now I need to go to MSN....".

I'm not going to be flying three abreast around the lake with formation pilots that I have no idea what they're thinkin to do next....
 
Palmpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither of those indicates when the field will open.
 
TMetzinger said:
There's nothing factually wrong with that sentence. There's nothing wrong with me telling you I know where you got your shoes, and then saying "You got 'em on your feet", either. But more context is helpful. Being told "we've had an aircraft incident and the field is closed" is a lot different than (for instance) "we've got FOD on the runway" or "we have to move something on the ground". And "could repoen any time" is different than "we expect it to reopen any time".
Click to expand...

How is that additional context helpful to a holding aircraft? If told, "we've had an aircraft incident and the field is closed", when can a holding aircraft reasonably expect the field to reopen? If told, "we've got FOD on the runway" or "we have to move something on the ground", when can a holding aircraft reasonably expect the field to reopen? What is the difference, in minutes, between "could reopen any time" and "we expect it to reopen any time"?
 
ScottM said:
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.
Click to expand...

What's odd is that the way they were testing the ATIS transmitter seemed to indicate that they didn't *know* it was transmitting. As if they, themselves, couldn't hear it.

A stuck mike nearby, perhaps, drowning out their transmission? Dunno... They eventually got it working, but it didn't help an already confused situation WRT arrivals at OSH.
 
alaskaflyer said:
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?
Click to expand...

My point is simple: The FAA, EAA, Winnebago County, or the Airport Manager (you pick the bureaucracy, if you can figure it out) decided to close the entire airport for the night after the Jack Roush accident -- even though two of the airports three active runways were unaffected.

This over-reaction is part of a pattern (this precise behavior has been witnessed twice in the last several years, each time after an on-field accident) that has resulted in air traffic suddenly and needlessly being backed up all the way down the FISK approach, and into the holds around Rush and Green lakes.

This ground closure is purportedly done in the interest of safety. I contend that closing the entire airport at peak arrival time (after the airshow, after the field has FINALLY opened for arrivals, two days late) created a far greater danger in the air than any enhancement to safety it may have had on the ground.

IMHO someone is going to hurt or killed because of this policy. It is only a matter of time. We, as pilots and Airventure participants, need to make this point known.
 
ScottM said:
If the ATIS is saying the airport is closed you could have always asked approach what was going on...
Click to expand...

While doing the FISK approach you do NOT "ask approach" anything at OSH. Unless specifically asked a question, you listen, period.
 
roncachamp said:
How is that additional context helpful to a holding aircraft? If told, "we've had an aircraft incident and the field is closed", when can a holding aircraft reasonably expect the field to reopen? If told, "we've got FOD on the runway" or "we have to move something on the ground", when can a holding aircraft reasonably expect the field to reopen? What is the difference, in minutes, between "could reopen any time" and "we expect it to reopen any time"?
Click to expand...

First of all, you guys are conflating the two incidents I described in my original post. In the first airport closure incident, I was in the air, in the hold, and the lack of information was, indeed a bad problem.

In the second aircraft closure incident (after the Jack Roush crash last week) I specifically commended the tower for doing a better job of sharing information with pilots in the air.

Second, this information issue is entirely secondary to my salient point, which is that the entire airport should not have been shut down for the night as the result of an accident that occurred over a mile from the second active runway. This was an over-reaction, done supposedly in the interest of "safety" at the airport, which resulted in creating an unsafe condition in the air.

Personally, I think the whole thing comes down to bureaucratic CYA. The guys on the ground (EAA, Winnebago County, the airport manager) want to maximize safety in their area of operations, and clearly aren't overly concerned with any problems their actions may cause "downstream" from their arena. Since there are apparently two independent bureaucratic bodies that are responsible for the two different arenas (ground, and air, which is the FAA's realm), this comes as no surprise.

It doesn't make it right, however, and we need to fix this.
 
Jay Honeck said:
First of all, you guys are conflating the two incidents I described in my original post. In the first airport closure incident, I was in the air, in the hold, and the lack of information was, indeed a bad problem.

In the second aircraft closure incident (after the Jack Roush crash last week) I specifically commended the tower for doing a better job of sharing information with pilots in the air.

Second, this information issue is entirely secondary to my salient point, which is that the entire airport should not have been shut down for the night as the result of an accident that occurred over a mile from the second active runway. This was an over-reaction, done supposedly in the interest of "safety" at the airport, which resulted in creating an unsafe condition in the air.

Personally, I think the whole thing comes down to bureaucratic CYA. The guys on the ground (EAA, Winnebago County, the airport manager) want to maximize safety in their area of operations, and clearly aren't overly concerned with any problems their actions may cause "downstream" from their arena. Since there are apparently two independent bureaucratic bodies that are responsible for the two different arenas (ground, and air, which is the FAA's realm), this comes as no surprise.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your response answers my questions.

It doesn't make it right, however, and we need to fix this.
Click to expand...

You're the one that feels it's a problem, propose a viable solution.
 
ScottM said:
Why do you even need a reason for the closure?
Click to expand...

Some closure causes are more likely to result in an extended closure than others, so the information can help inform a pilot's decision about whether it is worthwile to wait it out in the air, or whether the odds favor diverting immediately.

I have a question for you: what constructive purpose is served by withholding the reason from inbound traffic?

The 'airport is closed' is a neutral response.
Click to expand...

So is "The airport is closed due to an accident on the runway." Facts are neutral.

Merely saying "The airport is closed" withholds information about the potential seriousness of the situation.

Anything more colors the expectations
Click to expand...

So you agree that "could open at anytime" was inappropriate?
 
Jay Honeck said:
My point is simple: The FAA, EAA, Winnebago County, or the Airport Manager (you pick the bureaucracy, if you can figure it out) decided to close the entire airport for the night after the Jack Roush accident -- even though two of the airports three active runways were unaffected.
Click to expand...

And my point is: investigate which bureacracy, THEN rant. More convenient to simply bash everyone in a public venue I guess.

I tracked that you were talking about two seperate incidents which seems to have escaped others in this thread. I fail to see how any of this latest , 2010 incident had anything whatsoever to do with the FAA, other than they were dealing with the negative consequences of the decision like everyone else. Apparently in a much better way than in the past.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
How is that additional context helpful to a holding aircraft? If told, "we've had an aircraft incident and the field is closed", when can a holding aircraft reasonably expect the field to reopen? If told, "we've got FOD on the runway" or "we have to move something on the ground", when can a holding aircraft reasonably expect the field to reopen? What is the difference, in minutes, between "could reopen any time" and "we expect it to reopen any time"?
Click to expand...

"we expect it to reopen any time" implies "soon", at least to me.
"could reopen any time" does NOT imply the same degree of confidence to me.

In the first case, I'd probably wait. In the second case, I'd be diverting.

Now, I'll grant that both are vague - which is the whole friggin' point. It would be MUCH better to say "field is expected to reopen in XX minutes" or "field is closed - no ETA for reopening". The first gives hope (and should only be used if there's high confidence in the time estimate), and the second gives no hope.
 
TMetzinger said:
"we expect it to reopen any time" implies "soon", at least to me.
"could reopen any time" does NOT imply the same degree of confidence to me.

In the first case, I'd probably wait. In the second case, I'd be diverting.
Click to expand...

And in each case it's "reopen any time".
 
Palmpilot said:
So is "The airport is closed due to an accident on the runway." Facts are neutral.

Merely saying "The airport is closed" withholds information about the potential seriousness of the situation.
Click to expand...
We would know nothing about what type fo accident. It could have been a simple tire blow out and the plane just need to be towed away or it could have a flaming mess that went into the crown and the airport would be closed for days. Saying that there was an accident tells you nothing about the seriousness nor expect time of closure. But it could let one's imaginations run wild.

Palmpilot said:
So you agree that "could open at anytime" was inappropriate?
Click to expand...
No, I do not believe it was inappropriate. I believe it was painting an optimistic picture.
 
Jay Honeck said:
First of all, you guys are conflating the two incidents I described in my original post. In the first airport closure incident, I was in the air, in the hold, and the lack of information was, indeed a bad problem.

In the second aircraft closure incident (after the Jack Roush crash last week) I specifically commended the tower for doing a better job of sharing information with pilots in the air.

Second, this information issue is entirely secondary to my salient point, which is that the entire airport should not have been shut down for the night as the result of an accident that occurred over a mile from the second active runway. This was an over-reaction, done supposedly in the interest of "safety" at the airport, which resulted in creating an unsafe condition in the air.

Personally, I think the whole thing comes down to bureaucratic CYA. The guys on the ground (EAA, Winnebago County, the airport manager) want to maximize safety in their area of operations, and clearly aren't overly concerned with any problems their actions may cause "downstream" from their arena. Since there are apparently two independent bureaucratic bodies that are responsible for the two different arenas (ground, and air, which is the FAA's realm), this comes as no surprise.

It doesn't make it right, however, and we need to fix this.
Click to expand...
How do you know an unsafe condition was in the air? Are you suggesting that most pilot are incapable of thinking for themselves and need a government official to do it for them?
 
roncachamp said:
You're the one that feels it's a problem, propose a viable solution.
Click to expand...

That's what we're trying to come up with in this discussion.

IMHO, the "close the airport after an accident" policy at OSH is unsafe and should be changed. Some disagree.

I've proposed several possible solutions. Other ideas are welcome.
 
alaskaflyer said:
And my point is: investigate which bureacracy, THEN rant. More convenient to simply bash everyone in a public venue I guess.

I tracked that you were talking about two seperate incidents which seems to have escaped others in this thread. I fail to see how any of this latest , 2010 incident had anything whatsoever to do with the FAA, other than they were dealing with the negative consequences of the decision like everyone else. Apparently in a much better way than in the past.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter which bureaucracy is to "blame". Any potential solutions we may suggest will be the same.

I don't care who caused the problem; I only want to fix it.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That's what we're trying to come up with in this discussion.

IMHO, the "close the airport after an accident" policy at OSH is unsafe and should be changed. Some disagree.

I've proposed several possible solutions. Other ideas are welcome.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have. I believe your proposed solutions involve use of personnel and equipment that are unavailable.
 
I was about 300 yards from Fiske when Fiske approach said "there's been an accident at the airport, anyone inside ripon, hold at rush lake as published.

So I was #3 for the runway as I circled Rush lake for 1.5 hours. There were only about 10 of us circling rush lake, and fiske approach was very good at giving us updates when they had them.

Eventually they said "NO MORE ARRIVALS TONIGHT". So we wennt to FDL. I then called my friend at OSH, and he said "I'm looking at planes landing right now".... I was FURIOUS.

I still dont think I have enough info to really be ****ed though.
 
ntbjounin said:
I was about 300 yards from Fiske when Fiske approach said "there's been an accident at the airport, anyone inside ripon, hold at rush lake as published.
Click to expand...

It's Fisk, not Fiske.

Eventually they said "NO MORE ARRIVALS TONIGHT". So we wennt to FDL. I then called my friend at OSH, and he said "I'm looking at planes landing right now".... I was FURIOUS.
Click to expand...

It's FLD, not FDL.
 
ScottM said:
How do you know an unsafe condition was in the air? Are you suggesting that most pilot are incapable of thinking for themselves and need a government official to do it for them?
Click to expand...

Trolling is forbidden on this board, as I'm sure you are aware, but I'll answer your pointlessly provocative question thusly:

I have watched Airventure evolve for 3 decades. I have flown in, driven in, motorcycled in, and ridden a bike in to the grounds. Oshkosh is the greatest show on earth, and the North 40 is my favorite piece of real estate on this planet. My family has instructions to sprinkle my ashes there, (preferably after I'm dead) which probably violates some law, but so be it.

I love Oshkosh, and am deeply concerned about what could happen to the event if there is a mid-air collision over OSH, Ripon, and other points in between.

IMHO, the policy of closing the entire airport at peak arrival time due to an accident over a mile away from the other (most) active runway (RWY 27) needlessly created a potentially dangerous situation in the air. What was done purportedly in the interest of enhancing safety on the ground was more than offset by the increased danger to pilots in the air.

Further, this is not a one-time occurrence, as we've now seen it happen twice in a matter of a few short years. It is apparently a policy, and IMHO a dangerous one that should be changed to maximize safety.

Who am I to say this? I have been there and done that. I have lead flights of aircraft through the FISK approach for the last 8 years. I have created and conducted briefings on the FISK approach in an effort to facilitate these flights. I have created simulator scenarios of the FISK approach, for the same reasons.

I have witnessed first-hand, from the cockpit, what happens when dozens or hundreds of amateur pilots are suddenly thrust into a hold at OSH that they may not be familiar with, due to ignorance or inexperience. It isn't pretty.

Eventually, someone will die because of this policy, if it isn't changed. It's that important.

Therefore, I am pointing this out in a public forum, in hopes of arriving at a solution. Your continuous trolling does not help the situation, Scott, and it would be nice if you could be part of the solution.
 
ntbjounin said:
I was about 300 yards from Fiske when Fiske approach said "there's been an accident at the airport, anyone inside ripon, hold at rush lake as published.

So I was #3 for the runway as I circled Rush lake for 1.5 hours. There were only about 10 of us circling rush lake, and fiske approach was very good at giving us updates when they had them.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that FISK is now giving out more detailed information about the situation on the ground, as compared to the incident that occurred when I was in the hold after an accident several years ago. At that time they were giving out NO information, other than to say "the airport is closed but we expect it to re-open any time."

Although it does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, improved communication at FISK is a step in the right direction, and I'm sure this helped pilots make the decision to land elsewhere in a timely manner.
 
Jay, I agree with you that a mass gaggle of holding VFR airplanes is a bad idea (and we heard 1.5 hours from someone who was holding during the incident), and I agree that a fatality in the air could result in serious damage to the show.

Assuming that the FAA and EAA can't/won't change the policy, do you think that there are other options? I was trying to suggest some changes so that planes in the air would be encouraged to divert rather than loiter when the field is closed.

I'm assuming the On-Scene-Commander (OSC) is using good judgement and if he decides the airport has to be closed, how the FAA could safely manage the aircraft in the air.
 
i for one don't think that a fatal mid air would have a serious impact on the airshow. There are fatal accidents many years at Oshkosh and the general attitude seems to be "The Show Must Go On"

Closing the entire airport seems to be standard response at any airport with fire and rescue equipment. I recall a time in Des Moines when an airliner was coming in to land with an emergency. The airport was closed as soon as the emergency was declared and not reopened until the airplane approaching was safely off the runway. The rest of us stuck up in the air had to make our own plan.

You don't have to joint he beehive over the lake. We are PIC's, not Lemmings. You don't HAVE to get to Oshkosh that night.

If I crash at Oshkosh I hope that they have any and all available emergency equipment available to help me out. Not half of the available emergency equipment because there was another crash an hour earlier but the incoming pilots didn't want to be inconvenienced with a stop on arrivals.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
i for one don't think that a fatal mid air would have a serious impact on the airshow. There are fatal accidents many years at Oshkosh and the general attitude seems to be "The Show Must Go On"

Closing the entire airport seems to be standard response at any airport with fire and rescue equipment. I recall a time in Des Moines when an airliner was coming in to land with an emergency. The airport was closed as soon as the emergency was declared and not reopened until the airplane approaching was safely off the runway. The rest of us stuck up in the air had to make our own plane.

You don't have to joint he beehive over the lake. We are PIC's, not Lemmings. You don't HAVE to get to Oshkosh that night.

If I crash at Oshkosh I hope that they have any and all available emergency equipment available to help me out. Not half of the available emergency equipment because there was another crash an hour earlier but the incoming pilots didn't want to be inconvenienced with a stop on arrivals.
Click to expand...

+1,000,000

Best post of the thread!
 
tonycondon said:
i for one don't think that a fatal mid air would have a serious impact on the airshow. There are fatal accidents many years at Oshkosh and the general attitude seems to be "The Show Must Go On"
Click to expand...

Fatal accidents many years at Oshkosh? I don't think so, I can remember just three. There was the homebuilt P-51A three years ago, and there was the TBM that taxied into an RV-6 the year before. Dewey Bryan was killed when a wing folded on his homebuilt roadable aircraft in, I think, 1974. Have there been any others?
 
i can think of an RV and a Lancair who stall/spun while turning final. Those were fairly recent. I've only been paying attention to Oshkosh for the last 6 or 7 years or so.
 
a quick search in the NTSB database back to 1962 shows 3 pages + 1 entry for fatals at Oshkosh. Nearest I can tell about 4 of those didn't take place in or around airshow time (End of July/Beginning of August).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top