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

[PilotAlan]

Well, I don't know that there was a WI ANG CFR truck and crew at KOSH all week, but I do know they don't shut down KMSN during AirVenture.

Two days ago I said:

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.

You said:

I'm pretty sure I said that just the one time.

You have said:

I believe your proposed solutions involve use of personnel and equipment that are unavailable.

That's just part of the personnel problem, you still haven't found any vehicles or equipment.

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?

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.

Where would they get the staffing and equipment?

I would have guessed there were site and equipment specific training and qualification requirements. Another bad assumption on my part?
You mean you're berating them for not doing something and you don't even know if they could legally do it?

And they're sure not going to shut down KMSN during AirVenture so that CFR equipment and personnel isn't available.

By the way, most CFR operations do have a reserve truck. Otherwise, any time a truck is down for service or scheduled maintenance, they would have to shut down aviation operations.

 

[TMetzinger]

OOOH - now you've done it.

 

[Trapper John]

That's just a bunch of ugly there.

Oh, please.

Jay's whole argument boils down to, "By closing the airport, traffic is going to get stacked up at the holds, and because there is a significant number of bad pilots, something bad is going to happen. So, the solution is to add fire/rescue capability via whatever funding mechanism it takes so the airport doesn't close in the first place."

I just don't think that argument holds water without some attempt to quantify. Although, if you want to believe that, "something needs to be done" in the form of governmental and/or EAA action, because there are a bunch of pilots that don't have the sense God gave a goose, then that's just fine.

 

[kevin47881]

It's really pitiful this thread has turned into this ****ing contest.

 

[jesse]

Oh, please.

Jay's whole argument boils down to, "By closing the airport, traffic is going to get stacked up at the holds, and because there is a significant number of bad pilots, something bad is going to happen. So, the solution is to add fire/rescue capability via whatever funding mechanism it takes so the airport doesn't close in the first place."

I just don't think that argument holds water without some attempt to quantify. Although, if you want to believe that, "something needs to be done" in the form of governmental and/or EAA action, because there are a bunch of pilots that don't have the sense God gave a goose, then that's just fine.

Jay's writing does not have to "hold water" to you. Jay's writing needs to be acceptable to the rules of conduct and it has. If people don't like Jay's writing and they choose to write negative things towards him in violation of the rules of conduct then we have a problem. This is not a peer-reviewed encyclopedia where you get to choose what remains based on how valid you think their arguments or points are. If you want that - got to Wikipedia - not a community of friends.

If you don't think someone wrote something useful choosing to write something LESS useful is not the solution. You can always move onto another thread.

 

[roncachamp]

Two days ago I said:

Yes, I know, I read it. So what?

You have said:

I said, "And they're sure not going to shut down KMSN during AirVenture so that CFR equipment and personnel isn't available.", exactly one time.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Emergency response requires trained, prepared, and ready crews and equipment.

Vehicles on display lack all three characteristics.

I was responding to the argument about the lack of equipment, not the lack of personnel to run it. If they're showing equipment, they should be able to show ready equipment, and should there be an accident requiring the front-line equipment and crews, it shouldn't be all that hard to take 15 or 20 minutes to mobilize the on-call crew and move the "show" equipment so that it's ready to be "Go" equipment.

I think Jay is probably right that in a group as large as we have on the field at OSH every year, there are probably quite a few trained, prepared, and ready firefighters who would volunteer to be the on-call backup crew in exchange for a free wristband.

 

[PilotAlan]

Yes, I know, I read it. So what?

So you said you didn't know there was a WI ANG truck at Airventure, but now say you read that there was.
So did you read it and choose to disregard data which contradicted your argument, plus make a statement that you knew was untrue? Or did you not read it and now are claiming that you did?

I said, "And they're sure not going to shut down KMSN during AirVenture so that CFR equipment and personnel isn't available.", exactly one time.

Yes, you said that exact verbiage only once. Your previous posts stated repeatedly that the ANG couldn't provide apparatus.

Your argumentative style, making statements that are either questionable or factually incorrect is bothersome.
Your habit of then backtracking when called out on it is tiresome.
Your habit of then changing the subject or picking specific items to challenge while ignoring the larger issues that contradict your thesis is not worth my time.

I'll not wrestle with the pig any longer. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[roncachamp]

So you said you didn't know there was a WI ANG truck at Airventure, but now say you read that there was.

And I still don't know that there was a WI ANG CFR truck at Airventure.

So did you read it and choose to disregard data which contradicted your argument, plus make a statement that you knew was untrue?

I don't consider your statement to be "data".

Yes, you said that exact verbiage only once.

Correct.

Your argumentative style, making statements that are either questionable or factually incorrect is bothersome.
Your habit of then backtracking when called out on it is tiresome.
Your habit of then changing the subject or picking specific items to challenge while ignoring the larger issues that contradict your thesis is not worth my time.

What statements did I make that you believe are either questionable or factually incorrect? This one:

"I believe your proposed solutions involve use of personnel and equipment that are unavailable."

I can assure you that statement is factually correct, as I am the worlds foremost authority on what I believe. How about this one:

"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."

If there's something in that statement that you believe is factually incorrect please identify it and post verifiable documentation supporting your assertions.

 

[dmccormack]

I think Jay is probably right that in a group as large as we have on the field at OSH every year, there are probably quite a few trained, prepared, and ready firefighters who would volunteer to be the on-call backup crew in exchange for a free wristband.

Sadly, the days of "just pitching in" are long gone.

Even the various apparatus at our little Engine 53 station could not be used except by those who were qualified and validated.

Lots of guys show up at the firehouse when the horn goes off. only the few that did the hard work of attending classes and passing tests could actually contribute.

The vast array of manufacturer-specific equipment these days means you can't just toss a crew together and say, "Have at it."

long after the excitement is gone there will be time in court if -- God forbid -- some "volunteer" causes more harm than good (I don't know what the Good Samaritan laws are in WI, but my guess is there is still reckless and /or egregious provisions...)

 

[Jay Honeck]

Guess your annual will be more expensive this year.... :wink2:

Haw! Especially if I have to factor in flying 2400 miles round-trip to Keith's hangar for my 2011 annual inspection!

Sadly, I'm in the market for a new A&P down here in Texas...

 

[Jay Honeck]

Jay's writing does not have to "hold water" to you. Jay's writing needs to be acceptable to the rules of conduct and it has. If people don't like Jay's writing and they choose to write negative things towards him in violation of the rules of conduct then we have a problem. This is not a peer-reviewed encyclopedia where you get to choose what remains based on how valid you think their arguments or points are. If you want that - got to Wikipedia - not a community of friends.

If you don't think someone wrote something useful choosing to write something LESS useful is not the solution. You can always move onto another thread.

Thanks for chiming in, Jesse.

Many of us came here from Usenet to escape the trolls who had effectively destroyed the ability to hold a constructive aviation conversation by turning every thread into name-calling and personal attacks. P of A was a breath of fresh air, with its "enforced cordiality", and much good debate and discussion has taken place here because of it's moderated policies.

However, lately two posters (and we shall not name them, out of kindness) have taken on the "Troll Role" formerly filled by Bertie the Bunyip (and others whose names shall not be mentioned) over on the old rec.aviation groups. I don't pretend to understand these folks -- I've never been able to comprehend why or how such a tiny group of individuals -- all pilots -- can devolve into back-biting and personal attacks -- but I *do* question the effectiveness of a moderated group that seems unable (or unwilling) to purge these corrosive individuals.

In short, I'm glad you spoke up, Jesse, but as moderators at some point you must actually DO something, or many of us will find the door.

I don't mind debating the merits of an idea until I'm blue in the face -- that's the fun of it, and why we're all here -- but I'm not going to waste my time fighting a rear-battle with children who get their jollies by taking personal pot-shots at participants. That's just silly, and life is too short...

I would like to continue to debate this topic in a mature manner, with airmen I trust and respect. I think the issue is important, and I believe that there are some here who are being dissuaded from participating for fear of attracting the ire of these trolls. I speak from experience when I say that this sort of behavior is a one-way trip to the extinction of a viable newsgroup -- many of us watched rec.aviation die in an incredibly short period of time, due to the concerted efforts of just two trolls -- and I urge you to do what you can to prevent the further devolution of this group.

 

[Paul Allen]

Thanks for chiming in, Jesse.

Many of us came here from Usenet to escape the trolls who had effectively destroyed the ability to hold a constructive aviation conversation by turning every thread into name-calling and personal attacks. P of A was a breath of fresh air, with its "enforced cordiality", and much good debate and discussion has taken place here because of it's moderated policies.

However, lately two posters (and we shall not name them, out of kindness) have taken on the "Troll Role" formerly filled by Bertie the Bunyip (and others whose names shall not be mentioned) over on the old rec.aviation groups. I don't pretend to understand these folks -- I've never been able to comprehend why or how such a tiny group of individuals -- all pilots -- can devolve into back-biting and personal attacks -- but I *do* question the effectiveness of a moderated group that seems unable (or unwilling) to purge these corrosive individuals.

In short, I'm glad you spoke up, Jesse, but as moderators at some point you must actually DO something, or many of us will find the door.

I don't mind debating the merits of an idea until I'm blue in the face -- that's the fun of it, and why we're all here -- but I'm not going to waste my time fighting a rear-battle with children who get their jollies by taking personal pot-shots at participants. That's just silly, and life is too short...

I would like to continue to debate this topic in a mature manner, with airmen I trust and respect. I think the issue is important, and I believe that there are some here who are being dissuaded from participating for fear of attracting the ire of these trolls. I speak from experience when I say that this sort of behavior is a one-way trip to the extinction of a viable newsgroup -- many of us watched rec.aviation die in an incredibly short period of time, due to the concerted efforts of just two trolls -- and I urge you to do what you can to prevent the further devolution of this group.

Jay, that could not have been said better. I enjoy reading your posts and hope you stay here.

 

[Troska]

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.

I flew into KOSH for my first time this year, so take this for what it is worth.

They (the all ecompassing "they") have control over what goes on on the ground at OSH. If there is an accident on 18/36 and they have emergency services available to respond appropriately to that situation only, then they have a responsibility to close 9-27.

I agree, it would be nice if an ETA of opening was given. It's always easier to make decisions with more information.

However, it says right in the NOTAM, that if the holds over the lakes are full, go somewhere else and hold around a point. If it looks too busy, excercise your decision making skills and do something safe.

Expectations of having emergency response available for all active runways just doesn't seem reasonable to me. It does seem reasonable that they would have emergency response available for one on-airport accident at a time, and they would expect the PIC's flying in to act like PIC's and get away from the holds if it seems dangerous.

That said - give good information so that good decisions can follow.

Tim

 

[gkainz]

... the "Troll Role" formerly filled by Bertie the Bunyip ...

arghhhhhh!!!!!! another HWMNBN .... we do have our own HWMNBN legacy here, too ...

 

[Ted]

I flew into KOSH for my first time this year, so take this for what it is worth.

They (the all ecompassing "they") have control over what goes on on the ground at OSH. If there is an accident on 18/36 and they have emergency services available to respond appropriately to that situation only, then they have a responsibility to close 9-27.

I agree, it would be nice if an ETA of opening was given. It's always easier to make decisions with more information.

However, it says right in the NOTAM, that if the holds over the lakes are full, go somewhere else and hold around a point. If it looks too busy, excercise your decision making skills and do something safe.

Expectations of having emergency response available for all active runways just doesn't seem reasonable to me. It does seem reasonable that they would have emergency response available for one on-airport accident at a time, and they would expect the PIC's flying in to act like PIC's and get away from the holds if it seems dangerous.

That said - give good information so that good decisions can follow.

Tim

A very sound and rational view, Tim. I agree.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I flew into KOSH for my first time this year, so take this for what it is worth.

They (the all ecompassing "they") have control over what goes on on the ground at OSH. If there is an accident on 18/36 and they have emergency services available to respond appropriately to that situation only, then they have a responsibility to close 9-27.

I agree, it would be nice if an ETA of opening was given. It's always easier to make decisions with more information.

However, it says right in the NOTAM, that if the holds over the lakes are full, go somewhere else and hold around a point. If it looks too busy, excercise your decision making skills and do something safe.

Expectations of having emergency response available for all active runways just doesn't seem reasonable to me. It does seem reasonable that they would have emergency response available for one on-airport accident at a time, and they would expect the PIC's flying in to act like PIC's and get away from the holds if it seems dangerous.

That said - give good information so that good decisions can follow.

Tim

As I've stated, I don't think it's irresponsible to close the airport in the immediate aftermath of an accident. This is the "Fog of War" time, when everyone is scurrying around, no one really knows the extent of what's happening, and it's probably a good idea to close the airport for a period of time to assess the situation.

What I'm questioning is what happens NEXT. For reasons that are unclear to me, the airport remain(s)(ed) closed after a minor accident for an inordinate period of time. In fact, it never reopened that night, despite the pent-up demand of dozens (hundreds?) of aircraft in the air. This is needlessly dangerous, and the reason for my post.

Keeping the busiest airport in the world closed, at the busiest arrival time of the day, due to an accident that happened over a mile away from the active runway, seems like a policy that should at least be discussed. And, from what I've been told, it IS being discussed.

Which, in the end, is all I ask.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Random thoughts.

Its kind of funny in a way, because when I got my departure briefing on Friday, the briefer described it as two separate airports. 9/27 was described as Whitman Field and 18/36 was described as Airventure Oshkosh, IIRC.

FWIW, the controllers are all volunteer. They probably need airports specific training. Why can't the same thing be true for CFR people? I am sure the equipment can be found somewhere to staff for two "incidents".

On the other hand, how many OTHER airports are normally staffed for two accidents?

I was on field during both incidents last week. If Jack Roush's accident warranted shutting down the whole airport, the Viking nose gear collapse did NOT. One was a definite accident, the other more along the line of an incident. Why shut down the whole airport when there is no life threatening issues or chance of fire?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

What I'm questioning is what happens NEXT. For reasons that are unclear to me, the airport remain(s)(ed) closed

Actually, the explanations given make sense to ME, at least.

after a minor accident for an inordinate period of time.

I am not sure I would call Jack's accident "minor".

In fact, it never reopened that night, despite the pent-up demand of dozens (hundreds?) of aircraft in the air. This is needlessly dangerous, and the reason for my post.

Well, given the time of the accident, in hind sight, I would say that was inevitable. And as someone else pointed out, if the two holding patterns were full, it would behoove the PIC to act like a PIC and go elsewhere.

The one thing I do agree on is the lack of timely information was a factor, not only in that situation, but in whether the field was open because of field conditions.

Keeping the busiest airport in the world closed, at the busiest arrival time of the day, due to an accident that happened over a mile away from the active runway, seems like a policy that should at least be discussed. And, from what I've been told, it IS being discussed.

I would hope that the results of those discussions would be made known so we would know what to expect if this happens in the future.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I am not sure I would call Jack's accident "minor".

It was not minor in the normal sense of an "accident". Any time you break an airplane in two parts, you've had a "serious" accident.

I meant "minor" from the standpoint of airport operations. The Jack Roush accident was:

1. Off all runways.
2. There was no fire.
3. The occupants, while injured, walked off the plane.
4. Did not impact Rwy 27.

That, in airport operational terms, is "minor".

Well, given the time of the accident, in hind sight, I would say that was inevitable.

Only if you accept that the 8 PM Wittman Field closing time during Airventure is absolutely unchangeable. I am still mystified that the airport didn't stay open even an extra 15 minutes to accommodate all those poor guys stuck in the hold. Would it really have hurt anyone to stay open a bit later on the first evening that arrivals were being allowed?

To me, this was an unconscionable act of rudeness, if nothing else.

I would hope that the results of those discussions would be made known so we would know what to expect if this happens in the future.

Me, too -- but if past practice is any indication of future performance, we won't hear much about it.

 

[shenanigans]

Well, given the time of the accident, in hind sight, I would say that was inevitable.

Only if you accept that the 8 PM Wittman Field closing time during Airventure is absolutely unchangeable. I am still mystified that the airport didn't stay open even an extra 15 minutes to accommodate all those poor guys stuck in the hold. Would it really have hurt anyone to stay open a bit later on the first evening that arrivals were being allowed?

To me, this was an unconscionable act of rudeness, if nothing else.

Basically your solution to a bunch of pilots in the air with 'get-there-itis' - which I had thought was nearly universally considered a dangerous mindset - is for everyone on the ground to buy into the same affliction? That really doesn't make sense to me.

If the airport can safely be open until 8:15 or whenever, that's an issue to address for future years. I don't have any inside information to answer why the normal closing time is 8pm, but I presume it wasn't an arbitrary selection. I'd guess it was chosen to ensure that all airport operations could be safely terminated while there was still light.

Once selected, the master schedule would be generated around this time. In order to stay open past that, someone has to have a thought process that goes something like this:
"Well, the airport is scheduled to close at 8 so that everyone gets on the ground and parked safely. But... you know, there's those guys up there that want to get in ... I guess that schedule isn't important ... not really. We can stay open longer. It'll be ok, nothing is going to go wrong and we owe it to those guys up there." Maybe everything said there was completely valid, somebody obviously didn't think so. Either way, anyone with a checklist of the FAA's hazardous attitudes and risk elements would have a field day with that thought and the circumstances around it.

On the off chance that something does go wrong, how are you going to defend your actions in the face of all the obvious red flags? "Well, I didn't want to be rude"?

 

[Bob Noel]

Basically your solution to a bunch of pilots in the air with 'get-there-itis' - which I had thought was nearly universally considered a dangerous mindset - is for everyone on the ground to buy into the same affliction? That really doesn't make sense to me.

Why is it that people assume that the pilots in the air have "get-there-itis"?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Only if you accept that the 8 PM Wittman Field closing time during Airventure is absolutely unchangeable. I am still mystified that the airport didn't stay open even an extra 15 minutes to accommodate all those poor guys stuck in the hold. Would it really have hurt anyone to stay open a bit later on the first evening that arrivals were being allowed?

Given the fact that the airport did not reopen at ALL that evening (IIRC) where would the extra 15 minutes come from? IF my recollection is wrong and it DID open again, you might have a point, but if there were hundreds or thousands inbound, would it have made a material difference?

 

[wabower]

You mean other than about 80 years of accident history and this thread in particular?

Why is it that people assume that the pilots in the air have "get-there-itis"?

 

[steingar]

Those who run and decide things at the airport need to decide things based on what is going on at the airport. It is a shame that there are ten million airplanes circling around, but that is not the concern of the airport personnel. If they feel the need to close the field, too bad. If you don't like it, don't go there.

There are lots of airports nearby where you can camp and take a bus. If that isn't good enough for you, you can put up with the vagaries of "those who run the show". Lots of people don't.

 

[Bob Noel]

You mean other than about 80 years of accident history and this thread in particular?

<sigh> of course there are pilots that suffer from the getthereitis
affliction. Always have been, probably always will be.

The implication was that a whole bunch of them were waiting
to landing at OSH. What is the basis for that claim?

Does every pilot going to OSH suffer from getthereitis?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Given the fact that the airport did not reopen at ALL that evening (IIRC) where would the extra 15 minutes come from? IF my recollection is wrong and it DID open again, you might have a point, but if there were hundreds or thousands inbound, would it have made a material difference?

You're right, it would have made no difference -- but only if we once again presume that the airport was never going to re-open that night, no matter what happened. I am presuming the best-case scenario, not the worst.

This is pure speculation, but given the situation my best guess is that they were within minutes of re-opening the field when someone looked at their watch and said "Crap, it's already 7:45 PM. Let's just bag it for the night." I'm suggesting that a better response would've been "Crap, it's already 7:45 PM -- let's extend our hours by fifteen minutes, and see how many of our customers we can accommodate."

Of course, that presumes that OSH and the FAA sees pilots as "customers"...

 

[Jay Honeck]

You mean other than about 80 years of accident history and this thread in particular?

IMHO there is nothing in this thread that would suggest that all the pilots in the air over OSH had "get-there-itis" in the negative sense of the term.

Were they eager to get in? You bet. What kind of pilot WOULDN'T be, given the situation this year? That doesn't mean they were prepared to make stupid or dangerous decisions, however, and I think the actions of all the airmen over OSH this year prove that point.

Admittedly that's a fine line, but it's one every pilot walks on every flight.

None of this changes my original point, however, which is that these airmen performed admirably DESPITE policy decisions made on the ground after the Roush accident that made conditions in the air less safe. The debate is to discuss what could have been done differently to enhance safety on the ground and in the air, if anything.

 

[wabower]

I get the impression that "fish" might be a more appropriate description.

."

Of course, that presumes that OSH and the FAA sees pilots as "customers"...

 

[Jay Honeck]

Those who run and decide things at the airport need to decide things based on what is going on at the airport. It is a shame that there are ten million airplanes circling around, but that is not the concern of the airport personnel. If they feel the need to close the field, too bad. If you don't like it, don't go there.

I've read, and re-read that paragraph five times, now, and still don't understand it.

Tell me, just what purpose does an AIRport serve, if not to accommodate the needs of the "ten million airplanes circling around" overhead? How is this "not the concern of airport personnel"?

 

[wabower]

With no pejorative intent, I thought the initial post was an editorial by someone who was pist by being inconvenienced and was looking for somebody else to blame.

Runway closings are common-place at busy airports, at least the ones in the DFW area, and the time required to reopen them always seems to be longer than pilots in the air (and presumably those waiting to take off) think it should be.

In any event, landing somewhere else to wait out the announcement always seems to work pretty well, and that's what I would plan to do at a mega-event like OSH. If everybody follows that plan (as prescribed in the Notam) it's just another no-harm no-foul event.

IMHO there is nothing in this thread that would suggest that all the pilots in the air over OSH had "get-there-itis" in the negative sense of the term.

Were they eager to get in? You bet. What kind of pilot WOULDN'T be, given the situation this year? That doesn't mean they were prepared to make stupid or dangerous decisions, however, and I think the actions of all the airmen over OSH this year prove that point.

Admittedly that's a fine line, but it's one every pilot walks on every flight.

None of this changes my original point, however, which is that these airmen performed admirably DESPITE policy decisions made on the ground after the Roush accident that made conditions in the air less safe. The debate is to discuss what could have been done differently to enhance safety on the ground and in the air, if anything.

 

[steingar]

I've read, and re-read that paragraph five times, now, and still don't understand it.

Tell me, just what purpose does an AIRport serve, if not to accommodate the needs of the "ten million airplanes circling around" overhead? How is this "not the concern of airport personnel"?

The airport serves the needs of those landing and taking off, not those who might want to land. The first duty of the controllers at Osh is to the aircraft landing and those on the ground at Osh, and not those circling the lake. That's why there's a different radio frequency for those folks.

You need a bucketload of get-there-itis to land after the airshow, I doubt I will ever do that again. You probably need a bit more than usual to fly in at any time, there is more workload than a normal approach. Statistically the approach to Osh is no more dangerous than anywhere else; I doubt the rate of accidents at the airport is any greater than at any other airport per capita.

Sorry, just the way I see it. There are numerous places to camp and take the bus in. I won't do that, but I don't complain about how the event is run, either.

 

[Jay Honeck]

You need a bucketload of get-there-itis to land after the airshow, I doubt I will ever do that again.

I don't think that was the case, especially not this year. Because of on-field flooding, "after the airshow" was quite literally one of the first times the field had been opened for camping arrivals at Airventure. Because of this, I'm sure the approach was chock-full of folks who were merely thankful to finally have a chance to land who might normally have never come in "after the air show".

Sorry, just the way I see it. There are numerous places to camp and take the bus in. I won't do that, but I don't complain about how the event is run, either.

Let's not confuse the event (AKA: "Airventure") with this airport closure policy. They are two quite separate things, and no one is criticizing the event.

Yes, there were other places everyone could (and did) go instead of OSH. However, Fond du Lac quickly reached camping saturation, and other airports didn't allow camping at all. I personally spent a night in Racine, and another in Stevens Point (and then drove into OSH), biding our time and waiting for the field to open, before finally flying in on Tuesday.

There were lots of hardships for many this year. Everyone from the vendors to the attendees had a story to tell about "Sloshkosh 2010". It was one for the books that everyone will remember for years to come.

 

[steingar]

I'm certain. There was plenty of room in Waupaca, and inexpensive fuel to boot. Still sucked compared to being at the show. I am really sorry you traveled so far to have such an outcome. I should have liked to party at the Honeck compound.

 

[Jay Honeck]

With no pejorative intent, I thought the initial post was an editorial by someone who was pist by being inconvenienced and was looking for somebody else to blame.

Far from it. I am the OP, and I was on the ground sipping beer when the airport was closed after the Roush accident. This chain of events didn't impact me at all.

However, I have been where those guys were, that afternoon, when they suddenly closed the airport. I am merely pointing out the danger caused by abruptly closing -- and keeping closed -- the world's busiest airport at their busiest arrival time, on the first day the airport was open for arrivals (after the flood) -- all because of an accident that took place over a mile from the active runway.

In the absence of a better working theory, it appears that bureaucrats on the ground made the decision to close the airport -- and keep it closed -- purportedly in the interest of "safety", without regard to the consequences on safety to the pilots in the air. IMHO this is a policy that could easily have resulted in another accident.

A better policy choice would have been to re-open Rwy 27 to arrivals (after determining that the Roush accident was a non-event in terms of airport operations) and to extend the airport hours by 15 minutes, to 8:15 PM, to help out the guys stacked in the hold. This should have been done NOT for the "convenience" of pilots, but because it was a safer course of action to follow.

IMHO, of course.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I'm certain. There was plenty of room in Waupaca, and inexpensive fuel to boot. Still sucked compared to being at the show. I am really sorry you traveled so far to have such an outcome. I should have liked to party at the Honeck compound.

Hey, the weather didn't slow us down -- we partied like none other! Our usual "Fly In Pool Party" (held the Saturday before OSH at our hotel in Iowa City) went off without a hitch, and our usual Wednesday Night "HOPS party" (in Row 537 this year) came together nicely, albeit with a bit smaller crowd than normal (due to fewer people able to actually get into the N40) this year.

Still, after a few days of frustration, we had a great show. Mary and I were just SO thankful to be there at all -- it took every bit of our ingenuity and resourcefulness (and more than a small bit of luck) to keep our two hotels running on "auto-pilot" for the week while we were in OSH. Our staffs really sucked it up and performed admirably, especially when you consider that it was the busiest week of the year at BOTH motels.

 

[shenanigans]

A better policy choice would have been to re-open Rwy 27 to arrivals (after determining that the Roush accident was a non-event in terms of airport operations) and to extend the airport hours by 15 minutes, to 8:15 PM, to help out the guys stacked in the hold.

Are you willing to consider the possibility that they didn't extend hours because, way before the event, when they set the normal closing time of 8pm, it was chosen because they felt that remaining open past that would create a safety hazard?

This should have been done NOT for the "convenience" of pilots, but because it was a safer course of action to follow.

Is it the danger of the hold itself that you are objecting to? Would it be safer to just divert traffic to other airports to wait out the closure on the ground if the airport was expected to be closed longer than a certain time?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Would it be safer to just divert traffic to other airports to wait out the closure on the ground if the airport was expected to be closed longer than a certain time?

Actually, yeah, IMO, that would be a safer course of action. Thing is, they don't seem to be able to communicate just how long a closure might last.

But having mass diversions has its own set of issues.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Are you willing to consider the possibility that they didn't extend hours because, way before the event, when they set the normal closing time of 8pm, it was chosen because they felt that remaining open past that would create a safety hazard?

I think you will find that many of us grizzled old OSH vets are baffled by the arbitrary 8 PM field closing. (In the "olden days" arriving after dark wasn't just accepted -- it was common.)

It is light until 9 PM at that time of year in OSH. The arbitrary nature of the field closing time appears to have little to do with "safety", and more to do with bureaucratic convenience.

Which isn't to say I disagree with it, under normal operating circumstances. It's good for the volunteers, tower personnel, and CAP guys to have time to party, too. :wink2: But the night in question was FAR from "normal", in any sense of the word, and keeping the place open an extra 15 - 30 minutes to accommodate all those poor guys in the air would have been the right thing to do.

Is it the danger of the hold itself that you are objecting to? Would it be safer to just divert traffic to other airports to wait out the closure on the ground if the airport was expected to be closed longer than a certain time?

The situation was as follows:

1. Field closed to camping and GA arrivals for several days due to on-field flooding, creating pent-up demand.

2. Field is finally open to arrivals after the airshow.

3. Everyone launches, timing their arrival to coincide with the end of the airshow. This could be anything from dozens to hundreds of aircraft in the air, streaming up into the FISK approach.

4. Roush prangs his biz jet into the concrete, sliding off the runway.

5. Airport is closed, and remains closed until the next day.

I wasn't in the air this year, but I was the last time this happened, and it got crazy. The holds around Rush and Green lake filled up rapidly, until we were going around the lake LINE ABREAST at times. Everyone was hoping that the airport would re-open "soon", so few were willing to leave the hold and lose their place in line.

I'm sure the situation this year was similar, perhaps even worse, due to the pent-up demand caused by the field closure.

In the end, everything worked out fine, with the only casualty being the inconvenience of hundreds of airmen and their families. But that doesn't change the fact that the folks on the ground made a decision to close the field for the night that could have resulted in far worse problems "upstream" of the airport.

My point in bringing this up is so that in the future these decisions are not made independently of one another. You shouldn't enhance safety on the ground by increasing danger in the air. That's a bad policy.

Suggested solutions appear to be as follows:

1. Admit that there is no "danger" in reopening Rwy 27 after a crash that occurred over a mile away. Re-open the airport within 15 minutes after any accident that is determined to be a non-event, operationally.

This seems sadly unlikely, in today's litigious world. No level of risk is acceptable.

2. Add emergency equipment to the field so that they can handle two simultaneous incidents. This seems more likely to occur than #1, but apparently the idea of using volunteer emergency responders is not viable. See the "litigious world" part, again.

Therefore, it is probably unaffordable.

3. Keep things the way they are.

Because #3 is the easiest solution, nothing much will change. But let's not pretend that this is a less-risky option. It's just easier for the bureaucracy to handle.

 

[jestertoo]

Anyone see this? Midair at FISK.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=d0b86881-539a-422c-809d-fbd050270d27&