What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Post Your Improved OSH Arrival Ideas Here...

Vic, you and I sat along Runway 36 Sunday afternoon, watching and wondering about the slow arrival pace. Sure, Saturday PM and Sunday AM weather pushed more folks into the Sunday PM frame, but what made it a problem was runway metering at Fisk....demanding more spacing and ordering greater numbers of folks back to Ripon.

It's the natural bureaucratic response to the runway furballs we've seen in the two previous years. They just overdid it.

Once you are in the arrival to OSH from Waupon...

So the new plan is to fly the railroad tracks at 90 knots from Waupon, with a right turn at Ripon? The hold becomes a 30 mile square using Fond du Lac as the fourth corner waypoint or ground hold?
 
Last edited:
Vic - with all due respect - the above is NOT what was causing the saturation (oversaturation - we had three separate altitude rings at one point around Green Lake - I know because I was in one of them) of the holding patterns.



This is what caused it.

Total furball with planning of the mass arrivals and military flyovers causing unpredictable and unnecessary closures of the field at precisely the wrong time. Why are the military aircraft doing flyovers of the field? Answer - to show off for the crowd - but the crowd is not at the field yet, they are circling over Green Lake cussing like sailors at the military pilot doing a flyover and closing the field!

Longer arrival routes will NOT help. ADSB for the controllers to call out N-numbers certainly will. But what really needs to happen is to maximize efficient use of the runways available. That means not allowing the military flyovers and mass arrivals to commandeer the airspace the way we saw last year. Keep the runways full of airplanes, and the problem goes away.


I'd rather not argue with you, but the problem is not airspace, it is available concrete. Lots of new stuff is being implemented to help with the flow of aircraft after they arrive on the ground so as to not hold up landing traffic.

I'm sorry you feel longer arrival routes won't help. The reality is that they should. If everyone pays attentions to the ATIS's and the texting informatio, pilot's should be able to make a decision on an alternate PRIOR to joining the arrival. The new procedure when implemented creates a pretty good chance of landing either at OSH or Fond Du Lac once you get in line

Conversations are happening with the military to limit or control arrival times. The mass arrivals will be controlled as well. If weather precludes them from arriving during their assigned slot, then they will have to join the regular arrival procedure at a different date.

I am trying to communicate to you that a whole bunch of very smart (myself not included) and VERY experienced people worked lots of days and hours on this. Many different ideas and practices currently in place at very busy airports around the country that handle lots of high volume traffic were reviewed. We don't have enough concrete to handle multiple arrivals/gates.

I hear you on the multiple levels of traffic. Quite frankly, that was and is extremely dangerous and we want to avoid that. Simple question: how many pilots are taught how to perform a visual hold, especially in deteriorating weather conditions while surrounded with other pilots who were never taught to hold?

It was a situation that needs to be avoided--- putting a lot of airplanes in a congested pattern with low vis/ceilings. We were all very lucky this past year that nobody got hurt. Everybody is working real hard to prevent it from happening again--the FAA, EAA flight/ground Ops, and the various Councils. There is no single "tweak." It's a bunch of moving parts that all have to work in unison, from the pilot's making informed decisions, ATC/EAA controlling the flow of traffic, and ground Ops/Parking rapidly getting the planes to their respective parking spots as fast as possible.

Vic
 
Vic, you and I sat along Runway 36 Sunday afternoon, watching and wondering about the slow arrival pace. Sure, Saturday PM and Sunday AM weather pushed more folks into the Sunday PM frame, but what made it a problem was runway metering at Fisk....demanding more spacing and ordering greater numbers of folks back to Ripon.

It's the natural bureaucratic response to the runway furballs we've seen in the two previous years. They just overdid it.



So the new plan is to fly the railroad tracks at 90 knots from Waupon, with a right turn at Ripon? The hold becomes a 30 mile square using Fond du Lac as the fourth corner waypoint or ground hold?

The square hold as you mention it will not be a "hold" per se. The intent is for the Conga line from Ripon to either land at OSH or Fond du Lac. While it might be possible for ATC to rapidly fix whatever caused the "bailout" to Fond du Lac and start sending them back around to OSH could happen, time will tell. An example might be a gear up landing that is rapidly cleared. However, that is not the intent. Those who land at Fond du Lac will be sent back to OSH WITHOUT going to Ripon. They will head straight North to OSH BEFORE any arrivals are started at Ripon.

Make sense?
 
My only suggestion, do whatever it takes (pay them bonuses) to get the Osh experienced controllers back, IMO much of the havoc last year was due to the controllers at Fisk/tower.

Work is being done within the FAA to fix what precluded some of them from attending last year.
 
Someone made a comment regarding the mass arrivals causing problems. BE careful with a broad brush.
Some of them are very experienced and fly a really good formation "pack" and actually land airplanes faster and better than the arrivals procedures. The Bonanzas are a good example.

As I mentioned earlier, if the weather impedes their sceduled arrival time, they will have to join the procedure. That way we all should know when NOT to plan on arriving by looking at the mass arrival schedule.

Vic
 
Two observations I made while listening to the radio during the arrivals:

1. Many pilots do not know or properly follow the Notam. I don't want to get flamed for this suggestion, but shouldn't there be some enforcement? If you fail to follow any other Notam there are ramifications. Maybe there is enforcement that we are not aware of, but year after year I hear people on the radio that clearly do not understand the procedure. - Perhaps EAA could create an on-line course similar to the DC Special Flight Rules Area and passing that course is a pre-requisite to getting a parking spot.

2. The controllers were giving conflicting directions. More than once I heard the line being told to go circle the lake once and then come back in. Meanwhile there was already a group circling the lake who were told to hold there until told to come back it - which they were never told to do. Those that followed the Notam were really had no shot of getting in.
 
Two observations I made while listening to the radio during the arrivals:

1. Many pilots do not know or properly follow the Notam. I don't want to get flamed for this suggestion, but shouldn't there be some enforcement? If you fail to follow any other Notam there are ramifications. Maybe there is enforcement that we are not aware of, but year after year I hear people on the radio that clearly do not understand the procedure. - Perhaps EAA could create an on-line course similar to the DC Special Flight Rules Area and passing that course is a pre-requisite to getting a parking spot.

2. The controllers were giving conflicting directions. More than once I heard the line being told to go circle the lake once and then come back in. Meanwhile there was already a group circling the lake who were told to hold there until told to come back it - which they were never told to do. Those that followed the Notam were really had no shot of getting in.


There are training courses being developed, and hopefully there will even be "wings" credit for participating. This is a huge change, and if anyone thinks they are just going to show up at OSH next year and figure it out, they are very mistaken.

While we don't want to encourage "enforcement" actions during the fly in, I assure you the FSDO is there and listening. And with ADSB it is going to be much easier to identify those who aren't playing by the rules.

Regarding the conflicting directions some received, admittedly there were multiple issues last year. I think I've tried to be clear that we have been working multiple facets. And all 3 pillars (FAA, EAA flight ops, and EAA ground OPS) have been extremely cooperative without any finger pointing or blame-gaming. Everyone is working to solve this.

The new procedures should help in not creating an immense congestion of traffic at any one location, hopefully eliminating the stress and confusion that goes along with that.

Vic
 
I'm sorry you feel longer arrival routes won't help. The reality is that they should. If everyone pays attentions to the ATIS's and the texting information, pilot's should be able to make a decision on an alternate PRIOR to joining the arrival. .

Vic

The text notification is an improvement. But that is completely disconnected to a longer arrival queue. Either you know the queue is closed 5 minutes before you hit the gate or you don't. Moving the gate will not help that issue, but will create a 20 mile conga line that will be a cluster.

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the inchworm effect (or whatever it is called) happens when traffic backs up with automobiles. Same with airplanes, but airplanes don't have the ability to stop and wait until traffic moves again. A longer arrival procedure is several steps in the wrong direction.
 
I know there are many people waaaay smarter than me working this issue, but... starting the queue at Waupun? Seems unnecessary and draws things out too far. As others have stated, long range ATIS repeaters with timely updates on the holding/parking situation would help. But, IMHO, what might help the most is a second (first?) approach control crew at Ripon.

What I saw last year was a huge mass of airplanes arriving over Ripon from all points of the compass via GPS “direct RIPON”; they wouldn’t see or acknowledge the fact that the Green Lake hold was full with people following the Notam, waiting their turn to pass over Ripon inbound. So these “direct RIPON” guys just turn up the track with 12 of their closest buddies and then be surprised that they got turned away at Fisk... a controller at Ripon would be able to meter the feed up the tracks and be able to keep the new arrivals to Ripon updated as to either head up the tracks or join the hold at Green Lake. This would entail an extra frequency change along the arrival, but most should be able to handle that.

Then there are the other obvious solutions like stop shutting down the field for military arrivals and have the controllers quit asking for 1-2 miles in trail, because that just isn’t possible.

The biggest puzzle of all though, is how do you get everyone to read and abide the Notam? How do you get through to everyone that no, really... you need to be able to follow railroad tracks in trail while holding 1800 ft at 90 knots...
 
Last edited:
The square hold as you mention it will not be a "hold" per se. The intent is for the Conga line from Ripon to either land at OSH or Fond du Lac. While it might be possible for ATC to rapidly fix whatever caused the "bailout" to Fond du Lac and start sending them back around to OSH could happen, time will tell. An example might be a gear up landing that is rapidly cleared. However, that is not the intent. Those who land at Fond du Lac will be sent back to OSH WITHOUT going to Ripon. They will head straight North to OSH BEFORE any arrivals are started at Ripon.

Make sense?

No. It ignores human nature, a force more powerful than any notam.

Assume a field closure for whatever reason. A bunch of airplanes get sent to FLD. You can't require a landing at FLD. Many will choose to hold...somewhere.

Now OSH opens. A bunch of FLD airplanes are dispatched to OSH. It can't be hidden, as they will be on several frequencies and ADSB displays. There is nothing to prevent a holding airplane from joining the FLD-OSH stream at any random point.

Meanwhile we still have inbounds on the Waupon/Ripon/Fisk path. They naturally continue inbound, even when the ATIS says the Fisk arrival is closed, because it might open (and routinely does) just about the time they get to Fisk. Assume the Fisk controller turns them away. The procedure then has them going toward FLD, against the traffic coming from FLD. Will the Fisk control point tell them they can't go to FLD? Maybe send them to Rush Lake or Green Lake?

Now what you have is the same as what you had before...a mass arrival from FLD while the field is closed to everyone else.

Break.

How long before we see an official notam? There must be plans to publish it right away, because otherwise the EAA can't start all the planned training for the new system.
 
Once you are in the arrival to OSH from Waupon, if the field is closed for any reason you will be diverted to Fond du lac in a conga line. Then, when the field opens up, those at Fond Du Lac will be sent back to OSH FIRST, prior to opeingin up the arrivals. You won't have to worry about losing a space in line and having no where to park. Your place in line stays.

Vic

I hope this is implemented with some thought. If you open the airport and then not let anyone land while waiting for the FDL folks to run to their planes, taxi and fly to Ripon, you will miss the opportunity to land 100's of planes. A big part of the problem when bad wx hits is saturation and limited capacity. We need to be leveraging every available minute to get planes on the ground when a weekend like this year's hits. The last thing we need is another reason to stop landings when conditions allow them.

I agree with giving them some priority, but we need to be smart about the implementation of it. Just look at the effect of closing the field while waiting for the bo's to arrive; Large blocks of time when ruways sat empty with 100's of planes circling about. Effective resource management is key. That said, an effective and orderly plan for diverting planes from the fisk arrival allows for last second closures, letting ATC close the airport when the first of a mass arrival is 5 miles out instead of a scheduled time even thouhg "no one is coming."


Larry
 
Last edited:
ADSB

I can tell you ADSB is not the answer for planes landing at KOSH its more runway and another Fisk.And good controllers like we have had some years.And a notam that states if you have a problem fix it before Fisk .If you have low fuel get some before coming in.
Bob
 
ADSB

Aren't users of UAT allowed to use "anonymized" mode? How will this help identify individual aircraft?
 
Aren't users of UAT allowed to use "anonymized" mode? How will this help identify individual aircraft?

Just require that they don't use anonymous mode?

Realistically, I don't think it's an immediate solution, but it does seem that a system could be developed to harness the potential of ads-b in this case. Fly through an arrival "gate" and the system will register your N-number into the queue. Then proceed to hold as normal until your number is called. Anybody who doesn't follow the procedure is never called.

Don't want to use ads-b? That's fine too, you just get a separate arrival window where you have to deal with the normal free-for-all.

Maybe there is a technical reason this couldn't work (maxing out the ads-b bandwidth comes to mind), but assuming those hurdles could be overcome, I don't see how this couldn't help immensely.

Chris
 
Does ADS-B out for July 2019 having an advantage prior to 2020 send the right message?

What about all the planes that have no transponder needs nor requirements, ever? Should this new procedure penalize them?

If you have ADS-B out, you must use it, there have now been years of no relief for that and it seemed fine- in its own context.

Making it sound like a key to the ATC problem, which seemed unprecedented, seems dicey. ATC changed spacing to mile and closed arrivals. Both of those seemed ad hoc. Having the grass turnoffs of 9/27 unavailable can happen again- what is the plan to not get bounced out at Fisk for the same next year?

Mass arrivals, in the right amounts, held to their announced, visible schedules CAN be efficient and I support them- done right. The context is allowing them to park/camp TOGETHER. That should not outweigh the folks that want to make it in to KOSH itself without an excessive divert risk.

Last year seemed short on info flow. FISK did not sound like they were on a plan or a deviation from a baseline plan. That can be avoided, surely.

Making Ripon to Fisk a longer segment may help, if Fisk ATC follows the NOTAM legacy spacing. Creating a LONG, level, multi-leg STAR at constant airspeed does not seem flexible. There are too many good arrival paths in CAVU, and lower weather makes for funnelling. How will a bailouts from each leg be planned? Folks that follow the plan will still decide to leave the conga. Interlopers joining a conga path randomly just gain more airspace from which to attack.

Interesting read so far. Murphy says KOSH runways will open exactly when the lead plane gets to KFLD. At 90 knots how long is it between the two on the planned routing direct back as priority to KOSH, as Vic posted- 25 miles at least 15 minutes, that costs how many Fisk tower handoffs to rollouts?

Will FLD ATC be handling each plane in their Class D? That's more radio changes.
 
Last edited:
https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...-/media/EE32D7082D3746E9BE714515E8CA6A2E.ashx

Note "Bailout Route", and "Rejoin Route" (in orange, between FLD and Waupun).

That's horrible. What I really don't want to do is follow in trail for a 40 mile circuit behind a Champ.

Someone is creating problems where none existed before. Bring back the experienced controllers and maximize the runway utilization for inbounds. That's the fix. That would have eliminated the 2018 train wreck.

Also, keep ATIS up to date and communicate runway status in real time via a web link, and/or text alerts.

The pilots will figure out the rest.
 
That's horrible. What I really don't want to do is follow in trail for a 40 mile circuit behind a Champ.

Someone is creating problems where none existed before. Bring back the experienced controllers and maximize the runway utilization for inbounds. That's the fix. That would have eliminated the 2018 train wreck.

Agreed! That?s just ugly and waaay too spread out. It just kicks the can down the road from Ripon to Waupun...
 
No Joy

The proposed fix is about what I expected. They're just going to move the problem. I agree with the post above.... there fixing something that's not broke. The chaos at OSH happened for a few very specific and easily identifiable reasons.

1. Weather was definitely a factor. It helped place lots of airplanes in the same
airspace.
2. The controllers were asking for 1 mile in trail spacing. Did nothing but slow
the already bottlenecked traffic further.
3. Notam wasn't being followed by everyone. Simply.... there were pilots trying
to muscle their way in. I include the false emergencies here.
4. The biggest single contributing factor was ATC not letting Fisk traffic in.
Doesn't matter if they were holding out for mass arrivals or military flybys!
They closed the field to arrivals and that falls squarely in their laps. The result
is very predictable.... congestion at Ripon/Fisk.

The proposed fix dosen't address the problems that caused this. Funny that the "conga line" from Ripon to Fisk failed miserably.... BECAUSE ATC WAS NOT LETTING FISK ARRIVALS IN..... and the answer is to extend that conga line!
Like what has already been mentioned, the current procedure has worked for many many years. Had ATC NOT shut down the Fisk arrivals it would have worked this year too.

Only one thing needs to be addressed. They perhaps do need a Plan B just in case there is an unexpected delay. It could be published in the NOTAM and only put into use by the controllers letting everyone know that plan B is in effect. And for those aircraft a ways out, use of the ATIS would notify them before they ever get close to Ripon.

Mass arrivals should have a time slot. Nothing should be able to change it including weather. If for some reason they can't make the slot then they fly the published approach like everyone else. No military flybys either.... remember the movie Top Gun..... "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full!"

The powers that be need to remember something...... It's these thousands of airplanes coming from all over that make OSHKOSH what it is.
This year those few hundred caught at Ripon/Fisk, (which were a representation of all of us!), were treated as stepchildren which created an extremely dangerous situation out at Ripon/Fisk while who knows what was going on at the field.


OH, and I had to EDIT my post to add this comment. Their thought of letting aircraft that's landed at FDL back into the approach procedure FIRST is just laughable. Imagine you have many aircraft inbound and now ATC is going to announce they have to hold someplace while aircraft from FDL are allowed in first. A "first come first in" fly in that now at times could be metered/controlled who comes in first.... and OH YES.... reservations!!!! You've got to be kidding. Just thinking about all this is causing me to lose interest.
 
Last edited:
I can appreciate the sentiment but it looks like this was overthought

Someone is creating problems where none existed before. Bring back the experienced controllers and maximize the runway utilization for inbounds. That's the fix. That would have eliminated the 2018 train wreck.

+1 on that.

With no disrespect to those that were asked to review this and come up with a solution, bring back the experienced controllers, stick to the 1/2 mile in-trail separation, restrict the mass arrivals to a slot (good job on this one EAA) and focus heavily on training via YouTube and other means i.e. bring back the pilots who know how to follow the NOTAM (good job on this one too) and most of this goes away.

Dealing with soggy ground that prevents early turnoffs into the grass (eg. some type of well marked marston mats for temporary taxiways for use when soft ground exists) would help increase the number of landings as well.
 
Last edited:
My only suggestion, do whatever it takes (pay them bonuses) to get the Osh experienced controllers back, IMO much of the havoc last year was due to the controllers at Fisk/tower.

In years past, working Airventure was a plum assignment for controllers. I understood that there was so much competition for it that controllers were limited to a maximum number of years working it so others (new to Oshkosh) could have a chance to do it.

Maybe the controllers' enthusiasm for working Airventure has waned and needs to be rekindled.
 
Everybody is working real hard to prevent it from happening again--the FAA, EAA flight/ground Ops, and the various Councils.

Vic

Since I have not read in this thread anyone do it yet, I want to thank all those working very hard to help improve the arrival procedures in order to avoid last year?s perfect storm of problems.

Also thankful to have Vic, one of our own community, to be involved. Thanks Vic.

Fixing the problems is a thankless job that will probably only satisfy a small percent of us but I am confident that it is being handled by the very best that have more info than us and are trying their best to improve safety. It is everyone?s best interest to solve the problem and this healthy debate is great. Oshkosh is a grand adventure and these potential new arrive procedures are part of it.
 
In years past, working Airventure was a plum assignment for controllers. I understood that there was so much competition for it that controllers were limited to a maximum number of years working it so others (new to Oshkosh) could have a chance to do it.

Maybe the controllers' enthusiasm for working Airventure has waned and needs to be rekindled.

Team, I am trying to communicate everything here and sometimes I guess it isn't getting through. There was a very good reason why some of the experienced controllers weren't there last year and it had nothgin to do with fees or burnout. Not unlike any other "company" in the world where good people get promoted, that happens a lot within the FAA. Many good, even great, controllers have been promoted to jobs that for one reason or another left them "non-current" for controlling, so they were excluded from OSH this past year. The FAA is working inside, and with the Union, to correct this. Again, EVERYONE is working thier pillars to fix this.

As for this comment: Mass arrivals should have a time slot. Nothing should be able to change it including weather. If for some reason they can't make the slot then they fly the published approach like everyone else. No military flybys either.... remember the movie Top Gun..... "Negative Ghostrider, the pattern is full!"

I really wish some of you would take the time to read the whole thread before you post. I already addressed this. The mass arrivals will get one time slot, and if weather impedes it then they have to follow the procedure at a later date just like everyone else. I also addressed the military effect---they are being worked with as well.

I really appreciate all of the thoughts and inputs by everyone. But I am also asking for your patience and willingess to accept change. I can't emphasize enough how much time every week since OSH was spent on this, with lots of scenarios playing out. For those of you who continue to think that the current NOTAM works and it was only due to weather this time, I assure you that you are not correct in your thinking. This wasn't the only bad year we've had at OSH. This change is long overdue, and it was not just a knee-jerk reaction. Please don't forget that it is now a "proposal" to the FAA. We are also waiting to see what they come back with, as the FAA owns the NOTAM. However, they were very much a part of the planning process, and I assure you that they have a really god view into things that work and don't work at high-traffic events. They brought that experience to the table.

The current NOTAM has been in place for almost 30 years. OSH has grown substantially, and what worked then will not continue to work for the current growth along with projected future growth. This new procedure is a combination of new routes along with the initial use of new technology. As I mentioned, it is not set in stone and most likely will continue to morph over the next few years. Heck, we may not even see a repeat of the weather situation we had this past year for a long time, and that would be good.

We as pilots also need to think about our own arrival plans so that we all don't enbd up there at the same time. There just isn't enough concrete and airspace to make it all work. Plans are being created to incent pilots to arrive earlier and later, and those will be communicated once they are finished.

We are being told the NOTAM should be out by end of Q1 in order to meet some timelines for publication.

Again, thanks, and please trust that LOTS of people were involved in this for an inordinate amount of time, with the paramount theme being the safety of our members. Let's all work together and give it a success, with the attitude that everyone is primed for changes if needed. Nobody thinks it is perfect, but we have a lot of constraints to work with.

Step back, take a breath, and know we are all on the same team. :)

Vic
 
Weather windows.....

Hi All,
I have flown in to the show only twice in the last seven years, so take that into consideration in my comments....
It's hard to put my thoughts into words, so take this as a debrief of what I did last year.

I believe our arrival into OSH is controlled by us, as pilot in command.

Being a VFR pilot, I plan an arrival window that is 3-4 days wide with a higher abort weight towards the Sunday before the show.

Weather models have improved significantly over the years and probability maps gave me the opportunity to watch the ten day weather forecast approaching the show. https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/us/wi/oshkosh/44.03%2C-88.55?cm_ven=localwx_10day
You could see the weather window closing on the weekend, and opening for the Thursday of the week before the show.
The predicted Sunday afternoon improvement of weather also told me that a Sunday arrival was out for me.(A good decision in hindsight)
That decision was made on Tuesday before the show...so if Thursday (the best day) deteriorated, I was in for a long drive instead.

I departed early Thursday morning for a noon arrival at OSH. I was concerned about traffic because the NOTAM was not yet in effect, and I was figuring there would be a lot of pilots who made the same weather decisions I did. (Except for those to the West of OSH, who of course were on the other side of the weather mess.) I decided to follow the FISK procedures anyway, assuming others would as well.

To my surprise, the pattern was quiet, and I parked beside four other RVs who arrived before me.

So this leads me to two questions:

Oshkosh occurs the same week every year. Most of us can plan a little extra time off from work to give us more arrival time options. Why didn't this happen?

I know that the NOTAM can't have its effective days changed easily, and its impossible to predict that. Is it possible to add a recommendation that pilots follow the FISK arrival outside of the NOTAM effective dates so that they don't wonder where the traffic might be if they arrive outside of the normal arrival times?


Just my two cents.
 
Vic,

A big thanks to you and everyone else who worked on this. I'm sure a lot of work went into it. However, it has the look and feel of something designed by a committee. There are aspects of it that are no-brainers, like the mass arrival and military flyover restrictions. There are also parts that are head scratchers, like the whole bail-out procedure to Fond du Lac. I'm anxious to see more details about how this will work, because I am very skeptical that it will do more good than harm.

As for the ADSB/ increased weather requirements- this looks to me like nothing more than another way to incentivize folks to equip with ADSB out, rather than an attempt to really make things safer and more efficient on the arrival. In so doing, we've effectively shut out a large segment of the Antique/ Classic folks from even trying to make it to Oshkosh.

This might serve as a good first draft, but since it is already being sent to the FAA I'm afraid it's well past that point.
 
Most of us can plan a little extra time off from work to give us more arrival time options. Why didn't this happen?

I'm sure it happens frequently. The issue this year was that people made it to the vicinity of Oshkosh and were not allowed to land despite available runway capacity and weather conditions within bounds for the arrival procedure. If 200 aircraft arrive at Ripon every hour and they only allow 100 aircraft to land, you get a backlog of holding aircraft.

That's what happened.
 
Vic,
I know you and many others likely spent a lot of personal time on this. Thank you for your efforts.
It is a complicated issue because of so many variable factors.
Hopefully no one on the committee gets discourage by the feedback. As has been said something had to change. I am also skeptical of some of the proposed details but as you said, it will be a work in progress. I am glad to see change happening.
I have flown the arrival into OSH nearly every year for the past 25 years. Every time I think I have seen it all I am proven wrong. In 2016, I was #2 to land on 27 behind the gear up Mooney. What I saw when I was forced to return to Ripon was nothing short of unbelievable.
No one thought it could be any worse but it apparently was this year. Because of One Week Wonder obligations I arrived earlier than usual (on Friday) but I have heard from colleagues and many of you, how crazy it was.

There are a couple of issues I have not seen addressed in the proposal.

1. Every year there are many instances that indicate a total breakdown in communication between the EAA people on the ground, and the FAA. I can't even count the times that Fisk controllers have been telling inbound traffic that the airport is closed to Gen Av, or home builts, or (fill in the blank) because parking is full, only to hear from reliable sources once the ground (Jeff in home built parking/camping being one of them), that they weren't closed. In 2017 I was only able to get past Fisk after convincing the controller I was a factory display aircraft. Once on the ground the homebuilt parking guys told us, "we aren't closed", and that they had no idea why Fisk was telling people that.
This in itself causes a jamb up because pilots in the air get frustrated, the freq. gets saturated with all of the back and forth that ensues, and any sense of organized flow begins to deteriorate quickly.

2. I think a procedure needs to be developed to deal with pilots that do not follow the arrival procedures. I have personally seen countless times over the years, pilots totally disrupting the arrival process. I have seen a mix of those that arrive clueless of the procedures or existence of an arrival NOTAM, and those that feel entitled above everyone else and just push their way into line. One year recently, I was on crosswind for the pattern to 18, just crossing the SW boundary of the airport when a Piper Saratoga blasted into the downwind, straight in from the south. At a high rate of speed that caused him to pass a couple of airplanes already in the downwind. This happened to occur exactly at the same time the tower was trying to merge in two war birds from the war bird arrival. It screwed up the flow so badly that 3 airplanes ended up going around, but the Saratoga was not one of them. He happily completed his mission, his passengers were likely clueless of the danger the pilot had put them in, and they got the obligatory (in a cheerful friendly voice) "welcome to OSH", while three other pilots are now exposed to additional risk needing to try and reenter the traffic flow. I was in the back and watched all of this unfold in front of me. I was truly convinced I would soon be filing an accident witness report.
And don't get me started about the times I have seen airplanes flying in the reverse direction on the Fisk/Ripon arrival corridor, with the pilot jambing up the freq. trying to find out what he is supposed to do to be allowed to land at OSH.
I think this type of thing causes a lot of the traffic flow degradation. I fail to understand why it has been tolerated for so long. Most likely because of the difficulty in tracking down the offenders, but I think if there was a desire to do so, a plan could be put in place. I bet after a couple of years, word would get around and people would think twice. Without some type of plan in place, my fear is the new procedures will just push more people to the dark side.
 
.

This might serve as a good first draft, but since it is already being sent to the FAA I'm afraid it's well past that point.

It took 3 months to get to this proposal. Maybe another 3 months listening to and incorporating the pilot feedback from here and elsewhere would be beneficial.

It is fine that someone is looking at how to relieve things when too many aircraft are holding. But that misses the main issue which is how to get more of those aircraft to the runway.
 
When I used to lead a flock of 20 plus large aircraft in airfield assaults slightly less hospitable than FISK last year, we had a playbook of 20 plus primary pages. The fallback plays were double that.

It was built on a legacy of plans, updated often. At that, a week's event would get planning by a half dozen for a week prior each time. ATC, when training in the States, has a very similar interaction as they owned much of the airspace.

I'd love to see the sandbox drill on some of the basic what-ifs. Why, no offense- but the safest way to plan as a group effort is always remember- no one is as dumb as all of us. Make sure neither the rookies nor vets go without voicing any doubts and concerns.

Holds at corners outside of a right turning arrival pattern, now with 3 hold locations, puts all players belly-up to each other at the corners as holds release.

That does not seem right.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to all for your efforts to improve the safety margins of the event.

Is there any discussion of giving pilots their choice of runway to minimize ground hazards?

In my case, I first attended OSH in 1975 and have been to 90% of them since. I fulfilled my dream of flying my homebuilt RV-7A to OSH in 2006. Again in 2007 and 2008, I flew in and camped. But after the absolutely brutal and hazardous experience in 2008 of taxiing in the grass along the south side of runway 27 for nearly its entire length just to get to a hard surface to get to homebuilt camping, I swore I'd never do that again, and haven't. I've attended every OSH convention since 2008, but fly to and park at outlying airports like ENW, RAC OR MSN, but increasingly question why I bother to even make the effort.

Without any reasonable assurance that I could land on runway 18 or 36 to access homebuilt camping, I can't accept the significant risk to my plane of actually operating at OSH during Airventure.
 
Some of you have made the comment that the new procedure just kicks the problem down the road, so I want to clarify something.

You may get to Waupon, but then ATC will decide if you are going any further. All of the controllers at the various checkpoints, OSH, and Fond Du Lac are going to be in close communication with each other. We are not going to let the holding patterns get saturated like last year. At Waupon you may be told to proceed to YOUR alternate. It very well could be that every third airplane is told to go to their alternate.

So be prepared. Watch the weather and listen to all of the ATIS?s and the texting service. Don?t show up blindly expecting to go past WAUPON to RIPON, or even think you are going to bully your way in.

So have a planned alternate. The pilot is responsible for this. ATC is only going to use one alternate, Fond du Lac, as they know what?s going on there, and it will be clearly defined and communicated as to how to get there.

Quite candidly, the weather portion of the problem last year was forecasted for at least 3-4 days. I chose to go a day early and arrived in perfect VFR conditions.
Arrival times can sometime be managed to a time of your choosing. 😀

As for the question regarding choosing a runway, that could happen if crosswinds are a serious factor. As for avaoiding long taxis, probably not. Again, lots of work is being done on the taxiways to improve that part of the equation.

Vic
 
Think I?ll cancel my plans to fly in next year

You may get to Waupon, but then ATC will decide if you are going any further. All of the controllers at the various checkpoints, OSH, and Fond Du Lac are going to be in close communication with each other. We are not going to let the holding patterns get saturated like last year. At Waupon you may be told to proceed to YOUR alternate. It very well could be that every third airplane is told to go to their alternate.

Sounds like this creates a lottery system for who gets to land at Oshkosh. Show up and you may get to proceed, or you may be told to go land somewhere else. What prevents you from being the unlucky “third” airplane when you try an hour later? Or again the next day after that? I wouldn't fly my own aircraft halfway across the country to Oshkosh if I knew there was only a 2 in 3 shot I'd get to land at Oshkosh.

Bring back last year’s inexperienced controllers and I can see this “red and white high wing approaching Waupon, proceed to your alternate and try again tomorrow” phrase becoming an “easy button” for ATC.

I predict next year will be one of the lowest attendance shows for aircraft in the last decade while folks wait to see how this experiment plays out...
 
Last edited:
It very well could be that every third airplane is told to go to their alternate.

So be prepared. Watch the weather and listen to all of the ATIS?s and the texting service. Don?t show up blindly expecting to go past WAUPON to RIPON, or even think you are going to bully your way in.
Do you think this will impact all aircraft types, or just homebuilts? For the past many years, I usually fly in for a day and park at VAP, which I don't think ever saturates.

If I only have a 1 of 3 (or even 1 of 2) chance of actually landing at OSH, vs landing at at nearby airport and spending time commuting, it will significantly reduce my time at the show, and I will not attend anymore.
 
At Waupon you may be told to proceed to YOUR alternate. It very well could be that every third airplane is told to go to their alternate.
In this scenario, a good bunch of them will simply head south for a while, then turn around and get back right back in the line hoping to get through. I don't see how this is going to reduce saturation.

You can't design a system around everyone following the rules when those rules are against their self-interest.
 
1. Every year there are many instances that indicate a total breakdown in communication between the EAA people on the ground, and the FAA. I can't even count the times that Fisk controllers have been telling inbound traffic that the airport is closed to Gen Av, or home builts, or (fill in the blank) because parking is full, only to hear from reliable sources once the ground (Jeff in home built parking/camping being one of them), that they weren't closed. In 2017 I was only able to get past Fisk after convincing the controller I was a factory display aircraft. Once on the ground the homebuilt parking guys told us, "we aren't closed", and that they had no idea why Fisk was telling people that.
This in itself causes a jamb up because pilots in the air get frustrated, the freq. gets saturated with all of the back and forth that ensues, and any sense of organized flow begins to deteriorate quickly.
This has been a problem for years and needs to be addressed as part of this overhaul. The point of contact with ATC is the North 40 GAC/ GAP folks in Flightline Ops, so it is not surprising that the ATIS updates are focused on that area. We have never, ever closed the Homebuilt or Antique/ Classic areas to arrivals. When we have space available, that needs to be part of the communications blast via ATIS, text, website etc.

Of course, over the last few years the lines between the various areas have gotten a bit more blurry. It is all part of this (ill-advised IMHO) attempt to not turn anyone away. You may have noticed a fair number of spam can types parking within the homebuilt area the last couple of years- that is not by accident.
 
Some of you have made the comment that the new procedure just kicks the problem down the road, so I want to clarify something.
You may get to Waupon, but then ATC will decide if you are going any further.

Vic, that is the can kick. It just moves the gatekeeper from Fisk to Waupon. And just like at Fisk, the Waupon controller can't make pilots go to an alternate and park. Human nature says they will simply return at intervals for another shot....or bypass the checkpoint and join the line anywhere along the 24 NM from Waupon to Fisk.

Don?t show up blindly expecting to go past WAUPON to RIPON, or even think you are going to bully your way in.

Now we have an elephant in the room. Tell us about the enforcement plan.
 
Now we have an elephant in the room.

The elephant in the room is that there is all of that his activity about arrival gates, ADSB, bail out locations, etc., instead of dealing with the runway utilization issue. Fix that and the rest doesn't matter.
 
Vic,
Respectfully, this concept that every third aircraft may simply be told to proceed to “your” alternate is demoralizing. I fly all the way to OSH and get randomly selected to not be allowed in, yet every 2 of 3 aircraft behind me is allowed? With a procedure like that my alternate will simply be to go home or deviously go a few miles south and rejoin hoping to be the lucky 2 out of 3. Home is safer, but I suspect the devious return will be more common.

I was in the fray at Ripon last year circling the lake. When I landed at OSH the runway complex was a ghost town. The issue, from my perspective, was mostly due to runway closures for military arrivals BEFORE THE AIRSHOW and rescheduled mass arrivals. Instead of randomly selecting aircraft for non-participation just move the mass arrivals to Friday or make them a part of the event on Monday. Don’t allow military fly-bys except as part of the airshow, they do have the entire week for that. Saturday and Sunday should be for getting attendees into the show.
 
Last edited:
Ok guys, I am amazed at the rush to the the dark side. No, it won’t be a lottery. But when things get really saturated there needs to be the flexibility early on in the game to start diminishing the traffic. We absolutely can not allow the holds to get saturated like they did last year. If things go well there’s a good chance no one will get turned away at Waupon. Let’s stop thinking if we just bring back the old controllers it will get fixed.

I know many of you have your point of view on what to fix based on how you were impacted last year, whether you were in a hold, or taxiing, or sent away, etc., along with someone stating it was clearly designed by a committee. Guess what, it was designed by a committee, and it was a very well-staffed committee with representatives from every conceivable problem area. That included people who flew the visual approach, the IFR approach, ATC, ground ops, and OSH flight ops. I hope you will trust me in saying that if you could have watched from day one, which started at OSH with this team, you would have walked away feeling good. There were lots of scenarios discussed, lots of pushback on proposals, etc. BTW, it dominated the BOD meeting on Tuesday of AirVenture. I was there. It was an all hands on deck with no stone unturned.

Somehow everyone keeps missing that I have said EVERYONE is working on fixing their part of the problem, ATC, GROUND OPS, and parking. It is a multi-faceted approach with no single point solution. EAA is even working on trying to figure out a parking solution much like inventory management so we know real-time where all of the parking spaces are.

BTW, regarding the holds and some pilots holding for 2-4 hours. That’s just plain ridiculous and dangerous. No points for that kind of decision-making.

As for next year being one of the lowest attendances, I doubt it. We are the fastest growing segment of aviation and it will continue. Think about how many people we all tell about OSH as soon as we get home!

The current NOTAM has really run it’s course a long time ago. We have 10X the number of airplanes attending now and we need to change. The new one may not be perfect, but it is a change in the right direction, with everyone working to figure out better ways. It will continue to morph. I personally have been flying the Ripon approach since 1983. It’s time to change it. The sheer number of airplanes, along with the huge difference in performance since then is mind boggling. We are trying to fit 10 lbs into a 1 lb sack.

Right now the FAA has the proposal. They may make some changes themselves. We don’t know yet how the final document will look.

In the meantime, how about we as pilots start brainstorming HOW we can make it work and have a good time? There is a part of this that we all own as pilots, and we can either sit back and take shots at how it’s all wrong or we can work together to make it safe and successful.

As for the enforcement “elephant” someone mentioned, there is no reason to focus on that. Sure we have all seen or heard examples of those who show up and make stupid comments on the radio. Will they be dealt with for flagrant violations that cause a safety issue? I don’t know, but I do believe some of us wish they would be. My guess is that it won’t be anyone on this forum, so let’s spend our cycles on other stuff.

No, I am not going to shut the thread down as someone asked me. But I will challenge someone to start another thread on how to make it work, and how all of us can do our part to make sure we spread the word to everyone we come in touch with who might attend OSH next year. That includes Chapter meetings, flying clubs, new builders, etc. Things like encouraging new builders whose skills may have gotten a little rusty during the build process to plan on arriving outside the normal busy times is just one example.

I bet this forum can come up with some really great ideas that will be adopted as best practices, and perhaps even included in the published NOTAM. What do you say we give it a try?

Everyone here has a chance to be a leader. ��


Vic
 
Last edited:
We have 10X the number of airplanes attending now and we need to change.


Vic

Vic,

What are the first weekend arrival statistics for the last 25 years? Aircraft landed on Saturday, Aircraft landed on Sunday, by year? My sense (having attended most of those years) is that overall traffic is up slightly, maybe. I'm happy to be wrong on this.
 
Vic,

What are the first weekend arrival statistics for the last 25 years? Aircraft landed on Saturday, Aircraft landed on Sunday, by year? My sense (having attended most of those years) is that overall traffic is up slightly, maybe. I'm happy to be wrong on this.

That is one of the things we track, and I don?t remember the numbers off the top of my head. And obviously they get distorted by events like this last year. On a good VFR Friday we would land a whole lot more than we did this past year.

However, if I think back to 1983, I know we had about 15-20 RV?s in TOTAL, and perhaps 300 homebuilts. Now we average a thousand homebuilts, and 10 thousand aircraft in total, to say nothing of all of the other aircraft movements going on at the same time, such as demos, Trimotors, warbird arrivals,etc.

There?s a whole lot more moving parts to consider than just the arrivals. It all has to work together, continuously for the whole week.

Vic
 
Vic, thank you for being our point guy on this! You risk taking a lot of **** from just about everyone for something totally out of your control.

I just spent over an hour looking at the proposed notams and reading most of the 15 pages of post here. Having flown into the show for the past 14 years in both a C177 and now my 7a, I'm wondering if there can be more separation of aircraft based on speed? Maybe a different approach blended in at the last moment. On my third release from hold this year, I ended up behind something flying roughly 50 knots. That is a little "uncomfortable" for me and had to bail out back into hold again. The first left turn was because of the B1, second for unknown reasons (plane in front and behind got in) third again unknown reason (I might be easy to pick out or something?) and finally slow speed.

I think 90 is fine but it needs to be 90! Not 50 something!

Another thought that I haven't seen mentioned, or I missed it. If we arrive a few days earlier, there isn't anything to do and no food services. I do feel pressure to be there for the HBC beer night Sunday and the Vans get together Monday night. Puts really heavy undo pressure to be there on time :)

I appreciate your patience with us!
 
Last edited:
First of all, thank you Vic and others who are working so hard to improve this situation...

I survived the Sunday afternoon Fisk arrival this year (but ended up diverting to FLD). We all know the stories by now, but here is what that 2+ hours of holding taught me:

You can build the most efficient arrivals with optimum contingency plans that cover every scenario. But until pilots are somehow held accountable when they choose to ignore the rules, nothing will change.
 
What's being done to land more airplanes?
What's being done to land airplanes faster?
What are the goals, and why were they ignored or not discussed publicly in the recommendations for new procedures?

The EAA presented safety contingencies for what happens if/when the velocity of aircraft landing operations slows down or comes to a stop.

What is actually being done to land more airplanes? Is it magic?

We could line up in texas, but at some point airplanes run out of fuel. How do we fix that?

My recommendation is this... Don't make your family stand outside in a line waiting to get in, "build the church for Easter Sunday."

+1 Sign me up for the RV15 High Wing. I'd fly that to AirVenture via the new Texas/Fisk/OSH approach.
 
Ok, so first I have to say - WOW!! Yes Vic, I did read all of these posts. So since I did I will reply to a few of those that caought my eye.

  1. Many comments about flying in early and not having food to eat or trams running. Well, our group has been coming in for years on Saturdays. This year we came in on Thursday because of the WX. Being on the field early has not been a problem. Every year, including this one, we have always had access to whatever food we chose to eat. Also, the trams are running on the weekends. Besides that, we home builders are fortunate enough to have the WELCOME WAGONS at our disposal to take us anywhere we need. Then there is that whole UBER world out there. Need a ride? UBER is your friend. So, neither of these issues should be a determining factor for deciding to come in a day or two earlier.
  2. As for comments directed toward Vic requesting this or that also be considered. It is pretty obvious from Vic's comments the committee has made their recommendations and gone home now. The documents have been submitted to management. We can only wait to see what they produce as direction.
  3. I have opinions about what I think caused this year's problems just like others who have posted here. Most of them have been addressed already. So not sure it matters that I rehash them again. However, I will comment in general to say I really don't see how stretching the cue out further will help when the stadium gates are all closed but only half the seats are filled.

    Reminds me of a restaurant my wife and I went to several years ago. New restaurant opened. Cool, we go to check it out. They take our name and tell us the wait will be about 30 minutes. Looking around we notice there are no customers seated at any of the tables we can see. We wait 10 minutes while no one else comes in or leaves. I finally ask why we are not being seated when it is obvious there is plenty of seating. The answer? Management had decided they needed to set an artificial time for seating in order to give the appearance the restaurant was a desirable place in which to eat since there was a long wait time. Yep! I was thinking just what you are now while reading this. I didn't play that game. Before I left I asked the hostest to make sure she tell management why we left. The restaurant stayed open about 2 weeks before they closed their doors.

    My point, adding a longer cue to address a problem that is not because of a cue problem will not fix a non-cue problem. The problem is in getting people to their seat in the stadium. Increasing the time they have to spend waiting in line, or lengthening that line, will not getting them in their seats quicker or more efficiently. As others have commented, my opinion about the solution involves fixing the shut down time of the limited runway real estate. Make sure the prime time for landing on that real estate is utilized in the most efficient and expeditious manner possible. Do that and the problems seen this year will be resolved.
  4. Lastly, No one ever wants to be singled out in public for being responsible for causing problems. It is definitely not politically correct to do so. Never the less, there were some specific actions implemented by some specific decision makers who made some decisions that were instrumental in adding to the problems that were initiated by the WX that moved into the area prior to the weekend. I think of this issue of pointing out who, what, where the mistakes were made no differently than that of the column in KITPLANES where a certain author points out specific builder flaws found on an experimental airplane in order that we all may learn from those mistakes and become safer builders.
 
Last edited:
Yes, our desire is to spread out the arrivals, but over more days, not longer geography.

Remember I?ve said everyone is still working their responsible areas. It?s not all worked out yet, but one of the sidetracks being worked is to figure out how to incent us pilots to spread out our arrival days. Jack and team are working to figure out how to have the field opened up earlier than Friday and have all of the necessary support infrastructure in place, such as food, showers, etc. Financial incentives are part of those discussions as well, such as free camping.

There may be some incentives for those who arrive later in the week as well. Let?s not start guessing, but be patient and know it is being worked on.

Keep in mind that OSH runs through the hard work of approximately 5000 volunteers, many of whom are on this forum. All of their schedules have to be coordinated first before we can just open up the field earlier.

BTW, the committee hasn?t just submitted a proposal and gone home. This was again reviewed at Safety Council (I am a member there as well), and the BOD meeting last week. I?m sure working sessions will continue, as no doubt there will probably be questions from the FAA team, and we still have to figure out a large part of the communication and education process to our members and the pilot community.

Still waiting for someone to start the thread regarding what we as a pilot community can do. 😀

As for pointing out those who were part of the problem, especially attitudinally, I don?t believe in doing that here or in my columns. However, I?d be willing to bet some of you know who they were and you might consider saying something in private.

Vic
 
What's being done to land more airplanes?
What's being done to land airplanes faster?
What are the goals, and why were they ignored or not discussed publicly in the recommendations for new procedures?

The EAA presented safety contingencies for what happens if/when the velocity of aircraft landing operations slows down or comes to a stop.

What is actually being done to land more airplanes? Is it magic?

We could line up in texas, but at some point airplanes run out of fuel. How do we fix that?

My recommendation is this... Don't make your family stand outside in a line waiting to get in, "build the church for Easter Sunday."

+1 Sign me up for the RV15 High Wing. I'd fly that to AirVenture via the new Texas/Fisk/OSH approach.


Nothing is being done to land more airplanes. The amount of runways that are available is what it is. More runways would be needed to land more airplanes. More runways would take YEARS to build.

A big issue in 2018 was taxiways. The turf was WET and that forced the use of the paved taxiways. Traffic backed up on the taxiways and at some point, arriving traffic needed to be stopped so that traffic sitting on the taxiway for 30-minutes could cross 09-27 to the south parking. (I was one that held for 30-minutes on the taxiway.)

What I do not understand about the proposal is the new waypoint before RIPON only for low ceiling ADS-B arrivals or is that now a new required waypoint with 90 KIAS all the way to landing. I have no issue with it being MVFR arrival for ADS-B only but do have an issue with it being a required VFR arrival with 90-KIAS all the way to landing.
 
So have a planned alternate. The pilot is responsible for this. ATC is only going to use one alternate, Fond du Lac, as they know what?s going on there, and it will be clearly defined and communicated as to how to get there.

You just guaranteed that every pilot coming in will have Fond Du Lac as "their alternate" so they can sit on the ground and wait for ATC to direct all the held traffic at FLD to fly direct to OSH. Where will you kick the can to next, when FLD gets jammed up?

Sorry Vic - I know a lot of people (yourself included) put a lot of time into this - but it's a Band-Aid fix only, and in the wrong spot. The only real solution here is to maximize runway use and get some real ATC in the tower to funnel planes there. 1 mile, and occasionally 2 miles in trail is backwater trainee territory and those people have no business at OSH.

You can say over and over that there is not enough concrete at OSH to do this, and over and over again those of us that have been there before will call BS because we've all seen it work just fine. ATC choking the runways was the root problem of the 2018 furball, pure and simple. Weather was a contributor, the mass arrival planning was a contributor, the military flyby's were a contributor - but the root cause that triggered it was ATC choking the runways. Until you fix that, the only question is where will the symptoms pop up next.
 
Back
Top