What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RVs to Oshkosh

morganjp

Well Known Member
Paul says start a new thread so here it is!

A. Rv s have no business flying the Fisk arrival with all the slow airplanes because there are way too many of us going to Oshkosh now and we do not blend well with this traffic no matter how great our flying skills are.

B. The high Fisk arrival is dangerous and should be abandoned altogether.

C. The slow traffic and faster traffic need different approaches to different runways while still allowing all the departures to take place at the same time.

So how do we do this.

Here is what i think so feel free to shoot holes in this one and come up with your own.

1. Use the taxiway north of 9-27 as a runway the same way the taxiway east of 18-36 is being utilized now.

The grass south of 9-27 is already used as a taxiway. Getting to Basler and the stuff on the north side will be a problem but maybe they can use 5-23 or some other way to get there.

2. Have everything flying LSA speeds and those that just insist on flying the Fisk approach keep using it.

3.Have anyone capable of the Warbird arrival speed ( like us except for the 12 drivers) fly that arrival.

So the arrivals are as follows

Runway 27
We use the Warbird arrival from Lake Winnebago to 27 Left
Slow guys use Fisk RR arrival right downwind to 27 Right

Runway 9
We use the Warbird left downwind to 9 left
Slow guys come straight in to 9 right off the RR tracks

Runway 36

We use the Warbird arrival from the south to 36 right
Slow guys use the Fisk Avenue arrival to 36 left

Runway 18

We Use the high approach like we are going to runway 9 except turn left base and fly south over 27 to 18 Right

Slow guys use Fisk avenue to a left downwind to 18 left.

Ok my brain is officially tired so that?s it. Somebody else come up with something better.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.
 
John,
I like 90% of it.

RWY 9 taxiway is straight on airport diagram but it would need a lot of work
After looking at it on google maps. It has a good turn in it.

Controllers in a boat at warbird island pushing to both runways on calm day??
 
I camp on the North side of 9/27 every year. It would be difficult to use that as a runway. You have multiple locations all along that taxiway such as the Weeks hangars, terminal, and Basler. It is used quite a bit and at busy times gets backed up with large planes that cannot taxi on the grass, all sizes of jets, show planes, warbirds, etc. Trying to get them all to cross over 9/27 from another runway would create more of a mess than already exists. Not only that but it is adjacent to all of the camping, litterally steps away, from all of the camping on the North side so the FAA might have an issue with the proximity or EAA could take away a couple thousand camping spots. The North 40 might seem like no mans land to those that never venture North of the Warbirds area but I can assure you it is very busy up there.
 
I must graciously disagree with the OP point A. RV?s although a huge biggest component of the experimental aircraft do not represent the majority of aircraft at Oshkosh. From Cubs, certified, aerobatic, vintage there is such a mix of aircraft. 90knts is almost double the published stall speed of many of the RV aircraft. That is certainly a doable speed to fly and if a pilots skills aren?t up to that then a good self assessment of skill is in order. Try slowing down a high performance biplane, that I can?t see jack out the front to 90kts and fly the approach. I have several times after practicing and planning my arrival time.

Maybe as RV pilots we can pave the way by demonstrating precise adherence to the arrival.

I wonder why 90kts was determined to speed?

Or get a mass arrival organized like the beech pilots do.
 
A. Rv s have no business flying the Fisk arrival with all the slow airplanes because there are way too many of us going to Oshkosh now and we do not blend well with this traffic no matter how great our flying skills are.

Disagree. RVs are just fine doing this arrival at 90 kts. Or even down to 70 for a bit if there's some compression going on... it happens.
 
I wonder why 90kts was determined to speed?

Or get a mass arrival organized like the beech pilots do.

The 90 knots is a good compromise that fits everything from an Ercoupe or C-150 to a Comanche.

EAA is actively working on a solution ( a grass strip on the SW side of the field) for the truly low and slow crowd. Supposedly, it will take a little time to make that happen. I assume it will lead to a different arrival.

And speaking of arrivals- I am really skeptical of mass arrivals because of the mess I seem to see when they reach the parking areas.
 
Paul
A little help here would be appreciated.
These people seem to think that after 1200 hours of RV time that I can?t fly it at 90 knots.

It?s not my skills that I am concerned with, it the guy in front in the cub going 90, 75, 80, 65 100 feet high 300 ft low wandering left wandering right.
And the other guy breaking into the line from my left or right.

The purpose of the thread is to come up with a better solution to space traffic arriving at Oshkosh not to debate who is the next Bob Hoover!

So let?s go back to the original question of what ideas do we have to make the Oshkosh arrival safer and stick to that.

Thanks in advance for your well thought out ideas.
 
I can fly all day long at 65kts.

Yes, but how much manuever margin do you have at 65 knots when someone cuts you off?

I?m with John. I want additional energy to be able to aggressively manuever and get out of dodge when someone lacking adequate skills does something stupid.

I don?t have a lot of RV time, but almost 20k incident and accident free hours Part 91, 121 and military - so while I?m always learning and hope to continue to do so - the 90 knot arrival isn?t the best for me and my RV7.
 
I must graciously disagree with the OP point A. RV?s although a huge biggest component of the experimental aircraft do not represent the majority of aircraft at Oshkosh. From Cubs, certified, aerobatic, vintage there is such a mix of aircraft. 90knts is almost double the published stall speed of many of the RV aircraft. That is certainly a doable speed to fly and if a pilots skills aren?t up to that then a good self assessment of skill is in order. Try slowing down a high performance biplane, that I can?t see jack out the front to 90kts and fly the approach. I have several times after practicing and planning my arrival time.

Maybe as RV pilots we can pave the way by demonstrating precise adherence to the arrival.

I wonder why 90kts was determined to speed?

Or get a mass arrival organized like the beech pilots do.

nicely said
 
I must graciously disagree with the OP point A. RV?s although a huge biggest component of the experimental aircraft do not represent the majority of aircraft at Oshkosh. From Cubs, certified, aerobatic, vintage there is such a mix of aircraft. 90knts is almost double the published stall speed of many of the RV aircraft. That is certainly a doable speed to fly and if a pilots skills aren?t up to that then a good self assessment of skill is in order. Try slowing down a high performance biplane, that I can?t see jack out the front to 90kts and fly the approach. I have several times after practicing and planning my arrival time.

Maybe as RV pilots we can pave the way by demonstrating precise adherence to the arrival.

I wonder why 90kts was determined to speed?

Or get a mass arrival organized like the beech pilots do.

Disagree. RVs are just fine doing this arrival at 90 kts. Or even down to 70 for a bit if there's some compression going on... it happens.

I can fly all day long at 65kts.

nicely said

I agree. If you do not feel safe flying your RV at 90 KIAS in trail with other aircraft, then you should not be flying to Oshkosh AirVenture.
 
I think I'm going to have to pile on here, if you are not comfortable flying the current 90kt approach, then you shouldn't go. Last year I got a lot of practice maneuvering to avoid other airplanes while flying at 70 knots because the guy in front of my was backing up trying to make space from the guy in front of him - and I didn't like it much but it was well within the capabilities of both the machine and the meat servo driving it.

Would I like a 150 knot approach? Sure - but it's not realistic - what we have to look at is an appropriate speed for a large mix of airplanes to operate at for the approach. 90 knots is an excellent COMPROMISE speed.

I'm also a STRONG proponent of organizing one or perhaps two RV mass arrivals to help us get in. I would 100% change my arrival plans to fit in with the mass arrival and avoid the circus.
 
I think I'm going to have to pile on here, if you are not comfortable flying the current 90kt approach...

I don't think anyone here has expressed discomfort with the 90 knot approach. What I have seen in the thread and do understand is that when things get slow, people get concerned. That doesn't happen in the 135 knot stream.

I get it, but I'm fine in the 90 knot stream.
 
90KT

I understand what the OP is saying in the first post and I agree with it.
Im not a great pilot like the ones that disagree I can fly all the way down to stall with more power and the nose sticking up with no vis ahead with out loss of altitude but I will over heat in short order.
But why would I want to do that its not safe?
Show me a 7AC that will fly 90Kts!
Show me a Piper Cub that will fly 90Kts!

The Stearman I had would not fly 90Kts with its wood prop on it and it had 220HP.So make the line longer and its a big problem for a lot of airplanes.
I cut a 8x8 cowl flap in my RV6 just for the ground opps at KOSH because of the big chance of having to idle for 30 or more min.I love going to OSH and its a long way from Florida if I ever go and cant camp in HBC I want ever waste my time going again.So when I go I plan arriving safely and if that means going high on the new 40 mile track that's what I will do and I want feel bad because it will be a LOT safer than flying behind a Cub.
The real answer more arrival points and more qualified controllers and not to let the ones that worked 2018 back in the gate.:eek:
 
I've always believed there should never be a "War Bird" arrival. All of the arrivals should be "Performance Based" arrivals. If you can fly the performance profile for that arrival, then you can fly the arrival.

If the Fisk arrival is carrying 400% more load than the Warbird arrival, then it only makes sense to shuffle that load over to another arrival that is less saturated. The only way it make sense to have an exclusive arrival for warbirds is if EAA politics is in play. In which case someone needs to man-up (I had a better term picked out but I'll keep it family friendly) and simply tell the warbird folks their exclusive route is now a general use performance-base route and that's the way it's going to be.

Every arrival should be a performance based arrival and if you can fly it, fly it.
 
I don't think anyone here has expressed discomfort with the 90 knot approach. What I have seen in the thread and do understand is that when things get slow, people get concerned. That doesn't happen in the 135 knot stream.

I get it, but I'm fine in the 90 knot stream.

If you stack up 100 RV's in a line, they will start slinky'ing, climbing and depending, just like the planes doing 90 knots. Think about your drive into work, the first guy let's off the gas for a split second, #2 let's off more, #3 touches his brakes, #4 hammers his brakes. Same thing happens with planes.

Besides, we RV drivers are not perfect, some will cut us off and do all the things the other pilots were accused of doing.
 
I've always believed there should never be a "War Bird" arrival. All of the arrivals should be "Performance Based" arrivals. If you can fly the performance profile for that arrival, then you can fly the arrival.

If the Fisk arrival is carrying 400% more load than the Warbird arrival, then it only makes sense to shuffle that load over to another arrival that is less saturated. The only way it make sense to have an exclusive arrival for warbirds is if EAA politics is in play. In which case someone needs to man-up (I had a better term picked out but I'll keep it family friendly) and simply tell the warbird folks their exclusive route is now a general use performance-base route and that's the way it's going to be.

Every arrival should be a performance based arrival and if you can fly it, fly it.


This is the most logical response I?ve seen so far. I didn?t fly in until Thursday towards the end of the week, but I heard a lot of grumbling about the scheduled slot times for the beech, cardinals, etc. If people are there and ready to fly the performance approach their aircraft is comfortable with, then let them in.
 
Almost 5 years ago I was a newby to the RV community and had just bought my RV-7 from California. For 15 years I had been flying GA with certified planes and for some reason never attended Oshkosh. When I got my RV, I couldn't wait to fly to OSH with my RV. My first trip OSH 4 years ago was one of the best experiences of my flying career. I read the NOTAM so many times that I had just about memorized it. I practiced flying at 90 knots all the way down to flying the pattern at 60knots if needed. I did this because so many people on this site were so adamant about telling others who were asking about flying to OSH that they "better practice flying slow and landing on the spot" - so I did. However, I always wondered why the RV community is so set on flying the 90Knot route. So much that there were several posts about "if you are not comfortable with flying at 90Knots then you shouldn't be going to Oshkosh". So why is that? Why do we push for the slower route and make it seem like taboo to fly the faster approach?My thought is that as the PIC, you should make your own decision and not worry about what others think of you just because you want to fly a particular arrival. I'm not judging, just asking a harmless question. Personally, I could care less if the route was 135Knots, 90knots or 70knots. I think my RV would like it better if it was 135knots because it would stay cooler and personally I would probably like it because I would get to landing quicker and getting out of the mess faster. So why not fly the "Performance Arrival"?
 
Almost 5 years ago I was a newby to the RV community and had just bought my RV-7 from California. For 15 years I had been flying GA with certified planes and for some reason never attended Oshkosh. When I got my RV, I couldn't wait to fly to OSH with my RV. My first trip OSH 4 years ago was one of the best experiences of my flying career. I read the NOTAM so many times that I had just about memorized it. I practiced flying at 90 knots all the way down to flying the pattern at 60knots if needed. I did this because so many people on this site were so adamant about telling others who were asking about flying to OSH that they "better practice flying slow and landing on the spot" - so I did. However, I always wondered why the RV community is so set on flying the 90Knot route. So much that there were several posts about "if you are not comfortable with flying at 90Knots then you shouldn't be going to Oshkosh". So why is that? Why do we push for the slower route and make it seem like taboo to fly the faster approach?My thought is that as the PIC, you should make your own decision and not worry about what others think of you just because you want to fly a particular arrival. I'm not judging, just asking a harmless question. Personally, I could care less if the route was 135Knots, 90knots or 70knots. I think my RV would like it better if it was 135knots because it would stay cooler and personally I would probably like it because I would get to landing quicker and getting out of the mess faster. So why not fly the "Performance Arrival"?

Because RVs can fly 90 KIAS. NOTAM wants you at 90 KIAS unless you are NOT able to do it. IF you are not comfortable flying an RV at 90 KIAS, you have no business going to OSH AirVenture. In other words, if you are uncomfortable flying your RV at 90 KIAS, then you should stay away from the traffic that is arriving at AirVenture that is following the NOTAM at 90 KIAS.

The aircraft flying 135 KIAS, must slow down to land when they get to the airport. The controllers must sequence the higher speed aircraft into the other arriving aircraft. So two guys flying 90 KIAS, must go around because someone that does not want to fly 90 KIAS is doing what they want.
 
And additionally........

So why is that? Why do we push for the slower route and make it seem like taboo to fly the faster approach?

Merging lots aircraft laterally has some level of risk, but at least in most cases pilots can see each other (if they are looking) regardless of what model airplane they are flying. If you analyze the current procedures you will see that it is designed in such a way that there is very little, if any lateral merging that has to happen once you are inside of Rippon. If it does happen it is primarily only going to happen between Fisk arrival traffic and war bird arrival traffic, when landing operations are happening on Rwy 18. I have a lot of experience with that because company demo flight aircraft use an abbreviated war bird arrival (entering the arrival over the sea plane base) while doing out and back demo flight operations.

Purposely merging lots of aircraft vertically has an exponentially higher risk factor. Pilots can't see the space they are descending into and pilots below can't see if anyone is descending onto them. Add to the situation the fact that the higher altitude pilots are also needing to slow down while they descend and merge into the main traffic flow. Even though it is higher risk, this procedure is used "when necessary, for airplanes that can't safely fly at the slower speed". It also robs ATC resources because someone has to be visually monitoring any descending aircraft to assure they are able to safely blend into the main flow. It doesn't take an above normal imagination to visualize what would be happening if was a lot of the arrival traffic flying the higher speed higher altitude procedure at all times.

Foot note: When flying outside of OSH without any arrival NOTAM, I doubt that anyone would think it is safer to fly a higher faster pattern and (blindly) descend to TPA at some point, just because there is a couple of cubs or champs in the pattern
 
To overcome the merging of slow & high speed traffic...
How about having 2 distinct arrivals based on speed.
You could have a slow speed & higher speed arrivals set for distinct runways.
Arrival #1: 80kts, use 9/27
Arrival #2: 110kts, use 9/27 taxiway
 
Last edited:
Back
Top