Oshkosh NOTAM 2019

[Skid]

The NOTAM for Oshkosh is out.

https://www.eaa.org/-/media/Files/Ai...019-NOTAM.ashx

[Steve Melton]

Get ready to saddle up!

[bkervaski]

Our first Airventure! Can't wait

[Mark Dickens]

I took a cursory look at it...I can't find any real differences between it and last year...am I missing something? I thought the procedure would be re-engineered after last year's fiasco.

[FlyingBanker]

Originally Posted by bkervaski

Our first Airventure! Can't wait

Ours too! Way excited and looking forward to it.

[Auburntsts]

Originally Posted by Mark Dickens

I took a cursory look at it...I can't find any real differences between it and last year...am I missing something? I thought the procedure would be re-engineered after last year's fiasco.

The Fond Du Lac diversion procedure is new. There appears to be a few IFR changes but my cursory read doesn't show anything earthshattering.

[N546RV]

Originally Posted by Mark Dickens

I took a cursory look at it...I can't find any real differences between it and last year...am I missing something? I thought the procedure would be re-engineered after last year's fiasco.

Changes for 2019 include:

• New procedure for diversion to Fond du Lac
• Restriction on transponder use removed
• IFR routing changes
• Manitowoc (MTW) VOR decommissioned
• Numerous text and graphics changes

New FLD diversion looks like the most notable change. Frankly, I'm glad that there hasn't been any major retooling. It remains to be seen if the new diversion procedure works well for super high capacity days like last year. I'm slightly skeptical but it's hard not to do better than last year's "everyone break it off and go back for hours on end" approach.

[Paul 5r4]

Well, I've looked it over and the major difference I see is the FDL addition if OSH is closed for any amount of time. I thought there was going to be another initial starting point... Waupun... for the Fisk arrival. I'm happy to see it's not there. It seems that with the FDL procedure they have tried to at the least have a thought out and predetermined Plan B. My take is I'll bet they are really.... REALLY going to try and improve the use of runways to maximize landings. That is the only true way to eliminate congestion in the air.

So, I have to say my hats off to them for not trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Kyle Boatright]

Originally Posted by Paul 5r4

Well, I've looked it over and the major difference I see is the FDL addition if OSH is closed for any amount of time. I thought there was going to be another initial starting point... Waupun... for the Fisk arrival. I'm happy to see it's not there. It seems that with the FDL procedure they have tried to at the least have a thought out and predetermined Plan B. My take is I'll bet they are really.... REALLY going to try and improve the use of runways to maximize landings. That is the only true way to eliminate congestion in the air.

So, I have to say my hats off to them for not trying to reinvent the wheel.

Exactly.

I was afraid they were going to over-complicate things, when the real problems were efficient use of runways and people not following simple procedures. The runway issue is up to EAA/FAA to fix. Procedurally, if you can't get people to follow simple procedures, do you really expect the same people to do better if you make things more complicated?

[N546RV]

Originally Posted by Paul 5r4

Well, I've looked it over and the major difference I see is the FDL addition if OSH is closed for any amount of time. I thought there was going to be another initial starting point... Waupun... for the Fisk arrival. I'm happy to see it's not there. It seems that with the FDL procedure they have tried to at the least have a thought out and predetermined Plan B. My take is I'll bet they are really.... REALLY going to try and improve the use of runways to maximize landings. That is the only true way to eliminate congestion in the air.

So, I have to say my hats off to them for not trying to reinvent the wheel.

Agreed. I'm not convinced that there's anyway to alleviate a situation like last year short of some kind of forced metering of arriving traffic. So long as aircraft can come into the arrival way faster than they can get on the ground, there are going to be issues. Moving the initial point out and/or creating multiple initial points isn't going to mitigate that fundamental issue.

Moreover, as crazy as last year was, I still think that the basic procedure works well for 95% of the arrival situations. I like that the new procedure seems to be adding options to address those 5% times rather than reworking the fundamentals.

Like you, I hope that there's a behind-the-scenes focus in improving runway utilization. It seemed to me that that was a major contributor to last year's hornet's nest.