What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Fun times at OSH arrival

OSH 2018

This was a crazy year for getting in and the only blame goes to Mother Nature. We still had an awesome show and this should not deter anyone from coming. If your worried, come on Thursday or Friday and it will typically be non-event.

Sure the controllers could have done better and kept the stream of planes coming to the runway and increased their landing rate by 5-10% but it would not have made a difference I don't think. (It would be interesting to see the real landing and holding data) When the airport is only open a few hours on Saturday and Sunday due to weather and 10,000+ planes are trying to make it in.....this is the result.

Here are some observations I made that surprised me.

- I landed on Saturday around 6pm and was shocked to see how many planes were already in the North 40 and how few RV's there were. The GA planes know this place fills fast and we should expect Friday and Saturday to start getting busier every year. I would not be surprised if GA was filled by Friday in the next 10 years. Camping at Scholler is getting busier every year too. We continue to move out a row or two even though our spots are roped off 12-13 days before the show starts. I am surprised at how many people love Oshkosh on the RV (motorhome type) forums and have nothing to do with aviation other than they like a fun party.

-I am not going to bash any controllers because everyone did their best. When I landed they were asking for 1 mile spacing which is almost impossible in itself. I was listening on the radio on Sunday because we were watching two more friends land and they said 2 miles (what.......). I am sure that was there way of saying, "make it at least make it 1/2 mile guys".
Ripon to Fisk is 10nm. 1 mile spacing is 10 planes between the two points, 2 mile spacing is 5 planes. I had someone send a screen shot of my approach on Saturday and counted around 24 planes between Ripon and Fisk, Sunday was worse. Typically is works great.

-Yes, there was lots of piloting that was less desirable out there. Lots of skill gaps, disorientation of where to go with planes everywhere and fatigue. I have flown Ripon/Fisk 20-30 times and I understand how crazy it could be if it was your first time with 50 of your closest friends around you. For your first or second time make sure you don't fly in on Sunday. I have never flown in on Sunday and never plan on it.


We had another awesome year at Oshkosh and nobody wanted to go home.

I will say this..there are some very creative people out there and I can't wait to see someone next year with their "2018 Arrival Procedure" t-shirt that says, "turn left, turn left, turn left, turn left, turn left, turn left...Rock your wings and welcome to Oshkosh"
The arrival just made those words "turn right" sound like you won the lottery!
 
I will say this..there are some very creative people out there and I can't wait to see someone next year with their "2018 Arrival Procedure" t-shirt that says, "turn left, turn left, turn left, turn left, turn left, turn left...Rock your wings and welcome to Oshkosh"
The arrival just made those words "turn right" sound like you won the lottery!

I'm waiting for the "I survived Ripon 2018" T-shirt. I'll buy that one happily.
 
When the airport is only open a few hours on Saturday and Sunday due to weather and 10,000+ planes are trying to make it in.....this is the result.

Well, just for the record on Sunday the field went VFR at about 11:30 am and the weather only got better during the afternoon. There was about 8.5 hours of good arrival weather (until the field closed at 8:00 pm) but for a number of reasons things never caught up. I have opinions but they won't add much value to this discussion.
 
Well, just for the record on Sunday the field went VFR at about 11:30 am and the weather only got better during the afternoon. There was about 8.5 hours of good arrival weather (until the field closed at 8:00 pm) but for a number of reasons things never caught up. I have opinions but they won't add much value to this discussion.

FYI: A good friend of mine arrived at Ripon at 7:30 but they had closed the field to new arrivals already. I don't think it got dark till around 9pm. We all camped together at our alternate.
 
FYI: A good friend of mine arrived at Ripon at 7:30 but they had closed the field to new arrivals already. I don't think it got dark till around 9pm. We all camped together at our alternate.

They were not closed for arrivals at 7:30. Yes, the ground contollers said that at 7:28, but some of us were still in the line & continued on to Fisk... I was cleared to land & did so at 7:45.
Another RV landed 5 minutes before me & another at 8:01. They were parked at HBC on each side of me.
 
Last edited:
my last Oshkosh!

Well that was my last Oshkosh, been coming since 1978, no more!

Between the uncontrolled circus of arrival traffic, the $5 an ear corn, the race car screeching around the FORD Pavilion (which has nothing to do with aviation, just EAA trying to make more money).

At least for me the fun and adventure has been overshadowed. :-(
 
Well that was my last Oshkosh, been coming since 1978, no more!

Between the uncontrolled circus of arrival traffic, the $5 an ear corn, the race car screeching around the FORD Pavilion (which has nothing to do with aviation, just EAA trying to make more money).

At least for me the fun and adventure has been overshadowed. :-(

We arrived Saturday morning IFR so other than landing with the highest crosswind I've ever attempted in my RV, it was a total non-event for us. Had we been VFR, I don't think I'd have done more than a lap or 2 in holding before diverting into someplace else and waiting for the chaos to die down as my tolerance for that type of furball is very low (this was only my 4th time flying in and the previous 3 years I didn't have to hold). While I think there are improvements that could be made to the procedure, I think all in all it's the best practical solution when you factor in the magnitude and complexity of the operation. YMMV...

As for the Osh itself, I go more now to meet up with old friends and meet new ones. I do a bit of shopping, gawk at planes I'll never be able to afford, get a bit sunburned, and generally drink lots more beer that I do at home (we opened SOS bros on Saturday and even joined in on their Pizza order as they weren't selling food yet). Personally I thought the Ford skid-pad was pretty cool. I also expect to pay State Fair prices and eat State Fair type food the week I'm there and plan accordingly.

All in all, camping with the plane and enjoying the spectacle is worth the all the trouble and expense (which is usually a lot less than a more traditional vacation for us).
 
Not a lot to add to this that hasn't been said but I do have a couple of observations.

1. I got turned at Fiske on my first try after holding at Greenlake for over an hour. This was at about 6:45 Sunday. Fisk approach was calling for 2 miles in trail at that time.

36L and R were both not used my entire flight from Fiske to the runway. I thought I had the wrong frequency at first since there was no chatter. The first chatter I heard was to one of the Tri Motors who would end up number two behind me. I was the first of a small number cleared to those runways at that time. It was night and day difference at the airport compared to Fiske.

2. While at Greenlake I witnessed THREE aircraft on my ADS-B flying the WRONG WAY at 1800 around Greenlake in the middle of the traffic flow. I could not believe what I was seeing.

3. At about 10 miles south of Ripon at 90/1800 after listening to the chaos, I decided to rethink entering the approach. I climbed to 6500 feet and headed west at a slow cruise before deciding what to do. I choose to come in to the Greenlake hold at 135/2300 for safety as that height was clearly less congested. This proved to provide a much higher level of safety in the hold and allowed a much more relaxed but long hold.

4. Some have commented that heads down looking at ADS-B is unsafe. It takes very little heads down to monitor the aircraft on ADS-B that are close. The symbology is easy to read and allows you to quickly pick out the aircraft that are in conflict.

Most of my time was spent looking for the aircraft NOT on the box. When clear I looked at the box briefly to see how the immediate area was changing and to see what aircraft the box said I should be looking for. It is very easy to fly heads up looking for traffic and glancing at the box when appropriate. The box shows you relevant traffic and where to look for targets you may have missed.
 
Last edited:
This is what we saw on the EFIS 14 miles from RIPON.

screenshot-N5771H-SN03222-15.3.3.4688-20180722-123612-782-en_US-M.png


We never even got to RIPON on Sunday afternoon. Did 3 laps of Green Lake watching and listening to this mess and then wisely got the he11 out of there to live another day.
 
I just got through listening to about 4 hours’ worth of LiveATC archived audio of Fisk Approach from the afternoon of Sunday, July 22nd. Here’s my non-expert opinion based upon that and watching arrivals in-person from the side of 9-27 during the same period at OSH:
-- As the weather went from IFR to VFR late Sunday morning there was a steady increase in traffic volume until saturation occurred in the early afternoon
-- The Fisk controllers were doing a good job but were eventually overwhelmed by the sheer volume
-- The volume, not the controllers, more than anything directly contributed to the eventual breakdown –It’s simple physics, just like rush hour traffic flow in any metro area, especially when there’s a lane reduction, only so many vehicles can flow though a point at a given time. More than the max and you end up a traffic jam which is what we had at Fisk.

Conclusions:
-- The procedure is for the most part fine but has its limits. It all started with the weather which created a domino effect of increased arrivals over a condensed period. It’s not to say that this couldn’t have happened in perfect conditions, just its less likely as folks tend to space the arrivals out more evenly putting less stress on the arrival procedure.
-- Pilots didn’t help the situation. Everyone wanted to get in, fed in part by get-there-itus for some. The controllers, at least in the beginning, were up front and constantly reminding pilots what they needed them to do, or get sent to the penalty box. Yet time and time again the pleading was ignored about being single file from Ripon to Fisk, staying of the railroad tracks and not following the GPS track, spacing, altitude, and airspeed—it was a broken record.
-- Controllers didn’t help with the issuance of ambiguous instructions for the hold, and it would appear did the tower controllers didn’t help either as the change in spacing was dictated by them and not by Fisk.
-- Had everyone in the air and on the ground done everything right, it still would have been a time consuming goat rope based upon the saturation, it just would have been more orderly and safe, but no less frustrating.

Recommendation:
- I think there needs to be a process to meter the flow of VFR arrivals, similar to the IFR procedure but much larger and flexible (I don’t have all the answers, but I think we have to move past the free-for-all method).
— create a second arrival waypoint 10-15 miles from Ripon that is used whenever it starts getting saturated or holding is initiated. Part of the current problem IMO is the distance from Ripon to Fisk is too short to really allow pilots to sequence themselves in properly. Adding distance to help folks get sorted could help.
My $.02…
 
Last edited:
nothing new

I did demo flights at Oshkosh for a manufacturer back in about 2007 a couple of years in a row. At that time, observing the pilot behavior around the field... I changed my policy. I never flew in that airspace again (during a show)
The apparent lack of skills, situational awareness or common sense was just too much for me. My Darwin alarm was sounding loudly. It will not be long for a mid air fatality at the show to happen. Debates are interesting to read.... but my survival instinct means I take simple action. Will not share airspace with that many crazies. Glad the rest of you survived for another year. It was a fun show as observed from grass level. 5 ft. AGL.
 
Full disclosure, I only read the first 11 pages of this thread so forgive me if this is redundant.

Our plan was to fly up to UES on Saturday and spend the night, then try to get in on Sunday morning when it wouldn't be too busy.

I started looking at the model forecasts a couple days ahead of the weekend and realized it wasn't looking good for plan A. As Saturday arrived I knew it wasn't going to happen so we loaded up the car instead and did the 8 hour drive up to our overnight and then finished the drive Sunday morning.

After sitting at the approach end of Rwy9 Sunday afternoon for several hours I was glad we drove. I heard over the handheld and witnessed some really shady behavior from the pilot community. Makes me angry to know that other pilots would intentionally lie, cheat and do basically whatever it took to get to the field.

One problem on Rwy9 was that initially they were not allowing anyone to turn off into the grass because they were afraid it was too soggy to taxi on. I can imagine that slowed things down, then of course the mass arrivals, etc.

I will say this, there were lulls at the field that I found 'interesting'. The controllers out at FISKE were telling airplanes that "airplanes were going around at the runway". There were only a few go arounds that I personally witnessed at the end of Rwy9. As someone mentioned earlier there were indeed periods of no arrivals for several minutes.

I could hear all the chaos out on the arrival and it was just weird to hear all that out there and to have nothing happening at the field. That's inevitable but certainly there were some breakdowns in communication from the field to FISKE.

I think it may be time for an arrival lottery system or perhaps a VFR reservation system like you need for IFR arrivals. Only allow X number of arrivals on any given day based on lottery or reservation system. You enter the lottery or apply for a reservation for the day you want and those slots are awarded. If you don't get one of the slots for the day you want, you enter the lottery or try to get a different resservation for a different day. Not sure how you would police that but something has to change. The fact that there were no mid-airs out there on Sunday afternoon is a miracle.

Just my thoughts.
 
Most dangerous year, ever! It?s a miracle no one was killed. I was in the bee hive 2 + hours until I decided to go to Appleton. Wise decision I should have made earlier.

Ellis
 
Things you probably didn't know about arrivals this year

* When pilots land on 27, the controllers can somewhat regulate the flow by telling pilots when to turn base and which dot to land on. For much of the furball, runway 9 was in use and controllers could not do anything about spacings too tight or too loose;
* On runway 9, there are only two landing options (for whatever reason): on the numbers and one dot;
* The grass taxiways for taixiing back were not usable, if I recall correctly. They were too soft, and at one point, a C-17 was parked in a bad spot and blocked the taxiway.

One person observed that in the age of social media, putting a happy face on a bad situation doesn't work any more.

I've also heard rumors that there will be a **major** review of the arrival procedures, not just a tune up.
 
mmmmm......

Well, just for the record on Sunday the field went VFR at about 11:30 am and the weather only got better during the afternoon. There was about 8.5 hours of good arrival weather (until the field closed at 8:00 pm) but for a number of reasons things never caught up. I have opinions but they won't add much value to this discussion.

(Warning...my math may be wrong....I tried to check it)

I am not arguing, you could be right. I just wonder how many more planes could have made it in with perfect spacing and optimized landings every XX seconds? per runway?? (not sure what the planned arrival rate is for the field?)
I do believe in people out-performing the system they are in and I will bet a Spotted Cow that they set a landing rate record on Sunday afternoon when you average the number of landings across the 8-9 hours they were open.

I found this data in an article from 2017.
"Numbers from the busiest day of EAA AirVenture 2017 put the busy convention into perspective. Oshkosh landed 2,381 flights". I also found data that said they have "handled" over 3000 planes in a day. That most likely includes takeoffs.
Using this data (2,381) that is a rate of about 1.01 airplane/minute/runway.

I am just having fun here to check the math above....if 10,000 planes fly in half day on Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday the field would be open for 32.5 hours with three runways. That equals a landing rate of 1.7 planes landings per minute. Probably too high.

So if 1 landing per minute/runway is the rate the airport can handle and the airport was open for 8 hours on Sunday with three runways that would be around 1,450 planes.

The Notam at 1/2 mile spacing at 90 kts landing on all three runways suggests the max rate could be 1.17 landing/ min / runway.

But at 1 mile spacing which is what they asked for most of the time with 1 runway open at 90 kts, that is a rate of 35 seconds per plane crossing Fisk, going to one runway or 1.72 landings/min/runway. The previous data suggests that is not sustainable for 9/27 and it did not appear to be with how often they were talking about saturation and making everyone turn left. They really needed something between 1-2 miles to keep the max rate (somewhere between 1 - 1.2 planes/min/runway) sustainable.
So anything over 1450 - 1650 landings on Sunday stresses the system and there is no solution other than to limit the number of planes and communicate that to pilots so they are not put in this situation. I would guess around 40% of the pilots tried to fly in on Sunday.

I know the question is more than just can you land more planes than 1500 in 8 hrs on Sunday, it was a question of priority. What I am hearing from everyone at Oshkosh and here on the forum is, should they have cancelled all the mass arrivals, decreasing the number of overall landings but increasing the flow rate through Ripon/Fisk? I am not sure about that.

I am sure they are looking at all this data to understand the problems that need to be addressed. It was just a "perfect storm" and may never happen again.
I am not sure what I would have done if I heard on a NOTAM that said due to weather only 50% of the planes trying to make it in will on Sunday. Would I stay somewhere else or still try?

Anyway, the data helps me see the problem a little different. It may not be perfect but I think it is close.

Anyone else have better data than that? I just did quick Google search but I am sure there are some controllers out there that better understand the data and the landing rates.
 
Last edited:
(Warning...my math may be wrong....I tried to check it)

I am not arguing, you could be right. I just wonder how many more planes could have made it in with perfect spacing and optimized landings every XX seconds? per runway?? (not sure what the planned arrival rate is for the field?)
I do believe in people out-performing the system they are in and I will bet a Spotted Cow that they set a landing rate record on Sunday afternoon when you average the number of landings across the 8-9 hours they were open.

I found this data in an article from 2017.
"Numbers from the busiest day of EAA AirVenture 2017 put the busy convention into perspective. Oshkosh landed 2,381 flights". I also found data that said they have "handled" over 3000 planes in a day. That most likely includes takeoffs.
Using this data (2,381) that is a rate of about 1.01 airplane/minute/runway.

I am just having fun here to check the math above....if 10,000 planes fly in half day on Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday the field would be open for 32.5 hours with three runways. That equals a landing rate of 1.7 planes landings per minute. Probably too high.

So if 1 landing per minute/runway is the rate the airport can handle and the airport was open for 8 hours on Sunday with three runways that would be around 1,450 planes.

The Notam at 1/2 mile spacing at 90 kts landing on all three runways suggests the max rate could be 1.17 landing/ min / runway.

But at 1 mile spacing which is what they asked for most of the time with 1 runway open at 90 kts, that is a rate of 35 seconds per plane crossing Fisk, going to one runway or 1.72 landings/min/runway. The previous data suggests that is not sustainable for 9/27 and it did not appear to be with how often they were talking about saturation and making everyone turn left. They really needed something between 1-2 miles to keep the max rate (somewhere between 1 - 1.2 planes/min/runway) sustainable.
So anything over 1450 - 1650 landings on Sunday stresses the system and there is no solution other than to limit the number of planes and communicate that to pilots so they are not put in this situation. I would guess around 40% of the pilots tried to fly in on Sunday.

I know the question is more than just can you land more planes than 1500 in 8 hrs on Sunday, it was a question of priority. What I am hearing from everyone at Oshkosh and here on the forum is, should they have cancelled all the mass arrivals, decreasing the number of overall landings but increasing the flow rate through Ripon/Fisk? I am not sure about that.

I am sure they are looking at all this data to understand the problems that need to be addressed. It was just a "perfect storm" and may never happen again.
I am not sure what I would have done if I heard on a NOTAM that said due to weather only 50% of the planes trying to make it in will on Sunday. Would I stay somewhere else or still try?

Anyway, the data helps me see the problem a little different. It may not be perfect but I think it is close.

Anyone else have better data than that? I just did quick Google search but I am sure there are some controllers out there that better understand the data and the landing rates.

One question would be - "Is there any wasted time before and after the mass arrivals?"

Any 'prep time' where the runways are closed waiting for mass formations to arrive would impact your calculations :)
 
I like your line of reasoning ....

Did some similar calculations today as well.

The "system" has its limits.

One key is to do things to minimize/smooth out "spikes" that pushes things over the limit and then causes breakdowns.

Decades ago, I recall that when certain computers got beyond say 80% capacity then page swapping took up more time than processing and once you crossed a certain threshold, throughput went DOWN dramatically. There is a point in certain systems that you want to stay below.

We cannot speed up the processor (# landings the RUNWAYS can handle) but we can add more "memory" (waypoints and holding stations) ... IN MY OPINION.

Yes, this and other stuff is being thought through.



(Warning...my math may be wrong....I tried to check it)

I am not arguing, you could be right. I just wonder how many more planes could have made it in with perfect spacing and optimized landings every XX seconds? per runway?? (not sure what the planned arrival rate is for the field?)
I do believe in people out-performing the system they are in and I will bet a Spotted Cow that they set a landing rate record on Sunday afternoon when you average the number of landings across the 8-9 hours they were open.

I found this data in an article from 2017.
"Numbers from the busiest day of EAA AirVenture 2017 put the busy convention into perspective. Oshkosh landed 2,381 flights". I also found data that said they have "handled" over 3000 planes in a day. That most likely includes takeoffs.
Using this data (2,381) that is a rate of about 1.01 airplane/minute/runway.

I am just having fun here to check the math above....if 10,000 planes fly in half day on Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday the field would be open for 32.5 hours with three runways. That equals a landing rate of 1.7 planes landings per minute. Probably too high.

So if 1 landing per minute/runway is the rate the airport can handle and the airport was open for 8 hours on Sunday with three runways that would be around 1,450 planes.

The Notam at 1/2 mile spacing at 90 kts landing on all three runways suggests the max rate could be 1.17 landing/ min / runway.

But at 1 mile spacing which is what they asked for most of the time with 1 runway open at 90 kts, that is a rate of 35 seconds per plane crossing Fisk, going to one runway or 1.72 landings/min/runway. The previous data suggests that is not sustainable for 9/27 and it did not appear to be with how often they were talking about saturation and making everyone turn left. They really needed something between 1-2 miles to keep the max rate (somewhere between 1 - 1.2 planes/min/runway) sustainable.
So anything over 1450 - 1650 landings on Sunday stresses the system and there is no solution other than to limit the number of planes and communicate that to pilots so they are not put in this situation. I would guess around 40% of the pilots tried to fly in on Sunday.

I know the question is more than just can you land more planes than 1500 in 8 hrs on Sunday, it was a question of priority. What I am hearing from everyone at Oshkosh and here on the forum is, should they have cancelled all the mass arrivals, decreasing the number of overall landings but increasing the flow rate through Ripon/Fisk? I am not sure about that.

I am sure they are looking at all this data to understand the problems that need to be addressed. It was just a "perfect storm" and may never happen again.
I am not sure what I would have done if I heard on a NOTAM that said due to weather only 50% of the planes trying to make it in will on Sunday. Would I stay somewhere else or still try?

Anyway, the data helps me see the problem a little different. It may not be perfect but I think it is close.

Anyone else have better data than that? I just did quick Google search but I am sure there are some controllers out there that better understand the data and the landing rates.
 
A well-executed mass arrival (tight formation) can be safer and is A LOT more efficient so even with a little "setup time" you can have more throughput.

The key is "well executed".
 
Scott's math is substantially right. With a 90 knot arrival, and 1/2 mile spacing, that puts 3 planes a minute over Fisk - 180 aircraft an hour. That nets 1 plane/minute/runway if there are three runways in use, no gaps, no go-arounds, and no departures. Even with a 10 hour "window", you're limited to a max of 1,800 landings/day. If you want to use a 13 hour window (7AM - 8PM), you only get 2340 landings a day.

No amount of holding or extending the arrival chain is going to fix that bottleneck.

That said, EAA has to spend the available runway time well. Identify the things which unnecessarily eat into the arrival slots. Military fly-by's on Saturday/Sunday? Sorry, no can do. Mass arrivals? Love 'em. Have the first airplane on short final at 7:05 AM.
 
Mass arrivals

Every post I see from the board at EAA leads me to believe they are strong supporters and defenders of mass arrivals. However, they do not seem to address the suggestion that mass arrivals could and should be moved to non-peak times. Additionally, mass arrivals should only be allocated a singular time slot. If a pilot plans around the mass arrival timeslot only to have that slot moved due to weather, that pilots planning is essentially discarded.
 
Mass Arrival can have plusses and MINUSSES

Although on the Board, the opinions expressed are mine alone at the moment.

I agree with a LOT that has been said about MASS ARRIVALS.

Not some major defense of them, Just countering that they are not necessarily a bad thing. Done at the RIGHT time and the RIGHT way, they can add to helping. Done wrong at the wrong time, they DEFINITELY add to the PROBLEM.

What needs to be visited it the types and purposes of mass arrivals and then see IF that can be accomplished WITHOUT impacting (adversely) the incoming flow.

Hope this clears things up a bit.


Every post I see from the board at EAA leads me to believe they are strong supporters and defenders of mass arrivals. However, they do not seem to address the suggestion that mass arrivals could and should be moved to non-peak times. Additionally, mass arrivals should only be allocated a singular time slot. If a pilot plans around the mass arrival timeslot only to have that slot moved due to weather, that pilots planning is essentially discarded.
 
Although on the Board, the opinions expressed are mine alone at the moment.

I agree with a LOT that has been said about MASS ARRIVALS.

Not some major defense of them, Just countering that they are not necessarily a bad thing. Done at the RIGHT time and the RIGHT way, they can add to helping. Done wrong at the wrong time, they DEFINITELY add to the PROBLEM.

What needs to be visited it the types and purposes of mass arrivals and then see IF that can be accomplished WITHOUT impacting (adversely) the incoming flow.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

Thank you for responding,
My concern with mass arrivals is the use on a peak day and the fact that the time slot changed. 140 airplanes on the ground in FLD, where busses are available to OSH, is safer than 3 times that many airplanes circling a lake because we are down to one runway and 1 to 2 miles spacing while waiting for those same 140 airplanes.

Adding more holding points outside of ripon does nothing to solve the issue of one runway availability. When I landed on runway 9 runways 36L and R were ghost towns.

I believe the 36s were being reserved for poorly timed mass arrivals.
 
The numbers I calculated are just averages and account for all the variation that occurs.

After looking at the data and assuming that even if there was some down time before and after a mass arrival. If the mass arrivals + down time is more efficient (not sure if it is?...) than the average Ripon/Fisk approach and you force all those mass arrivals to use the standard NOTAM approach (they are not going to sit at an airport, they want to be at OSH too with their friends camping at their planes) it will make it more congensted at Ripon and decrease the overall landing rate, decreasing the chances of any one plane making it to Oshkosh. Am I wrong with that thinking?

I am not saying there can't be new approaches created that increase the landings rates, I bet there are options for that, but it can't be more than 10-20%. The models show that this is not an easy problem with an easy solution.

I trust Vic and others that are apart of the board, safety council and other groups that they will do the right thing.
 
Last edited:
I visited the Fisk controllers on Tuesday morning. Fisk was hard IFR and Osh went IFR for about an hour which gave me a chance to chat with these guys. Very nice and professional with nothing but the highest praise for the pilots that make this approach work. I went back Wednesday morning and it was a different bunch so I'm guessing it was a different bunch in the chaos on Sunday. Once the Fog lifted and Osh went VFR again these guys got to work. I was EXTREMELY impressed with their professionalism and proficiency! Even when a couple of airplanes didn't comply with instructions, these guys never lost their momentum.


A couple of shots of Tuesday morning at Fisk.
2ja5v9.jpg

24d4rqx.jpg

110b1xe.jpg

1. This PINK TEAM is amazing.
2. There is a no fly zone 181*---269* on NOTAM page 15. I have seen planes at 1300-1500' going 190* threw the middle of arrivals.
3. They pick you up at Pickett. Christmas tree they pick you up maybe a mile farther.
4. Rock wings at wire 1. Runway assignments at wire 2.
5. That will not see your N number unless you fly by and don't acknowledge # 4 above.

If you have never been out here, make the trip.
These guys and gals do the best they can.
Mother Nature has her own rules.
I posted some comments on the improved arrival thread..

I will be flying in for #10 next year. #15 to OSH.
I camped during Sloshkosh.
Time slot will be < 0900 on Saturday.
 
Safety on the ground versus safety in the air

Although on the Board, the opinions expressed are mine alone at the moment.

I agree with a LOT that has been said about MASS ARRIVALS.

Not some major defense of them, Just countering that they are not necessarily a bad thing. Done at the RIGHT time and the RIGHT way, they can add to helping. Done wrong at the wrong time, they DEFINITELY add to the PROBLEM.

What needs to be visited it the types and purposes of mass arrivals and then see IF that can be accomplished WITHOUT impacting (adversely) the incoming flow.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

It took me 23 pages into this thread to type an opinion. I only did so because I perceived the issue of shutting down two of three runways was being rationalized. Although I quoted a particular board member my concern is not based on his particular post rather a 23 page accumulation of multiple posts by mulitple individuals. The quote above is the essence of the issue. Mass arrivals at non-peak times are good. Mass arrivals are scheduled and individuals are informed to avoid those timeslots. When decisions are made based upon the Notam to avoid a timeslot and then the timeslot changes the unsafe condition is exacerbated by EAA management.

My decision to arrive at Ripon was based on the expectation that three runways would be in use with the published 1/2 mile spacing. When I arrived at the airport two of three runways were not in use and according to people on the ground that was not an anomoly. That fact alone requires the numbers of airplanes per hour landed to decrease significantly. I cannot remember a time when we had 2 mile spacing.

The contention that those same 140 airplanes would simply leave FLD and join the fray at Ripon is something I cannot control, but I assure you I would not make that choice with my family onboard versus a bus.

I also do not understand the decision to close the airport to allow for a military fly-by the day BEFORE the airshow starts. We have hundreds and hundreds of aircraft arriving to the airshow and it starts a day early? Why? As Nancy Reagan said, “just say no!”.
 
Last edited:
This team is also getting calls from the tower, to hold or move traffic.
After the Cessna 70+ planes landed, there was a flight of Texans over Warbird island that totally messed up the sequence. Then they wanted the overhead and the controllers on 36 denied that so they had to split up and do single ship landings. Dash 41 would not acknowledge controllers to tell them when on ground, a couple ship go arounds, one ground loop and there you have it. FUBAR to the max.

All these flights by pass the Ripon approach.

Overhead breaks from Warbird and then they can't land on 36R. Doing cross overs within 1 mile to go to 36L.

You can overhead on 36R but you have to land on 36R.
 
The 36 departure controller Friday morning was awesome.
Efficient and enthusiastic. Even complimented the Dc-3 for blowing him off the stand during runup!
Somebody in line knew him by name, so I?m guessing he is a regular.
Admittedly a more controlled process, but he was also having fun.

You must have been in line Friday morning when I was. I always enjoy taxiing out down 36. It's like driving your plane through an aviation museum. And "having" to hold for a couple minutes for a group of five P-51's to take off, right in front of me sure didn't suck :).

-Dan
 
Scott's math is substantially right. With a 90 knot arrival, and 1/2 mile spacing, that puts 3 planes a minute over Fisk - 180 aircraft an hour. That nets 1 plane/minute/runway if there are three runways in use, no gaps, no go-arounds, and no departures. Even with a 10 hour "window", you're limited to a max of 1,800 landings/day. If you want to use a 13 hour window (7AM - 8PM), you only get 2340 landings a day.

No amount of holding or extending the arrival chain is going to fix that bottleneck.

That said, EAA has to spend the available runway time well. Identify the things which unnecessarily eat into the arrival slots. Military fly-by's on Saturday/Sunday? Sorry, no can do. Mass arrivals? Love 'em. Have the first airplane on short final at 7:05 AM.

I have a piece of video from Sunday afternoon 2016 that I just looked at, which I shot from the threshold of 18R. I see 5 airplanes crossing the numbers in 45 seconds and a sixth going around for spacing. Granted, that may be the top end of what is doable and safe - cut that back to 4 airplanes per minute per runway - that's still a LOT better than the numbers being discussed here of 1 airplane per runway per minute. This is not a "pie-in-the-sky" scenario here - I watched it happen and recorded it. It ran that way all day Sunday in 2016.
 
Last edited:
A well-executed mass arrival (tight formation) can be safer and is A LOT more efficient so even with a little "setup time" you can have more throughput.

The key is "well executed".

Maybe.. but for the sake of these hypothetical caclulations - what time was lost in the paractical cases that have occured of the last few years.

History is a better indication here than a statement of "lot more efficient".

Practical wins out over theoretical. What is the actual history of "well executed"? :)
 
My initial impressions were a little of the blame blanket falls on us the pilots. Pilots do have to accept some of the responsibility, example... big thunderstorm dead ahead, AKA super saturated Ripon/Fisk traffic and choosing to proceed. I've watched a few of the youtube videos of the arrivals from the cockpit and have been forced reexamine my thoughts. Several points here. The notam and the spacing in that notam which has been the standard for years was half mile spacing. They changed it as they have the right to do and we as pilots must try to comply as safely possible. On flight radar 24 I saw everyone out at the lakes, Ripon, Fisk and the many others inbound as I was sitting along approach end of 36 so you know ATC had it on theirs! A hazardous situation was unfolding before there eyes and they kept turning airplanes back. Others have done number crunching of airplanes per minute per runway and I feel I agree with those results. I did some math to see how many airplanes could safely be inbound to Fisk. Using the required half mile spacing, (and my numbers account only for the low... 1800/90kts approach)... 10 miles from Ripon to Fisk accounts for 20 aircraft. It's appears to be roughly a flight distance of about 16 miles around green lake so there could be about 32 aircraft holding there. Rush lake is about 10 flying miles around which would be another 20 aircraft. That's 72 aircraft not counting those already passed Fisk towards the airport or those flying the high approach. It seems that 99.9% of the time this would work fine. This was the .1% when it didn't. Looking at FR24 there appeared to be 2 or 3 times as many aircraft out there.
Understandably those pilots were stressed to the max, frustrated and aggravated at having been turned back out many times. If I had been inbound still 50 miles out and witnessed the cluster on my ADSB, I would have landed elsewhere until things cleared a bit. No other way to look at it, voluntarily flying on into that chaos is simply a risky choice.

I don't know what the answers are but I know what they are NOT. Any type of reservations system wouldn't work. Don't ask me why, I just don't like the sound of it! To me this is like saying "We as pilots can't figure this out so big brother you regulate it for us."

A second Ripon out there someplace for super busy times has some merit. Separate aircraft by high wing/low wing... Experimental vs certified... even or odd number tail numbers. It would have cut the congestion at Ripon and the lakes in roughly half. Of course, this only solves half the problem. Still have to get everyone sequenced in for landing on the same three runways.

Mass arrivals..... hmmm..... I like Dan Hortons thoughts.... not during expected peak arrival times. I especially like his suggestion of making any mass arrivals "part of the show." Any mass arrivals starting Monday morning as soon as the field opens. An hour or two of this might get most of them in. And hey..... We'd all love landing with a thousand people looking on admiring our supreme airmanship skills. May God help the poor guys ego that might not get it right and half the world watching, (folks on the line and of course you tube). ;-)

Somewhere in this thread there's mention of military planes doing flybys before their landings. We all saw TopGun.... Negative Ghostrider, the patten is full. When they grant a flyby ATC should first check the scope and see whats going on at Ripon/Fisk and only then any request granted accordingly.

ATC's increased spacing created some of the problems here. When you are in trail and looking at the guy in front of you at a comfortable distance that's about 1/2 maybe 3/4 of a mile. Seems to work pretty good. Any more and the guy ahead becomes pretty hard to see.
Last, if inbound and monitoring Fisk approach and looking at a mess on ADSB, as many did hold a ways out, or land elsewhere until it's safe.
 
Last edited:
Given the choice between a reservation system or what we witnessed on that Sunday...... I'll take a VFR reservation system any day if I plan to fly in.

Given the numbers EAA put out last night, 10,000+ airplanes arrived at some point during the week and over 600,000 attendees, the show size is getting into another category. If there was a shortage of volunteers and workers in 2018, including apparently ATC folks, it's not going to get any better next year.
 
Thrashing,.... is the term

The "system" has its limits.

Decades ago, I recall that when certain computers got beyond say 80% capacity then page swapping took up more time than processing and once you crossed a certain threshold, throughput went DOWN dramatically. There is a point in certain systems that you want to stay below.

We cannot speed up the processor (# landings the RUNWAYS can handle) but we can add more "memory" (waypoints and holding stations) ... IN MY OPINION

What James was recalling is called ?thrashing?,..... the official technical term. I really like it. I talks to what happens when you approach the limit of throughput. Instead of graceful degradation, the performance drops dramatically as you approach the limit. (Time is spent getting ready instead of actually producing output)

As an aside,... driving home from Osh,.. I actually experienced ?zipper? merge instead of everyone try to merge at last moment,.... it was darn near a thrill. We actually moved through the choke point MUCH more quickly than we would have if folks tried to crash merge at the last moment. ( unfortunately the zipper merge only happened a once,.many other slowdowns occurred) Maybe something to learn there.
 
When I was still attending (admittedly, a decade ago), the controllers were fighting to get a chance to work OSH. It was a badge honor, driving competition and waiting lists like some of you experience trying to get a hangar on a public airport. Unless things have radially changed, the only reason for a controller shortage is failure to allocate.
 
Probably a sacrilegious thought here, but maybe take a page from AOPA and split the big show into smaller regional events spread through out the year? It just can't keep getting bigger and bigger without having more of these safety issues with arrivals. I know this will probably never happen....
 
Probably a sacrilegious thought here, but maybe take a page from AOPA and split the big show into smaller regional events spread through out the year? It just can't keep getting bigger and bigger without having more of these safety issues with arrivals. I know this will probably never happen....

It happened for me over a decade ago. :)
 
Questions

First, I was in the mix for a couple of turns before getting into the hold at Green lake, about three laps of Green Lake, then on my first attempt to actually go up the tracks, I was suddenly in an unplanned three ship formation with an RV on my left wing fairly close, and a Bo tighter than the Aeroshell team formations. I bailed out by accelerating then turning right. It was way too dangerous to turn left with the stream turning back from Fisk. Went to Portage for a while, then after listening on LiveATC for a couple of hours, decided Fond Du Loc was my new destination. I did go back and fly-in Wednesday which was great.

So some questions / suggestions:
1) Was the ATIS ever changed to instruct people to enter the hold? Granted pilots should read the @#$%&$@%^ NOTAM, but they are people, and do things wrong. An ATIS instruction would help.

2) Was ATIS ever changed to say DO NOT APPROACH Green Lake or Ripon? The area was saturated, and more and more planes kept coming. Sure the self-entitled pilots would ignore it, but most people were attempting to follow the instructions. Hold people further out or get them to divert before reaching the hornet's nest.

3) Occasional use of "turn left, go back to Ripon" would be fine, but that was the continual direction from Fisk ATC for hours on end. So now we have new arrivals from the south, arrivals out of the hold from the west, and those turned back from the north all arriving over Ripon. This was the most dangerous aspect about what happened Sunday.

4) Is there someone in ATC observing the big picture? Who is responsible for the high level ATC decision making? The coordination between the field and Fisk seems to have been one way. Was anyone in ATC aware of what was going on at Ripon?

5) Those of you who state, it was super dangerous along with "I attempted for XX hours", are you nuts? This is really dangerous, I'll just keep doing it would seem to be an unsafe attitude! Please do some reflection on your aeronautical decision making.

6) We all observed a significant number of pilots flying poorly, not following the NOTAM, etc. I wish there was something we could do about that, but I'm not sure what it is. My only idea would be a fine for anyone that could not produce a printed copy of the NOTAM in their aircraft on landing. That's be a lot of effort to enforce.
 
2016 was worse

We were in the mess Sunday. Waited for ceilings to lift outside Chicago, then sat in the FBO listening to Live ATC... once it sounded stabilized we took off. Approaching 30nm to RIPON, we started listing to FISKE again. It sounded backed up so we put down at Waterton along with about a dozen others and waited. After listening to Live ATC a while longer, I decided it had mellowed enough, and that if we were just smart, and left enough spacing in front of us, we'd get in. I knew if we just got in the RIPON to FISKE loop, we'd make it. Well, as others have said, we would have great spacing, then someone would cut us off. I'd tell my wife, "that guy just screwed all of us"... I think we did about 5 laps before getting in and parked by 7:30pm. It was annoying, but I felt everyone was doing a god job of being safe and the controllers were doing what they could.

2016 was worse... same weather scenario but a gear up landing or two compiled it even worse. in 2016 I was scared, this year I was just annoyed that the rule breakers got in while th rest of us continued to do laps.

My 2 cents on the problem:... while listening to Live ATC, I heard the 9/27 tower telling people to "roll to the next hard surface". It seems the grass was quite soft from all the rain, so they couldn't clear the runway as fast as normal. That seems to explain the longer spacing... but I could be wrong.

Absolutely no offense meant, but that?s part of the problem. 2300/135 is for planes who CANNOT maintain 1800/90. NOT because it is more convenient.

This is not true. The NOTAM simply says "Faster planes use 2300/135kts", RV's count as faster planes, and it's usually less hectic up there.

Last year, we flew in Sunday morning and it was butter.... Absolutely perfect. Just have to be aware, that 2 days of IFR prior to when you want to get in is going to cause a lot of people trying to get in as soon as VFR conditions prevail. I was ready for it.
 
This is not true. The NOTAM simply says "Faster planes use 2300/135kts", RV's count as faster planes, and it's usually less hectic up there.

But the prefatory phrase for that is "For aircraft unable to operate comfortably at 90 knots."

That said, when I was out there Monday morning, ATC began asking anyone capable of doing 135 to hold at 2300' to cut down on the clutter. I think it was a good decision, and it helped to clear out the holds in a slightly more organized fashion; they were clearing out the high holds first, then the low ones.

As a final note, I was also a member of the Watertown refugee crew, we probably sat in the FBO together at some point.
 
Safety trumps comfort

I can comfortably operate my RV-7A at 90 knots. However, when you have a Cub ahead of you barely doing 70, an Extra that cuts in high and fast from above and then S-turns, you have aircraft to your left and then one on the right - 90 knots and 1800 feet gives you very little energy and virtually no airspace to escape. I found that situation (on Sunday at 1600) very uncomfortable.

I may have been part of the problem at 0705 on Monday at 135 knots and 2300 feet, but I'll do the same thing next year if conditions warrant.
 
Last edited:
As a final note, I was also a member of the Watertown refugee crew, we probably sat in the FBO together at some point.

Thank you.
I had a good laugh over the refugee comment. But you are correct. :)
I did some time there after my first Ripon attempt.
Enjoyed the 2-sided fuel station.

Update: Sorry, I was at the other refugee camp at KUNU, Dodge County just north of Watertown.
 
Last edited:
Thank you.
I had a good laugh over the refugee comment. But you are correct. :)
I did some time there after my first Ripon attempt.
Enjoyed the 2-sided fuel station.

I bought gas at Watertown three times on Saturday. We got in Friday after the FBO had shut down, so first top off wasn't until the morning. And then, after both failed Saturday attempts, I got a little splash from them when I got back.

It was kinda amusing - the lady in the FBO liked to greet everyone on Unicom when they first called in, and by the end of the day it got pretty cheeky. When I left for my second attempt she wished me luck, and when I made my first call an hour or so later, I got a broad Wisconsin "4TE, welcome back!!!"

For all the frustrations of not getting in, there was a whole lot of positive GA community flavor to the experience.
 
Record

I just was thinking.... I wonder what the world record would be for the highest number of aircraft holding/trying to land at a given airport might be. Hard to imagine more than Sundays afternoon arrivals. I'd guess there were at least 150 or more airplanes at Green lake/Rush lake/Ripon/Fisk and others that were incoming and close but not at one of the arrival points yet. If this is a record then maybe some congratulations are in order for all the participants! :)
 
Last edited:
A simple solution for part of it

I've read all 25 pages in hopes of seeing someone make the suggestion I will below but no luck.

The problems were many and well documented by others. We were 30 southwest of RIPON Sunday mid day and diverted to DLL after listening to approach and watching ADS-B. In 51 years of flying GA airplanes, this was the most dangerous situation I have encountered and chose not to get into it. We then monitored com and ADS-B from the ground for several hours and finally opted to spend the night at DLL to try again early Monday morning. Monday we did three trips around Green Lake and decided to divert to Y50 for breakfast because the mess from RIPON to FISKE remained. It was clear that with ATC sending many poorly spaced FISKE gaggles back to RIPON, the same groups would appear again and again at FISKE with the same result. The odds of breaking into that from our hold at Green Lake were low and risky. On top of that, new arrivals following the normal RIPON start were literally preventing any aircraft holding at Green Lake from proceeding to RIPON because the RIPON-FISKE corridor was saturated. But finally we were able to get into OSH about noon Monday once the traffic subsided.

While it does not solve every problem (like pilots failing to read the notam or mass arrivals), the following suggested procedure makes it a lot safer and would have prevented the very real possibility of a mid air last week:

1. All VFR arrivals should begin by holding at Green Lake at either of the two published altitudes and speeds. Green Lake is very large, easily seen from a distance and with the published counterclockwise hold allows a large number of aircraft to enter the hold either directly or at a 45 degree angle like joining downwind. The current arrival start, RIPON, is small and harder to find and results in aircraft sometimes closing head on as they arrive from all points of the compass while trying to find RIPON and dodging traffic. A hold arrival at Green Lake greatly reduces this risk by increasing the amount of airspace involved and making the geometry of joining very simple.

2. A small FAA contingent at the east end of Green Lake would meter aircraft from the hold and release them to RIPON based on requirements from FISKE. This allows them to set whatever spacing is needed by FISKE and can be accomplished with the same "rock your wings" commands used at FISKE. Spacing can be changed instantaneously by controllers as needed and pilots at Green Lake in the hold only have to follow the aircraft ahead and not worry about anything other than safe distance while holding. Spacing to RIPON and to FISKE is taken care of by the metering controllers, not pilots. True, with lots of planes and some bad luck you may have to orbit awhile until your aircraft is released to RIPON but the process would be orderly and controlled unlike what happened this year.

3. Green Lake would have its own ATIS and com freq and the ATIS would announce holding is in progress if things are backed up or no holding is in progress and arriving aircraft should proceed from Green Lake to RIPON. This procedure completely eliminates the traffic backup that occurred last week.

4. The notam would contain the above procedure with a caution to leave the hold and divert to any of several listed airports nearby that have fuel and parking in the event of low fuel or a sick passenger.

As I said at the start, this does not solve every problem but does remove a huge amount of risk and confusion that many of us saw on Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning. By taking spacing requirements out of the hands of pilots who are in some cases overwhelmed and placing them into the hands of trained controllers, each of us can focus on the jobs we are best prepared to do.
 
Yes, Thrashing it is and Queueing Theory makes my (OLDER) head hurt! :)

Decades ago, I would stare at performance monitors to "become one with the machine (computer)". The impact of multiple "servers" was internalized. The impact of reaching the threshold (typically virtual memory) limit was internalized.

It is with those decade-old experiences that I think about this situation.

The issue it not a lot of planes heading to Airventure/Oshkosh. The issue is a lot of planes getting to the SAME place at the same time and exceeding the capacity of that area (or server if you will). More structure and preprocessing helps in these situations. Then throw in bad actors and other factors and you have a problem.

Keep the good ideas coming as I am sure that people directly involved in finding a solution are paying attention.

But again, there is NO SILVER BULLET. And real analysis/solutions finding will take more time and effort than the (great) dialog here on this forum.

As to some academic resources, hmmmmm ..... Maybe I *can* get a few Deans/Department Chairs/Professors in Engineering (or some parts of the Business School) thinking about this. They return in a few days! :)



This takes me back to undergraduate engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory

Way, way back!

I think CB..err...Mr. Clark may have some academic resources at his disposal! :D

Senior project(s)?
 
Back
Top