Webb

Webb

Well Known Member
Sponsor
Do you know your settings for 90 knots so you can keep you head out of the cockpit after passing Ripon?

Since this is the first time I am taking N32WW there, I took it out for some slow flight practice so I can keep my head on a swivel.

Pulling the MP back to ~14.5" and not touching the prop. When descending, needed to pull it back to ~10".

Just curious what others are finding.
 
My numbers from Ripon to final @ OSH
Used for last three years at OSH

RV7A
Fixed pitch (85" Sensenich)
15? flaps (better view over nose)
17" MP
103 mph (90 knots)
 
And for you guys that like to see higher numbers on your AS indicators....it's 90kts not 90mph! Please don't slow everyone behind you down. 90kts = 104mph
 
I'm good friends with a "Pink Shirt" that works the arrivals and also within the tower. He's been working the show for a few years.

Last week I asked him about the 90kt arrival vs the 135kt arrival.

He said "there is nothing exclusive about the 135kt (higher altitude) route. If you can fly it and maintain it - use it. That's why it's there."

I have heard several folks who feel like they have to fly the 90kt route but who are concerned about overheating. 135kt (plus an extra 500ft) should keep you cooler.
 
Practice a little slower too

It's not always 90 kts. I've been behind traffic inbound from Ripon going 70 -75 kts twice. I would practice flying at 70 kts, just in case.
 
Jamie said:
I would not do this. I've found it best to reduce the RPM for cooling. Less RPM = less friction in the engine = cooler CHTs.
Click to expand...

True but at that MP, the prop slows down anyway. I had no issues what so ever on the CHT's at 90 knots in that configuration.
 
Slipping turns

Also practice slipping turns. The first time I flew in there they kept me high and, turned me to land abeam the first dot on 27 and then told me to land on it. I already had all the flaps in, slowed to 65 knots, and did a 180* slip to landing. Even then I landed long and fast.

Remember, if you have baggage in the back and are low on fuel, you will have an aft CG, so your aircraft might handle a little differently than you are used to.
 
Don't ever forget.... as PIC you have the right to break off the approach if you don't feel like you are able to SAFELY comply with the controllers request.

Don't let a controller make you do something you are not comfortable with, better to just "bug out" and come around and do it again.
 
Phil said:
I'm good friends with a "Pink Shirt" that works the arrivals and also within the tower. He's been working the show for a few years.

Last week I asked him about the 90kt arrival vs the 135kt arrival.

He said "there is nothing exclusive about the 135kt (higher altitude) route. If you can fly it and maintain it - use it. That's why it's there."

I have heard several folks who feel like they have to fly the 90kt route but who are concerned about overheating. 135kt (plus an extra 500ft) should keep you cooler.
Click to expand...

I think this is a topic that might benefit us all as threads pop up about Oshkosh arrivals and safety.

RV models CAN fly safely at 90kts and 1800' without major problems under most circumstances. However, high density altitude, heavily loaded airplanes and traffic that CAN'T maintain 90kts make a recipe for disaster.

I remember reading a thread on this topic some time ago and the consensus seemed to be that, due to the wording of the NOTAM, RVs are expected to use the low/slow approach because they CAN do 90kts, even though they are fully capable of doing the 135kts of the higher approach.

Given that the NOTAM wording suggests that planes capable of 90kts use the low/slow approach, the logic escapes me, since there are planes NOT capable of maintaining 90kts slowing the traffic flow and leading to dangerous situations.

From the NOTAM:

Altitude / Airspeed – Approach Ripon maintaining 90 knots at 1,800’ (or maximum cruise speed if less than 90 knots). If unable, maintain 135 knots at 2,300’. Be established at these speeds and altitudes prior to Ripon."

It only seems logical that RVs should actually use the higher/faster approach, as we won't slow down any twins or turbines and would alleviate some of the low/slow traffic congestion. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but it seems much more logical for the NOTAM to read, "All aircraft capable of maintaining 135kts should use 2300' altitude ..." Then, the only weak link would be pilots whose egos demand that they think their planes can maintain 135kts gumming up the traffic flow.

I don't want to start another "primer war" over this, but if an FAA controller at OSH says that we should use the high/fast approach, I'm all for it.

What say you?
 
Last edited:
He said "there is nothing exclusive about the 135kt (higher altitude) route. If you can fly it and maintain it - use it. That's why it's there."

Interesting. Also runs contrary to everything that's ever been said, years of experience as well as the written material (NOTAM) on the subject. I'd be cautious taking this as gospel.
 
Regardless of what the NOTAM says rule #1 is you're the PIC and if you are doing something that is dangerous to you or your machine its your responsibility. Safety is priority #1 and they aren't going to make you fly a route that could potentially damage your aircraft.

If you ask most (I'm not going to say any :)) of the guys pink they'll tell you that being safe is the #1 priority and that is the intent for such a well planned arrival and departure proceedure. Options are king for keeping everyone safe.

I'm not flying in this year so I don't have a dog in the hunt. But when my time comes I wouldn't think twice of flying the faster route if my aircraft is capable of meeting all the requirements of the route then I'll fly it.
 
Phil said:
Options are king for keeping everyone safe.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with that, its always good to have a plan B, C,...

The real key to keeping everyone safe, in this context (flying into the worlds busiest airport) is to have everyone on the same page, following the same procedure, flying the same route and the same speed. Unless an emergency dictates otherwise, this ain't the time to ad-lib it.

But that's just one clown's opinion :)
 
After watching the video from EAA on arrival, it was clearly said the 135 knot approach was those aircraft that can't safely do 90 knots.

I can easily do both but I'm going to follow what was presented.
 
Phil said:
I'm good friends with a "Pink Shirt" that works the arrivals and also within the tower. He's been working the show for a few years.

Last week I asked him about the 90kt arrival vs the 135kt arrival.

He said "there is nothing exclusive about the 135kt (higher altitude) route. If you can fly it and maintain it - use it. That's why it's there."

I have heard several folks who feel like they have to fly the 90kt route but who are concerned about overheating. 135kt (plus an extra 500ft) should keep you cooler.
Click to expand...

IF you cannot fly the 90 kt pattern into OSH in an RV, you should NOT fly your RV there.
 
I'm curious....at what point in the arrival proceedure do the 135 knot airplanes decend to merge with the 90 knot airplanes?
 
sprucemoose said:
Can't disagree with that, its always good to have a plan B, C,...

The real key to keeping everyone safe, in this context (flying into the worlds busiest airport) is to have everyone on the same page, following the same procedure, flying the same route and the same speed. Unless an emergency dictates otherwise, this ain't the time to ad-lib it.

But that's just one clown's opinion :)
Click to expand...

If this were a military operation that's how it would be. But since it is a civilian operation, the safest plan is to try to comply with the NOTAM but hang loose and be ready to make adjustments as required to keep things safe.

The very slow Cub scenario is for real, at least it was for me between Fisk and 36L, couple years ago. The pink shirt at Fisk said the usual, "RV rock your wings" and then "fly east for 36, monitor tower and follow the airplane ahead".

Well, the airplane ahead was a pretty yellow Cub and the closure on him was like right now, the guy had really slowed up. That's where guys trying to comply with the NOTAM get into trouble - they slow up, stall out, crash and burn.

As a regular thing, I don't stall out, crash and burn so there were two options, make a right turn and fly back to Ripon, or pass the guy and go on in and land - which is what happened. Not in accordance with the NOTAM but it was a safe operation, probably safer than going back to Ripon as I was on the ground and off the runway before the Cub arrived and not dodging airplanes at Ripon and Fisk one more time.

The point here is, some guys plan this arrival as if it were a military operation thinking it will go as the NOTAM says. Most of the time it does, but the pilot has to be loose to make adjustments because sometimes it isn't according to the script.

The high approach at 135 knots is typical where that traffic mixes with 1800' traffic on the way to the runway. Two years ago, also between Fisk and 36, a formation of RV's, I think there were 12 of them, descended from 2300' on the way to the airport after I was cleared in from 1800'. It wasn't long and I felt like the lady instructor in TORA-TORA when the Japanese flew through her flight lesson on their way to bomb Pearl Harbor. The pink shirts on the ground cleared the group arrival to land and when they broke right to spread out for a left turn in, I did likewise and followed tail end Charlie to the runway.

Like I say, hang loose. Stuff happens. :)
 
David-aviator said:
The very slow Cub scenario is for real, at least it was for me between Fisk and 36L, couple years ago. The pink shirt at Fisk said the usual, "RV rock your wings" and then "fly east for 36, monitor tower and follow the airplane ahead".

Well, the airplane ahead was a pretty yellow Cub and the closure on him was like right now, the guy had really slowed up. That's where guys trying to comply with the NOTAM get into trouble - they slow up, stall out, crash and burn.

Like I say, hang loose. Stuff happens. :)
Click to expand...


I've suggested a "75 mph arrival stream" to mgt at Osh and SnF several times over the years and haven't gotten any response. Lots of aircraft attend these fly-in's which are not capable of anything near 90 knots. They cause a real problem for the higher performance aircraft using the 90 knot stream.
 
When you have to "bug out"...

I've flown into Osh only 3 times, and have not ever needed to "bug out" of the approach, but have always wondered what the best direction to turn away would be for each segment of the flight path.

It seems like the following would likely be the safest directions to turn if you are about to fly up the tail of a Cub:

1) Before getting to Ripon, or between Ripon and Fisk, or either in the Green Lake or Rush Lake holding patterns: bug out with a right hand turn.

2) Between Fisk and KOSH if you're given the 09/27 approach: bug out with a left hand turnout else, you'd be flying into the 18/36 traffic.

3) Between Fisk and KOSH if you're on the 18/36 approach: bug out with a right turn to avoid flying into the 09/27 traffic.
 
i have flown the approach and run up on a slow plane doing well under 90. in this case i picked up speed and passed him. all clear ahead the rest of the procedure was easy. as pic we need to make good decisions. a pile up behind this guy could turn into a mess. if this meant going to the higher level i would.
 
Isn't passing a strict no-no?

I thought maintaining the sequence was critical to ensuring that the tower keeps track of all aircraft coming in from FISK. Passing messes up the order and creates confusion in the airport vicinity for the controllers.

The NOTAM provides a safe, unambiguous solution for dealing with slow traffic ahead: turn out and rejoin at Ripon, and DO NOT PASS. I know the NOTAM leaves out some details on some topics, but not on the matter of slower traffic.

I have a good friend who works the tower at OSH. I'll ask him what he thinks.

M
 
foka4 said:
I thought maintaining the sequence was critical to ensuring that the tower keeps track of all aircraft coming in from FISK. Passing messes up the order and creates confusion in the airport vicinity for the controllers.

M
Click to expand...

I'd bet one tall cool one there is no co-ordination between the pink shirts at Fisk and the controllers on he field as to who is coming and what the sequence is.

The import thing is don't do anything unsafe. That is the responsibility of the PIC and is what the FAA, EAA and fellow pilots expect.

It is impossible to write a NOTAM, procedure, or policy that will cover every possible contingency of flight. It's always been that way and always will be. No document is more intent on maintaining a safe operation than one written under Part 121 operations. And even there, it is written that if the PIC deems a situation unsafe and not adequately addressed under existing policy, he has the authority and is expected to deviate to maintain safe flight. There may be an investigation but the safe flight provision goes a long way in resolving the matter. The Sully landing in the Hudson River is an example of such a circumstance.

It is all in the FAR's, OSH is no exception.

Bottom line, don't fly into anyone; don't stall out, crash and burn; and if possible don't cause another pilot to break out and leave the stream.

And for sure, do not pass to get in ahead of someone flying at 90 knots.
 
foka4 said:
I thought maintaining the sequence was critical to ensuring that the tower keeps track of all aircraft coming in from FISK. Passing messes up the order and creates confusion in the airport vicinity for the controllers.

The NOTAM provides a safe, unambiguous solution for dealing with slow traffic ahead: turn out and rejoin at Ripon, and DO NOT PASS. I know the NOTAM leaves out some details on some topics, but not on the matter of slower traffic.

I have a good friend who works the tower at OSH. I'll ask him what he thinks.

M
Click to expand...


That's my point. The NOTAM would be great if everyone could comply. But here in the real world not everyone can comply. All it takes is a pietenpol to enter the race and stack up 6-8 airplanes behind him. That's not the time folks need to start waving their NOTAM in people's faces. There are a lot of slow planes that make the trip to Osh.

If you get in the high speed lane (of which you're perfectly qualified to fly and your aircraft meets all the requirements to maintain the performance profile) you eliminate that possibility. In my mind it is the safer route and at the end of the day it's the right choice. Their top goal is to keep you safe with margin - not barely safe. In the high speed route you are well within the full performance envelope of your airplane; with the slow route you're only in the bottom half of it with a chance of going outside it on the bottom end. It's just a safer route IMHO and it's not breaking any rules or using any creative license on writing your own rule. If there is a safer published route for your airplane - take it. That's why it's published.


Phil
 
Last edited:
You know folks, if we were to sit a dozen very experienced pilots down, with th purpose of designing a good, workable procedure for getting thousands of airplanes in to a fly-in location, we could probably come up with a dozen different ways that work! This isn't rocket science, and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

However, the concept of a "procedure" that is designed to organize a bunch of folks trying to work together is only going to work if everyone uses the SAME procedure. If you've got one or two guys who decide "yeah, I know what it says, but I think I'll do something else", it might make things easier for them, but it incrementally increases the risk for someone else - because others don't know what they are going to do.

When that clueless Cub driver slows down to final approach speed just after Fisk, we are all sitting there behind, beside, or above him going "what the HECK is he thinking?!!" And if a Cub driver in a J-3 passes FISK (after being given a sequence and following the instructions he has been given), throttle firewalled and doing all of 68 mph and sees guys passing him on the way to the runway, is he entitled to think "what the heck are they going to do?"

Hey, I agree 100% that you have to do what you have to do to make things safe - but that means safer for EVERYONE involved. Use your judgment, break out (the have a procedure for that) when/if required. If you run into a situation for which there is no procedure, use your judgment to do what will lower the risk for everyone involved.

How many times have you heard a group of pilots talking on the ground at OSH going "did you see that guy in the XXX? What the heck do you think he thought he was doing?!"

Don't be the guy in the XXX...... Are the OSH arrival procedures perfect? Nope - I can think of ways to imporve them, but I don't have any control over them, they DO work, and they DO provide guidance for how to deal with most situations (even the agravating ones). I'd like to know that when I am mixing it up in the arrival stream, everyone is playing by the same set of rules!

Paul
 
I wrote to the ATC folks on the EAA website with the query about our RVs using the high/fast arrival to get their take on it. There's no doubt that our planes, capable of maintaining 135kts easily, won't be slowing anyone down. However, getting low-n-slow behind that Cub or Pietenpol while weighed down with camping gear in hot and humid temps can, and does, prove deadly.

I don't see a downside to faster planes using the high/fast arrival procedure as long as they can maintain 135kts. I DO see a problem with aircraft, like our RVs, that are able to do 90kts -- but unable to go as slowly as the Cubs and Pietenpols -- getting behind the power curve unnecessarily.

However, what happens with the high/fast guys when they are sequenced into the arrival stream? Don't they still end up behind the slow-movers on approach anyway? Maybe that's the issue with encouraging more fast-movers to use the high/fast lane -- too much work trying to sequence the fast-movers in with the slow-movers. Perhaps having a few hundred RVs (and Bonanzas, C-210s, SR-22s, etc.) using the high road would overload the ground ATC folks.

It's only been an issue for me once, and that was many years ago. I live close enough that I can usually plan to arrive before the madness starts ... which is exactly what I intend to do this weekend. :D

If I hear back from EAA about using the fast lane, I'll post it here.
 
Last edited:
N8RV said:
However, what happens with the high/fast guys when they are sequenced into the arrival stream? Don't they still end up behind the slow-movers on approach anyway?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The problem with using the fast lane is that everyone is merged into the slow lane long before you get to the runway. I think ATC would prefer everyone to get in the 90 knot line if at all possible because it makes it easier for everyone (pilots and ATC) to merge together at the appropriate time.

Just because you are in the fast lane doesn't mean you still won't be dumped down into the slow lane behind a Cub. If you get behind a slow plane, break out and circle around for another go. Don't try to squeeze yourself into a position that presents a potential problem.
 
FloridaJohn said:
Yes.

The problem with using the fast lane is that everyone is merged into the slow lane long before you get to the runway. I think ATC would prefer everyone to get in the 90 knot line if at all possible because it makes it easier for everyone (pilots and ATC) to merge together at the appropriate time.

Just because you are in the fast lane doesn't mean you still won't be dumped down into the slow lane behind a Cub. If you get behind a slow plane, break out and circle around for another go. Don't try to squeeze yourself into a position that presents a potential problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we all remember what happened to Jack Roush when he got dumped in behind some slower planes. It did make for spectacular pictures! :mad:
 
Yep, a little "PIC" decision making on his part could have prevented those pictures. I'm surprised his plane crashed at all; you'd think the Earth would simply repel a plane and paint scheme that ugly.
 
FloridaJohn said:
The problem with using the fast lane is that everyone is merged into the slow lane long before you get to the runway.
Click to expand...

Unless there is enough of us on the fast lane that they divide it up so the fast lane went to runway 18/36 and the slow lane to 9/27 (or vice verse)...then there would be less of an issue.

Don't know how they choose.

-Jim
 
Spindrift said:
From http://www.airventure.org/atc/vfr_basics.html

"IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF UTILIZING THE 1,800' PATTERN, PLEASE DO SO"

The all caps and highlighted in red are not mine. Its that way on the site.

I suspect controllers know that RV's are capable of 90kts.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bill, pretty much sums it up.

I respect each and every member of this forum who has posted to this thread. We all have opinions, and all bring up "some" valid points, however, it is embarrassing to me personally, as a member of VAF and as a pilot, to read this thread and have anyone that has read the NOTAM, and the advice from ATC think that flying any RV at 135 knots into OSH would be recommended or a good idea. The NOTAM is clear, the advice from ATC is clear.

"IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF UTILIZING THE 1,800' PATTERN, PLEASE DO SO"

What part of the above statement is not clear? :confused:

If the above statement is unclear. Please re-read this in it's entirety! http://www.airventure.org/atc/vfr_basics.html

I am not trying to embarrass anyone, or start an OSH Arrival War, but we seem to argue about this every year. I then re-read the NOTAM and ATC advice then come to the same definative conclusion. If you can fly at 90 knots do so. Any RV can safely fly at 90 knots or less.

JMHO.
 
Last edited:
In 2009 I made my first trip to OSH. I had completely planned on flying the 90kt approach, but as I approached RIPON the pink shirt kept saying "If you can do 135kts, get up to 2300 for me". So I did just that.

I felt awfully silly as I went over the top of three Bonanzas on the leg from RIPON to FISK.
 
Jamie said:
In 2009 I made my first trip to OSH. I had completely planned on flying the 90kt approach, but as I approached RIPON the pink shirt kept saying "If you can do 135kts, get up to 2300 for me". So I did just that.

I felt awfully silly as I went over the top of three Bonanzas on the leg from RIPON to FISK.
Click to expand...

Certainly, complying with an ATC request is a good thing. ;)
 
On my first flight into Oshkosh in my RV-6 (2004) I ended up doing 70kts behind a Taylorcraft. The controller asked me if I could pass the T-cart (heck yes!) and I did so at his request, even though passing is also strictly verboten.

The point is, there is a big difference between doing something non-standard or contrary to the procedures at the request of ATC, and doing it on your own because you think that you know better.
 
Geico266 said:
..."IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF UTILIZING THE 1,800' PATTERN, PLEASE DO SO"

What part of the above statement is not clear? :confused:

...
Click to expand...

Larry, the unclear part is that, while all RVs are quite capable of complying with the 90-knot/1800' approach, often flying that approach becomes far less than 90 knots, and dangerously so. That seems to be ignored in the NOTAM, which is why I brought it up. A lot of folks here on VAF are very concerned about flying safely, and this seems to be a weak spot in the Oshkosh arrival NOTAM.

Because this topic comes up each year about this time, I just thought revisiting it might be worthwhile. Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry.
 
JDanno said:
Yeah, we all remember what happened to Jack Roush when he got dumped in behind some slower planes. It did make for spectacular pictures! :mad:
Click to expand...

That Fisk Ave approach 18 base-to-final turn can be downright scary to watch. I watched the day before Roush and saw a Diamond nearly drag a wingtip. I would say that is a VERY unusual situation for pilots who normally fly at least a mile final. I normally fly a pretty tight pattern and will be practicing the 18 and 27 tonight, but I don't care for the Fisk Ave 18 approach.
 
Last edited:
N8RV said:
Larry, the unclear part is that, while all RVs are quite capable of complying with the 90-knot/1800' approach, often flying that approach becomes far less than 90 knots, and dangerously so. That seems to be ignored in the NOTAM, which is why I brought it up...
Click to expand...


This will be my first flight in so I read the NOTAM very carefully and it appears very clear: If you get too slow, break out and try again. I'm asking out of ignorance here, but is this not a practical solution?
 
Got dumped?

JDanno said:
Yeah, we all remember what happened to Jack Roush when he got dumped in behind some slower planes. It did make for spectacular pictures! :mad:
Click to expand...

ATC may have put him in too tight, but is was Roush's job as PIC to either fly it properly or have enough sense to go around. He blew it.


John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Just and fyi from experience..In the low/slow pattern, as everyone is aware of, you have to be prepared to go as slow as the slowest plane in line.
On the high/fast pattern you may need to be prepared to go faster. I was flying a Velocity in two years back in the high/fast and I kept getting asked by controllers to increase speed. I was indicating 180 knots by the time I hit downwind (of course they asked me to land short and get off quickly). Never knew why--guess the space shuttle was right behind me.
 
N8RV said:
Larry, the unclear part is that, while all RVs are quite capable of complying with the 90-knot/1800' approach, often flying that approach becomes far less than 90 knots, and dangerously so. That seems to be ignored in the NOTAM, which is why I brought it up. A lot of folks here on VAF are very concerned about flying safely, and this seems to be a weak spot in the Oshkosh arrival NOTAM.
Click to expand...

From http://www.airventure.org/atc/vfr_basics.html


MAINTAIN 1/2 MILE (CONSTANT OR INCREASING) IN-TRAIL SPACING

S-TURNS WILL NOT WORK

If you have to S-Turn in order to maintain the required ? mile In-Trail spacing, IT WILL NOT WORK! Check for other traffic and break off the procedure (turning left/right). Parallel the railroad tracks while proceeding southwest and find another aircraft to follow ? mile In-Trail.

NO SIDE BY SIDES OR OVERTAKING

Unless the Fisk Controller advises you to, which is not very likely, DO NOT fly side by side. If you find yourself side by side with another aircraft IT WILL NOT WORK! Check for other traffic and break off the procedure (turning left/right). Parallel the railroad tracks while proceeding southwest and find another aircraft to follow ? mile In-Trail.

WHY DO WE NEED ? MILE IN-TRAIL SPACING?

We, ATC and pilots alike, want this operation to be as safe and comfortable as possible for the pilots while maintaining an effective/efficient operation. ATC needs a constant or increasing ? mile in-trail separation at the airport. This ensures that there will be necessary separation between successive arrivals to allow previous arrivals to exit the runway. It also provides the controllers at the airport a gap within which to depart aircraft. (You will appreciate this later as you depart AirVenture to begin your journey home!)

As you are aware, upon reaching the pattern at the airport the aircraft ahead of you is going to reduce speed and when this happens you will need to reduce your speed even further. We certainly don't want pilots to be "flying on the edge" at a greatly reduced airspeed and altitude (while S-Turning) upon reaching the pattern
 
N8RV said:
Larry, the unclear part is that, while all RVs are quite capable of complying with the 90-knot/1800' approach, often flying that approach becomes far less than 90 knots, and dangerously so. That seems to be ignored in the NOTAM, which is why I brought it up. A lot of folks here on VAF are very concerned about flying safely, and this seems to be a weak spot in the Oshkosh arrival NOTAM.

Because this topic comes up each year about this time, I just thought revisiting it might be worthwhile. Apparently, I was wrong. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Revisiting the topic every year brings great value and discussion. It informs those who have not flown in before just what they may be getting themselves into. The notam gets revised nearly every year. It used to be that "S" turns were okay. They did away with those awhile back. What was once way okay, may not be next time.

If you can't stay 1/2 mile behind the guy in front of you, there is no embarrassment, and in fact is proper procedure to turn out and go back to Ripon for another shot at it. Hopefully you'll get behind someone who is faster and follows the rules.

I nearly had to go around 2 years ago when 2 airplanes were slow clearing runway 36L and I was told to "Go around or take 36R. I was barely 100 - 150' from touchdown. I glanced over my right shoulder, told the wife to "hang on" and jogged over to 36 L (taxiway). Just as I was about 30 ft from my flare I was told, go around! go around! never mind I see you moved over!! The resulting carrier landing was not impressive in the least. Everyone has a story, I guess.

Does anyone have any insight on going around? Any stories or advice on what works well and what not to do? I know it is going to be runway assignment dependent as to which way to turn. I study the "no fly" areas in the notam and plan on staying away from those, informing the tower asap in case whenever ever decide to "bolter" and head back to Ripon dodging traffic. I'd appreciate anyone shooting holes in my plan if I am in need of correction.

Let's say I'm assigned 36L from the Fisk avenue approach and have to go around from low level. Runway 9/27 is in heavy use and an airplane is behind and to my right cleared for 36R. Just as I start to flare the tower tells me to go around. What do I do?
 
Playing devils advocate with a different hat on...

What if was flying the Champ in and the fastest I can fly is 65 kias/80 mph ias? What does the NOTAM tell me to do? As I read it, I just press on at 1800 feet MSL and clog up the stream.

IMHO, this is what is unsafe and the crux of the discussion here. If everyone actually did to 90 kias, then it wouldn't be an issue.

One of my most dis-like phrases is, 'because it's always been done that way' ... maybe there's a bit of that here in the NOTAM.

Anyone know how to make inputs for the 2012 NOTAM?

-Jim
 
fehdxl said:
Playing devils advocate with a different hat on...

What if was flying the Champ in and the fastest I can fly is 65 kias/80 mph ias? What does the NOTAM tell me to do? As I read it, I just press on at 1800 feet MSL and clog up the stream....
Click to expand...

I guess this is only a real "problem" if you have a whole bunch of Champs in a row. If only a single "slow" airplane is involved every once in a while, then the 90 knot rule will still be in effect most of the time. I guess at worst it will take a couple of tries for the faster of the slow airplanes to get in. Logic dictates that if there was a real problem here, there would be a third arrival procedure for the really slow movers.

The fact that they keep it at these two classes tells me that the Cubs and Champs are the exception, rather than the rule. I reserve the right to change my opinion once I land on Saturday, however ;)
 
Practice

Yesterday evening I spent a bit over a half hour in the pattern at the busiest training airport around. When I called the tower, I was told to join downwind as #5 behind the Cessnas. In my reply I said "good practice for Oshkosh" to let ATC know I wasn't in any kind of hurry. These students were doing painfully large patterns, turning base 4 miles past the runway, dragging it in slow, lingering on the runway, etc. I was told to go around twice, and when I landed I tried to be exactly on my intended spot, and, I spent a lot of time at 90kts. One of the biggest challenges I found was not speeding WAY up on the go around. The instinct is to go full throttle, establish climb attitude and raise the flaps, but I would very quickly be at pattern altitude going 130+, which meant I quickly could overtake the other traffic. Without a CS prop, slowing down is tough, so it was better to throttle back shortly after establishing a positive climb.

It was challenging, somewhat annoying, but fun, and hopefully will pay off on Sunday. YMMV
 
One of the best kept secrets of Oshkosh is get there early. I launch at 0500 and cross Ripon at 0755. Nary a plane in site, and I have a full day of OSH to enjoy. AND they may still have donuts at the home built registration booth!

Shhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone! ;)
 
Last edited:
Larry, you keep saying that and there will be a gaggle of airplanes over RIPON at 0800....me included!! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.