avoidance rule

[george kennie]

Wind doesn't enter into the equation. I've seen the wind switch 180,
then 90 , and back to take-off direction all during the course of one
flight. The center line, the flight line,  and the 60 degree lines would
be your reference.As far as the sun is concerned, I indicated that it
could only be done at certain facilities and in Antarctica in july.
Probably was a lousy idea anyway, but I still think Frank's is a good
one.
G.

Bill Mears wrote:

> Canted boxes would also have problems with dissimilar wind, and would
> lose the ability to use the runway as a reference line.
>
> ronlock wrote:
>
>> Have we thought through the sun in the box implications ofoff
>> setting both flight lines 30 degrees? Ron Lockhart
>>
>>      ----- Original Message -----
>>      From: george kennie
>>      To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>      Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:13 PM
>>      Subject: Re: avoidance rule
>>       I kinda like Frank Grannelli's idea regarding separation
>>      which could even be expanded upon by canting both flight
>>      lines 30 degrees from runway-parallel with the right
>>      station canted right(away from left station) and left
>>      station canted left.Landings and take-offs would still be
>>      aligned with the runway but the rest of the flight aligned
>>      with the flight-line markers marked on the ground. After
>>      all, how many mid-landing colisions have you
>>      observed.Probably would eliminate 99% of all mid-airs and
>>      could easily be accomodated at places like Muncie and
>>      probably quite a few others.Might encourage a few of the
>>      more timid among us, who might be reluctant to to put
>>      their investment at risk, to put their bird in the air.
>>      Georgie
>>
>>      Bill Glaze wrote:
>>
>>      > Lance:
>>      > Yes, it is highly useful, in my opinion.  I've found
>>      > myself flying formation aerobatics several times in IMAC,
>>      > and was able to call a break.  Judges later said they
>>      > were relieved that a break was called.  Did it avert a
>>      > midair?  Really can't say, but it made me feel a whole
>>      > lot more relieved, and I could concentrate a lot better.
>>      > As far as midair avoidance, it's hard to say the
>>      > avoidance rule did/didn't work if a midair didn't happen;
>>      > kind of like trying to say how much crime was prevented
>>      > by a certain law/procedure.
>>      > Flying pattern, I sure would like to see it.
>>      >
>>      > Bill Glaze
>>      > BTW: I've never seen the rule abused; maybe it has been,
>>      > but I've never heard it spoken of.
>>      >
>>      > s.vannostrand at kodak.com wrote:
>>      >
>>      >>
>>      >>  I'm not disagreeing, Croz, but here is my observation
>>      >>  from limited experience.  I've seen several midairs at
>>      >>  contests, unfortunately.  Each time was such a shock
>>      >>  that no one saw it coming.  In only one case (at the
>>      >>  now infamous Temple 2001 where 7 planes were lost in
>>      >>  one contest) were the planes even flying in the same
>>      >>  direction.  But even here, neither pilot saw the other
>>      >>  until it was too late.  Others of us did, but there
>>      >>  wasn't much we could do in the split second  before.
>>      >>      I'm curious to know is this is really beneficial in
>>      >>  IMAC
>>      >>
>>      >>  --Lance
>>      >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030131/b90b822a/attachment.html