[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

Wed Oct 4 15:27:17 AKDT 2006

The consensus in the south is bail out.We are the judges and we determine what is done on the flight line in local contests. We had 6 midairs in one contest last year in district 3 through no fault of anyone and this has set the tone for us in District 3.It is stupid to continue the sequence when a midair is about to happen. Most of the time the pilots don't see it coming. I didn't and I  did not know I was involved in a midair until I landed at the demands of my caller. Safer is better than sorry. This seems like a no-brainer to me.

Jim Ivey
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Huber 
  To: shan at telus.net ; NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

  Problem here is... one pilot may not see the other and the one who does see the other may be the lower class pilot, who has had it ground in that he MUST NOT DEVIATE.

  I've heard discussions about close encounters... and what I hear is... "the planes look closer to each other than they are"... "the higher class is always further out"... "ignore the other plane."

  So... what I keep hearing is exactly opposed to any attempt at avoidance for any reason.  Stick to your maneuver sequence at all costs.

  There is no allowance given in the rules for mid-air avoidance... thus the way it is now, whoever flinches can throw out his flight because he's going to get a 0... or maybe a couple of zeros for blowing the maneuver to avoid a mid-air.  (unless the judges would deviate and say "Avoid him and then refly the maneuver") You can bet that 99%+ will wait for the other guy to flinch, especially if they are having a good flight.

  So.. the guy who might be willing to give up his score and avoid... may be the one who doesn't see the mid-air comming and you have the other guy fixated on score... expecting the other guy to get out of his way... SMACK.  So... maybe the pilot who saw it comming "desrrves it".. does that make the other guy who didn't see it comming deserve it?  

  Give the pilots indication they won't be penlized for preventing 2 planes from occupying the same place at the same time... and the guy who sees it comming will be more willing to prevent the collision.

  As long as you have 2 flight lines on the same field flying in essentially the same box... you'll have mid-airs come up.  Yes, USUALLY the higher class pilot flys a bit further out and thus there's little risk.  But some lower class guys learn the box is bigger if you fly further out...  More time between maneuvers... less rush... Easier to be smooth...  And the rules even say you need to be out that far.... (most Sportsman pilots fly a closer line than the prescribed distance out... from what I have observed)
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Amar Shan 
    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
    Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:24 PM
    Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

    Incredible that some competitors get so caught up in the competition that they would jeopardize they aircraft for the sake of a few points (on a turnaround manoeuvre, for heaven's sake!).  Dare I say, "stupid"?

    I saw the most avoidable accident ever at a contest a few years back.  Int/Adv pilots - one doing 3 inside loops, the other doing 2 outside loops, following the same track, in opposite directions.  They missed each other ... twice ... on the third try they didn't miss.  

    We all left shaking our heads.

    I've had midairs.  In all cases, it was because I didn't see the other aircraft.  If I'd seen it, not all the points in the world would have prevented me from saving my plane first!

    I don't think a new rule is required here.  As pointed out, it would be subject to abuse.  If you're stupid enough to destroy your plane rather than alter your trajectory and take a downgrade, I think a version of the Darwin Awards should be awarded!

    Amar
      -----Original Message-----
      From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed Deaver
      Sent: October 4, 2006 11:05 AM
      To: NSRCA Mailing List
      Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

      Now the ball is rolling on judging, I have another subject worth discussion.  Not sure it has been actually.
      At N Dallas 2 weeks ago, a midair occurred.  Here is the scenario.
      Both pilots were flying on the same track, but spread apart.  On an endbox manuever, both pulled vertical and both held their nerve(to their credit)  It appeared one plane was inside the other.  Suddenly plane #1 pulled to complete his 1/2 square (which appeared inside plane #2) when #2 cut it in 1/2 and flew through it.
      My question is:
      Can pattern effectively begin or have an "avoidance" rule.  These 2 planes were so close had one just pulled the power back a little, let the other one go on, $6K would still be flying.  I realize some overzelous competitors would use this indescretionately, but still we could write in some wording indicating judges had to agree it was in the best interest of both pilots.  As well no change to distance out could occur (not making it a positioning advantage)
      Any thoughts on this one.
      Ed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: 10/3/2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061004/bea9304a/attachment.html 