[NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

Thu Oct 5 04:35:15 AKDT 2006

All the "what ifs" and speculation and ideas about how to handle / avoid midairs aside -

It is extremely difficult to accurately assess the proximity of two planes to each other.  Most people that have midairs never saw it coming.  I've seen plenty of people take avoidance action to avoid a midair when the planes were not even close (but appeared that way from a particular viewing reference).  And it is a little difficult to avoid another plane unless you know what they are going to be doing.

If anyone is increasing the risk of a midair by not doing what they can to avoid them because they are afraid of a judging downgrade, then maybe we can make it more clear in the rules that "avoidance" is not cause for a downgrade, and the rules would need to specify how the maneuver is to be resumed/scored.

FWIW - If I have to fly at the same time as some of my flying buddies, I will deliberately fly my line closer in or further out to get separation of the flying lines.  If they are in the air before I go up, I do not fly their line.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net> 

Looks like:

If the pilot has a backup plane... since he is allowed to finish the sequence with the backup...  an actual midair is an uncontestable reason to be allowed to finish a round that was interrupted. (I haven't seen that persued.)

Judges and CD discretion basicly on allowing resuming or reflying after a near miss...

For scoring... its more clear about what happens if you do collide than if you don't

I do agree that the way THESE SECTIONS read... the pilot essentially has to declair an unsafe conditon,  that is not an equipment failure in his model,  and LAND; then request the refly of the rest of his sequence.  (going by the letter of the rules quoted below) 

********

Midairs are inherantly unsafe conditions....  You can never really be sure which way any particular portion of either plane will go.  That makes a potential mid-air an unsafe condition.

Its going to cause quite a commotion if someone declairs "Avoiding midair! Landing!" then walks directly to the CD to request reflight. (completion of the sequence)  But thats the "letter of the law" proceedure if I am reading it correctly...

I could easilly see just letting the contestant do a maneuver off-center, or outside the box, without penalty if commencement delay was to avoid pulling (or pushing) into a mid-air.  So if you do that... holler. "avoiding!" or something similar... It can't hurt. (especially if the judges see the potential for mid-air)  That makes just as much sense as offsetting center to avoid flying through the sun, which I have seen allowed.  off-center downgrade isn't awful....  better than a zero.  Outside box though... zero IIRC.  (protestable possibly... if its for mid-air avoidance)

*I* would go along with avoiding, then doing a "double immelman without rolls" (elongated loop) to reposition and complete the sequence, after a mid-air avoidance... If I was in the judge's seat (and I agreed it was a mid-air avoidance)  Holler about avoiding... announce the repositioning maneuver... go on.  I'd be likely to say: "OK... thanks for flying safely!"

If you do a repositioning maneuver then finish, you'll have caused less interruption than landing and asking for a reflight...  You may need to protest 0's on the maneuver following the reposition... (If I remember the penalty for sticking an extra maneuver into the schedule)  But... you'd have been zeroed for the avoidance anyway if the judges don't agree the maneuver being mis-flown was for avoidance. (or potentially lost a $350 Sportsman to $5000+ FAI model by not avoiding.)

 Making allowances in judging to prevent mid-airs just makes sense. (or to prevent temproary blindness of pilot, caller and judges, in cases of offset for the sun) 

We already allow an extra lap or two of the field prior to landing to give time for the runway to clear when someone else is taking off or landing...  allowing an inserted loop, or some other offset, to avoid a mid-air makes sense to me.

*************

(pasted from a subsequent e-mail)
All-in-all, I think it's probably not a real effective rule to adopt.  I'm 
not sure that following the "If it saves just ONE airplane, it's worth it" 
line of thinking is good for competition.  Maybe it is better left to CD's 
as to whether they want to make this a standard practice at their contests.  
That would be my suggestion anyway - if the locals think this is the way to 
go and can encourage CD's to make it standard practic through a rules waiver 
for the sanctioned event, then go for it.

Ed

*******

I see Ed's point...  I hope that we don't need to change the rules to encourage mid-air avoidance... and we can just try to be reasonable about when a pilot declairs he's avoiding a mid-air.

Avoiding a mid-air is not something that should excessively disrupt the flight, or cause a scoring problem if we are reasonable.  But its very hard to codify "reasonable"....

******

I wonder what the rules would say if a judge instructed the pilot to hold level then insert a maneuver to get back in position  for mid-air avoidance....  Can the judge do that?  Can a judge say "TURN LEFT NOW!"? (LIke an Air traffic controller could to a full scale aicraft...)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jeff Hill 
To: NSRCA Mailing List 
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 12:11 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance

All -

Below is the rule from the AMA 2005 Competition Rulebook. IMHO it requires you to interrupt the maneuver and not fly any subsequent maneuvers--otherwise they are scored. In this case it appears the CD would have to make a ruling. In actual practice the CD would probably rely on the judges' opinions for guidance. This would most likely mean that you would have to bail and land and wait for the CD to rule. If you bailed and your request was denied then you cannot complete the flight; whereas if you ruin one maneuver and complete the flight the rest of the flight is scored but you lose your right to appeal. 

In 2007 a new rule, 6.8, might also be used as grounds for a reflight.  

Both rules are printed below. 

Jeff Hill

10.2. Each competitor is entitled to one (1)
attempt for each official flight. An attempt may be
repeated at the judges’ discretion only if, for some
unforeseen reason, the model fails to make a start
(i.e., safety delay due to other aircraft traffic, etc.).
Similarly, an attempt may be repeated at the discretion
of the Contest Director if it has been interrupted
due to a circumstance beyond the control of the competitor,
but only the maneuver affected and the
unscored maneuvers that follow will be scored. The
Contest Director shall have sole discretionary authority
to grant a single repeat attempt, if, in his/her opinion,
the competitor has encountered radio interference
during the course of an official attempt.
• 10.3. In the case of a collision during a
Pattern flight, the contestants must immediately
recover their aircraft. They may resume their flights
with the same aircraft if the aircraft are judged to be
airworthy or with a backup or repaired aircraft. They
will begin with the maneuver that was in progress or
with the next scheduled maneuver if the collision
occurred between maneuvers. The previously
defined starting times will apply for a resumed flight
and the contestant will be allowed no more than two
(2) passes in front of the judges for the purpose of
trimming the plane. Scores of the previous maneuvers
will be added to the scores of subsequent
maneuvers in the resumed flight. The flight must be
completed by the end of the round being flown, or
within a time frame designated by the CD.

6.8 The contestant may ask the CD for a flight delay or reflight due to unsafe conditions; if the judges concur the delay or reflight must be granted.  However, the contestant’s won aircraft cannot be the cause of the unsafe condition.  A contestant’s own aircraft can only have an equipment malfunction.  A flight delay or reflight shall not be granted for equipment malfunctions at 4A and 5A contests.  The CD may make exceptions at other contests.

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061005/c75c48c3/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Avoidance
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:36:55 +0000
Size: 699
Url: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061005/c75c48c3/attachment.mht 