[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

Mark Atwood atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Tue Oct 2 04:53:57 AKDT 2007


Why couldn¹t ANY field handle a 10deg can¹t outward?  By definition that
puts the two Box lines at 25deg from the flightline instead of 30 deg.  We
could probably go 20deg without ever crossing the flight line for that
matter.  I realize that we¹re not always in the box, but TO and Landings
wouldn¹t be ³skewed² to begin with, so as long as theres room to line up for
entering the box, there¹s no issue.




On 10/1/07 10:25 PM, "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at tx.rr.com> wrote:

> Most fields, including Crowley, may not handle a 10 degree cant outwards, but
> an inward can't would fit.  Would this look too weird?  At 150m there is no
> danger in crossing the flight line, but still....
> --Lance
>  
>>  
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>  
>> From:  Dr.  Mike Harrison <mailto:drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
>>  
>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>  
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:27  PM
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air  discussion
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Keith,
>>  
>> I think the 10 degree offset has merit.  I  believe most fields can
>> accommodate that.  Make that 10'('-short for  degree) for each pilot from
>> runway, effecting a net 20' change.  The  centerline would be offset 10' each
>> also.  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Also, another help is to separate the lines  farther so that center manuevers
>> do not overlap. 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> It is easy enough for the CD at some contest  somewhere to try.  I would
>> encourage it.  I don't know of any  contests we(you and I) have been to that
>> this could not be implimented.   I can think of 4 midairs that would have
>> been avoided if this system were in  place.  You-2 midairs, Don Ramsey -1,
>> Glen Watson-1.  That is a loss  in the last 3 years of 7 airplanes- about
>> $14,000.  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> I am all for this concept.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Lets try it a t Crowley.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Mike
>>  
>> ps as far as previous comments that midairs are  rare and a necessity of the
>> sport, I disagree.  They are all too common,  they effect quality of flying,
>> they are a stupid loss, and there has to be a  reasonable way to avoid it.
>>  
>>>  
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>  
>>> From:  Keith  Black <mailto:tkeithblack at gmail.com>
>>>  
>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>  
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007  1:23 PM
>>>  
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air  discussion
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> The problem is that one avoidance caller can't  do a good job and would
>>> sound the alarm too often due to the depth  perception issue. A second
>>> caller (spotter) at the corner of the box would  reduce alerts to a minimum
>>> and would probably allow the spotters to  anticipate collisions much sooner.
>>> I think this is at least worth  experimenting with.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> As to the offset paths, adequite offset paths  are not possible at most
>>> fields due to fly-over issues and we're already  flying off by 10 degrees as
>>> we go in and out constantly.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> As to agreeing who flies close and who flies  near, I've tried this at
>>> practice an it's amazing how often two pilots still  drift to common ground.
>>> Plus, this often would not be agreeable to both  pilots.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Keith 
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>  
>>>> From:  vicenterc at comcast.net
>>>>  
>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  ; NSRCA
>>>> Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>  
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007  6:52 AM
>>>>  
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Mid-Air discussion
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> Probably the avoidance callers between both lines makes  sense.  He could
>>>> be consider a third judge.  If he sound  the horn means that both pilots
>>>> has the right to bail out and they can  resume the fly.  It has to be
>>>> organized.  The pilots flying in  line A will be instructed to go down and
>>>> cut the engine.  The pilots  in line B will be instructed to go up.  Of
>>>> course if they are rolling  they will need to stop rolling.  We need to
>>>> think what needs to be  done when we are flying vertical.  It could be one
>>>> bail to the  right and the other bail to the left or just both cut engines.
>>>> The  avoidance judges will be the pilots that just finish their rounds.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> I don't think that the pilot's caller can pay attention to both  planes.
>>>> He is busy trying to help the pilot and reading the next  manuever.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Regards,
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> --
>>>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>> --------------  Original message --------------
>>>>> From: "Dave Michael"  <davidmichael1 at comcast.net>
>>>>>       
>>>>> No- if it's obvious that you were in no  danger of a mid-air then you get
>>>>> a zero.
>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From:  J  N Hiller <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26,  2007 6:17 AM
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]  Mid-Air discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,  now I understand. If I didn¹t hit the other airplane I obviously
>>>>>> didn¹t need to bail out and would receive a  zero.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Jim  Hiller
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> -----Original  Message-----
>>>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> Sent:  Tuesday, September 25, 2007 7:39 PM
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing  List
>>>>>> Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> No- you  can't bail in this situation.  It would be obvious to the judges
>>>>>> and you'd receive a 0 on the manuever- and the next as well if you  were
>>>>>> to exit in the wrong direction or orientation for the next  manuever.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----  Original Message -----
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: J N  Hiller <mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday,  September 25, 2007 9:39 PM
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> If  I am in the process of hosing a maneuver can I bail out claming
>>>>>> mid-air avoidance and re-fly it?
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I  have only had one mid-air in pattern competition and that was
>>>>>> pre-turnaround, on a turnaround over a quarter mile out. I had a close
>>>>>> one this year I saw the other airplane go by and heard the gasps from
>>>>>> behind without flinching. I flew in a Scale Masters finals competition
>>>>>> once in LasVegas with five flight lines. I have gotten so I don¹t pay
>>>>>> any attention to other airplanes when I am  flying.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I  guess I would flinch plenty, maybe even crash if we were using that
>>>>>> 140 DB air horn to warn of potential  midairs.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Jim  Hiller
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original  Message-----
>>>>>> From:  nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Dave
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> Sent:  Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:45 PM
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing  List
>>>>>> Subject: Re:  [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I recall a  discussion on this subject earlier in the year.  My
>>>>>> background is  heavy IMAC but I am wanting to fly some more pattern soon.
>>>>>> Part  of the earlier discussion was about the issue that calling
>>>>>> avoidance  and breaking from the sequence if you think you might mid-air
>>>>>> is  allowed in IMAC but not in pattern.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> In 10+ years  of IMAC competition- maybe 40-50 contests - I can only
>>>>>> think of a few  mid-airs, maybe three or so.  Believe me when I say that
>>>>>> calling  avoidance and breaking the sequence is not something that you
>>>>>> want to  do in the heat of competition- it can really throw off a good
>>>>>> sequence.  Having said that, with fewer mid-airs  in  IMAC perhaps we can
>>>>>> conclude that allowing sequence breaks to avoid  potential mid-airs makes
>>>>>> sense for pattern too.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Dave  Michael
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----  Original Message -----
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Keith  Black <mailto:tkeithblack at gmail.com>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday,  September 25, 2007 5:47 PM
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Subject:  [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Following my  mid-air at the N. Dallas contest this weekend there's been
>>>>>> an RCU  thread started on the subject. From this discussion an
>>>>>> interesting  idea has evolved. For those who would like to read the
>>>>>> thread here's  the link:
>>>>>> http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_6409493/anchors_6413018/mpage_1/key_/an
>>>>>> chor/tm.htm#6413018
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> If you'd  just like to hear the idea I'll paste my RCU posting  below:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> This is my  third mid-air in four seasons. My first may have been
>>>>>> avoided, but the  last two were a complete shock to both me and my
>>>>>> caller. In fact, in  mid-air #2 my caller said "you're good" (meaning we
>>>>>> were not going to  hit). The other pilot's caller walked up to me and
>>>>>> apologized saying  that he told the other pilot that he was in the clear.
>>>>>> Therefore, I  don't know how effective a third "spotter" sitting between
>>>>>> the lines  could be.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> That being  said, two recent events have given me an idea of how we might
>>>>>> be able  to greatly improve this problem. The first light bulb was
>>>>>> Vicente's  suggestion of the spotter that warns the pilots. The second
>>>>>> event was  my walk out to pick up the fragments of my beloved Brio. As I
>>>>>> was  walking back I stood for a bit to observe the planes looking down
>>>>>> the  flight path. It was amazing how clearly you can see each plane as it
>>>>>> moves in and out from the flight line.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> So here's  the idea: What if we sat a spotter at the corner of the box to
>>>>>> watch  plane separation in the distance out dimension and then had the
>>>>>> other  spotter sitting between the judges (or even back under the cover)
>>>>>> watching in the right to left dimension. These two spotters could use
>>>>>> radios with headsets and continually talk to each other. There are  many
>>>>>> times that planes appear to be close to a mid-air from the flight  line
>>>>>> viewpoint, however, the number of times that both spotters would  be
>>>>>> alarmed should be! fairly minimal. When this occurs the spotter  could
>>>>>> sound an alarm (this deserves discussion as to the details) and  each
>>>>>> pilot could peel off of their course. If one pilot froze the  collision
>>>>>> may still be avoided by just one pilot taking action. Sure,  this could
>>>>>> cause a mid-air, but viewing from two dimensions should  help in alerting
>>>>>> only when an impact is probable.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Some have  stated that they've seen very few mid-airs, but my experience
>>>>>> in D6  and NATS is that at least 70% (if not more) of the contests I've
>>>>>> attended have had mid-airs. I'm not going to run away crying and quit
>>>>>> the hobby due to this mid-air, but reducing such losses would be a
>>>>>> benefit to us all!
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Keith  Black
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion  mailing  list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20071002/4ba2d6d4/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list