[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