[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

Mark Atwood atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
Tue Oct 2 08:39:44 AKDT 2007


Nope, your math is right.  We usually put the cut off at about 17 fliers.
Less we fly one line, more we fly 2. But that’s how just about every place
is doing it.  

And I know there are plenty of contests with fewer people...but that’s not
where the midairs are occurring I don’t think.  If they are, then clearly
they should only be flying one at a time.  But it’s the 30 contestant
contests...or 40 (granted there are fewer of those) and even the 25 person
contest that we need to address, and one flight line just doesn’t cut it.
Granted...if you only have one line with 25 people, and you only fly 3
flights in 2days...you’re likely to have less than 25 the next year...so
problem solved :)

The reality is that midair collisions are part of flying RC models, just
like battery failure, structural failure, radio failure and brain failure.
We try our best to mitigate the risk of each, but we can’t eliminate any of
them unless we simply choose not to fly.

Apparently most of those in this discussion always practice alone.  I for
one have a higher risk of mid airs at my practice field (usually at least 2
other airplanes in the air and sometimes 3 or 4) than I do at a contest.
Unfortunately some club members do it intentionally just so the “pattern
guy” doesn’t get the air to himself.  That’s a different matter all
together.

Anyhow, I like the idea of skewed flight lines...reduces the risk in my
mind, but that remains to be proven.


On 10/2/07 11:29 AM, "vicenterc at comcast.net" <vicenterc at comcast.net> wrote:

> Assuming 10 minutes per flight, it takes:
>  
> 2 hrs 30 minutes if there are 15 pilots registered
> 3 hrs 20 minutes if there are 20 pilots registered
>  
> If we start at 9 am on both days we could fly:
>  
> 4 rounds for the 15 pilots contest
> 3 rounds for the 20 pilots contest
>  
> On Sunday the 15 pilots contest could easily fly 2 rounds.  Difficult to do 2
> rounds for the 20 pilots contests unless all agree to finish around 3-4 PM.  .
> Clearly more than 20 pilots there is not choice but fly 2 lines.
>  
> Of course, we will need to fly with sun spots at least 2-3 hrs each day.  The
> repositioning allowance should be used to avoid the direct sun.
>  
> Am I right in my numbers?
>  
> --
> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>  
>> -------------- Original message --------------
>> From: vicenterc at comcast.net
>> I agree with Chris comments.  Last weekend we flew together at Ft. Scott,
>> Kansas.  I flew first on day 1 and 2 since I was judging the other line.
>> Therefore, I flew alone those two rounds.  Based on judges feedback those
>> were my best flights.  Of course, after my mid-air at the Nats this year, I
>> still looking too much the other plane and I loose concentration on my fly.
>> I also flew three weeks ago in the IMAC contest in Wichita.  We were only 10
>> pilots and we used the sun spot.  It worked very well for me.  Now, I wonder
>> if the sun spots and starting early both days is a good solution in local
>> contests with about 15-20 pilots.
>>  
>> --
>> Vicente "Vince" Bortone
>>  
>>> -------------- Original message --------------
>>> From: "White, Chris" <chris at ssd.fsi.com>
>>> Brian Young also had a midair at N Dallas in 2003∑
>>>  
>>> Hmmm∑. Cost vs Value of running 2 flight lines?  How much does time saving
>>> cost∑?  We‚d get to see a lot more flying if only one were ran with maybe 2
>>> ready boxes and a line chief so flights could rapidly commence.  Start the
>>> contest at 9:00 am and use a good sunspot.  Get the FAI guys flying first,
>>> Masters next etc.  The safety factor would increase because there would be
>>> no carryouts during flying in session.  The pilots would know when they were
>>> going to fly way in advance with plenty of time to mentally prepare.  There
>>> would be no fear in flight of midairs∑.only intense concentration on
>>> maneuveringJ& n bsp; Would a person fly 4 rounds if they knew they had
>>> to????   Contests would be a lot more laid back wouldn‚t they?
>>>  
>>> Is the question of pattern quality, or just how many competition flights we
>>> can get in.  Would we be better pilots with better performance if we focused
>>> more on making each flight count????
>>>  
>>> Chris White
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Lance Van
>>> Nostrand
>>> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:25 PM
>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 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 didn‚t hit the other airplane I obviously
didn‚t 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 don‚t 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_/ancho
r/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 of! f of th eir 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/20071002/4e52a575/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list