[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

Tue Oct 2 09:29:44 AKDT 2007

Angling more than 10 degrees could result in more deadline violations.
Referring to my CAD drawing a 10-degree exit error from the far turnaround
if not corrected would come to within about 15m, if the same flight path
length is maintained as that at 150m. Most of us will fly a flight path that
uses the whole box and it is difficult to shorten it and some of us may not
correct the off-angle line until it is too late. Ask my how I know this.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:54 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

Why couldn’t ANY field handle a 10deg can’t 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 we’re not always in the box, but TO and Landings
wouldn’t be “skewed” to begin with, so as long as theres room to line up for
entering the box, there’s 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>
<mailto:drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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>
<mailto:tkeithblack at gmail.com>

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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>
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>   ; NSRCA Mailing List
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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>
<mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5D> 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>
<mailto:jnhiller at earthlink.net>

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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]
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org%5D> 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>
<mailto:tkeithblack at gmail.com>

To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
<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 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/20071002/7c5947ed/attachment-0001.html 