[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
Del K. Rykert
drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Tue Oct 2 11:53:26 AKDT 2007
For your consideration. Oakville used to have two flight lines for years with an offset and I don't ever recall a midair in all the years I competed their. Maybe others on the list can offer their recollection. I don't believe (CD) Jim Eichenberg has ever monitored the list.
Del
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Mike Harrison
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
That would put the center manuever for both airplanes in the "triangle of death" which, I believe would be worse than parallel flight. I believe that Crowley can handle the 10 degree or a a slightly lesser degree.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Van Nostrand
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:25 PM
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
To: NSRCA Mailing List
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
To: NSRCA Mailing List
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 ; NSRCA Mailing List
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
To: NSRCA Mailing List
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
To: NSRCA Mailing List
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
To: NSRCA Mailing List
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_/anchor/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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/d8506495/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list