[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
Michael Wickizer
mwickizer at msn.com
Wed Sep 26 15:31:29 AKDT 2007
You can add a Beryll and an Insight from this year to that list. We seem to
have more than our share of mid-airs in D6.
>From: "Dr. Mike Harrison" <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:27:00 -0500
>
>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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list