[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

[rcmaster199 at aol.com]

Flight line separation is always a good idea. You guys in the Soutwest (probably Southeast also and possibly most everywhere except for Northeast), have large enough fields where this is viable. I haven't been to many fields here in the Northeast but from what I hear these are generally pretty tight


?


I personally have never been involved in a mid-air in some 30 years of competition but I have witnessed several right in front of me.....sometimes even when I judged. That's a scary and helpless feeling not to mention expensive as Mike points out. 


?


Maybe we should look at a different way to fly the patterns in those places that can do it..... rather than 2 lines flying simultaneously in parallel paths in the same air space, use?the single?runway available but slant the lines 15-20 degrees, forming a very wide?A. This effectively enlarges the air space by quite a bit and will not work for?some sites with overflight restrictions. But it will for many. CD's would?be responsible for?changes to their box lines but hey, box lines are needed anyway so what's the difference if the 2 boxes are adjacent or at an angle to one another?


?


Doesn't eliminate the problem of course.....but the potential amount of contact time is greatly reduced


?


MattK










-----Original Message-----

From: Dr. Mike Harrison 

To: NSRCA Mailing List 

Sent: Wed, Sep 26 4:29 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?



?


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070926/40f7d639/attachment.html