[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

Wed Sep 26 16:15:15 AKDT 2007

At the one club I fly at in Chicago there could be as many as a dozen 

pattern guys out at any time.  We will routinely fly the "corners" which 

is exactly as you guys are describing with 2 offset flight lines.  Works 

fine for us, but it really depends on the field.  Many places that I 

have been to simply won't accommodate this setup.  The idea of a mid-air 

judge  might  sound appealing until you are the one picked to watch 

things for hours in the hot sun.  And given the speed and distance away, 

a mid-air "warning" is just as likely to cause one as it is to prevent 

one. Can we really discern which is slightly higher as they approach?  

Also, can you imagine what the reaction will be from someone who is 

having a great flight and has to bail out and start over where he left 

off and probably is now shaken and lost his concentration?  When I call 

for someone, I will update the pilot on the other plane's position as 

far as who is inside or outside of the other but only if they are close 

to the same line.  I have lost 3-4 planes over the years to mid-airs but 

honestly can't see a practical way out of the way we do things now 

unless the field will accommodate offset lines, but even then it is very 

tough to fly a line not parallel to the runway.

Flying a single line will never work as most people don't see the value 

in driving 4-8 hrs and paying for 1-2 hotel rooms in order to get in 3-4 

flights in a weekend.

Chris

John Johnson wrote:

> I was the one who started the thread on RCU after seeing the midair at 

> Dallas. I agree with Mike H. about midairs being a tragic loss of time 

> and $$ that could be lessened by just trying out different ideas. 

> There's got to be a way of doing this. To the guys who say they have 

> never seen a midair, just wait, you're now cursed. District 6 has had 

> its fair share of them. Also, it seems every person who brings up a 

> good idea has it immediately shot down by the naysayers. Come one 

> guys, let's just try to look at this together and come up with a 

> solution that isn't too imposing. I liked the idea of the CD with a 

> whip out there running one line with one plane taking off while the 

> other is preparing for landing. BUT, as soon as that was brought up a 

> friend told me if you fly only one line, you'll only be able to fly 4 

> rounds and he won't waste his time going to a tournament. Another says 

> the degree offset won't work. I don't know about that since we've 

> never seen it in action. At least, let's give these ideas a try it at 

> a couple of contests and rule out the ones that don't work or are too 

> time consuming.

>

> I have a personal reason for this. I'm supposed to be getting my 

> Integral from Jason in the next couple of weeks and don't want to see 

> it taken out either.

>

> Thanks,

>

> John S. Johnson

> Lubbock, TX

>

>> From: mwickizer at msn.com

>> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

>> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:31:23 -0500

>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

>>

>> 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"

>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List

>>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List"

>>>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"

>>>

>>> 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

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more! 

>  

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> NSRCA-discussion mailing list

> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_________________________________________________________________
Explore the seven wonders of the world
http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=7+wonders+world&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070927/2276eb73/attachment.html 