[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
Dr. Mike Harrison
drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
Thu Sep 27 04:36:43 AKDT 2007
How could I forget? We had that discussion before it happened.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Wickizer" <mwickizer at msn.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:31 PM
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" <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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