[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
Bob Harden
rharden1 at cox.net
Thu Sep 27 10:58:23 AKDT 2007
A shorter sequence sounds good to me too Jerry.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Voth" <jjvoth at mtelco.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
> Another option that I don't recall reading is flying shorter patterns, say
> eleven maneuvers instead of twenty one (Master's class) when flying one
> line
> with a lot of contestants.
>
> Jerry
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Earl Haury" <ejhaury at comcast.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>
>
>> I'm not so sure that the 10 deg offset is an answer to minimizing the
>> risk
>> of mid-airs in that it ensures the flight paths cross each pass, possibly
>> more during center maneuvers. While some "timing" can reduce the same "on
>> center" conflict - different maneuver times make this difficult. My
>> observation of mid-airs at local meets suggests that they usually occur
>> when
>> one airplane doesn't hold a consistent path, constantly moving in and
>> out,
>> which result in numerous path crossings until a collision occurs. At the
>> Nats, where pilots of relatively equal skills are flying parallel at the
>> nearly the same distance, the situation changes to where they are often
>> in
>> close proximity for the entire flight and yet there seem to be fewer
>> mid-airs / number of flights. Larger meets of the past often flew three
>> planes at the same time, while there were mid-airs, I don't recall them
>> being more than we now see.
>>
>> "Trying" the offset idea may have merit, but if the continuous crossings
>> result in more mid-airs it will be an expensive experiment. I'd prefer to
>> let someone else develop this proof.
>>
>> The only sure way to avoid any mid-airs is to fly one airplane at a time.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dr. Mike Harrison" <drmikedds at sbcglobal.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 7:35 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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