[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
Dr. Mike Harrison
drmikedds at sbcglobal.net
Thu Sep 27 11:10:20 AKDT 2007
I agree with you Earl, but flying parallel is much worse than the 10 degree
concept. I agree with the single flight but that is considered heresy. I
think 10 degrees is better than nothing. Also, we can get the "Air Boss" to
reposition the flyers.
Mike
----- 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list