[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

[Mark Atwood]

Curious...

Could someone out there with a cad program or something similar do a quick
drawing that show 2 flight lines, 30 meters apart, offset 10 deg, and
showing a "grey box" from 140 - 180 meters out for both flight lines?  I'm
betting they overlap far more than you think.

It appears at first glance that the offset greatly reduces the overlap foot
print, and it would if we truly flew at 150M all the time...but we don't.

Given that the total "footprint" of our flight box would still significantly
overlap even with the offset, I'm not sure the guaranteed criss cross would
be better than parallel lines that often never cross (as some pilots stay in
or out).  But I'm for trying it.

There's probably more benefit to the offset at a contest like the Nats where
you have a lot of very good FAI flyers and Masters flyers that are all good
at holding the 150M line.

Regarding the "One line at a time" idea.  I just can't see it.  We had 35
contestants this past weekend.  Rule of thumb is that each contestant takes
about 10 min per flight if you keep things moving aggressively.  No breaks,
rapid judge changes.  So at 6 flights per hour, a given contest has roughly
15 hours of flying time (9am - 6pm Sat, 9am - 3pm Sun) plus or minus maybe
3-4 hours if you have a field that lets you fly both early and late and
people want to hang around late on Sunday.

15 hours of flying is 90 flights.  With 35 people...we don't even finish 3
rounds without extending the day, and that's with perfect weather, no delays
no Freq conflicts, caller conflicts, lunch breaks, etc...stuff that slows
down a local event.

It's just not practical.  One flame out and your weekend is over, you might
as well turn around and go home.

Shortening the patterns would help, but only slightly.  A good part of the
flight time is getting pilots into and out of the air.  A better change
would be to eliminate TO and Landings completely (ala FAI) and have the next
plane in the air before the other lands.  Gets a little crazy though.


On 9/28/07 6:45 AM, "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:

> Right on!
> 
> Jay Marshall
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.
> kennie
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:27 PM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
> 
> While it may be true that the flight paths cross on every pass, the cross
> point is of a momentary nature, whereas without the 10 degree offset the
> time spent in the same flight plane is magnified by a significant factor
> greatly increasing/multiplying contact opportunities. Where the offset
> capability exists it presents the possibility of reduced incidents. While I
> acknowledge that this is my "opinion" I am more than willing to listen to
> persuasive arguements to the contrary. Maybe there's something I'm not
> seeing here.
> G.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- 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 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion
> 
> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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