[NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

[Jay Marshall]

It looks like, from Jim Hiller's diagram, that it will not be necessary to
go behind the flight line. Currently the fields are marked with flags and
markings on the ground. This would be the same for this procedure. Once you
are facing the center marker it should be OK. We just have to try it.

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dennis
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:55 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

 

Well everyone is working on the logistics of and if this will work. They are
looking at the footprint of the flight paths crossing. One item everyone is
overlooking is the practicality of how this will work in regards to field
orientation. Most club fields are laid out straight. Most of us rely on this
orientation to keep square with the field and so do the judges. They use
this as an orientation as to the distance out. Then there are the classes
that fly turnarounds out of the box. How will they be able to do that and
never go behind the flight lines? I'm not saying this will not work. Just
saying that it probably will not work. 

 

Dennis Cone

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:37 AM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

 

Obviously, contestants will have to fly alternating lines ..

 

Jay Marshall 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Steven
Maxwell
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 2:26 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion

 

Mark I was just going to say that nobody had mentioned the sun yet with the
offset it would put the sun in play both in morning and evening, according
to field orientation.

 Steve Maxwell

Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:

I doubt there are many flying sites that could accommodate that, and it by
necessity puts the sun in one of the two boxes...




On 9/28/07 2:13 PM, "Bob Richards" <bob at toprudder.com> wrote:

In looking at it, why not offset each line 30'.  Total of 60' offset between
the two lines. This would put the box boundary on one side of each line at
the flight line. Would make the "diamond of death" much smaller in area.
  
 
  
Bob R.
  


Mark Atwood <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> wrote:
  

AWESOME...That's EXACTLY what I was looking for. I'm pleasantly
surprised...it does significantly reduce the overlapping footprint.

Another "benefit" of this offset is that there will be FAR fewer incidents
where the planes will APPEAR to be in danger. Because of that, we might be
able to react more aggressively regarding avoidence, since there will be a
LOT fewer disruptions with reduced close calls. I.e. It won't feel like the
boy that cried wolf so often.

Also, with airplanes coming together from two distinct angles, the pilot and
callers ability to see a collision course is MUCH higher as the perspective
will allow a more accurate evaluation of depth.

Interesting...I like it.

-M

 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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

 

  

  _____  

Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48249/*http:/search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_m
ail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz>  for grads at Yahoo! Search.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070928/1c43ee02/attachment-0001.html