<div>IMHO, this is sort of like the old saying that a stopped clock has the exact time at least twice a day. :-)</div> <div> </div> <div>If the planes are flown at a 10 degree (or 20 or whatever) offset, then their paths DO cross on every pass. If they are flown parallel, there is the possibility that their paths NEVER cross, if flown at slightly different distances. Therefore, one might conclude that if the pilots are proactive about collision avoidance, flying parallel is safer. If they fly without any measure of avoidance in mind, flying offset might be safer. I suspect most of the competitors don't fly with avoidance in mind.</div> <div> </div> <div>As for the existing situation (flying parallel) where have most of the midairs occurred? Center, turnarounds, other? Of the midairs that I can remember, most of them occurred with at least one plane in a turnaround manuever.</div> <div> </div> <div>When flying an offset, the turnarounds would be
shifted away from each other somewhat. Also, with an offset, a pilot would only have to think about collision avoidance in certain parts of the sky (where the flight paths cross) instead of the whole box if flying 0 offset.<BR><BR>I think it would be interesting to try this, but for it to reveal any useful data it would have to be done over a long period of time and statistics collected. Who wants to be a statistic??? :-)</div> <div> </div> <div>Bob R.</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-----Original Message-----<BR>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of george w.<BR>kennie<BR>Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 10:27 PM<BR>To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air discussion<BR><BR>While it may be true that the flight paths cross on every pass, the cross
<BR>point is of a momentary nature, whereas without the 10 degree offset the <BR>time spent in the same flight plane is magnified by a significant factor <BR>greatly increasing/multiplying contact opportunities. Where the offset <BR>capability exists it presents the possibility of reduced incidents. While I <BR>acknowledge that this is my "opinion" I am more than willing to listen to <BR>persuasive arguements to the contrary. Maybe there's something I'm not <BR>seeing here.<BR>G.<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>