<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16527" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I did a very quick drawing with pilot stations 75' apart
(probably the max at local meets - most closer) and each centerline skewed
10 deg, then added flight paths at 150 & 175m. This creates a "diamond of
death" between the center poles and each flight path that represents roughly 10%
of the flight area between the paths. The centers are roughly 350' apart at
the 175m poles. (However, the "point" of the diamond is only half that.) Flight
data show that a typical loop diameter is on the order of 300' (150' radius), so
many center maneuvers would occupy the diamond for some period of
time.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Interestingly, this would work at many fields as the 175m
path only extends to around 250m out and the 150m comes in to around 50m. More
area in the footprint - but not more than generally available.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Certainly, the chance for turnaround mid-airs is
eliminated and, generally, only half of a center maneuver would be exposed to
the diamond. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I'm all for reducing the risk of mid-airs, but also don't
wish to rush into something that increases that risk. Parallel paths don't cross
- hard for both pilots to maintain that orientation (especially in a
cross-wind). Crossing flight paths kinda reminds me of the old county fair
figure 8 jalopy races.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Earl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=bob@toprudder.com href="mailto:bob@toprudder.com">Bob Richards</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, September 28, 2007 7:51
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Mid-Air
discussion</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>