Joe Nall Incident
06-11-2013, 04:32 AM
#151
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: Charlie P.
They used to call the offender the ''burdened vessel''.
They used to call the offender the ''burdened vessel''.
Under maritime rules, the "burdened" vessel is the vessel under the "Rules of The Road" that must yield the right-of-way and maneuver so as to avoid collision, i.e. the "burden" is on that vessel/captain to avoid collision.
The other vessel is the "privileged" vessel, or "stand-on" vessel, has the right-of-way, and should maintain course/speed.
"Burdened" has nothing to do with fault per se.
Sluggo
06-11-2013, 05:11 AM
#152
RE: Joe Nall Incident
Drunk. Are you serious?
I lost a very nice Ziroli B-25 to a mid air several years ago at a Scale Masters event, the other plane survived. The other pilot and i are still friends. It is one of the fallacies of this hobby, it happens, neither pilot in most cases is to blame.
I lost a very nice Ziroli B-25 to a mid air several years ago at a Scale Masters event, the other plane survived. The other pilot and i are still friends. It is one of the fallacies of this hobby, it happens, neither pilot in most cases is to blame.
06-11-2013, 05:14 AM
#153
RE: Joe Nall Incident
(iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.
RULE 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel
(a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/1...m_16672_2d.pdf
Though, in the avaition case, perhaps we should be revieweing the Rules of Heavier Than Air Navigation.
06-11-2013, 07:07 AM
#154
RE: Joe Nall Incident
Though, in the aviation case, perhaps we should be reviewing the Rules of Heavier Than Air Navigation.
Federal Aviation Regulations
Home > Aviation Regulations > Parts Index > Part 91 > Sec. 91.113 - Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
Sec. 91.113 — Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories—
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]
06-11-2013, 07:15 AM
#155
RE: Joe Nall Incident
I've had mid air's before in pylon racing and just sport flying. No hard feelings, tt's hard to judge distance and 100+ yards, so it's marked up as **** happens, and everyone talks about what a specticular crash it was.
If you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it dude.
You need a different hobby where you can play with yourself.
If you can't afford to lose it, don't fly it dude.
You need a different hobby where you can play with yourself.
06-11-2013, 07:35 AM
#156
RE: Joe Nall Incident
My personal approach to the subject of mid-airs, and models in general, is that if you can't afford to loose, you shouldn't play. It's the gamblers creed. If you can't afford the loss, don't sit down at the table. If you can't afford the loss of a model, either financially of emotionally, you're playing the wrong game. Don't push up the throttle.
Without functional ATC (air traffic control) taking responsibility for traffic separation, we are operating under the big-sky-little-airplane set of rules. VFR, see and avoid, due regard, and MARSA all come to mind. All these infer a set of guidelines and rules that help reduce the likelihood of collisions but, as a generality, do not provide positive traffic separation as does IFR rules. With this in mind, every time I take off I assume it is MY responsibility, and no one else's, to avoid collisions and that failing to do so might cost me my toy. While general club rules and a good spotter are aids that reduce the likelihood of midair collisions, they are just that - aids, and not guarantees. These aids help me avoid the other modeler that might not be aware of an impending collision but in the end, it is me that choose to take off and it is me that is responsible for seeing that aircraft separation doesn't reduce to zero.
Cheers,
Bill
Without functional ATC (air traffic control) taking responsibility for traffic separation, we are operating under the big-sky-little-airplane set of rules. VFR, see and avoid, due regard, and MARSA all come to mind. All these infer a set of guidelines and rules that help reduce the likelihood of collisions but, as a generality, do not provide positive traffic separation as does IFR rules. With this in mind, every time I take off I assume it is MY responsibility, and no one else's, to avoid collisions and that failing to do so might cost me my toy. While general club rules and a good spotter are aids that reduce the likelihood of midair collisions, they are just that - aids, and not guarantees. These aids help me avoid the other modeler that might not be aware of an impending collision but in the end, it is me that choose to take off and it is me that is responsible for seeing that aircraft separation doesn't reduce to zero.
Cheers,
Bill
06-11-2013, 08:05 AM
#159
RE: Joe Nall Incident
This is what U guys ran into; It was Cloaked. so shake hands, Kiss and make up. PLZ
The D7-class battlecruiser was designed by Matt Jefferies to mimic the appearance of a manta ray. The vessel's basic configuration was used for all subsequent Klingon ships.
06-11-2013, 10:15 AM
#162
Junior Member
My Feedback: (27)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Roebuck , SC
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Joe Nall Incident
Years ago a crazy buddy and me tryed to do a midair with junky planes and it never happened even after many,many tries. It has to be an accident if it happens. We did however have a midair during a combat run.
06-11-2013, 10:42 AM
#163
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: dphillips3
Blaming the spotter is rediculous! How many times have you been flying and thought you were close to something and miss it by a mile?
DP#3
Blaming the spotter is rediculous! How many times have you been flying and thought you were close to something and miss it by a mile?
DP#3
06-11-2013, 11:19 AM
#164
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: rolliedog12
The pilot of the D-7 Battlecruiser is responsible, its against AMA to be flying "Cloaked"![X(]Makes it too hard for the other spotters.
The pilot of the D-7 Battlecruiser is responsible, its against AMA to be flying "Cloaked"![X(]Makes it too hard for the other spotters.
Klingon starships
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_starshipsWhile Klingon vessels in the television series set after The Original Series possess cloaking devices, the Klingon D7-class does not at first. This is changed after "The Enterprise Incident", several D7-class battlecruisers are shown under Romulan control as the result of a technology exchange between the Romulans and the Klingons; these vessels do utilize a cloaking device.
I hope this clears the Klingons of causing the Mid-Air at Joe Nall and rightfully places the blame on those Dastardly Romulans. Or was it just a quirk of fate that 2 Fine Examples of WWII American Fighter Planes met their End at the glorious Joe Nall Event of 2013 .... here's hoping that History and the R/C Gods will look on this incident/accident as just that, an Accident.
Now this Thread makes almost as much scence as some of my posts.
But Suck it up, Quit Whinning, and Thank God no one died in the reckage or because of it.
06-12-2013, 04:18 AM
#166
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: LafayetteIN
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: HoundDog
It's not the responsibility of the spotter to watch your plane it his/her responsibility to tell the pilot when a runway is in use or others are taking off or landing. What other aircraft are doing in the air. A spotter is not responsible for his pilots plane, the pilot in command is, Period.
You can believe it or not but a person going against the pattern is less likely to have a mid air because he is only near other aircraft for a fraction of a second, where when traveling the same way he is in constant danger of colliding because of the amount of time spent near each other. R/C combat proves my point. Did you ever intentionally try to Mid-Air 2 Planes almost impossible in head on fashion.
But on the other hand 'Head On Mid-Airs' are much more spectacular.
It's not the responsibility of the spotter to watch your plane it his/her responsibility to tell the pilot when a runway is in use or others are taking off or landing. What other aircraft are doing in the air. A spotter is not responsible for his pilots plane, the pilot in command is, Period.
You can believe it or not but a person going against the pattern is less likely to have a mid air because he is only near other aircraft for a fraction of a second, where when traveling the same way he is in constant danger of colliding because of the amount of time spent near each other. R/C combat proves my point. Did you ever intentionally try to Mid-Air 2 Planes almost impossible in head on fashion.
But on the other hand 'Head On Mid-Airs' are much more spectacular.
06-12-2013, 05:35 AM
#167
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Joe Nall Incident
Well if you can't afford the loss, buy flight insurance on it... Loyds of London will insure anything... at a price. If you can't afford the insurance then don't fly. I have a new truck $46,000 it's insured, $25,000 Harley it's insured, $3,000 New Custom Cargo Trailer No Insurance. I can absorb the loss on the trailer but not the first two...
06-12-2013, 06:52 AM
#168
My Feedback: (13)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Columbus, OH,
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: BarracudaHockey
Again, not the case here.
Two planes, different sizes, different speeds, flying the pattern on a busy flight line. Pilot B does a roll on the downwind side and hits Pilot A.
Bad luck.
Again, not the case here.
Two planes, different sizes, different speeds, flying the pattern on a busy flight line. Pilot B does a roll on the downwind side and hits Pilot A.
Bad luck.
Kitman
RCNTSB
06-12-2013, 12:03 PM
#169
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: Prop_Washer2
Well if you can't afford the loss, buy flight insurance on it... Loyds of London will insure anything... at a price. If you can't afford the insurance then don't fly. I have a new truck $46,000 it's insured, $25,000 Harley it's insured, $3,000 New Custom Cargo Trailer No Insurance. I can absorb the loss on the trailer but not the first two...
Well if you can't afford the loss, buy flight insurance on it... Loyds of London will insure anything... at a price. If you can't afford the insurance then don't fly. I have a new truck $46,000 it's insured, $25,000 Harley it's insured, $3,000 New Custom Cargo Trailer No Insurance. I can absorb the loss on the trailer but not the first two...
U should make sure your Trailer is covered for theft of trailer and contents by at least your home owners.
06-12-2013, 12:39 PM
#170
My Feedback: (26)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Joe Nall Incident
Oh well i sold my trailer this morning to my neighbor who is moving from El Paso TX. to Texarkana TX. over 800 miles... I haven't used it since I bought it new in 2010. PITA to get in and out of my (limited) RV Parking area however I do hear what you are saying. Liability of course on all vehicles, but on a $3000 RC who's street value is probably $1500.00 turn key, Naw. Like one poster pointed out, take two birds that size and jest try to collide them in the air. Depth perception, fast moving directional isues, etc... it's virtually impossible to get two of them lined up together. Accidents i.e. "Crap" happens, if you cannot afford to eat the costs, leave it in the car. If someone intentionaly shoots you down i.e. "ShotGun" or other firearm device, hey go after him and take it out of his azz, or take him to court, depends on what part of Texas your from...
06-13-2013, 03:56 AM
#171
RE: Joe Nall Incident
Really it is up to the individual I would think. If the other pilot is a stand up guy, he knows what happened, If it was out of the blue then it is a no fault accident. I wont fly my birds if there are pilots of question flying. I am my number one spotter and I take all the action I can to protect my plane, and that includes not flying when there is a hi risk. Big events can be hi risk. I have seen where a pilot crashed into another plane and the pilot that caused the crash reimbursed the other pilot, he maned up and knew he was at fault (took off and went strait up threw the bottom of a plane flying the pattern) so he realized his mistake. Only the two pilots here know what happened and if one did something wrong they know it and if not then chock it up to hi risk flying. Isn’t it that simple?
TB
06-13-2013, 04:42 AM
#172
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: TonyBuilder
Really it is up to the individual I would think. If the other pilot is a stand up guy, he knows what happened, If it was out of the blue then it is a no fault accident. I wont fly my birds if there are pilots of question flying. I am my number one spotter and I take all the action I can to protect my plane, and that includes not flying when there is a hi risk. Big events can be hi risk. I have seen where a pilot crashed into another plane and the pilot that caused the crash reimbursed the other pilot, he maned up and knew he was at fault (took off and went strait up threw the bottom of a plane flying the pattern) so he realized his mistake. Only the two pilots here know what happened and if one did something wrong they know it and if not then chock it up to hi risk flying. Isn’t it that simple?
TB
PERFECT !!!!!
06-13-2013, 06:57 AM
#173
RE: Joe Nall Incident
ORIGINAL: capt1597
PERFECT !!!!!
ORIGINAL: TonyBuilder
Really it is up to the individual I would think. If the other pilot is a stand up guy, he knows what happened, If it was out of the blue then it is a no fault accident. I wont fly my birds if there are pilots of question flying. I am my number one spotter and I take all the action I can to protect my plane, and that includes not flying when there is a hi risk. Big events can be hi risk. I have seen where a pilot crashed into another plane and the pilot that caused the crash reimbursed the other pilot, he maned up and knew he was at fault (took off and went strait up threw the bottom of a plane flying the pattern) so he realized his mistake. Only the two pilots here know what happened and if one did something wrong they know it and if not then chock it up to hi risk flying. Isn’t it that simple?
TB
PERFECT !!!!!
It would talk a real man to admit he was NEGLECT and Pull 3 grand out of his pocket especially after loosing his mufti thousand War Bird. Talk it Cheep and Money talks. Just saying. Now what if the Neglent "FUTABA" pilot didn't own the F4U? Just ask'en.
06-13-2013, 12:25 PM
#174
RE: Joe Nall Incident
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
I dont see it being "Futaba"s fault or liability. "Good prictice" is to maintain situational awareness but out of aircraft (on ground) is more difficult. I have never even come close to a mid air by following the above and communicating intentions.
Obviously there are strong feelings to both sides... No opinion here as I wasnt there to witness.
I dont see it being "Futaba"s fault or liability. "Good prictice" is to maintain situational awareness but out of aircraft (on ground) is more difficult. I have never even come close to a mid air by following the above and communicating intentions.
Obviously there are strong feelings to both sides... No opinion here as I wasnt there to witness.