Mid-Air at Markham Park
06-19-2007, 08:13 PM
#77
Senior Member
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Boynton Beach, FL
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
I don't fly Jets, but I do go to Markham to watch them fly. It is absolutely amazing how so many people who have never been to Markham can tell you just how it should be managed. If any of them were to show up to fly on some Sunday, one of two things would happen, they would sit under their canopy all day and P & M about they couldn't fly or they would jump into the fray. Markham is kind of like no other place around, maybe except Supulvda Basin in CA.
06-19-2007, 08:27 PM
#78
Banned
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, NJ
Posts: 3,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Still practicing for a major competition a week before with your competition plane?
No spotter to back you up (or check manuvers) and the one spotter present not seeing a conflict developing and advise or call "go-around"? Briefings?
Not allowing a guy who took off first and advised intentions of practicing for Nats to finish his routine?
Oh well............guess it does'nt matter much at this point other than to take note of what NOT to do on both sides of the fence...............lesson learned the hard way for those involved, apologies made to whoever pleases.............
Anyhow, seems as if J is back callin out daddie to people (even though father's day just passed). Guess there's about to be a lot more goin on there at Markham than a couple of guys ignoring basic curtosey and right of way rules...................
Maybe we should look at how its been scripted in blood the way Uncle Joe says.....................
Federal Aviation Regulation
Sec. 91.113
Sec. 91.113
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B--Flight Rules General
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.
Yes you are J................glad you've come to that realization.................
B
No spotter to back you up (or check manuvers) and the one spotter present not seeing a conflict developing and advise or call "go-around"? Briefings?
Not allowing a guy who took off first and advised intentions of practicing for Nats to finish his routine?
Oh well............guess it does'nt matter much at this point other than to take note of what NOT to do on both sides of the fence...............lesson learned the hard way for those involved, apologies made to whoever pleases.............
Anyhow, seems as if J is back callin out daddie to people (even though father's day just passed). Guess there's about to be a lot more goin on there at Markham than a couple of guys ignoring basic curtosey and right of way rules...................
Maybe we should look at how its been scripted in blood the way Uncle Joe says.....................
Federal Aviation Regulation
Sec. 91.113
Sec. 91.113
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart B--Flight Rules General
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.
ORIGINAL: Jetflyer 24
I'm done.......
I'm done.......
Yes you are J................glad you've come to that realization.................
B
06-19-2007, 08:32 PM
#79
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: boca raton,
FL
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Guys,
Please forgive as I cannot post from work so this foolishness regarding me "not" having a spotter has been carried on too long. These guys should remember there was a "tall" gentleman sitting with us in the pits and he too had been admiring the jets. He helped collect the wreckage. I watched him and stood by him as he flew his small bi-palne, and he helped hold the plane and such when I started and stood by me during my flight. He was standing by me and thankfully, had reminded me to shut down the motor after the T-bone. Again, the odds of a T-bone like this is nearly uncalculable. But they do happen. 10 minutes of courtesey would have been nice like that which was extended to the other two jet pilots.
I am attempting to scan and post a picture of the field from Google Earth with the wreckage locations and paraphenalia that was found. There was quite a bit of distance between the two crash sites, and the fire seemed to last until they got there.
In fact, I would be encouraged and hope that Glen or his caller did call out some kind of landing statement as that would indicate the desire to follow some sort of etiquette. There was probably 30 yards or more between the pilot stations so it is difficult to hear somone call anything out there. Also, there is a difference between calling an intention, and actually watching to ensure your 'audience' for the intention understood and acknowledged what your intention is/was/whatever. Two-way communication is key in these circumstances.
Note that my statements have not attacked jets. I fly with some great jet guys and will have one some day. I have tried to unemotionally describe the events that day and want those pilots who will fly at Markham in the future to understand that there is a "zero-tollerance" for courtesy and etiquette by some people there so be prepared, regardless of how few people are on the flight line, from Monday late afternoon through Sunday. That is the point.
The picture from Google earth and marking indicate my approximate locations of these objects. Key here is the jet flamed very close to the road, a stab 1/2 of mine ended up in the lake, and after impact my plane carried on for maybe 2 seconds until it lawndarted.
Jim W.
Please forgive as I cannot post from work so this foolishness regarding me "not" having a spotter has been carried on too long. These guys should remember there was a "tall" gentleman sitting with us in the pits and he too had been admiring the jets. He helped collect the wreckage. I watched him and stood by him as he flew his small bi-palne, and he helped hold the plane and such when I started and stood by me during my flight. He was standing by me and thankfully, had reminded me to shut down the motor after the T-bone. Again, the odds of a T-bone like this is nearly uncalculable. But they do happen. 10 minutes of courtesey would have been nice like that which was extended to the other two jet pilots.
I am attempting to scan and post a picture of the field from Google Earth with the wreckage locations and paraphenalia that was found. There was quite a bit of distance between the two crash sites, and the fire seemed to last until they got there.
In fact, I would be encouraged and hope that Glen or his caller did call out some kind of landing statement as that would indicate the desire to follow some sort of etiquette. There was probably 30 yards or more between the pilot stations so it is difficult to hear somone call anything out there. Also, there is a difference between calling an intention, and actually watching to ensure your 'audience' for the intention understood and acknowledged what your intention is/was/whatever. Two-way communication is key in these circumstances.
Note that my statements have not attacked jets. I fly with some great jet guys and will have one some day. I have tried to unemotionally describe the events that day and want those pilots who will fly at Markham in the future to understand that there is a "zero-tollerance" for courtesy and etiquette by some people there so be prepared, regardless of how few people are on the flight line, from Monday late afternoon through Sunday. That is the point.
The picture from Google earth and marking indicate my approximate locations of these objects. Key here is the jet flamed very close to the road, a stab 1/2 of mine ended up in the lake, and after impact my plane carried on for maybe 2 seconds until it lawndarted.
Jim W.
06-19-2007, 08:37 PM
#80
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 4,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: tommy s
ianober
Ask the two guys that lost two expensive airplanes if they think it's silly.
You guys have your minds made up and anything I say isn't going to change
it but it sems to me it's common sense that certain aircraft should not fly at
the same time in the same place....jets, helicopters, and airplanes. There is room
and time for everyone, why risk your aircraft ?
I guess I understand that when you get ready to fly your jet you just take off
no matter what else is in the sky.....Right ?
Well I hope you have a different outcome than these two. Best of luck, you'll
probably need it.
ianober
Ask the two guys that lost two expensive airplanes if they think it's silly.
You guys have your minds made up and anything I say isn't going to change
it but it sems to me it's common sense that certain aircraft should not fly at
the same time in the same place....jets, helicopters, and airplanes. There is room
and time for everyone, why risk your aircraft ?
I guess I understand that when you get ready to fly your jet you just take off
no matter what else is in the sky.....Right ?
Well I hope you have a different outcome than these two. Best of luck, you'll
probably need it.
If I want to fly somewhere that no one else is flying then i would drive out in the country somewhere and fly alone. I agree that having helicopters fly in the same space as fixed wing then that is a little dangerous. But Jets flying with IMAC I see absolutely no problem with. This incident would never had happen if the IMAC pilot had a spotter, BOTTOM LINE!!!
Cost of an airplane doesnt mean jack!!! If you are afraid of losing a $7000 airplane, then I suggest you get a cheaper hobby. I am sorry that they both lost their airplanes, but show me someone in this forum that has not lost an airplane.
06-19-2007, 08:52 PM
#82
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 4,462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: uncljoe
Gentlemen.......
It was a MID AIR ... an Accident, SH*T HAPPENS, hopefully we can learn something from this Mid Air .. The flight rules(FAA) that are used for full scale are written in Blood.......
FWIW A spotter is a safety item another set of Mark One Eye Balls ....
Semper Fi
Joe
OK enough on this subject.
ORIGINAL: AFTERBURNER1
Three pages now????? Paleeeeeeeeeeeeezeeeeeee....
Three pages now????? Paleeeeeeeeeeeeezeeeeeee....
It was a MID AIR ... an Accident, SH*T HAPPENS, hopefully we can learn something from this Mid Air .. The flight rules(FAA) that are used for full scale are written in Blood.......
FWIW A spotter is a safety item another set of Mark One Eye Balls ....
Semper Fi
Joe
OK enough on this subject.
06-19-2007, 09:02 PM
#83
Banned
My Feedback: (67)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Posts: 3,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Bryce you crack me up man, you best crawl back down in that basement of yours and play with that simulator son, cuz you have a can o'woopass coming yo way
06-19-2007, 09:11 PM
#84
My Feedback: (80)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Anaheim Hills,
CA
Posts: 4,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
And going, And going, And going!!!!![:'(]
If you guys are really this bored to gripe about a dead subject go and watch the California Jets 07 movie again.. Now there is something to post about!!! What an AWESOME talent Paul Reese is. While other guys charge for their vids he does it for the love of it......
If you guys are really this bored to gripe about a dead subject go and watch the California Jets 07 movie again.. Now there is something to post about!!! What an AWESOME talent Paul Reese is. While other guys charge for their vids he does it for the love of it......
06-19-2007, 09:25 PM
#85
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Ok well, I have pretty much said what I thought, but here's the pic jim wanted to post (I had no idea he meant me LOL)
So Jim is saying he DID have a spotter.....interesting.....
But, I'm outie for now.
-M
So Jim is saying he DID have a spotter.....interesting.....
But, I'm outie for now.
-M
06-19-2007, 09:35 PM
#86
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: jim woodward
Guys,
Please forgive as I cannot post from work so this foolishness regarding me "not" having a spotter has been carried on too long. These guys should remember there was a "tall" gentleman sitting with us in the pits and he too had been admiring the jets. He helped collect the wreckage. I watched him and stood by him as he flew his small bi-palne, and he helped hold the plane and such when I started and stood by me during my flight. He was standing by me and thankfully, had reminded me to shut down the motor after the T-bone.
Guys,
Please forgive as I cannot post from work so this foolishness regarding me "not" having a spotter has been carried on too long. These guys should remember there was a "tall" gentleman sitting with us in the pits and he too had been admiring the jets. He helped collect the wreckage. I watched him and stood by him as he flew his small bi-palne, and he helped hold the plane and such when I started and stood by me during my flight. He was standing by me and thankfully, had reminded me to shut down the motor after the T-bone.
In fact, I would be encouraged and hope that Glen or his caller did call out some kind of landing statement as that would indicate the desire to follow some sort of etiquette. There was probably 30 yards or more between the pilot stations so it is difficult to hear somone call anything out there. Also, there is a difference between calling an intention, and actually watching to ensure your 'audience' for the intention understood and acknowledged what your intention is/was/whatever. Two-way communication is key in these circumstances.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that you and/or your spotter are solely to blame - simply asserting that your attempts to pin the blame on someone else for electing to fly at the same time as you seems totally illogical if you did not agree a "sole use" policy with everyone, and that if you continued to fly for several minutes after he took off then you are implicitly accepting the mid-air risk. Whenever I'm bothered about someone coming up at the same time as me, I land immediately, with my spotter usually even getting me down before the other guy finishes taxying out.
Gordon
06-19-2007, 09:36 PM
#87
Senior Member
My Feedback: (11)
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: AFTERBURNER1
If you guys are really this bored to gripe about a dead subject go and watch the California Jets 07 movie again.. Now there is something to post about!!! What an AWESOME talent Paul Reese is. While other guys charge for their vids he does it for the love of it......
If you guys are really this bored to gripe about a dead subject go and watch the California Jets 07 movie again.. Now there is something to post about!!! What an AWESOME talent Paul Reese is. While other guys charge for their vids he does it for the love of it......
LOL ! Duk Duk - if you are really convinced that this is a boring, dead subject, then why do you insist on continuing to read it instead of watching the CA Jets movie again ?
06-19-2007, 09:46 PM
#88
Banned
My Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, NJ
Posts: 3,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: Jetflyer 24
Bryce you crack me up man, you best crawl back down in that basement of yours and play with that simulator son, cuz you have a can o'woopass coming yo way
Bryce you crack me up man, you best crawl back down in that basement of yours and play with that simulator son, cuz you have a can o'woopass coming yo way
Just don't forget to bring......................the can opener..............
06-19-2007, 09:53 PM
#89
My Feedback: (49)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SANTA ANA, CA
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Yeah I'm bored, so here's my 2 cents.
Having spent 5 years flying IMAC, It is my belief that attempting a rolling circle, without a spotter, with ANY other plane in the air is VERY POOR JUDGEMENT! I have experience to back me up.
Scenario: Late one afternoon during the week, I'm the only one at the field, by myself, practicing the Advanced sequence, I hear a 40 size plane start up behind me and taxi out while I'm flying, "I decided to finish the sequence" . As I come out of the rolling circle upwind, I meet the $200.00 trainer, on a buddy box, HEAD ON!
Moral of the Story: The Pilot In Command is ultimately responsible for the safe return of his aircraft to terra firma. As soon as I heard that other plane take off, I should have IMMEDIATELY landed my plane, not stubbornly try to finish the sequence when I knew I would be at a disadvatage without a spotter.
It's much better to be safe than right!
I was lucky to be able to land safely!
David S
PS,
If he had a spotter, then I don't see what the big deal is. ALL IMAC contests have at least two lines of flight going at the same time, flying sometimes conflicting sequences. And midairs occasionally occur. This definitely falls under the Sh*t Happens category, why look for someone to blame?
Having spent 5 years flying IMAC, It is my belief that attempting a rolling circle, without a spotter, with ANY other plane in the air is VERY POOR JUDGEMENT! I have experience to back me up.
Scenario: Late one afternoon during the week, I'm the only one at the field, by myself, practicing the Advanced sequence, I hear a 40 size plane start up behind me and taxi out while I'm flying, "I decided to finish the sequence" . As I come out of the rolling circle upwind, I meet the $200.00 trainer, on a buddy box, HEAD ON!
Moral of the Story: The Pilot In Command is ultimately responsible for the safe return of his aircraft to terra firma. As soon as I heard that other plane take off, I should have IMMEDIATELY landed my plane, not stubbornly try to finish the sequence when I knew I would be at a disadvatage without a spotter.
It's much better to be safe than right!
I was lucky to be able to land safely!
David S
PS,
If he had a spotter, then I don't see what the big deal is. ALL IMAC contests have at least two lines of flight going at the same time, flying sometimes conflicting sequences. And midairs occasionally occur. This definitely falls under the Sh*t Happens category, why look for someone to blame?
06-19-2007, 09:57 PM
#90
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: boca raton,
FL
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Guys,
I am compelled by both the positive and negative statements in this thread to state what I honestly remember. The person spotting from me was nice and friendly, and I think I remember him saying stuff like, "you are clear, your fine, etc." I do not remember being told some one was landing. I was totally and compeltely in the "practice-zone". Even I completely admit that a T-bone situation may be impossible for any spotter to recognize (cross-box and all to the other pilot).
Mike - thank you for posting the picture. Google Earth is awesome! However, I do not believe this photo contains the 'extended' runway that is now implace, and thus my position of the 'pilot' near the end of the conventional runway. I was in the center of the runway.
As all can see be the wrekage layout, I honesty believe the impact happened even beyond the road, and my plane carried further with motor running for a short time, then I turned it off, rolled to level flight and the plane lawn-darted in without a tail section. Some of my stab components were found in the lake! I took off my shoes to get them hoping to find 4 missing servos. I drove to the jet burn-hole to see if my section was in there. At that point another stranger in a truck had pulled up to complain about the danger and closeness to his camping area. I believe the maximum altitute of the impact was no more than 1.5 telephone poles high. I typically do not fly my circles "on-the-deck." Whatever speed the jet was going, it carried quite a distance after the impact. I do not think "low-and-slow" fit the bill as a speed description for it given the distance been the impact area and where it ended up. If the mid-air location is even close to correct, this does not look to be a typical landing pattern.
Jim W.
I am compelled by both the positive and negative statements in this thread to state what I honestly remember. The person spotting from me was nice and friendly, and I think I remember him saying stuff like, "you are clear, your fine, etc." I do not remember being told some one was landing. I was totally and compeltely in the "practice-zone". Even I completely admit that a T-bone situation may be impossible for any spotter to recognize (cross-box and all to the other pilot).
Mike - thank you for posting the picture. Google Earth is awesome! However, I do not believe this photo contains the 'extended' runway that is now implace, and thus my position of the 'pilot' near the end of the conventional runway. I was in the center of the runway.
As all can see be the wrekage layout, I honesty believe the impact happened even beyond the road, and my plane carried further with motor running for a short time, then I turned it off, rolled to level flight and the plane lawn-darted in without a tail section. Some of my stab components were found in the lake! I took off my shoes to get them hoping to find 4 missing servos. I drove to the jet burn-hole to see if my section was in there. At that point another stranger in a truck had pulled up to complain about the danger and closeness to his camping area. I believe the maximum altitute of the impact was no more than 1.5 telephone poles high. I typically do not fly my circles "on-the-deck." Whatever speed the jet was going, it carried quite a distance after the impact. I do not think "low-and-slow" fit the bill as a speed description for it given the distance been the impact area and where it ended up. If the mid-air location is even close to correct, this does not look to be a typical landing pattern.
Jim W.
06-19-2007, 10:02 PM
#91
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Woodstock, GA
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Wow............................................... .....
Jim after all is said and done, judging by these responses, I have to conclude...they're right. you shouldn't have been even flying there in the first place. As soon as you heard another plane start you should have DOVE HARD for the runway and RAN LIKE HELL to your car to get out of there as fast as possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After reading this stuff, I'm absolutely positive now.
God I love my club.
-Mikey out
Jim after all is said and done, judging by these responses, I have to conclude...they're right. you shouldn't have been even flying there in the first place. As soon as you heard another plane start you should have DOVE HARD for the runway and RAN LIKE HELL to your car to get out of there as fast as possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After reading this stuff, I'm absolutely positive now.
God I love my club.
-Mikey out
06-19-2007, 10:09 PM
#92
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
I'm just curious here, but the last time I was at Markham (a few months ago) the dead lines for all flights are where I marked in red, or at least that's where I thought they were. I was told that if a person flew outside the marked area, they would be asked to leave the park.
Did this change, or as usual...do I have the lines all wrong.
Beave
Did this change, or as usual...do I have the lines all wrong.
Beave
06-19-2007, 10:18 PM
#93
Banned
My Feedback: (67)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Posts: 3,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: bevar
I'm just curious here, but the last time I was at Markham (a few months ago) the dead lines for all flights are where I marked in red, or at least that's where I thought they were. I was told that if a person flew outside the marked area, they would be asked to leave the park.
Did this change, or as usual...do I have the lines all wrong.
Beave
I'm just curious here, but the last time I was at Markham (a few months ago) the dead lines for all flights are where I marked in red, or at least that's where I thought they were. I was told that if a person flew outside the marked area, they would be asked to leave the park.
Did this change, or as usual...do I have the lines all wrong.
Beave
Again, I'm really sorry this happened a couple of nice guys.
PS. Yo BRYCE, LMAO !!!!!!
06-19-2007, 10:33 PM
#95
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Johnny,
Is this a better depiction? Just wanting to make sure I have it right.
Thanks,
B
PS. Wait...I think I just figured out what you were saying...the depicted flight paths are drawn incorrect?
Is this a better depiction? Just wanting to make sure I have it right.
Thanks,
B
PS. Wait...I think I just figured out what you were saying...the depicted flight paths are drawn incorrect?
ORIGINAL: Jetflyer 24
It hasn't changed Beave, the diagram you see there it's wrong. Turn the entire picture they posted counter clockwise and that's the right way to look at it. Jim I'm sorry but Barone ( the nice tall guy ) was NOT spotting you bud.
Again, I'm really sorry this happened a couple of nice guys.
PS. Yo BRYCE, LMAO !!!!!!
It hasn't changed Beave, the diagram you see there it's wrong. Turn the entire picture they posted counter clockwise and that's the right way to look at it. Jim I'm sorry but Barone ( the nice tall guy ) was NOT spotting you bud.
Again, I'm really sorry this happened a couple of nice guys.
PS. Yo BRYCE, LMAO !!!!!!
06-19-2007, 11:29 PM
#96
My Feedback: (12)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Davie,
FL
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
Beave,
You were closer with the first photo.
The runway extension had zero affect on the boundaries. It is the same as the document you signed for permission to fly at Markham acknowledging your awareness of the boundaries and the park rules in order to get the "approved flyer" badge.
The boundaries have always been the trees to the North. The parks Eastern boundary which is the fence and the treeline as a visual reference and to the West the park road. That has never changed except during events when the park closed the road so we could fly further to the West over the Lake.
It may be Jim's perspective of the older photo but from his own drawing he would have been way out of Markham's flying boundaries. Again it may have been an orientation issue trying to put it on paper so to speak.
Unfortunately we don't have ATC like real scale to assist in matters like this, however we should all learn that even if you are the only one flying you should have a spotter if you value safety and your aircraft. Even if you are the only one flying, as in this case, there are no rules that say no one else can takeoff. The only persons afforded that pleasure in real life are those with emergencies and of course Air Force One and Two.
BC
You were closer with the first photo.
The runway extension had zero affect on the boundaries. It is the same as the document you signed for permission to fly at Markham acknowledging your awareness of the boundaries and the park rules in order to get the "approved flyer" badge.
The boundaries have always been the trees to the North. The parks Eastern boundary which is the fence and the treeline as a visual reference and to the West the park road. That has never changed except during events when the park closed the road so we could fly further to the West over the Lake.
It may be Jim's perspective of the older photo but from his own drawing he would have been way out of Markham's flying boundaries. Again it may have been an orientation issue trying to put it on paper so to speak.
Unfortunately we don't have ATC like real scale to assist in matters like this, however we should all learn that even if you are the only one flying you should have a spotter if you value safety and your aircraft. Even if you are the only one flying, as in this case, there are no rules that say no one else can takeoff. The only persons afforded that pleasure in real life are those with emergencies and of course Air Force One and Two.
BC
06-20-2007, 06:56 AM
#97
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Akron,
OH
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
You need two spotters at Markham, one when your flying the other to guard your belongings when your back is turned.
My question is with all the talk of Spotters, Why didn't Glens spotter warn him? He couldn't see a 40% Extra coming into the flightpath of his buddies landing pattern? Maybe the spotter needs a spotter?
06-20-2007, 07:10 AM
#98
My Feedback: (27)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jasper,
GA
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
I view all of this a bit differently.
Model flying involves risks, one of which is the risk of a mid air. Glen made a concious decision to take that risk when he took off with Jim still performing his routine. Jim made the decision to take the risk when he elected not to land when he heard the jet spool up. Both parties made decisions to take the risk, and this time it just didn't work out. The fact that the spotters weren't there or taking steps to divert the pilots is a contributing factor, but not the proximate cause of loss.
Ga. Jets has legislated away some of the risk, which is probably a good thing. Obviously, you can't do that at Markham.
Sorry for both of you it had to happen ... hope it doesn't interfere with your ability to use Markham.
Model flying involves risks, one of which is the risk of a mid air. Glen made a concious decision to take that risk when he took off with Jim still performing his routine. Jim made the decision to take the risk when he elected not to land when he heard the jet spool up. Both parties made decisions to take the risk, and this time it just didn't work out. The fact that the spotters weren't there or taking steps to divert the pilots is a contributing factor, but not the proximate cause of loss.
Ga. Jets has legislated away some of the risk, which is probably a good thing. Obviously, you can't do that at Markham.
Sorry for both of you it had to happen ... hope it doesn't interfere with your ability to use Markham.
06-20-2007, 10:23 AM
#99
Senior Member
My Feedback: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: anaheim, CA
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: AFTERBURNER1
He probably got tired of waiting for your 20 minute flight to end.... Why bring this up in this forum??? There are plenty of R/C mid-air accidents every week in the U.S... The only difference is the price tag.. Why do some like to make it a jet issue?? Just plain lame if you ask me... We used to wait our turn for the IMAC guys that would fly one 20 min flight after another after another... Finally got tired of waiting for the rude ones and flew.... Get out of my way "Pine swinging Hover Boy"!!!!![:'(]
He probably got tired of waiting for your 20 minute flight to end.... Why bring this up in this forum??? There are plenty of R/C mid-air accidents every week in the U.S... The only difference is the price tag.. Why do some like to make it a jet issue?? Just plain lame if you ask me... We used to wait our turn for the IMAC guys that would fly one 20 min flight after another after another... Finally got tired of waiting for the rude ones and flew.... Get out of my way "Pine swinging Hover Boy"!!!!![:'(]
06-20-2007, 01:15 PM
#100
My Feedback: (12)
RE: Mid-Air at Markham Park
ORIGINAL: pilott28
I view all of this a bit differently.
Model flying involves risks, one of which is the risk of a mid air. Glen made a concious decision to take that risk when he took off with Jim still performing his routine. Jim made the decision to take the risk when he elected not to land when he heard the jet spool up. Both parties made decisions to take the risk, and this time it just didn't work out. The fact that the spotters weren't there or taking steps to divert the pilots is a contributing factor, but not the proximate cause of loss.
I view all of this a bit differently.
Model flying involves risks, one of which is the risk of a mid air. Glen made a concious decision to take that risk when he took off with Jim still performing his routine. Jim made the decision to take the risk when he elected not to land when he heard the jet spool up. Both parties made decisions to take the risk, and this time it just didn't work out. The fact that the spotters weren't there or taking steps to divert the pilots is a contributing factor, but not the proximate cause of loss.
This so good that I thought we should read it again.