JR wrote:
When all else fails ,.. use the
radio... JR OPST
Hmmm
I think I would prefer that things didn't quite come to that - as the
last resort anyway.
Given the variables possible in the settings of the radio in the
average club glider (often a different
IFR situation.
SDF
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter
Creswick
Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:44 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not numbers
And sometimes vi
PROTECTED]
www.mrsoaring.com
- Original Message - From: "Mike Borgelt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:17 AM
Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not numbers
At 06:32 PM 21/06/05 -0500
Australia
Tel +61(0)2 66847642 mob +61(0)428847642
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mrsoaring.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Borgelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:17 AM
Subject: RE
At 06:32 PM 21/06/05 -0500, you wrote:
>Why are we getting so focused on 200'?
Because people asked the question "how close is too close?" and I pointed
out what is apparently a little known "rule".
200 feet at least provides a guide - you want to miss the other guy by at
least that much. Of cour
*From:* Terry Neumann <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
<mailto:aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:44 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not numbers
Patrick Barfield wrot
When all else fails ,.. use the radio... JR
OPST
- Original Message -
From:
Terry Neumann
To: Discussion of issues relating
to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 1:44
PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not
numbers
Patrick Barfield
Patrick Barfield wrote:
I believe that lookout and recognition of collision potential are far more
important. If you are going to hit another aircraft, it will be stationary
in the canopy - you won't hit another aircraft if the relative line of sight
is moving. Therefore if you see an a
Why are we getting so focused on 200'? How many glider midair collisions
have there been from people misjudging how close they were? I would imagine
that in most midair collisions, at least one pilot didn't see the other
aircraft, therefore being at least 200' away from the other glider was a
moot
ST
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Airmanship not numbers
Boyd Munro wrote:
Well said, Terry. Our Australi
Boyd Munro wrote:
Well said, Terry. Our Australian predilection for quantitative rules
can all too easily inhibit the development of skill and judgement.
Intersting. Do you (or does anyone else reading this) personally
know anyone who has set their personal separation minimum at 200'
becaus
11 matches
Mail list logo
