Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

[Darkwing]

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION

----------------------------------------------
DW

[.Blueskies.]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message ...
: http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION
:
: ----------------------------------------------
: DW
:
:

wow, good thing the glider guy was wearing a parachute...

[Kingfish]

What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft? Isn't that
a tad close to the Class A?

[Stefan]

Kingfish schrieb:

> What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft?

Probably breathing oxygen and enjoying his freedom to fly.

> Isn't that a tad close to the Class A?

It's outside of class A.

Stefan

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft?
>

Probably sucking oxygen.


>
> Isn't that a tad close to the Class A?
>

So what?

[Ron Natalie]

Kingfish wrote:
> What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft? Isn't that
> a tad close to the Class A?
>
Flying. What makes you think gliders can't or shouldn't be that high?
We have a word for tad close to the class A, we call it class E airspace
and it ain't reserved for bizjets.

I'll also give you a clue. Gliders can get authorization and do fly
in class A airspace as well.

What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> DW

It sounds as if the pilot of the jet is in a "whole heap o' trouble!"

1. Failure to yield right-of-way.
2. At-fault midair.

I am glad that the glider pilot is safe, as well as the pax in the jet.

[Stefan]

Ron Natalie schrieb:

> What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
> failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.

Agreed. But, while no glider pilot I know would insist on his right: The
glider had the right of way.

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Kingfish wrote:
> > What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft? Isn't that
> > a tad close to the Class A?
> >
> Flying. What makes you think gliders can't or shouldn't be that high?
> We have a word for tad close to the class A, we call it class E airspace
> and it ain't reserved for bizjets.
>
> I'll also give you a clue. Gliders can get authorization and do fly
> in class A airspace as well.
>
> What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
> failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.


There are a couple of good threads concerning this at
rec.aviation.soaring

Ben Jeffrey

[[email protected]]

"Kingfish" > wrote:
> What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of
> 16,000ft? Isn't that a tad close to the Class A?

Both are quite common for gliders. They take oxygen and wear parachutes
when they head out in search of thermals. Why would 2000 feet under
Class A be a problem?

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION

WoW !!!

For once, I wish that there were more pictures of the damage to the jet, and
some pictures of the glider "remains."

Although that the details will come out as time goes by, it looks like the
article was very well written, unusually, for a news report of an aviation
accident. I'll be interested in the following stories of the event.
--
Jim in NC

[Stefan]

Morgans schrieb:

> For once, I wish that there were more pictures of the damage to the jet, and
> some pictures of the glider "remains."

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg

[Ron Natalie]

Stefan wrote:
> Ron Natalie schrieb:
>
>> What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
>> failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.
>
> Agreed. But, while no glider pilot I know would insist on his right: The
> glider had the right of way.
>

Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.

[Ron Natalie]

Stefan wrote:
> Ron Natalie schrieb:
>
>> What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
>> failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.
>
> Agreed. But, while no glider pilot I know would insist on his right: The
> glider had the right of way.
>

Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.

[john smith]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg

Is that the reminants of a carbon fiber spar protruding from the top
left side of the nose ahead of the windscreen?

[Stefan]

john smith schrieb:

> Is that the reminants of a carbon fiber spar protruding from the top
> left side of the nose ahead of the windscreen?

They say so.

Stefan

[zatatime]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:47:14 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>john smith schrieb:
>
>> Is that the reminants of a carbon fiber spar protruding from the top
>> left side of the nose ahead of the windscreen?
>
>They say so.
>
>Stefan


While I have no idea how the glider pilot survived this, looking at
the pics, it seems as though the pilot is a very lucky lady too.

z

[Stefan]

Ron Natalie schrieb:

>> The glider had the right of way.

> Who the hell said anything about right of way here.

It was meant to be an indirect answer to Kingfish who asked what a
glider did up there.

Stefan

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

I would have to believe this is going to be a no falt accident. This is a
freek.
"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Stefan wrote:
>> Ron Natalie schrieb:
>>
>>> What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
>>> failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.
>>
>> Agreed. But, while no glider pilot I know would insist on his right: The
>> glider had the right of way.
>>
>
> Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
> a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
> aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
> forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
> tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:


>
> It was meant to be an indirect answer to Kingfish who asked what a
> glider did up there.

He glid.

[rps]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Stefan > wrote:
>
> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg
>

Wow. I wonder if the control surfaces would still have been
controllable from the cockpit if the plane was equipped with a
fly-by-wire system instead of conventional mechanical controls.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:06 -0400, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>:

>http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION


While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
mystery.

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Aug 2006 14:27:37 -0700, "Kingfish" > wrote
in om>:

>
>What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft?

He's probably working a mountain wave.

Gliders often operate above 20,000' while in contact with ATC.

>Isn't that a tad close to the Class A?

An inch is as good as a mile. :-)

While both pilots must comply with the see-and-avoid regulation, or
course the glider category has the right of way over powered
airplanes.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:06 -0400, "Darkwing"
> <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> >:
>
> >http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION
>
>
> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
> mystery.

Here is one more:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?url=/misc/zoompicture.pbs&IDato=20060829&IKategori=NEWS15&ID=608290365&rgj_caption=A%20jet%20made%20a%20safe%20landing%20 at%20the%20Carson%20City%20Airport%20after%20colli ding%20Monday%20with%20a%20glider%20about%203%3A10 %20p.m.%20No%20one%20was%20seriously%20hurt&cachetime=0

-Nik

[[email protected][_1_]]

On 30 Aug 2006 18:05:28 -0700, "rps" > wrote:

>
>john smith wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Stefan > wrote:
>>
>> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
>> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
>> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
>> > http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg
>>
>
>Wow. I wonder if the control surfaces would still have been
>controllable from the cockpit if the plane was equipped with a
>fly-by-wire system instead of conventional mechanical controls.

I allegedly maintain a couple of 800's. Hawkers are built
hell-for-stout and as you indicate are an old-fashioned "mechanical"
airplane.

Been that way since the early '60's (first flew in '62?)

Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?

TC

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:09 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote in >:

>The category preference only applies to aircraft converging from
>other than head on (apply directly to the forehead).


That's not what it says here:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1de74710b574072d8d35f1c6c7a7f4e8&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14#14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.7

§ 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]
----------------------------------

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:09 -0400, Ron Natalie >
> wrote in >:
>
>>The category preference only applies to aircraft converging from
>>other than head on (apply directly to the forehead).
>
> That's not what it says here:

That's funny. The regulation you quoted in your post says *exactly* what
Ron said it does. That IS "what is says here".

You ought to read things before you post them. :)

(And if you're going to use a newsreader that doesn't double-check your
Newsgroups: field, you need to do a better job spell-checking...not that I
have any idea why you decided to add the r.a.gliding newsgroup anyway).

[john smith]

Anyone have an N-number yet?

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
> a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
> aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
> forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
> tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.

Having watched gliders from the ground and air, I've noticed that from
directly in front or behind, they nearly disappear because of the very
narrow wings and fuselage. If a jet is heading nearly head-on, I
imagine it will be nearly impossible to spot the glider until a
collision is all but avoidable, and that's if you know it's there. The
jet itself would only be somewhat more visible head-on.

I haven't been soaring that high, but I imagine this is a good example
of why flight following is a good thing. It isn't perfect, but it
can't hurt.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:10:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:09 -0400, Ron Natalie >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>>The category preference only applies to aircraft converging from
>>>other than head on (apply directly to the forehead).
>>
>> That's not what it says here:
>
>That's funny. The regulation you quoted in your post says *exactly* what
>Ron said it does. That IS "what is says here".

We disagree.

I know what you're going to tell me, that this:

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

only applies when:

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging
at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so),

However, that is only applicable when the aircraft are of the same
category. In this instance, they aren't.

If you believe that this:

(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.

Overrules (2) above, then please explain how a balloon (given the
right-of-way in (d)(1)) can alter course to the right.

If (e) negates (d)(3), then it also negates (d)(1). I have a very
difficult time believing that the regulation doesn't grant balloons
the right of way over all other aircraft.

>You ought to read things before you post them. :)

Of course, I did. We just read them differently.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:27:31 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>:

>Anyone have an N-number yet?

Tomorrow you'll find it here:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Aug 2006 19:53:56 -0700, wrote in
om>:

>I haven't been soaring that high, but I imagine this is a good example
>of why flight following is a good thing.

Unless transponder equipped, I would guess a glass glider would not
paint a radar target useful for ATC Radar Traffic Advisory Service.

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:
> Anyone have an N-number yet?

Looks like N879QS (from the pic of the panel).

[john smith]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:27:31 GMT, john smith > wrote in
> >:
>
> >Anyone have an N-number yet?
>
> Tomorrow you'll find it here:
> http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/

Here it is. I wondered if it was a NetJet.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 879QS Make/Model: H25B Description: HAWKER 800 XP
Date: 08/28/2006 Time: 2211

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: Y
Missing:
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: CARSON CITY State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
MID AIR COLLISION BETWEEN SCHLEICHER N7729 AND HAWKER N879QS
(OPERATING AS
EJA879) AT 16,000 FEET, 42 MI SE RENO, NV. PILOT OF GLIDER BAILED OUT,
CARSON CITY, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1
Unk:
# Pass: 3 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: 22017G22 10 SM FEW 100 34/-5 A3004

OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Descent Operation: Air Carrier


FAA FSDO: RENO, NV (WP11) Entry date: 08/29/2006

[Jack[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION
>
>
> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
> mystery.

Hey, Larry, this is right up your alley, but for the fact there is no
military involvement. Are you going to be as hard on the Hawker Chick as
you would on a Fighter Chick? ;>


Jack

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> If you believe that this:
>
> (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.
>
> Overrules (2) above, then please explain how a balloon (given the
> right-of-way in (d)(1)) can alter course to the right.
>
> If (e) negates (d)(3), then it also negates (d)(1). I have a very
> difficult time believing that the regulation doesn't grant balloons
> the right of way over all other aircraft.

Believe what you like. I agree that one can interpret the construction in
an illogical way if you want. However, it is standard practice in the FARs
for equivalent but different situations to be described in same-level
paragraphs. (e) *does* overrule (d).

If the FAA wanted the categories to override anything else, the regulation
would have been written differently, more like the minimum altitude
regulation. For example:

(d) If the aircraft are of different categories...
(e) If the aircraft are of the same category,
(1) and are converging head-on (or nearly so)...
(2) otherwise...

Your balloon example carries no more weight than analysis of the
construction, and frankly it's much more common for the regulations to
appear to require something that seems a little silly than it is for them to
not follow their own usual rules of order.

Inasmuch as a balloon could be considered to be converging "head-on", (e)
applies and the balloon is expected to give way to the right to whatever
extent it can. In a balloon, this means an altitude change, which of course
renders the same-altitude convergence rules moot. But I see no reason to
interpret the rules in the way you've chosen to do so.

For example: under your interpretation of the rules, a balloon overtaking a
helicopter in a hover would have the right-of-way and the helicopter would
be required to give way. That certainly makes no more sense than requiring
a balloon to alter course, and frankly I think it makes a lot less sense (at
least in the converging situation, the balloon pilot can see the other
traffic).

So, which is it? Are balloon pilots required to alter course to the right?
Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
approaching them from the rear? You can't have it both ways.

Pete

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
> approaching them from the rear?

How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
powered aircraft for that matter?

rg

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:03:17 -0700, Ron Garret >
wrote:
> How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
> powered aircraft for that matter?

Uhhhh... HINT -- Helicopters can *hover*...

Hmmm... That brings up another question... Do the FARs say anything
about right of way with regards to the possibility of the helicopter
flying *backwards*?

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
> powered aircraft for that matter?

See Grumman's post. There's a reason I specifically wrote "a balloon
overtaking a helicopter IN A HOVER" in my post (emphasis added).

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> Having watched gliders from the ground and air, I've noticed that from
> directly in front or behind, they nearly disappear because of the very
> narrow wings and fuselage.

Sometimes they even fully disappear. Every glider pilot is well aware of
this. Every year there have been a couple of midairs between gliders in
Europe, and that's why most gliders in the Alps are now FLARM equipped.

That said, as I hear (third hand "knowledge"), the glider involved in
this accident was thermalling and thus should have been very well
viewable. And Minden is very well known as glider area with the
appropriate warnings on all applicable maps, so the jet crew was warned
and should have looked out extra carefully.

Stefan

[Ron Natalie]

Richard Riley wrote:

>> Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
>> a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
>> aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
>> forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
>> tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.
>
> They'll certainly have the jet's track, but are you sure they'll have
> a recording of the skin paint of the glider?

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure they'll use other means to try to
estimate the glider flight track.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I haven't been soaring that high, but I imagine this is a good example
> of why flight following is a good thing. It isn't perfect, but it
> can't hurt.
>

It can't help if ATC can't see the targets, and if the glider doesn't have a
transponder they aren't likely to see it.

[alexy]

Ron Garret > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
>> approaching them from the rear?
>
>How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
>powered aircraft for that matter?
>
>rg

A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Stefan]

alexy schrieb:

> A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.

Oh, it's not uncommon that a glider cruses along under a strong
cloudstreet with 120 knots while maintaining altitude. Not to speak of
the final glide with often up to 150 knots. Try that in a Cessna 152.

Stefan

[Kingfish]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
> mystery.

Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way? As
has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
glider's profile might make it hard to spot. Why do you automatically
assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?

[Mal[_2_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
>> mystery.
>
> Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way? As
> has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
> didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
> glider's profile might make it hard to spot. Why do you automatically
> assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?
>

Yes you have to look out the front and scan to see other aircraft.

Because she is a woman JOKING.
Hope that reporter does not read this.
From now on in I think I will enjoy baiting reporters with bull**** to see
if they report it.

Lets see I am in a jet doing 300 knots descending I believe I am under IFR
control and the ATC would advised of traffic!

[alexy]

Stefan > wrote:

>alexy schrieb:
>
>> A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.
>
>Oh, it's not uncommon that a glider cruses along under a strong
>cloudstreet with 120 knots while maintaining altitude. Not to speak of
>the final glide with often up to 150 knots. Try that in a Cessna 152.
>
>Stefan

Right. And in that case, I think it clear that the right of way goes
to the 152 under the "overtaking" clause rather than to the glider
under the "converging" clause.

The head-on convergence clause is a little more problematic, as seen
from the different interpretations here. One interpretation (shall we
call it "Peter"?) is that the requirement that both alter course to
the right removes the right of way from both. The other interpretation
(Let's call this one "Larry") is that they are still converging, so
the category right of way rules apply, and the "turn right"
requirement is just for same-category craft, or is just advisory, not
changing the right of way.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[alexy]

"Kingfish" > wrote:

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
>> mystery.
>
>Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way? As
>has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
>didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
>glider's profile might make it hard to spot. Why do you automatically
>assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?

Is there a hard-to-see exception in the right of way rules?

Everyone is focusing on how hard a glider is to see in
straight-and-level flight head-on. It seems far more likely that this
was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
glider was a moving object directly ahead.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Larry Dighera]

On 31 Aug 2006 05:53:22 -0700, "Kingfish" > wrote
in om>:

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
>> mystery.
>
>Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way?

Unless TCAS or radar vectors are involved, yes.

>As has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
>didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
>glider's profile might make it hard to spot.

Agreed.

>Why do you automatically assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?

Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
right-of-way over powered aircraft.

[Kingfish]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>Why do you automatically assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?
>
>> Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
>> right-of-way over powered aircraft.

That is my understanding too, but that goes back to my original point
of ceding right of way. If the jet pilot didn't see the glider (until
it was too late?) how would she have given way to it? This sounds to me
like a classic see-and-avoid issue resulting in a MAC with,
fortunately, no loss of life.

[Kingfish]

alexy wrote:
>
> Is there a hard-to-see exception in the right of way rules?
>

No, but there is a physical limitation to the Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball - which,
in the absence of any usable TCAS type equipment is all you have.

> Everyone is focusing on how hard a glider is to see in
> straight-and-level flight head-on. It seems far more likely that this
> was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
> object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
> glider was a moving object directly ahead.
>

And you know this...how? It's all speculation until both pilots are
interviewed and their accounts are made public.

> Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
> and from what angle he was hit.

Agreed. There might be a lesson in this for all pilots.

[alexy]

"Kingfish" > wrote:

>
>alexy wrote:
>>
>> Is there a hard-to-see exception in the right of way rules?
>>
>
>No, but there is a physical limitation to the Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball - which,
>in the absence of any usable TCAS type equipment is all you have.
>
>> Everyone is focusing on how hard a glider is to see in
>> straight-and-level flight head-on. It seems far more likely that this
>> was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
>> object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
>> glider was a moving object directly ahead.
>>
>
>And you know this...how?
Assuming by "this" you are referring to what I wrote (that it seems
more likely), I know this just from the common knowledge that biz jets
spend a very large portion of their time in straight or gently turning
flight and gliders spend a large portion of their time turing, Also,
that at their relative speeds, it is almost as easy for the jet to
broadside the glider as to hit it headon.

> It's all speculation until both pilots are
>interviewed and their accounts are made public.
Absolutely. That's why I limited my comment to what seemed more likely
to me, with no broader claim.

>> Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
>> and from what angle he was hit.
>
>Agreed. There might be a lesson in this for all pilots.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Bill Daniels]

Transponders, or other far better technology like ADS-B deserve careful
consideration but currently the cost, weight, space and battery power
required are obstacles to wide acceptance by glider owner/operators.
There's a 2.25" hole in my panel for a transponder but there's an even
bigger hole in my wallet preventing me from filling the panel hole.
(Although the priority is rising.)

Technology like Mode S and/or ADS-B will replace Mode C transponders so
investing in Mode C now may be an expensive short term solution.

The "system" didn't work but the parachute did.

"Right of way" is a slippery concept but in this case, the glider was
apparently thermalling so it was a semi-stationary object hit by a fast
moving jet. It seems logical to me the burden of responsibility falls on
the Hawker pilot. This is backed up by FAR's

If, as is being speculated, the transponder installed in the glider was not
yet properly tested for use and therefore not turned on, I don't think there
is any culpability for the glider pilot. In fact, he should get credit for
trying to do the right thing.

This incident should be a reminder to jet pilots that "clearing the flight
path" when flying below FL180 in VMC is an absolute necessity. The "system"
simply can't and won't protect you under VMC.

I have had heavy transport aircraft fly close by me in situations where, in
my opinion, there was no reason for them being there. For example, a jet in
American Airlines livery flew under me when I was flying below the rim of
the Colorado River gorge in western Colorado. It couldn't have been more
than 1000 feet AGL. In another case, I was below the peaks of the
Contenintal Divide when a jet in United Airlines livery came through a notch
in the ridegline clearing his shadow by only a few hundred feet.
Presumably, no passengers were aboard in either case.

An actual collision is not the only danger. Wake turbulence left by a heavy
will also damage a glider.

Be careful out there.

Bill Daniels

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Aug 2006 05:53:22 -0700, "Kingfish" > wrote
> in om>:
>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
>>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
>>> mystery.
>>
>>Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way?
>
> Unless TCAS or radar vectors are involved, yes.
>
>>As has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
>>didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
>>glider's profile might make it hard to spot.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>Why do you automatically assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?
>
> Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
> right-of-way over powered aircraft.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Newps" wrote)
> He glid.


He gled.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gled
Gled = The common European kite

Kite \Kite\, n. Any raptorial bird of the subfamily Milvin[ae], of which
many species are known. They have long wings, adapted for soaring, and
usually a forked tail.


Montblack :-)
Too glib?

[vlado]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Transponders, or other far better technology like ADS-B deserve careful
> consideration but currently the cost, weight, space and battery power
> required are obstacles to wide acceptance by glider owner/operators.
> There's a 2.25" hole in my panel for a transponder but there's an even
> bigger hole in my wallet preventing me from filling the panel hole.
> (Although the priority is rising.)
>
> Technology like Mode S and/or ADS-B will replace Mode C transponders so
> investing in Mode C now may be an expensive short term solution.
>
> The "system" didn't work but the parachute did.
>
> "Right of way" is a slippery concept but in this case, the glider was
> apparently thermalling so it was a semi-stationary object hit by a fast
> moving jet. It seems logical to me the burden of responsibility falls on
> the Hawker pilot. This is backed up by FAR's
>
> If, as is being speculated, the transponder installed in the glider was not
> yet properly tested for use and therefore not turned on, I don't think there
> is any culpability for the glider pilot. In fact, he should get credit for
> trying to do the right thing.
>
> This incident should be a reminder to jet pilots that "clearing the flight
> path" when flying below FL180 in VMC is an absolute necessity. The "system"
> simply can't and won't protect you under VMC.
>
> I have had heavy transport aircraft fly close by me in situations where, in
> my opinion, there was no reason for them being there. For example, a jet in
> American Airlines livery flew under me when I was flying below the rim of
> the Colorado River gorge in western Colorado. It couldn't have been more
> than 1000 feet AGL. In another case, I was below the peaks of the
> Contenintal Divide when a jet in United Airlines livery came through a notch
> in the ridegline clearing his shadow by only a few hundred feet.
> Presumably, no passengers were aboard in either case.
>
> An actual collision is not the only danger. Wake turbulence left by a heavy
> will also damage a glider.
>
> Be careful out there.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 31 Aug 2006 05:53:22 -0700, "Kingfish" > wrote
> > in om>:
> >
> >>
> >>Larry Dighera wrote:
> >>>
> >>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
> >>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
> >>> mystery.
> >>
> >>Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way?
> >
> > Unless TCAS or radar vectors are involved, yes.
> >
> >>As has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
> >>didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
> >>glider's profile might make it hard to spot.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >>Why do you automatically assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?
> >
> > Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
> > right-of-way over powered aircraft.

20 years ago, I lost a friend in a mid-air collision. He was flying
his glider at 11,000 in eastern Washington ( ground elevation about
4000'). He was hit by a Piper Arrow, that had four occupants. No
survivors. Either low or high speed, it can happen.

[flying_monkey]

Bill, I agree. Just because the airline pilots are supposed to be
law-abiding professionals doesn't mean that they don't occasionally try
to do something that they think is fun. I was aboard an American Eagle
flight many years ago, riding in a Twin Otter with 18 0ther passengers,
when the pilots decided to fly through the Red Rock Canyon and Mojave,
CA areas below the height of the peaks on either side. This was
enroute from Inyokern to Lancaster. I also knew that they had taken
off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
takeoff. I reported them to the FAA, but to my knowledge, nothing ever
happened.

Ed

Bill Daniels wrote:

> I have had heavy transport aircraft fly close by me in situations where, in
> my opinion, there was no reason for them being there. For example, a jet in
> American Airlines livery flew under me when I was flying below the rim of
> the Colorado River gorge in western Colorado. It couldn't have been more
> than 1000 feet AGL. In another case, I was below the peaks of the
> Contenintal Divide when a jet in United Airlines livery came through a notch
> in the ridegline clearing his shadow by only a few hundred feet.
> Presumably, no passengers were aboard in either case.
>
> An actual collision is not the only danger. Wake turbulence left by a heavy
> will also damage a glider.
>
> Be careful out there.
>
> Bill Daniels

[Graeme Cant]

Kingfish wrote:

> Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way? As
> has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
> didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
> glider's profile might make it hard to spot. Why do you automatically
> assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?

Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace, they do this by seeing the other
aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.

Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.

Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

GC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"flying_monkey" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Bill, I agree. Just because the airline pilots are supposed to be
> law-abiding professionals doesn't mean that they don't occasionally try
> to do something that they think is fun. I was aboard an American Eagle
> flight many years ago, riding in a Twin Otter with 18 0ther passengers,
> when the pilots decided to fly through the Red Rock Canyon and Mojave,
> CA areas below the height of the peaks on either side. This was
> enroute from Inyokern to Lancaster. I also knew that they had taken
> off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
> takeoff. I reported them to the FAA, but to my knowledge, nothing ever
> happened.
>
> Ed

I'm curious, did they show you the W&B sheet for the flight? How did you
know they over gross?

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
> > powered aircraft for that matter?
>
> See Grumman's post. There's a reason I specifically wrote "a balloon
> overtaking a helicopter IN A HOVER" in my post (emphasis added).

What difference does that make? Who is overtaking whom is determined
according to velocity vectors relative to the air, not the ground. (And
if you doubt this, consider the following scenario: two aircraft are
flying slowly into the wind, one behind the other. The distance between
them is decreasing. Do you really wish to argue that the upwind
aircraft could be overtaking the downwind aircraft if they are facing a
sufficiently strong headwind?)

In the situation you describe (a balloon "overtaking" a (hovering)
helicopter from the rear) the helicopter is actually flying backwards
and overtaking the balloon. A balloon's airspeed is always zero.

rg

[Jim Vincent]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
-on. It seems far more likely that this
> was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
> object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
> glider was a moving object directly ahead.
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
> infrequently.

If I read your logic, the jet is unmoving because it is in steady flight
(not circling), so it stays in one position relative to the glider. Whereas
the glider is circling and so moves back and forth to some extent. Well,
given the small diameter of a thermalling glider, I think for all intents,
the glider would have been effectively a small dot in the sky except for the
last seconds. The power pilot had some clues, but it is still darn
difficult to see other gliders sometimes. Heck, I've been in thermals where
the other glider never saw me.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> What difference does that make? Who is overtaking whom is determined
> according to velocity vectors relative to the air, not the ground.

Says who? Not that I made a statement about ground track versus movement
relative to air. But you're making a completely unfounded claim here.

> (And if you doubt this, consider the following scenario: two aircraft are
> flying slowly into the wind, one behind the other. The distance between
> them is decreasing. Do you really wish to argue that the upwind
> aircraft could be overtaking the downwind aircraft if they are facing a
> sufficiently strong headwind?)

The overtaking aircraft is the one that can SEE the other aircraft. Their
specific progress over the ground or through the air is much less relevant
than the question of which direction each aircraft is pointed, especially
relative to their movement through the air OR over the ground.

That's the whole point of the overtaking regulation. There's one aircraft
that is aware of the situation and another than is not.

> In the situation you describe (a balloon "overtaking" a (hovering)
> helicopter from the rear) the helicopter is actually flying backwards
> and overtaking the balloon. A balloon's airspeed is always zero.

Again, how does airspeed define "overtaking"? Where is this definition of
which you speak?

If we are to believe your interpretation of "overtaking", then in the
scenario I describe the helicopter is required to give way to the balloon.
How, exactly, do you propose that a helicopter in a hover give way to the
balloon, or even be aware that there's a balloon to give way to?

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

alexy wrote:
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>
>>> Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
>>> approaching them from the rear?
>> How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
>> powered aircraft for that matter?
>>
>> rg
>
> A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.

A glider overtaking a bizjet is unlikely. A glider overtaking
a 152, is probably easy.

[Ron Natalie]

alexy wrote:

>
> The head-on convergence clause is a little more problematic, as seen
> from the different interpretations here. One interpretation (shall we
> call it "Peter"?) is that the requirement that both alter course to
> the right removes the right of way from both. The other interpretation
> (Let's call this one "Larry") is that they are still converging, so
> the category right of way rules apply, and the "turn right"
> requirement is just for same-category craft, or is just advisory, not
> changing the right of way.

Converging head on (apply directly to the forehead) requires both to
alter to their respective right REGARDLESS OF CLASS. There's no
ambiguity here. The rule specificaly says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON
OR NEARLY SO.

[Ron Natalie]

Kingfish wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
>> mystery.
>
> Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way? As
> has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
> didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
> glider's profile might make it hard to spot. Why do you automatically
> assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?
>
When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.

[Ron Natalie]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

>
> It was a brand new glider (first flight) and the glider had
> a transponder according to one report. Transponders aren't
> that common for gliders. They're power hungry devices for
> aircraft without engine powered electrical systems, and not
> required for where he was flying, which shows he was willing
> to spend some money for safety, but reports are that it was
> turned off.

This is largely stated, but really not that true in this day
and age. While I'd not want to run my KT76 off a battery
the semiconductor units aren't that power hungry. Terra
made a balloon pack transponder over a decade ago.

By the way, if the transponder cert was out of date, the aircraft
was not technically airworthy unless the device was deactivated,
removed, or properly placarded. Hope, the glider pilot did
the appropriate thing with regard to that.

[Ron Natalie]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
> right-of-way over powered aircraft.

Because your understanding is incorrect and not supported by the
construction of the regulation. The only part of the rules that
mention category is one that begins with "Converging other than
head on or nearly so."

It's possible that the glider had the right of way, it's also
possible that he didn't.

In either case, there was DEFINITELY A FAILURE TO SEE (and avoid)
as the jet pilot never saw the glider according to reports (and
I suspect the glider pilot never saw the jet) so the right of
way rules don't seem to have mattered because unless there you
know the other guy is there there's not going to be any manouvering
rules to apply.

[Ron Natalie]

Graeme Cant wrote:

> Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
> gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace,

There is NO SUCH RULE.

> they do this by seeing the other
> aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.

All aircraft are required to see and avoid regardless of the right of
way rules.

Unlike the nautical rules, there's no stand-on (priviliged) vessel.
Your required to not hit the other aircraft regardless of the who
has the right of way.

>
> Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.
>
> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:58:41 GMT, Jack > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TB/20060830/News/108300025/-1/REGION
>>
>>
>> While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
>> colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
>> mystery.
>
>Hey, Larry, this is right up your alley, but for the fact there is no
>military involvement. Are you going to be as hard on the Hawker Chick as
>you would on a Fighter Chick? ;>

Jack, it's not about being hard on anyone except those who deserve it.
It appears, that Parker willfully chose to descend into congested
terminal airspace without the required clearance, and his decision
resulted in a ghastly fatality. It is that deliberate disregard of
regulations, and Gen. Rosa's lack of punishment, to which I object.

While Ms. Saunders may be guilty of neglect, hopefully it wasn't
willful neglect.

All those involved were incredibly fortunate.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:15:16 +1000, Graeme Cant
<gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote:
> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/1995jeepcherokeesport4x4

[Jose[_1_]]

>>Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
> Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
> http://grumman581.googlepages.com/1995jeepcherokeesport4x4

"Prima facie" means "at first sight". The accident would be presumed to
be your fault "at first sight". The investigation acts as "second
sight" and in this case revealed other circumstances which shifted fault.

"Prima facie" does not mean "no matter what".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Kingfish]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
> whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.

I think we're in agreement - but "see and avoid" didn't seem to work
here as one or both pilots didn't "see and avoid" the other. Going
round & round over right of way rules (to me) is irrelevant in this
case because visual contact was never made. Let the FAA figger out who
*if anyone* was at fault.

[Ron Natalie]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>> He glid.
>
>
> He gled.
>
I've glodden in the past.

[Morgans[_4_]]

> wrote

> I haven't been soaring that high, but I imagine this is a good example
> of why flight following is a good thing. It isn't perfect, but it
> can't hurt.

It also makes me wonder if the glider had a transponder. It would seem like
a good idea, to carry one, and an altitude encoding one, if possible. That
way, the jet would have been able to get an alert from his collision
avoidance equipment, and this would have been a non-accident. A much better
day, for all those involved.
--
Jim in NC

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
>> right-of-way over powered aircraft.
>
> Because your understanding is incorrect and not supported by the
> construction of the regulation. The only part of the rules that
> mention category is one that begins with "Converging other than
> head on or nearly so."
>
> It's possible that the glider had the right of way, it's also
> possible that he didn't.
>
> In either case, there was DEFINITELY A FAILURE TO SEE (and avoid)
> as the jet pilot never saw the glider according to reports (and
> I suspect the glider pilot never saw the jet) so the right of
> way rules don't seem to have mattered because unless there you
> know the other guy is there there's not going to be any manouvering
> rules to apply.
>
I would say this is correct. If the glider came in from the side how would
the Hawker see him. I say they are lucky to be alive.
>

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Stefan" > wrote
>
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
> http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg
>
Holy Moley!

I got goose bumps, and shivers, looking at those pictures. I, for one,
think that it was nothing short of amazing that the pilot got out OK, and
that the controls didn't lock up.

Some prayers of thanks are due, if the people involved are at all religious,
I think.

Again, WoW!
--
Jim in NC

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

"Graeme Cant" <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote in message
...
> Kingfish wrote:
>
>> Don't you have to *see* the other aircraft before you can give way? As
>> has been mentioned by other posters in this thread, if the glider
>> didn't have a transponder the jet's TCAS wouldn't have seen it, and the
>> glider's profile might make it hard to spot. Why do you automatically
>> assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?
>
> Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
> gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace, they do this by seeing the other
> aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.
>
> Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.
>
How could the powered aircraft be at fault if the glider hit him from the
side.
There is no way to know who is at fault.
If you cant see it you cant avoid it. I think the glider will end up at
fault.
> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
>
Not always.

> GC

[Morgans[_4_]]

> wrote

> Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?

No, but I would like to!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote

> By the way, if the transponder cert was out of date, the aircraft
> was not technically airworthy unless the device was deactivated,
> removed, or properly placarded. Hope, the glider pilot did
> the appropriate thing with regard to that.

I don't know about that one, Ron.

One might consider the real world of practical pro's and con's before
deciding to leave the transponder off, in this case. If it could be
determined that the unit was in the ball park, with regards to location and
altitude reporting, it would have been far better to run it, and tell the
FAA to sit and rotate, if they asked. The end result would have been two
intact aircraft, and removal of the chance of people nearly dying.

I know I could have slept well, under those conditions.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave S]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Stefan wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It was meant to be an indirect answer to Kingfish who asked what a
>> glider did up there.
>
>
> He glid.
>

The glider pilot glid..

The Hawker pilot (and passengers) shat...

[5Z]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> There is NO SUCH RULE.

FAR 91.113
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/934F0A02E17E7DE086256EEB005192FC?OpenDocument

(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.

[Jim Logajan]

Graeme Cant <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote:
> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

I'd bet that is no longer the case. There is an insurance fraud tactic
where the perps deliberately cause rear-end accidents by pulling in front
of an innocent driver's vehicle and slams on the brakes. See for example:

http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/aa062203a.htm

[Discus 44]

There have been many photos of the Jet. While this is remarable, are
there any photos of the remains of the glider? It might shed some
light on where the jet ran into the glider. Anyone with common sense
can see the Jet hit the glider and not the other way around as so many
so called :"journalists" have intimated. It is strange that so many
unknowledgeable people seem to be arm chair experts about this.

I would liek to see FLARM adopted here. It may be a better way than
having Xponders and ATC involved with soaring.

[Jay Beckman]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Stefan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It was meant to be an indirect answer to Kingfish who asked what a
>>> glider did up there.
>>
>>
>> He glid.
>>
>
> The glider pilot glid..
>
> The Hawker pilot (and passengers) shat...

No doubt...

[Jack[_1_]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
>> right-of-way over powered aircraft.
>
>
> Because your understanding is incorrect and not supported by the
> construction of the regulation. The only part of the rules that
> mention category is one that begins with "Converging other than
> head on or nearly so."
>
> It's possible that the glider had the right of way, it's also
> possible that he didn't.
>
> In either case, there was DEFINITELY A FAILURE TO SEE (and avoid)
> as the jet pilot never saw the glider according to reports (and
> I suspect the glider pilot never saw the jet) so the right of
> way rules don't seem to have mattered because unless there you
> know the other guy is there there's not going to be any manouvering
> rules to apply.


You will invariably provoke an argument by making that statement, and
the argument will continue ad infinitum, even after all parties to it
have read and reread the applicable FAR -- though most of your opponents
will understand why you make your claim.

The FAR's are written no more comprehensibly than is the norm for the
Law, from the Constitution down to the lowest traffic regulation.
91.113.(d), even within the full context of 91.113, is just one example
among multitudes. Recent FAR's actually seem to be more poorly written
than those which have been in force for some time, indicating the
problem is no more appreciated by those in charge of writing them today
than ever it was, or we have simply gotten stupider.

If you would care to cite some specific rulings that support your claim,
that would carry some weight. If we go on about it here without such
citations, at the end of 10,000 lines of rant we'll be right back at
this very same spot.


Jack

--------

Sec. 91.113

http://tinyurl.com/loggu

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.

=============================

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Discus 44" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> There have been many photos of the Jet. While this is remarable, are
> there any photos of the remains of the glider? It might shed some
> light on where the jet ran into the glider. Anyone with common sense
> can see the Jet hit the glider and not the other way around as so many
> so called :"journalists" have intimated. It is strange that so many
> unknowledgeable people seem to be arm chair experts about this.
>
> I would liek to see FLARM adopted here. It may be a better way than
> having Xponders and ATC involved with soaring.

FLARM???
--
Jim in NC

[Jack[_1_]]

Aluckyguess wrote:

> If the glider came in from the side how would
> the Hawker see him[?]

At a 3-4x speed differential the glider cannot "come in from the side".
Nonetheless, there are side windows -- even in Hawkers.

Does the dog crossing the freeway at 15 mph run into the grill of the
semi which is cruising at 55? I think not.

When you are the hood ornament you'll have a different view of things,
whether that chrome greyhound is sticking in your ear or your arse.


Jack

[Ron Natalie]

5Z wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> There is NO SUCH RULE.
>
> FAR 91.113
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/934F0A02E17E7DE086256EEB005192FC?OpenDocument
>
> (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.
>

THat clause applies only when coverging other than head-on or nearly so.

Head-on (or nearly so) or overtaking operations has rules that are not
affected by aircraft category.

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

Flarm http://www.flarm.com ,
or OzFlarm http://www.rf-developments.com ,
or perhaps LX Flarm http://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.cfm .

On OzFlarm see
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepitsoaring/nsw2005/img/OzFLARM1.pdf .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> "Discus 44" > wrote in message
>> ps.com...
>>
>> There have been many photos of the Jet. While this is remarkable, are
>> there any photos of the remains of the glider? It might shed some
>> light on where the jet ran into the glider. Anyone with common sense
>> can see the Jet hit the glider and not the other way around as so many
>> so called :"journalists" have intimated. It is strange that so many
>> unknowledgeable people seem to be arm chair experts about this.
>>
>> I would like to see FLARM adopted here. It may be a better way than
>> having Xponders and ATC involved with soaring.
>
> FLARM???
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[5Z]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Head-on (or nearly so) or overtaking operations has rules that are not
> affected by aircraft category.

But we are talking about airplanes running over gliders. That will
most likely be a non headon situation, and in that case the airplane
shall avoid the glider. Of course, that's just like saying the
pedestrian has right of way in a crosswalk - some dopes think that
stepping out in front of a car will somehow magically make 1) the
driver notice them, 2) allow the driver to stop in time.

-Tom

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>> There is NO SUCH RULE.
>
> FAR 91.113
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/934F0A02E17E7DE086256EEB005192FC?OpenDocument
>
> (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,
As long as the glider doesnt pull out in front of the other aircraft.
There are no absolutes.
If you are going the speed limit in a car and someone runs out in front of
you its not always your fault.
> 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.
>

[alexy]

Ron Natalie > wrote:

>alexy wrote:
>
>>
>> The head-on convergence clause is a little more problematic, as seen
>> from the different interpretations here. One interpretation (shall we
>> call it "Peter"?) is that the requirement that both alter course to
>> the right removes the right of way from both. The other interpretation
>> (Let's call this one "Larry") is that they are still converging, so
>> the category right of way rules apply, and the "turn right"
>> requirement is just for same-category craft, or is just advisory, not
>> changing the right of way.
>
>Converging head on (apply directly to the forehead) requires both to
>alter to their respective right REGARDLESS OF CLASS.
I agree.

> There's no ambiguity here.
That claim flies directly in the face of the evidence seen here (and
does not alter course to the right<g>).

> The rule specificaly says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON
>OR NEARLY SO.
Look more closely at (d). It is composed of a title word
("Converging.") and two sentences in the opening paragraph. The first
of those has to do with "aircraft of the same category [that] are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
nearly so)". The phrase "converging at the same altitude" and the
parenthetical are clearly qualifiers of the "aircraft of the same
category" The second sentence and three following numbered sentences
talk about aircraft of different categories, still within the
paragraph labeled "Converging", but without any of the qualifiers
about approximately the same altitude or the parenthetical excluding
head-on.

Paragraph (e) talks about head-on convergence, and the requirement
that both alter course to the right would seem to me to over-ride the
ROW rules by category stated in the previous paragraph. But to claim
that it is unambiguous is a stretch.


My $0.02, worth what you paid for it!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[alexy]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote:

>
>"alexy" > wrote in message
...
>> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>
>-on. It seems far more likely that this
>> was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
>> object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
>> glider was a moving object directly ahead.
>> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
>> infrequently.
>
>If I read your logic, the jet is unmoving because it is in steady flight
>(not circling), so it stays in one position relative to the glider. Whereas
>the glider is circling and so moves back and forth to some extent. Well,
>given the small diameter of a thermalling glider, I think for all intents,
>the glider would have been effectively a small dot in the sky except for the
>last seconds. The power pilot had some clues, but it is still darn
>difficult to see other gliders sometimes. Heck, I've been in thermals where
>the other glider never saw me.
>

You're probably right. It just seemed to me that talk about how hard a
glider is to see head-on might not have been a relevant comment. And
given their relative speeds, without working the math, I'd guess that
the glider was probably at all times between the jet's 11:00 and 1:00,
while the jet might have been in front of, behind, or at any point to
the side of the glider.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[alexy]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote:



>I would say this is correct. If the glider came in from the side how would
>the Hawker see him. I say they are lucky to be alive.


How can a glider hit an airborne jet from the side? It can happen, but
the glider is well in front of the jet until the point of impact.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[alexy]

Ron Natalie > wrote:


>If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
>at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

I think your second sentence is correct, and that you mis-stated the
first. You would be at fault, not the powered plane you hit.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[[email protected]]

> Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
> and from what angle he was hit.

The glider pilot was circling when he was hit. He reported that he saw
the jet just a blink before the impact with no possibility of evasive
action.

(How many of us have searched the sky in vain for a glider that was in
full view. In my experience most circling gliders can be invisible
until a wing catches some light. Obviously, that didn't happen in this
case.)

Hirao was one of five glider pilots from Crazy Creek at Minden for a
few days of flying. I was supposed to be the sixth, but I arrived late
and didn't complete rigging until 4pm, at which point I judged it not
worth launching.

All the gliders were in frequent communication. About three Hirao
reported he was over the Pine Nuts at 13,000 and climbing in good lift.
That was his last transmission.

As near as we can tell, the jet hit his right wing, slicing off at
least half of it. The canopy popped partially open, he pushed it the
rest of the way and rolled out. As he floated down he could see the
glider below him in a flat spin. It spun all the way to the ground. Our
reconstruction is that the impact must have spun the glider
counterclockwise. Otherwise the intact left wing would have lifted,
ending the spin.

The only injuiry Hirao sustained was a scratch on his right forearm
when he landed in some bush. He refused medical attention, and we all
enjoyed a very celebratory dinner in Minden that night.

The glider was the ASG-29 that Rick Indrebo flew at the Worlds in
Sweden in July. Herao was part owner of the glider, and this was his
first flight. He'd just passed his BFR that morning. He has more than
800 hours in gliders.

[Ron Natalie]

alexy wrote:
> Ron Natalie > wrote:
>
>
>> If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
>> at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.
>
> I think your second sentence is correct, and that you mis-stated the
> first. You would be at fault, not the powered plane you hit.
Yes, that is what I meant.

[[email protected]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Transponders, or other far better technology like ADS-B deserve careful
> consideration but currently the cost, weight, space and battery power
> required are obstacles to wide acceptance by glider owner/operators.
> There's a 2.25" hole in my panel for a transponder but there's an even
> bigger hole in my wallet preventing me from filling the panel hole.
> (Although the priority is rising.)

I fly in the Reno area a lot and two years ago I installed a Mode C
transponder in my LS-4. I did the work myself, and the whole job took a
day or so and cost me under two grand. It's the best 2 grand I ever
spent. I changed power to a 12 AH battery. In flights of well over six
hours I've never experienced low orloss of power, and I can see that
baby on my panel blinking every second or so as someone interrogates
it. I keep a sharp eye pealed for traffic, but I also call Reno
approach when I get in the air, announce my position and squak my
transponder. They routinely thank me for taking the trouble.

Where's the difficulty in all this? Isn't it worth a little effort to
fly safer and FEEL safer? I certainly enjoy flying this area a lot
better with a transponder humming away.

[[email protected]]

Kingfish wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote:
> > >
> > When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
> > whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.
>
> I think we're in agreement - but "see and avoid" didn't seem to work
> here as one or both pilots didn't "see and avoid" the other. Going
> round & round over right of way rules (to me) is irrelevant in this
> case because visual contact was never made. Let the FAA figger out who
> *if anyone* was at fault.

The FAA held a hearing in Minden yesterday (Wednesady). Obviously there
is no official report as yet, but according to people I know who were
in the room, the FAA found that nobody was at fault.

[Aluckyguess[_1_]]

"alexy" > wrote in message
...
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I would say this is correct. If the glider came in from the side how would
>>the Hawker see him. I say they are lucky to be alive.
>
>
> How can a glider hit an airborne jet from the side? It can happen, but
> the glider is well in front of the jet until the point of impact.
Good timing
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
> infrequently.

[Jose[_1_]]

> One might consider the real world of practical pro's and con's before
> deciding to leave the transponder off, in this case. If it could be
> determined that the unit was in the ball park, with regards to location and
> altitude reporting, it would have been far better to run it, and tell the
> FAA to sit and rotate, if they asked. The end result would have been two
> intact aircraft, and removal of the chance of people nearly dying.

In this particular case, in hindsight, perhaps. But in general, an
incorrect transponder readout could cause pilots to look in the wrong
place for traffic they would have otherwise seen right away, increasing
the risk of a collision. It would be a different accident; it would be
the one that didn't happen, so we'll never know whether it would have or
not. But it might, and that's the reason it's supposed to be off.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[alexy]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote:


>As long as the glider doesnt pull out in front of the other aircraft.

Please explain the maneuver you have in mind here. How does a glider
"pull out in front of" a biz jet? Maybe after overtaking him?<g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[john smith]

In article om>,
wrote:

> The glider pilot was circling when he was hit. He reported that he saw
> the jet just a blink before the impact with no possibility of evasive
> action.

At 16k, what kind of vertical rate of ascent could the glider have been
experiencing in a thermal that day?

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
. ..
> I think for all intents, the glider would have been effectively a small
> dot in the sky except for the last seconds.

No, it's the Hawker that was a small (2 meters) motionless white dot in the
white sky. The thermalling glider was an 18-meter white cross moving against
the desert background.

The jet was descending, wasn't it? That means no soot trail. Which, I am
convinced, is the only part of the jet visible head-on from far enough to
have any practical chance at all to evade, at glider speed.
--
Yuliy

[Yuliy Gerchikov]

"Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
...
>
>> How can a glider hit an airborne jet from the side? It can happen, but
>> the glider is well in front of the jet until the point of impact.
> Good timing

Assuming glider Vne of 150 kts and jet speed of 300 kts, the widest possible
azimuth angle from jet to glider is 26.5 degrees off center at any time
before impact (linear path).

At a more typical for a thermalling glider 60 kts this angle is reduced to
11.3 degrees.

Which one do you call "from the side"?
--
Yuliy

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> But in general, an
> incorrect transponder readout could cause pilots to look in the wrong
> place for traffic they would have otherwise seen right away, increasing
> the risk of a collision.

Come on, how far off could it be, to cause you to look in the wrong place
would be a gross exaggeration, no?

The fix on the lat. - lon. will not be off at all, since that is generated
from a radar return. The altitude might be 50 or even 100 feet off, but
still, that would not be enough to cause a person to miss finding the
aircraft by more than a couple seconds.

Me? Of course, this is all a hypothetical situation, but if my transponder
is off by only 100 feet, it will be on, whether wrong by law, or not. Get
in the air and ask for a check from the tower, as to what you are being
reported at. Make a decision, then.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:17:59 -0400, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>
> wrote
>
>> Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?
>
>No, but I would like to!

Basically, an African dignitary (president?) was riding along in a
Hawker escorted by at least one Angolan fighter.

Another Angolan fighter launched two heat-seekers at it. The first one
blew the #2 engine off the pylon and the second missile was decoyed by
the burning detached engine.

Some pieces penetrated the cabin, and there were some injuries
onboard, but it landed safely.

from http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/0301-sam-threat01.htm

Although struck by an air-to-air missile, the Hawker 800 carrying
Juvénal Habyarimana, the president of Rwanda, shows what a manpad can
do. In the late 1980s, the business jet was flying over Angola when an
Angolan MiG-23 pilot attacked it with two heat-seeking air-to-air
missiles. The first warhead struck the right engine, tearing most of
it from the mounts and puncturing the pressure vessel. The second
missile locked onto the heat signature of the falling engine, which
spared the airplane and the president. After an emergency landing, the
Hawker was crated back to the UK and rebuilt to fly another day.

Pictures of it are tough to find, last ones I saw were at a Raytheon
Jet Ops Conference.

TC

P.S. looked at the midair pics again today at work-it really really
looks like the forward spar in the right wing is "seriously
compromised."

[alexy]

wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:17:59 -0400, "Morgans" >
>wrote:
>
>>
> wrote
>>
>>> Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?
>>
>>No, but I would like to!
>
>Basically, an African dignitary (president?) was riding along in a
>Hawker escorted by at least one Angolan fighter.
>
>Another Angolan fighter launched two heat-seekers at it.
Sounds like a different kind of SAM! <g>
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The fix on the lat. - lon. will not be off at all, since that is generated
> from a radar return.

If the (secondary) radar return is late, would the position not be off?

> The altitude might be 50 or even 100 feet off

It might be 10,000 feet off. It might be off by one bit (whatever that
would cause, depending on which bit). It might be intermittant.
Whatever. I do know that I've been instructed to stop mode C squawk on
occasion; whatever error I was producing at the time was causing
problems for ATC.

When you say that it would have been better (in this case) for the
transponder to be on, even if incorrect, you need to consider that you
don't get to know which plane is going to otherwise crash. You need to
do it for all planes.

Not just your plane. All planes. Everyone else who has a busted
transponder. Everyone else who figures that the rules don't apply to
them because they have a better idea.

This might not be a bad idea, but the unintended consequences should be
considered.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ramy]

Yuliy, I assume this is the degrees off center for the jet pilot, what
will it be for the glider pilot under similar conditions. I forgot my
math, but sounds like we, as the slower aircraft, need much more
scanning then other faster aircrafts, like 360 degrees? So much for see
and avoid, unless you thermaling...

Ramy


Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> How can a glider hit an airborne jet from the side? It can happen, but
> >> the glider is well in front of the jet until the point of impact.
> > Good timing
>
> Assuming glider Vne of 150 kts and jet speed of 300 kts, the widest possible
> azimuth angle from jet to glider is 26.5 degrees off center at any time
> before impact (linear path).
>
> At a more typical for a thermalling glider 60 kts this angle is reduced to
> 11.3 degrees.
>
> Which one do you call "from the side"?
> --
> Yuliy

[Graeme Cant]

Ron Natalie wrote:

>> Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
>> gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace,
>
> There is NO SUCH RULE.

Well, there is in every country that adheres to the ICAO treaties and
annexes and you'd better believe it if you ever fly outside the US. I
know the US is the most non-compliant signatory but I'd be surprised if
these fundamental rules don't apply in the US. They certainly apply to
every US aircraft flying internationally.

I could of course be wrong - I make a habit of it. :)

> All aircraft are required to see and avoid regardless of the right of
> way rules.

Absolutely. But when they collide in spite of this, the powered
aircraft is prima facie at fault.

> If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
> at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

I'll stick to what I said.

1. In VMC, ALL aircraft are required to maintain a lookout so as to see
and avoid ALL other aircraft.
2. When on converging courses, powered aircraft are required to give
way to gliders. Powered aircraft give way to airships who give way to
gliders who give way to balloons.

There is, of course, a lot more to it than this but this is where the
lawyers, insurance companies - and probably the FAA unless you're right
- will start.

GC

[Graeme Cant]

Aluckyguess wrote:

> How could the powered aircraft be at fault if the glider hit him from the
> side.

1. I love the concept of a 300kg, 60kt glider "hitting" a 10,000kg,
300kt bizjet - especially from the side! You'll notice in the photos
that the glider's spar joiner is lodged in the radome, not the side
window. It's physically impossible for a 60kt anything to hit a 300kt
anything from the side.

2. Because he failed to see and avoid the glider. ALL aircraft in VMC
are required to see and avoid other aircraft and they avoid them by
following the right of way rules - the powered aircraft alters course to
avoid the glider.

> There is no way to know who is at fault.

That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They
tend to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.

> If you cant see it you cant avoid it. I think the glider will end up at
> fault.

You can see and avoid anything if you go slowly and carefully enough.
Yes, I know that's not how powered aircraft are generally operated but
the law says that's how they SHOULD be operated.

It's no excuse to hitting a guy on a bike that you were in a big car
travelling very fast even if you were under the speed limit.

>> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
>>
> Not always.

ALWAYS, prima facie.

>> GC
GC

[Graeme Cant]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Graeme Cant <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote:
>> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
>
> I'd bet that is no longer the case. There is an insurance fraud tactic
> where the perps deliberately cause rear-end accidents by pulling in front
> of an innocent driver's vehicle and slams on the brakes. See for example:
>
> http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/aa062203a.htm

Yes, we have that scam here too. Nevertheless, the onus is always on
the car behind to make his case. As I said, prima facie, the rear car
is at fault.

GC

[Graeme Cant]

Discus 44 wrote:
> There have been many photos of the Jet. While this is remarable, are
> there any photos of the remains of the glider? It might shed some
> light on where the jet ran into the glider.

The Hawker photos do show it. I believe the piece projecting at 1
o'clock from where the radome was is the spar joiner for the outer
panel. It would appear the glider was hit just outside mid-span.
Probably the right wing.

GC

Anyone with common sense
> can see the Jet hit the glider and not the other way around as so many
> so called :"journalists" have intimated. It is strange that so many
> unknowledgeable people seem to be arm chair experts about this.
>
> I would liek to see FLARM adopted here. It may be a better way than
> having Xponders and ATC involved with soaring.
>

[Lynn & Curtis Jordan]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> The only injuiry Hirao sustained was a scratch on his right forearm
> when he landed in some bush. He refused medical attention, and we all
> enjoyed a very celebratory dinner in Minden that night.

I live in Douglas County, flew with John at Flying Start...but the real
question is...where did you celebrate and was the food and service good?

- Curtis

[Lynn & Curtis Jordan]

"Jack" > wrote in message
et...
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>
>> If the glider came in from the side how would the Hawker see him[?]
>
> At a 3-4x speed differential the glider cannot "come in from the side".
> Nonetheless, there are side windows -- even in Hawkers.
>
> Does the dog crossing the freeway at 15 mph run into the grill of the semi
> which is cruising at 55? I think not.

Uh, actually, I got hit by a cat once. Going 20ish, cat going a lot less.
It hit the rubber, spun down the road, scared the crap out of me. After a
trip to a rural vet (no real vets where I lived), got put back on the road
and ran off like it never missed the half hour trying to save it.

-Curtis

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Jose" > wrote

> It might be 10,000 feet off. It might be off by one bit (whatever that
> would cause, depending on which bit).

Oh, how you must like to argue. I'll bet that you just like to see your own
typing on the net, with your name behind it.

Tell you what, Jose. Don't bother responding to me, and I won't respond to
you. I'm done wasting my time with you and your ridiculous "what if's."

Hint: Read the whole post. Also, consider that something not current is
usually just that - not currently inspected, but not necessarily broken,
either.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_4_]]

"Graeme Cant" <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote

It's physically impossible for a 60kt anything to hit a 300kt
> anything from the side.

A one-in-a-million shot? Yes. Impossible? No.

I'm quite sure that the odds could be calculated, even.
--
Jim in NC

[Roger Worden]

Dunno about 16K, but I had 1000+ at 11,000 in that area last month.

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> wrote:
>
> > The glider pilot was circling when he was hit. He reported that he saw
> > the jet just a blink before the impact with no possibility of evasive
> > action.
>
> At 16k, what kind of vertical rate of ascent could the glider have been
> experiencing in a thermal that day?

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What difference does that make? Who is overtaking whom is determined
> > according to velocity vectors relative to the air, not the ground.
>
> Says who?

Says me.

> Not that I made a statement about ground track versus movement
> relative to air. But you're making a completely unfounded claim here.

It is founded on common sense and elementary logic. See below.

> > (And if you doubt this, consider the following scenario: two aircraft are
> > flying slowly into the wind, one behind the other. The distance between
> > them is decreasing. Do you really wish to argue that the upwind
> > aircraft could be overtaking the downwind aircraft if they are facing a
> > sufficiently strong headwind?)
>
> The overtaking aircraft is the one that can SEE the other aircraft.

Usually that is true because usually aircraft travel forward. But
helicopters can fly backwards.

> Their
> specific progress over the ground or through the air is much less relevant
> than the question of which direction each aircraft is pointed, especially
> relative to their movement through the air OR over the ground.

That is a defensible position, albeit incorrect. I will point out
though that this position is at least as unfounded as mine.

> That's the whole point of the overtaking regulation. There's one aircraft
> that is aware of the situation and another than is not.

That's part of the rationale, but not the whole rationale. Relative
maneuverability is also a factor. That is why balloons have the right
of way over everyone else. Visibility from a balloon is superior to all
other aircraft, but it's simply impossible for a balloon to get out of
another aircraft's way even if they see it coming.

> > In the situation you describe (a balloon "overtaking" a (hovering)
> > helicopter from the rear) the helicopter is actually flying backwards
> > and overtaking the balloon. A balloon's airspeed is always zero.
>
> Again, how does airspeed define "overtaking"? Where is this definition of
> which you speak?

It follows from a simple logical argument: Helicopters hover more often
than other aircraft, but any aircraft can hover, or even fly backwards
relative to the ground given a strong enough headwind. Unless you wish
to argue that the right of way rules change if the wind is strong enough
the only possible conclusion is that overtaking is defined relative to
the air, not relative to the ground.

Helicopters are unique in their ability to fly backwards relative to the
air. But again, unless you wish to argue that a helicopter pilot's
choice to fly backwards (relative to the air) absolves him of
responsibility if he should back his aircraft into a balloon, then the
only possible conclusion, again, is that the aircraft's orientation is
not material to the right-of-way rules.

> If we are to believe your interpretation of "overtaking", then in the
> scenario I describe the helicopter is required to give way to the balloon.

That is correct.

> How, exactly, do you propose that a helicopter in a hover give way to the
> balloon,

By maneuvering to avoid the balloon. Isn't that obvious?

> or even be aware that there's a balloon to give way to?

I would expect the helicopter pilot to ascertain that the area was clear
of balloons before beginning to fly backwards, and I would expect him to
periodically rotate the helicopter to re-check, just as a pilot of a
fixed-wing aircraft in a post-takeoff climb will (one hopes)
periodically lower the nose to insure that they are not overtaking an
aircraft that is obscured by the nose-high attitude, or a pilot
practicing steep turns will do periodic shallow clearing turns.

rg

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> Says me.

Well, aren't we lucky you dropped by.

[Yuliy Gerchikov[_1_]]

"Ramy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yuliy, I assume this is the degrees off center for the jet pilot,

Correct -- assuming the jet is flying straight. (Note that if glider is
manoeuvring at all, the angles are even less, i.e. closer to jet's 12
o'clock.)

BTW, remember the 26.5 degrees figure? One o'clock would be 30 degrees, of
course (...off-course).

> what will it be for the glider pilot under similar conditions.

360, of course.

> but sounds like we, as the slower aircraft, need much more
> scanning then other faster aircrafts

Of couse, the faster aircrafts need to scan more for the faster aircrafts
yet... :)
--
Yuliy


> Ramy
>
>
> Yuliy Gerchikov wrote:
>> "Aluckyguess" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> How can a glider hit an airborne jet from the side? It can happen, but
>> >> the glider is well in front of the jet until the point of impact.
>> > Good timing
>>
>> Assuming glider Vne of 150 kts and jet speed of 300 kts, the widest
>> possible
>> azimuth angle from jet to glider is 26.5 degrees off center at any time
>> before impact (linear path).
>>
>> At a more typical for a thermalling glider 60 kts this angle is reduced
>> to
>> 11.3 degrees.
>>
>> Which one do you call "from the side"?
>> --
>> Yuliy
>

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Graeme Cant" wrote)
> That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
> and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
> to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.


"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
is an act of God."

The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.

No fault to either pilot.
(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

"Next case."


Montblack

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:43:58 -0400, alexy > wrote:

wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:17:59 -0400, "Morgans" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>> Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?
>>>
>>>No, but I would like to!
>>
>>Basically, an African dignitary (president?) was riding along in a
>>Hawker escorted by at least one Angolan fighter.
>>
>>Another Angolan fighter launched two heat-seekers at it.
>Sounds like a different kind of SAM! <g>

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:43:58 -0400, alexy > wrote:

wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:17:59 -0400, "Morgans" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>> Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?
>>>
>>>No, but I would like to!
>>
>>Basically, an African dignitary (president?) was riding along in a
>>Hawker escorted by at least one Angolan fighter.
>>
>>Another Angolan fighter launched two heat-seekers at it.
>Sounds like a different kind of SAM! <g>

DOH - sorry about that, engage brain before fingers...

mumble, mumble, mumble.

TC

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:15:16 +1000, Graeme Cant
> <gcantinter@tnodedotnet> wrote:
>> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
>
> Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
> http://grumman581.googlepages.com/1995jeepcherokeesport4x4

Interesting story...and it holds even if the braking is not deliberate (such
as the close pull in/across and brake).

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
>> I also knew that they had taken
>> off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
>> takeoff.

> I'm curious, did they show you the W&B sheet for the flight? How did you
> know they over gross?

Read!

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> I also knew that they had taken
>>> off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
>>> takeoff.
>
>> I'm curious, did they show you the W&B sheet for the flight? How did you
>> know they over gross?
>
> Read!
>

You are saying you heard the pilots say they were over gross? Or did they
just say they were heavy? If I heard two pilots say they were over gross I
think I'd get my ass off the plane.

[Matt Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> I also knew that they had taken
>>>> off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
>>>> takeoff.
>>
>>> I'm curious, did they show you the W&B sheet for the flight? How did you
>>> know they over gross?
>>
>> Read!
>>
>
> You are saying you heard the pilots say they were over gross?

Not me, the OP.

> Or did they just say they were heavy? If I heard two pilots say they were
> over gross I think I'd get my ass off the plane.

Just before takeoff?

Hopefully the OP will clarify.

[snoop]

GC, you may say "ALWAYS, but I like to say "never say never". Put your
lawyer hat back on for a second. What if, for the sake of discussion,
its 3 o'clock in the morning on a freeway, and you hit the guy on the
bike, having not seen him, until the last second? You the big car
driver have done everything right, but the bike did not make himself
seen, and he was on the freeway where he was not suppose to be. As
we've seen in all these threads, lots of variables to wade through.

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>
> > It's no excuse to hitting a guy on a bike that you were in a big car
> travelling very fast even if you were under the speed limit.
>
> >> Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
> >>
> > Not always.
>
> ALWAYS, prima facie.
>
> >> GC
> GC

[[email protected]]

> >> He glid.

> > He gled.

> I've glodden in the past.

We will glod in the future.

He glid, she gled, we will glod. :-)

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!

[john smith]

> FLARM is an anticollision warning system as to the proximity
> of other FLARM equipped aircraft. It is almost exclusively
> used in gliders - mostly in Europe. The manufacturer
> prohibits sale in the U.S. - people who have used it
> consider it to be affordable and effective.

Probably because they don't want the liabilitiy lawsuits.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Says me.
>
> Well, aren't we lucky you dropped by.

Apparently.

rg

[Jose[_1_]]

> He glid, she gled, we will glod.

Well, I'm glad that's over with.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> Yes, this is one they'll have to argue out. The ROW rules
> weren't written with circling flight in mind.


While I see your point, isn't circling flight common for a glider?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:11:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>:

[...]
>For example: under your interpretation of the rules, a balloon overtaking a
>helicopter in a hover would have the right-of-way and the helicopter would
>be required to give way. That certainly makes no more sense than requiring
>a balloon to alter course, and frankly I think it makes a lot less sense (at
>least in the converging situation, the balloon pilot can see the other
>traffic).

Given the fact that the balloon pilot is at the mercy of the vagaries
of the wind for his navigation control, and the helo is highly
maneuverable, why wouldn't the balloon be given the right-of-way? One
must give way to a balloon; to believe otherwise is foolish.

>So, which is it? Are balloon pilots required to alter course to the right?
>Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
>approaching them from the rear? You can't have it both ways.
>

Beats me.

You know, I write from the perspective of a certificated glider pilot
who received his training in the early '70s. My recollection is, that
gliders _always_ have the right-of-way over powered aircraft. Perhaps
that is an erroneous notion today. It might be worth researching the
historical changes to § 91.113.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:28:30 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote in >:

>alexy wrote:
>
>>
>> The head-on convergence clause is a little more problematic, as seen
>> from the different interpretations here. One interpretation (shall we
>> call it "Peter"?) is that the requirement that both alter course to
>> the right removes the right of way from both. The other interpretation
>> (Let's call this one "Larry") is that they are still converging, so
>> the category right of way rules apply, and the "turn right"
>> requirement is just for same-category craft, or is just advisory, not
>> changing the right of way.
>
>Converging head on [...] requires both to alter to their respective [courses]
>right REGARDLESS OF CLASS. There's no ambiguity here. The rule specificaly
>says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON OR NEARLY SO.

The way I read § 91.113(d):

(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—

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

it seems that both aircraft must alter their respective courses to the
right ONLY WHEN THEY ARE OF THE SAME CATAGORY. In this case they were
of different categories: airplane vs glider.

(Incidentally, I see no mention of class at all.)

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Given the fact that the balloon pilot is at the mercy of the vagaries
> of the wind for his navigation control, and the helo is highly
> maneuverable, why wouldn't the balloon be given the right-of-way? One
> must give way to a balloon; to believe otherwise is foolish.

A balloon pilot is NOT at the mercy of the wind. It's true that lateral
control is impossible, but that doesn't mean the balloon pilot doesn't have
any way to avoid a collision. And it's simply absurd to think that a pilot
who has no way to know that there is an overtaking aircraft is required to
give way to that overtaking aircraft.

And frankly, don't get too attached to the whole balloon/helicopter example.
It's just an *example*. Even if you somehow, in a bizarre twist of reality,
come to believe that a person is required to react to information they don't
have (for example, manufacture a non-existent requirement to be constantly
maneuvering so as to be aware of other air traffic in all directions), there
are still other similar examples. For example, shall the pilot of a Piper
Cub give way to a faster glider overtaking it? Are all power pilots
required to constantly maneuver so as to know whether they are being
overtaken by an aircraft that has the right of way?

What's foolish is thinking that balloon pilots have no control over their
aircraft, and that a person is required to react to a situation they have no
way to know is occurring.

Pete

[alexy]

T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:


>The right-of-way regs are not really
>written to cover typical soaring operations where a large
>percentage of flight is in turning operation and the
>relative converging/overtaking relationship is constantly
>changing.

Maybe not, but I don't see where there is any ambiguity. Either they
were converging (Obviously, they were converging in the sense of
getting closer together, but from context, I assume that converging
here means each having a component of their velocity vectors pointing
toward the MAC site.) in which case the category rules apply, or the
jet was overtaking the glider, inc which the overtaking rules apply.
At all times, it seems that the glider had the right of way.

In the spirit of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin, one could say that at the instant in each circle when the
glider was pointing directly at the jet, the converging-head-on rules
would apply, so if the glider was circling to the left he was at
fault. But talk about a stretch!!

The question in my mind is whether she really COULDN'T see the glider
as opposed to DIDN'T see it. Not sure what bearing that distinction
may have legally, though.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Jack[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> You know, I write from the perspective of a certificated glider pilot
> who received his training in the early '70s. My recollection is, that
> gliders _always_ have the right-of-way over powered aircraft. Perhaps
> that is an erroneous notion today. It might be worth researching the
> historical changes to § 91.113.


It might be worth reading today's 91.113 (c):

In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way
over all other air traffic.

And, reading (d) and it's sub-sections carefully may also add some
clarity.


Jack

-----

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.

[[email protected]]

alexy > wrote:
> The question in my mind is whether she really COULDN'T see the glider
> as opposed to DIDN'T see it. Not sure what bearing that distinction
> may have legally, though.

Moreover, it would be pretty difficult to prove either condition
(couldn't/didn't).

[Jack[_1_]]

Peter Duniho wrote:


> And it's simply absurd to think that a pilot
> who has no way to know that there is an overtaking aircraft is required to
> give way to that overtaking aircraft.

Yes, exactly so.

If we _read_ the FAR's, 99% of the questions are answered.

<http://tinyurl.com/loggu>

91.113

(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.


Jack

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Given the fact that the balloon pilot is at the mercy of the vagaries
> > of the wind for his navigation control, and the helo is highly
> > maneuverable, why wouldn't the balloon be given the right-of-way? One
> > must give way to a balloon; to believe otherwise is foolish.
>
> A balloon pilot is NOT at the mercy of the wind. It's true that lateral
> control is impossible, but that doesn't mean the balloon pilot doesn't have
> any way to avoid a collision. And it's simply absurd to think that a pilot
> who has no way to know that there is an overtaking aircraft is required to
> give way to that overtaking aircraft.
>
> And frankly, don't get too attached to the whole balloon/helicopter example.
> It's just an *example*. Even if you somehow, in a bizarre twist of reality,
> come to believe that a person is required to react to information they don't
> have (for example, manufacture a non-existent requirement to be constantly
> maneuvering so as to be aware of other air traffic in all directions), there
> are still other similar examples. For example, shall the pilot of a Piper
> Cub give way to a faster glider overtaking it? Are all power pilots
> required to constantly maneuver so as to know whether they are being
> overtaken by an aircraft that has the right of way?
>
> What's foolish is thinking that balloon pilots have no control over their
> aircraft, and that a person is required to react to a situation they have no
> way to know is occurring.

No, what is foolish is supposing that a helicopter pilot flying
backwards has no way of knowing what is going on behind him.

rg

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:52:09 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote in >:

>On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:28:30 -0400, Ron Natalie >
>wrote in >:
>
>>alexy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The head-on convergence clause is a little more problematic, as seen
>>> from the different interpretations here. One interpretation (shall we
>>> call it "Peter"?) is that the requirement that both alter course to
>>> the right removes the right of way from both. The other interpretation
>>> (Let's call this one "Larry") is that they are still converging, so
>>> the category right of way rules apply, and the "turn right"
>>> requirement is just for same-category craft, or is just advisory, not
>>> changing the right of way.
>>
>>Converging head on [...] requires both to alter to their respective [courses]
>>right REGARDLESS OF CLASS. There's no ambiguity here. The rule specificaly
>>says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON OR NEARLY SO.
>
>The way I read § 91.113(d):
>
> (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—
>
> (2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
> parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
>
>it seems that both aircraft must alter their respective courses to the
>right ONLY WHEN THEY ARE OF THE SAME CATAGORY. In this case they were
>of different categories: airplane vs glider.
>
>(Incidentally, I see no mention of class at all.)


Upon reading what you wrote more carefully, I see that you were
referring to:

(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.

which doesn't mention category (nor class) at all. That omission must
be an oversight on the part of those who drafted the regulation,
otherwise the balloon pilot would be in violation of that regulation
in every case (provided that it could be determined what constituted
head-on in the case of balloons) as a result of the lack of a
balloon's inability to alter its course to the right.

We can only hope, that this MAC will result in the FAA revising §
91.113 so that it contains less implication and more explicit,
reasonable, and rational language that addresses situations such as a
helo or vectored thrust aircraft's ability to 'fly' in reverse, the
virtually stationary aspect of a glider in thermaling flight, and no
doubt many other ambiguous situations.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:04:25 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Given the fact that the balloon pilot is at the mercy of the vagaries
>> of the wind for his navigation control, and the helo is highly
>> maneuverable, why wouldn't the balloon be given the right-of-way? One
>> must give way to a balloon; to believe otherwise is foolish.
>
>A balloon pilot is NOT at the mercy of the wind. It's true that lateral
>control is impossible, but that doesn't mean the balloon pilot doesn't have
>any way to avoid a collision.

It means that he is incapable of complying with § 91.113(e) by
altering his course to the right.

[[email protected]]

Lynn & Curtis Jordan wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> > The only injuiry Hirao sustained was a scratch on his right forearm
> > when he landed in some bush. He refused medical attention, and we all
> > enjoyed a very celebratory dinner in Minden that night.
>
> I live in Douglas County, flew with John at Flying Start...but the real
> question is...where did you celebrate and was the food and service good?
>
> - Curtis

I don't remember the name of the resturant, but it was in the center of
Minden, S side of 365 and only served family style menu. good bar,
French themes. Does that ring a bell?

Matt Herron

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Graeme Cant" wrote)
> > That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
> > and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
> > to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.
>
>
> "Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
> is an act of God."
>
> The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.
>
> No fault to either pilot.
> (Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)
>
Guys!

Hirao was UNDER 13,000 when the jet hit him and was circling in "good"
lift. Those are the facts I Iearned from his mouth. It would not be
possible for him to "run into" the jet.

Matt Herron

[alexy]

"Montblack" > wrote:

>("Graeme Cant" wrote)
>> That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
>> and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
>> to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.
>
>
>"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
>is an act of God."
>
>The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.
>
>No fault to either pilot.
No ROW rules or see and avoid in play here?

>(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

What difference occurs at 12,000 ft. "in your book"?

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("alexy" wrote)
> What difference occurs at 12,000 ft. "in your book"?


You lose much of the GA fleet at 12,000 ft. The sky gets that much bigger.

TO HIT THE HAWKER 800XP, zipping past:

60 mph = 88 ft/sec
600 mph = 880 ft/sec

300 mph = 440 ft/sec
+20%
360 mph = 528 ft/sec = 10 Hawkers @ 52' long, each.

Or one (52 ft long) Hawker travels 52 ft, in a tenth of a second.


TO HIT THE GLIDER - in the crosswalk:

He's 22 ft long
60 mph = 88 ft/sec

After 1 second, his tail is at 66 ft. His nose is at 88 ft. He's safe.
(That's 14 ft clear of the Hawker's 52 ft wingspan)

After 3/4 of a second, that would still leave 8 ft of the glider's tail
exposed, to the Hawker's wing.
(We'll call it one second to get through the crosswalk)

One second one direction and 1/10th of a second the other direction - on a
two dimensional plane at 13,000 ft.

"My book" calls that ...blame the meteor.


Montblack
And it's a very good book.

[Stefan]

Montblack schrieb:

(some caculations)

> "My book" calls that ...blame the meteor.
> And it's a very good book.

It's a pretty bad book. You calculated what it takes that one particular
glider hits one particular jet. But this isn't of any interest. The
relevant question is what it takes that in a sky full of gliders and
other aircraft, there will be a collision between any two of them.

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote: [snip] "You want the powered aircraft to use it
also?
And you know that FLARM actually works at those speeds?"

I, and no doubt others, would like to know the answer - but if it does
not at present work at those speeds, could it be developed so that it
does?

If it does or could, it certainly seems to me to offer a better
potential solution than Mode S (or A or C) for glider/glider collisions
- which transponders do nothing for - and glider/GA - which
transponders do little or nothing for, depending on whether they have
ATC contact (if ATC have not suppressed the glider transponder signal),
and/or ACAS (which few GA aircraft have), and/or collision avoidance
(which not that many GA have either) - an awful lot of if's. Oh, and I
understand that UK military have neither TCAS/ACAS nor other collision
avoidance, and many/most have no transponder either.

Chris N.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Stefan" wrote)
> It's a pretty bad book. You calculated what it takes that one particular
> glider hits one particular jet. But this isn't of any interest. The
> relevant question is what it takes that in a sky full of gliders and other
> aircraft, there will be a collision between any two of them.


....a collision possibility that will pass (in the case of the Hawker) in two
tenths of a second, or less.

One tenth to enter (and fill) the box, one tenth to exit (or clear) the box.


Montblack

[Gerhard Wesp[_6_]]

In rec.aviation.soaring Asbjorn Hojmark > wrote:
> You want the powered aircraft to use it also?
> And you know that FLARM actually works at those speeds?

It's true that it hasn't been tested much in practice, but FLARM is
definitely designed to work in powered aircraft as well. Actually, it
is already installed in many SEP aircraft in Europe, especially in
those susceptible to operate in the vicinity of glider crowded areas.

250kts at a range of 2-3 km still gives you >15s of reaction time.

Of course, neither FLARM nor any anti-collision system is a replacement
for SEE AND AVOID which should be the highest priority of good
airmanship.

Regards
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 (mobile) / +41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 668 1818 (fax)
http://gwesp.tx0.org/