Re: Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

[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.

[[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

[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

[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]

"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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.
>

[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

[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.

[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]

"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.

[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

[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_]]

"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?

[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

[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]]

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.

[Graeme Cant]

snoop wrote:
> GC, you may say "ALWAYS, but I like to say "never say never".

I'm usually pretty cautious that way myself.

> 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.

All those may or may not be true but if the reason HE gives is that he
was in a big car travelling at a speed too high for him to reasonably be
expected to take any avoiding action, then I would say he has no defence.

That's the analogy with the power pilots on r.a.p. They say "How can WE
possibly be expected to avoid a glider at the speeds we're travelling
and with many other important things to occupy us". A sample quote is
"How can you avoid what you haven't seen?" I wanted to remind them that
the law REQUIRES them to travel at such a speed that they CAN see gliders.

There are two aspects here. First - how we need to fly to stay alive.
The discussion on ras has mostly been on this area and I'm in complete
agreement with its defensive tone.

Second - who's at fault if there is a collision. Here, I found the
defensive discourse (My wife taught me that word!) on ras a bit
puzzling. It assumed power aircraft held all the cards and this is
untrue. The glider had right of way. This isn't everything but it IS
the starting point. If you don't assert your rights every now and then,
they disappear. Nobody else is going to grant you rights which you
don't claim yourself. If YOU don't believe in your own case, why would
anybody else see it from your point of view?

I guess you have the same aggressive cycling lobby groups that we have
here. Think of how they never tire of asserting their rights to be on
the road, their right to hold up traffic, their green credentials. I
know soaring won't do it but a tenth of their self-assertion would be
nice to see here.

I entirely agree that being right won't bring you back to life and I
certainly try to fly on the basis that everyone else is out to kill me
but I was trying to inject a little reality into the group with which
this was originally cross-posted - rec.aviation.piloting. You'll notice
I've taken the x-posting out.

Finally, it will be interesting if the glider and the jet have different
underwriters.

GC

[[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.

[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/

[Eric Greenwell]

Gerhard Wesp wrote:
> 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.

How many seconds does it take FLARM to compute a collision warning, once
the aircraft are within FLARM's radio range?

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[5Z]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > 250kts at a range of 2-3 km still gives you >15s of reaction time.
>
> How many seconds does it take FLARM to compute a collision warning, once
> the aircraft are within FLARM's radio range?

FLARM was designed for gliders and the speeds we fly. If it were
introduced into all general aviation, some tweaks would be necessary,
such as increasing the range to handle faster closing speeds.

It really does seem like FLARM is the ADS-B for the "masses". It
provides the basic collision warnings that 90% or more of us may
encounter. BUT, everyone must have one installed. In the USA, based
on NTSB reports, it looks like a device such as this would eliminate
several collisions and many dumb lucky misses at uncontrolled airports
per month.

-Tom

[Don Johnstone]

At 17:54 04 September 2006,
wrote:
>
> Oh, and I
>understand that UK military have neither TCAS/ACAS
>nor >other collision
>avoidance, and many/most have no transponder either.
>
>Chris N.
>
The last sentence is not strictly true as they have
IFF, a sort of super transponder with bells and whistles,
and it can be interogated by air traffic radars if
the pilot wants it to be, which in peacetime is most
of the time.

[Gerhard Wesp[_4_]]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> How many seconds does it take FLARM to compute a collision warning, once
> the aircraft are within FLARM's radio range?

A warning is only issued if a dangerous approximation is detected. As
far as I understand, this information is updated every second. IOW the
algorithm doesn't have state that persists over position/velocity
updates. IOW, the warning is pretty immediate.

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/

[Gerhard Wesp[_3_]]

5Z > wrote:
> FLARM was designed for gliders and the speeds we fly. If it were

Objection. FLARM is a "collision-warning unit for sailplanes and light
aircraft." It's "movement prediction model" is "optimised for the
respective user." (from the manual). The FAQ states (in German) that
it's designed for ground speeds up to 249 kts and vertical speeds of up
to 256 m/s (the designers had skydivers in mind here :). Range is given
between 1km and 5km, it strongly depends on how the antenna is mounted.

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/

[Udo Rumpf]

The last time I fell from an aircraft I dropped at
a leisurely rate of 60 m/s
Udo

>to 256 m/s (the designers had skydivers in mind here
>:). Range is given
>between 1km and 5km, it strongly depends on how the
>antenna is mounted.
>
>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/
>