Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

"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.

("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.

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

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.