Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

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 . 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?

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.

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

"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?

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.

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" 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 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

"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.

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.

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

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