Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

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/keepits...g/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

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

"5Z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ron Natalie wrote:
There is NO SUCH RULE.

FAR 91.113
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?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.

"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.

"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:


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.