Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

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.

Montblack wrote:
("Newps" wrote)
He glid.


He gled.

I've glodden in the past.

wrote

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

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

"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.

"Stefan" wrote

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

Holy Moley!

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

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

Again, WoW!
--
Jim in NC

"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

wrote

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

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

"Ron Natalie" wrote

By the way, if the transponder cert was out of date, the aircraft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

I don't know about that one, Ron.

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

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

Newps wrote:


Stefan wrote:



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


He glid.


The glider pilot glid..

The Hawker pilot (and passengers) shat...

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,
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.