Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

Ron Natalie wrote:

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 (apply directly to the forehead) requires both to
alter to their respective right REGARDLESS OF CLASS.
I agree.

There's no ambiguity here.
That claim flies directly in the face of the evidence seen here (and
does not alter course to the rightg).

The rule specificaly says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON
OR NEARLY SO.
Look more closely at (d). It is composed of a title word
("Converging.") and two sentences in the opening paragraph. The first
of those has to do with "aircraft of the same category [that] are
converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or
nearly so)". The phrase "converging at the same altitude" and the
parenthetical are clearly qualifiers of the "aircraft of the same
category" The second sentence and three following numbered sentences
talk about aircraft of different categories, still within the
paragraph labeled "Converging", but without any of the qualifiers
about approximately the same altitude or the parenthetical excluding
head-on.

Paragraph (e) talks about head-on convergence, and the requirement
that both alter course to the right would seem to me to over-ride the
ROW rules by category stated in the previous paragraph. But to claim
that it is unambiguous is a stretch.


My $0.02, worth what you paid for it!
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"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.

"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.

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.

In this particular case, in hindsight, perhaps. But in general, an
incorrect transponder readout could cause pilots to look in the wrong
place for traffic they would have otherwise seen right away, increasing
the risk of a collision. It would be a different accident; it would be
the one that didn't happen, so we'll never know whether it would have or
not. But it might, and that's the reason it's supposed to be off.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.