Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

Richard Riley wrote:

Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.

They'll certainly have the jet's track, but are you sure they'll have
a recording of the skin paint of the glider?

Maybe, maybe not. But I'm sure they'll use other means to try to
estimate the glider flight track.

wrote in message
ups.com...

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 can't help if ATC can't see the targets, and if the glider doesn't have a
transponder they aren't likely to see it.

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
approaching them from the rear?

How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
powered aircraft for that matter?

rg

A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy schrieb:

A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.

Oh, it's not uncommon that a glider cruses along under a strong
cloudstreet with 120 knots while maintaining altitude. Not to speak of
the final glide with often up to 150 knots. Try that in a Cessna 152.

Stefan

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? 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?

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.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? 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?


Yes you have to look out the front and scan to see other aircraft.

Because she is a woman JOKING.
Hope that reporter does not read this.
From now on in I think I will enjoy baiting reporters with bull**** to see
if they report it.

Lets see I am in a jet doing 300 knots descending I believe I am under IFR
control and the ATC would advised of traffic!

Stefan wrote:

alexy schrieb:

A better example might be a glider overtaking a powered plane.

Oh, it's not uncommon that a glider cruses along under a strong
cloudstreet with 120 knots while maintaining altitude. Not to speak of
the final glide with often up to 150 knots. Try that in a Cessna 152.

Stefan

Right. And in that case, I think it clear that the right of way goes
to the 152 under the "overtaking" clause rather than to the glider
under the "converging" clause.

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.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Kingfish" wrote:


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? 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?

Is there a hard-to-see exception in the right of way rules?

Everyone is focusing on how hard a glider is to see in
straight-and-level flight head-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.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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.

That is my understanding too, but that goes back to my original point
of ceding right of way. If the jet pilot didn't see the glider (until
it was too late?) how would she have given way to it? This sounds to me
like a classic see-and-avoid issue resulting in a MAC with,
fortunately, no loss of life.