Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:06 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...0025/-1/REGION


While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
mystery.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:06 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...0025/-1/REGION


While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
mystery.

Here is one mo
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/mi...rt&cachetime=0

-Nik

Larry Dighera wrote:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...0025/-1/REGION


While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
mystery.

Hey, Larry, this is right up your alley, but for the fact there is no
military involvement. Are you going to be as hard on the Hawker Chick as
you would on a Fighter Chick? ;


Jack

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:58:41 GMT, Jack wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...0025/-1/REGION


While pilot Annette Saunders handled her Hawker 800XP admirably after
colliding with the glider, why she obviously failed to give way is a
mystery.

Hey, Larry, this is right up your alley, but for the fact there is no
military involvement. Are you going to be as hard on the Hawker Chick as
you would on a Fighter Chick? ;

Jack, it's not about being hard on anyone except those who deserve it.
It appears, that Parker willfully chose to descend into congested
terminal airspace without the required clearance, and his decision
resulted in a ghastly fatality. It is that deliberate disregard of
regulations, and Gen. Rosa's lack of punishment, to which I object.

While Ms. Saunders may be guilty of neglect, hopefully it wasn't
willful neglect.

All those involved were incredibly fortunate.

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!

"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.

alexy wrote:

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


No, but there is a physical limitation to the Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball - which,
in the absence of any usable TCAS type equipment is all you have.

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.


And you know this...how? It's all speculation until both pilots are
interviewed and their accounts are made public.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.

Agreed. There might be a lesson in this for all pilots.

"Kingfish" wrote:


alexy wrote:

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


No, but there is a physical limitation to the Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball - which,
in the absence of any usable TCAS type equipment is all you have.

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.


And you know this...how?
Assuming by "this" you are referring to what I wrote (that it seems
more likely), I know this just from the common knowledge that biz jets
spend a very large portion of their time in straight or gently turning
flight and gliders spend a large portion of their time turing, Also,
that at their relative speeds, it is almost as easy for the jet to
broadside the glider as to hit it headon.

It's all speculation until both pilots are
interviewed and their accounts are made public.
Absolutely. That's why I limited my comment to what seemed more likely
to me, with no broader claim.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.

Agreed. There might be a lesson in this for all pilots.

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

"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.