Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

Lynn & Curtis Jordan wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

I live in Douglas County, flew with John at Flying Start...but the real
question is...where did you celebrate and was the food and service good?

- Curtis

I don't remember the name of the resturant, but it was in the center of
Minden, S side of 365 and only served family style menu. good bar,
French themes. Does that ring a bell?

Matt Herron

Montblack wrote:
("Graeme Cant" wrote)
That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.


"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
is an act of God."

The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.

No fault to either pilot.
(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

Guys!

Hirao was UNDER 13,000 when the jet hit him and was circling in "good"
lift. Those are the facts I Iearned from his mouth. It would not be
possible for him to "run into" the jet.

Matt Herron

"Montblack" wrote:

("Graeme Cant" wrote)
That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.


"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
is an act of God."

The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.

No fault to either pilot.
No ROW rules or see and avoid in play here?

(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

What difference occurs at 12,000 ft. "in your book"?

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

("alexy" wrote)
What difference occurs at 12,000 ft. "in your book"?


You lose much of the GA fleet at 12,000 ft. The sky gets that much bigger.

TO HIT THE HAWKER 800XP, zipping past:

60 mph = 88 ft/sec
600 mph = 880 ft/sec

300 mph = 440 ft/sec
+20%
360 mph = 528 ft/sec = 10 Hawkers @ 52' long, each.

Or one (52 ft long) Hawker travels 52 ft, in a tenth of a second.


TO HIT THE GLIDER - in the crosswalk:

He's 22 ft long
60 mph = 88 ft/sec

After 1 second, his tail is at 66 ft. His nose is at 88 ft. He's safe.
(That's 14 ft clear of the Hawker's 52 ft wingspan)

After 3/4 of a second, that would still leave 8 ft of the glider's tail
exposed, to the Hawker's wing.
(We'll call it one second to get through the crosswalk)

One second one direction and 1/10th of a second the other direction - on a
two dimensional plane at 13,000 ft.

"My book" calls that ...blame the meteor.


Montblack
And it's a very good book.

snoop wrote:
GC, you may say "ALWAYS, but I like to say "never say never".

I'm usually pretty cautious that way myself.

Put your
lawyer hat back on for a second. What if, for the sake of discussion,
its 3 o'clock in the morning on a freeway, and you hit the guy on the
bike, having not seen him, until the last second? You the big car
driver have done everything right, but the bike did not make himself
seen, and he was on the freeway where he was not suppose to be. As
we've seen in all these threads, lots of variables to wade through.

All those may or may not be true but if the reason HE gives is that he
was in a big car travelling at a speed too high for him to reasonably be
expected to take any avoiding action, then I would say he has no defence.

That's the analogy with the power pilots on r.a.p. They say "How can WE
possibly be expected to avoid a glider at the speeds we're travelling
and with many other important things to occupy us". A sample quote is
"How can you avoid what you haven't seen?" I wanted to remind them that
the law REQUIRES them to travel at such a speed that they CAN see gliders.

There are two aspects here. First - how we need to fly to stay alive.
The discussion on ras has mostly been on this area and I'm in complete
agreement with its defensive tone.

Second - who's at fault if there is a collision. Here, I found the
defensive discourse (My wife taught me that word!) on ras a bit
puzzling. It assumed power aircraft held all the cards and this is
untrue. The glider had right of way. This isn't everything but it IS
the starting point. If you don't assert your rights every now and then,
they disappear. Nobody else is going to grant you rights which you
don't claim yourself. If YOU don't believe in your own case, why would
anybody else see it from your point of view?

I guess you have the same aggressive cycling lobby groups that we have
here. Think of how they never tire of asserting their rights to be on
the road, their right to hold up traffic, their green credentials. I
know soaring won't do it but a tenth of their self-assertion would be
nice to see here.

I entirely agree that being right won't bring you back to life and I
certainly try to fly on the basis that everyone else is out to kill me
but I was trying to inject a little reality into the group with which
this was originally cross-posted - rec.aviation.piloting. You'll notice
I've taken the x-posting out.

Finally, it will be interesting if the glider and the jet have different
underwriters.

GC

Asbjorn Hojmark wrote: [snip] "You want the powered aircraft to use it
also?
And you know that FLARM actually works at those speeds?"

I, and no doubt others, would like to know the answer - but if it does
not at present work at those speeds, could it be developed so that it
does?

If it does or could, it certainly seems to me to offer a better
potential solution than Mode S (or A or C) for glider/glider collisions
- which transponders do nothing for - and glider/GA - which
transponders do little or nothing for, depending on whether they have
ATC contact (if ATC have not suppressed the glider transponder signal),
and/or ACAS (which few GA aircraft have), and/or collision avoidance
(which not that many GA have either) - an awful lot of if's. Oh, and I
understand that UK military have neither TCAS/ACAS nor other collision
avoidance, and many/most have no transponder either.

Chris N.

In rec.aviation.soaring Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
You want the powered aircraft to use it also?
And you know that FLARM actually works at those speeds?

It's true that it hasn't been tested much in practice, but FLARM is
definitely designed to work in powered aircraft as well. Actually, it
is already installed in many SEP aircraft in Europe, especially in
those susceptible to operate in the vicinity of glider crowded areas.

250kts at a range of 2-3 km still gives you 15s of reaction time.

Of course, neither FLARM nor any anti-collision system is a replacement
for SEE AND AVOID which should be the highest priority of good
airmanship.

Regards
-Gerhard
--
Gerhard Wesp / Holderenweg 2 / CH-8134 Adliswil
+41 (0)76 505 1149 (mobile) / +41 (0)44 668 1878 (office)
+41 (0)44 668 1818 (fax)
http://gwesp.tx0.org/

Gerhard Wesp wrote:
In rec.aviation.soaring Asbjorn Hojmark wrote:
You want the powered aircraft to use it also?
And you know that FLARM actually works at those speeds?

It's true that it hasn't been tested much in practice, but FLARM is
definitely designed to work in powered aircraft as well. Actually, it
is already installed in many SEP aircraft in Europe, especially in
those susceptible to operate in the vicinity of glider crowded areas.

250kts at a range of 2-3 km still gives you 15s of reaction time.

How many seconds does it take FLARM to compute a collision warning, once
the aircraft are within FLARM's radio range?

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:
250kts at a range of 2-3 km still gives you 15s of reaction time.

How many seconds does it take FLARM to compute a collision warning, once
the aircraft are within FLARM's radio range?

FLARM was designed for gliders and the speeds we fly. If it were
introduced into all general aviation, some tweaks would be necessary,
such as increasing the range to handle faster closing speeds.

It really does seem like FLARM is the ADS-B for the "masses". It
provides the basic collision warnings that 90% or more of us may
encounter. BUT, everyone must have one installed. In the USA, based
on NTSB reports, it looks like a device such as this would eliminate
several collisions and many dumb lucky misses at uncontrolled airports
per month.

-Tom

At 17:54 04 September 2006,
wrote:

Oh, and I
understand that UK military have neither TCAS/ACAS
nor other collision
avoidance, and many/most have no transponder either.

Chris N.

The last sentence is not strictly true as they have
IFF, a sort of super transponder with bells and whistles,
and it can be interogated by air traffic radars if
the pilot wants it to be, which in peacetime is most
of the time.