Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

FLARM is an anticollision warning system as to the proximity
of other FLARM equipped aircraft. It is almost exclusively
used in gliders - mostly in Europe. The manufacturer
prohibits sale in the U.S. - people who have used it
consider it to be affordable and effective.

Probably because they don't want the liabilitiy lawsuits.

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Says me.

Well, aren't we lucky you dropped by.

Apparently.

rg

He glid, she gled, we will glod.

Well, I'm glad that's over with.

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

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

Yes, this is one they'll have to argue out. The ROW rules
weren't written with circling flight in mind.


While I see your point, isn't circling flight common for a glider?

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:11:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
:

[...]
For example: under your interpretation of the rules, a balloon overtaking a
helicopter in a hover would have the right-of-way and the helicopter would
be required to give way. That certainly makes no more sense than requiring
a balloon to alter course, and frankly I think it makes a lot less sense (at
least in the converging situation, the balloon pilot can see the other
traffic).

Given the fact that the balloon pilot is at the mercy of the vagaries
of the wind for his navigation control, and the helo is highly
maneuverable, why wouldn't the balloon be given the right-of-way? One
must give way to a balloon; to believe otherwise is foolish.

So, which is it? Are balloon pilots required to alter course to the right?
Or are helicopter pilots required to yield right-of-way to a balloon
approaching them from the rear? You can't have it both ways.


Beats me.

You know, I write from the perspective of a certificated glider pilot
who received his training in the early '70s. My recollection is, that
gliders _always_ have the right-of-way over powered aircraft. Perhaps
that is an erroneous notion today. It might be worth researching the
historical changes to § 91.113.

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:28:30 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in :

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 [...] requires both to alter to their respective [courses]
right REGARDLESS OF CLASS. There's no ambiguity here. The rule specificaly
says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON OR NEARLY SO.

The way I read § 91.113(d):

(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—

(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered
parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.

it seems that both aircraft must alter their respective courses to the
right ONLY WHEN THEY ARE OF THE SAME CATAGORY. In this case they were
of different categories: airplane vs glider.

(Incidentally, I see no mention of class at all.)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Given the fact that the balloon pilot is at the mercy of the vagaries
of the wind for his navigation control, and the helo is highly
maneuverable, why wouldn't the balloon be given the right-of-way? One
must give way to a balloon; to believe otherwise is foolish.

A balloon pilot is NOT at the mercy of the wind. It's true that lateral
control is impossible, but that doesn't mean the balloon pilot doesn't have
any way to avoid a collision. And it's simply absurd to think that a pilot
who has no way to know that there is an overtaking aircraft is required to
give way to that overtaking aircraft.

And frankly, don't get too attached to the whole balloon/helicopter example.
It's just an *example*. Even if you somehow, in a bizarre twist of reality,
come to believe that a person is required to react to information they don't
have (for example, manufacture a non-existent requirement to be constantly
maneuvering so as to be aware of other air traffic in all directions), there
are still other similar examples. For example, shall the pilot of a Piper
Cub give way to a faster glider overtaking it? Are all power pilots
required to constantly maneuver so as to know whether they are being
overtaken by an aircraft that has the right of way?

What's foolish is thinking that balloon pilots have no control over their
aircraft, and that a person is required to react to a situation they have no
way to know is occurring.

Pete

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:


The right-of-way regs are not really
written to cover typical soaring operations where a large
percentage of flight is in turning operation and the
relative converging/overtaking relationship is constantly
changing.

Maybe not, but I don't see where there is any ambiguity. Either they
were converging (Obviously, they were converging in the sense of
getting closer together, but from context, I assume that converging
here means each having a component of their velocity vectors pointing
toward the MAC site.) in which case the category rules apply, or the
jet was overtaking the glider, inc which the overtaking rules apply.
At all times, it seems that the glider had the right of way.

In the spirit of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin, one could say that at the instant in each circle when the
glider was pointing directly at the jet, the converging-head-on rules
would apply, so if the glider was circling to the left he was at
fault. But talk about a stretch!!

The question in my mind is whether she really COULDN'T see the glider
as opposed to DIDN'T see it. Not sure what bearing that distinction
may have legally, though.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Larry Dighera wrote:

You know, I write from the perspective of a certificated glider pilot
who received his training in the early '70s. My recollection is, that
gliders _always_ have the right-of-way over powered aircraft. Perhaps
that is an erroneous notion today. It might be worth researching the
historical changes to § 91.113.


It might be worth reading today's 91.113 (c):

In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way
over all other air traffic.

And, reading (d) and it's sub-sections carefully may also add some
clarity.


Jack

-----

Sec. 91.113

Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of
an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether
an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual
flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating
an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this
section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give
way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it
unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over
all other air traffic.
(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.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other
head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course
to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the
right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter
course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while
landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of
this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has
already landed and is attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more
aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the
aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not
take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on
final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

alexy wrote:
The question in my mind is whether she really COULDN'T see the glider
as opposed to DIDN'T see it. Not sure what bearing that distinction
may have legally, though.

Moreover, it would be pretty difficult to prove either condition
(couldn't/didn't).