If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
"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. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
("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. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
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/ |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
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 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo! | Darkwing | Piloting | 151 | September 5th 06 05:19 PM |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Bad publicity | David Starer | Soaring | 18 | March 8th 04 03:57 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |