Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
What difference does that make? Who is overtaking whom is determined
according to velocity vectors relative to the air, not the ground.

Says who? Not that I made a statement about ground track versus movement
relative to air. But you're making a completely unfounded claim here.

(And if you doubt this, consider the following scenario: two aircraft are
flying slowly into the wind, one behind the other. The distance between
them is decreasing. Do you really wish to argue that the upwind
aircraft could be overtaking the downwind aircraft if they are facing a
sufficiently strong headwind?)

The overtaking aircraft is the one that can SEE the other aircraft. Their
specific progress over the ground or through the air is much less relevant
than the question of which direction each aircraft is pointed, especially
relative to their movement through the air OR over the ground.

That's the whole point of the overtaking regulation. There's one aircraft
that is aware of the situation and another than is not.

In the situation you describe (a balloon "overtaking" a (hovering)
helicopter from the rear) the helicopter is actually flying backwards
and overtaking the balloon. A balloon's airspeed is always zero.

Again, how does airspeed define "overtaking"? Where is this definition of
which you speak?

If we are to believe your interpretation of "overtaking", then in the
scenario I describe the helicopter is required to give way to the balloon.
How, exactly, do you propose that a helicopter in a hover give way to the
balloon, or even be aware that there's a balloon to give way to?

Pete

alexy wrote:
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.

A glider overtaking a bizjet is unlikely. A glider overtaking
a 152, is probably easy.

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 (apply directly to the forehead) requires both to
alter to their respective right REGARDLESS OF CLASS. There's no
ambiguity here. The rule specificaly says converging OTHER THAN HEAD ON
OR NEARLY SO.

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?

When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.

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


It was a brand new glider (first flight) and the glider had
a transponder according to one report. Transponders aren't
that common for gliders. They're power hungry devices for
aircraft without engine powered electrical systems, and not
required for where he was flying, which shows he was willing
to spend some money for safety, but reports are that it was
turned off.

This is largely stated, but really not that true in this day
and age. While I'd not want to run my KT76 off a battery
the semiconductor units aren't that power hungry. Terra
made a balloon pack transponder over a decade ago.

By the way, if the transponder cert was out of date, the aircraft
was not technically airworthy unless the device was deactivated,
removed, or properly placarded. Hope, the glider pilot did
the appropriate thing with regard to that.

Larry Dighera wrote:


Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
right-of-way over powered aircraft.

Because your understanding is incorrect and not supported by the
construction of the regulation. The only part of the rules that
mention category is one that begins with "Converging other than
head on or nearly so."

It's possible that the glider had the right of way, it's also
possible that he didn't.

In either case, there was DEFINITELY A FAILURE TO SEE (and avoid)
as the jet pilot never saw the glider according to reports (and
I suspect the glider pilot never saw the jet) so the right of
way rules don't seem to have mattered because unless there you
know the other guy is there there's not going to be any manouvering
rules to apply.

Graeme Cant wrote:

Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace,

There is NO SUCH RULE.

they do this by seeing the other
aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.

All aircraft are required to see and avoid regardless of the right of
way rules.

Unlike the nautical rules, there's no stand-on (priviliged) vessel.
Your required to not hit the other aircraft regardless of the who
has the right of way.


Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.

Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

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.

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:15:16 +1000, Graeme Cant
gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote:
Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/19...erokeesport4x4

Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/19...erokeesport4x4

"Prima facie" means "at first sight". The accident would be presumed to
be your fault "at first sight". The investigation acts as "second
sight" and in this case revealed other circumstances which shifted fault.

"Prima facie" does not mean "no matter what".

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