Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:27:31 GMT, john smith wrote in
:

Anyone have an N-number yet?

Tomorrow you'll find it he
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...liminary_data/

On 30 Aug 2006 19:53:56 -0700, wrote in
. com:

I haven't been soaring that high, but I imagine this is a good example
of why flight following is a good thing.

Unless transponder equipped, I would guess a glass glider would not
paint a radar target useful for ATC Radar Traffic Advisory Service.

john smith wrote:
Anyone have an N-number yet?

Looks like N879QS (from the pic of the panel).

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:27:31 GMT, john smith wrote in
:

Anyone have an N-number yet?

Tomorrow you'll find it he
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/a...liminary_data/

Here it is. I wondered if it was a NetJet.

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 879QS Make/Model: H25B Description: HAWKER 800 XP
Date: 08/28/2006 Time: 2211

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Minor Mid Air: Y
Missing:
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: CARSON CITY State: NV Country: US

DESCRIPTION
MID AIR COLLISION BETWEEN SCHLEICHER N7729 AND HAWKER N879QS
(OPERATING AS
EJA879) AT 16,000 FEET, 42 MI SE RENO, NV. PILOT OF GLIDER BAILED OUT,
CARSON CITY, NV

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1
Unk:
# Pass: 3 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0
Unk:

WEATHER: 22017G22 10 SM FEW 100 34/-5 A3004

OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Descent Operation: Air Carrier


FAA FSDO: RENO, NV (WP11) Entry date: 08/29/2006

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
If you believe that this:

(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.

Overrules (2) above, then please explain how a balloon (given the
right-of-way in (d)(1)) can alter course to the right.

If (e) negates (d)(3), then it also negates (d)(1). I have a very
difficult time believing that the regulation doesn't grant balloons
the right of way over all other aircraft.

Believe what you like. I agree that one can interpret the construction in
an illogical way if you want. However, it is standard practice in the FARs
for equivalent but different situations to be described in same-level
paragraphs. (e) *does* overrule (d).

If the FAA wanted the categories to override anything else, the regulation
would have been written differently, more like the minimum altitude
regulation. For example:

(d) If the aircraft are of different categories...
(e) If the aircraft are of the same category,
(1) and are converging head-on (or nearly so)...
(2) otherwise...

Your balloon example carries no more weight than analysis of the
construction, and frankly it's much more common for the regulations to
appear to require something that seems a little silly than it is for them to
not follow their own usual rules of order.

Inasmuch as a balloon could be considered to be converging "head-on", (e)
applies and the balloon is expected to give way to the right to whatever
extent it can. In a balloon, this means an altitude change, which of course
renders the same-altitude convergence rules moot. But I see no reason to
interpret the rules in the way you've chosen to do so.

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).

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.

Pete

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

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:03:17 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:
How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
powered aircraft for that matter?

Uhhhh... HINT -- Helicopters can *hover*...

Hmmm... That brings up another question... Do the FARs say anything
about right of way with regards to the possibility of the helicopter
flying *backwards*?

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
How exactly is a balloon going to overtake a helicopter? Or any other
powered aircraft for that matter?

See Grumman's post. There's a reason I specifically wrote "a balloon
overtaking a helicopter IN A HOVER" in my post (emphasis added).

schrieb:

Having watched gliders from the ground and air, I've noticed that from
directly in front or behind, they nearly disappear because of the very
narrow wings and fuselage.

Sometimes they even fully disappear. Every glider pilot is well aware of
this. Every year there have been a couple of midairs between gliders in
Europe, and that's why most gliders in the Alps are now FLARM equipped.

That said, as I hear (third hand "knowledge"), the glider involved in
this accident was thermalling and thus should have been very well
viewable. And Minden is very well known as glider area with the
appropriate warnings on all applicable maps, so the jet crew was warned
and should have looked out extra carefully.

Stefan