Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

alexy wrote:

Is there a hard-to-see exception in the right of way rules?


No, but there is a physical limitation to the Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball - which,
in the absence of any usable TCAS type equipment is all you have.

Everyone is focusing on how hard a glider is to see in
straight-and-level flight head-on. It seems far more likely that this
was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
glider was a moving object directly ahead.


And you know this...how? It's all speculation until both pilots are
interviewed and their accounts are made public.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.

Agreed. There might be a lesson in this for all pilots.

"Kingfish" wrote:


alexy wrote:

Is there a hard-to-see exception in the right of way rules?


No, but there is a physical limitation to the Mk1 Mod1 Eyeball - which,
in the absence of any usable TCAS type equipment is all you have.

Everyone is focusing on how hard a glider is to see in
straight-and-level flight head-on. It seems far more likely that this
was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
glider was a moving object directly ahead.


And you know this...how?
Assuming by "this" you are referring to what I wrote (that it seems
more likely), I know this just from the common knowledge that biz jets
spend a very large portion of their time in straight or gently turning
flight and gliders spend a large portion of their time turing, Also,
that at their relative speeds, it is almost as easy for the jet to
broadside the glider as to hit it headon.

It's all speculation until both pilots are
interviewed and their accounts are made public.
Absolutely. That's why I limited my comment to what seemed more likely
to me, with no broader claim.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.

Agreed. There might be a lesson in this for all pilots.

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

Transponders, or other far better technology like ADS-B deserve careful
consideration but currently the cost, weight, space and battery power
required are obstacles to wide acceptance by glider owner/operators.
There's a 2.25" hole in my panel for a transponder but there's an even
bigger hole in my wallet preventing me from filling the panel hole.
(Although the priority is rising.)

Technology like Mode S and/or ADS-B will replace Mode C transponders so
investing in Mode C now may be an expensive short term solution.

The "system" didn't work but the parachute did.

"Right of way" is a slippery concept but in this case, the glider was
apparently thermalling so it was a semi-stationary object hit by a fast
moving jet. It seems logical to me the burden of responsibility falls on
the Hawker pilot. This is backed up by FAR's

If, as is being speculated, the transponder installed in the glider was not
yet properly tested for use and therefore not turned on, I don't think there
is any culpability for the glider pilot. In fact, he should get credit for
trying to do the right thing.

This incident should be a reminder to jet pilots that "clearing the flight
path" when flying below FL180 in VMC is an absolute necessity. The "system"
simply can't and won't protect you under VMC.

I have had heavy transport aircraft fly close by me in situations where, in
my opinion, there was no reason for them being there. For example, a jet in
American Airlines livery flew under me when I was flying below the rim of
the Colorado River gorge in western Colorado. It couldn't have been more
than 1000 feet AGL. In another case, I was below the peaks of the
Contenintal Divide when a jet in United Airlines livery came through a notch
in the ridegline clearing his shadow by only a few hundred feet.
Presumably, no passengers were aboard in either case.

An actual collision is not the only danger. Wake turbulence left by a heavy
will also damage a glider.

Be careful out there.

Bill Daniels

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2006 05:53:22 -0700, "Kingfish" wrote
in . com:


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?

Unless TCAS or radar vectors are involved, yes.

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.

Agreed.

Why do you automatically assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?

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

("Newps" wrote)
He glid.


He gled.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gled
Gled = The common European kite

Kite \Kite\, n. Any raptorial bird of the subfamily Milvin[ae], of which
many species are known. They have long wings, adapted for soaring, and
usually a forked tail.


Montblack :-)
Too glib?

Bill Daniels wrote:
Transponders, or other far better technology like ADS-B deserve careful
consideration but currently the cost, weight, space and battery power
required are obstacles to wide acceptance by glider owner/operators.
There's a 2.25" hole in my panel for a transponder but there's an even
bigger hole in my wallet preventing me from filling the panel hole.
(Although the priority is rising.)

Technology like Mode S and/or ADS-B will replace Mode C transponders so
investing in Mode C now may be an expensive short term solution.

The "system" didn't work but the parachute did.

"Right of way" is a slippery concept but in this case, the glider was
apparently thermalling so it was a semi-stationary object hit by a fast
moving jet. It seems logical to me the burden of responsibility falls on
the Hawker pilot. This is backed up by FAR's

If, as is being speculated, the transponder installed in the glider was not
yet properly tested for use and therefore not turned on, I don't think there
is any culpability for the glider pilot. In fact, he should get credit for
trying to do the right thing.

This incident should be a reminder to jet pilots that "clearing the flight
path" when flying below FL180 in VMC is an absolute necessity. The "system"
simply can't and won't protect you under VMC.

I have had heavy transport aircraft fly close by me in situations where, in
my opinion, there was no reason for them being there. For example, a jet in
American Airlines livery flew under me when I was flying below the rim of
the Colorado River gorge in western Colorado. It couldn't have been more
than 1000 feet AGL. In another case, I was below the peaks of the
Contenintal Divide when a jet in United Airlines livery came through a notch
in the ridegline clearing his shadow by only a few hundred feet.
Presumably, no passengers were aboard in either case.

An actual collision is not the only danger. Wake turbulence left by a heavy
will also damage a glider.

Be careful out there.

Bill Daniels

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 31 Aug 2006 05:53:22 -0700, "Kingfish" wrote
in . com:


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?

Unless TCAS or radar vectors are involved, yes.

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.

Agreed.

Why do you automatically assume the Hawker pilot is at fault?

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

20 years ago, I lost a friend in a mid-air collision. He was flying
his glider at 11,000 in eastern Washington ( ground elevation about
4000'). He was hit by a Piper Arrow, that had four occupants. No
survivors. Either low or high speed, it can happen.

Bill, I agree. Just because the airline pilots are supposed to be
law-abiding professionals doesn't mean that they don't occasionally try
to do something that they think is fun. I was aboard an American Eagle
flight many years ago, riding in a Twin Otter with 18 0ther passengers,
when the pilots decided to fly through the Red Rock Canyon and Mojave,
CA areas below the height of the peaks on either side. This was
enroute from Inyokern to Lancaster. I also knew that they had taken
off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
takeoff. I reported them to the FAA, but to my knowledge, nothing ever
happened.

Ed

Bill Daniels wrote:

I have had heavy transport aircraft fly close by me in situations where, in
my opinion, there was no reason for them being there. For example, a jet in
American Airlines livery flew under me when I was flying below the rim of
the Colorado River gorge in western Colorado. It couldn't have been more
than 1000 feet AGL. In another case, I was below the peaks of the
Contenintal Divide when a jet in United Airlines livery came through a notch
in the ridegline clearing his shadow by only a few hundred feet.
Presumably, no passengers were aboard in either case.

An actual collision is not the only danger. Wake turbulence left by a heavy
will also damage a glider.

Be careful out there.

Bill Daniels

Kingfish wrote:

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?

Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace, they do this by seeing the other
aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.

Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.

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

GC

"flying_monkey" wrote in message
ps.com...
Bill, I agree. Just because the airline pilots are supposed to be
law-abiding professionals doesn't mean that they don't occasionally try
to do something that they think is fun. I was aboard an American Eagle
flight many years ago, riding in a Twin Otter with 18 0ther passengers,
when the pilots decided to fly through the Red Rock Canyon and Mojave,
CA areas below the height of the peaks on either side. This was
enroute from Inyokern to Lancaster. I also knew that they had taken
off over gross on that flight, from things that I heard them say before
takeoff. I reported them to the FAA, but to my knowledge, nothing ever
happened.

Ed

I'm curious, did they show you the W&B sheet for the flight? How did you
know they over gross?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"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).

What difference does that make? Who is overtaking whom is determined
according to velocity vectors relative to the air, not the ground. (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?)

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.

rg

"alexy" wrote in message
...
"Kingfish" wrote:


Larry Dighera wrote:

-on. It seems far more likely that this
was not head on. From the glider's perspective the jet was an unmoving
object somewhere in the sky, while from the jet's perspective, the
glider was a moving object directly ahead.
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked
infrequently.

If I read your logic, the jet is unmoving because it is in steady flight
(not circling), so it stays in one position relative to the glider. Whereas
the glider is circling and so moves back and forth to some extent. Well,
given the small diameter of a thermalling glider, I think for all intents,
the glider would have been effectively a small dot in the sky except for the
last seconds. The power pilot had some clues, but it is still darn
difficult to see other gliders sometimes. Heck, I've been in thermals where
the other glider never saw me.