Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

john smith wrote:
In article ,
Stefan wrote:

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg


Wow. I wonder if the control surfaces would still have been
controllable from the cockpit if the plane was equipped with a
fly-by-wire system instead of conventional mechanical controls.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:06 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:

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.

On 30 Aug 2006 14:27:37 -0700, "Kingfish" wrote
in . com:


What is a glider doing up at an oxygen altitude of 16,000ft?

He's probably working a mountain wave.

Gliders often operate above 20,000' while in contact with ATC.

Isn't that a tad close to the Class A?

An inch is as good as a mile. :-)

While both pilots must comply with the see-and-avoid regulation, or
course the glider category has the right of way over powered
airplanes.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:41:06 -0400, "Darkwing"
theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote in
:

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.

Here is one mo
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/mi...rt&cachetime=0

-Nik

On 30 Aug 2006 18:05:28 -0700, "rps" wrote:


john smith wrote:
In article ,
Stefan wrote:

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4683/11dy6.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/5328/5oy9.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2266/dscf0034vm0.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2240/14nx6.jpg


Wow. I wonder if the control surfaces would still have been
controllable from the cockpit if the plane was equipped with a
fly-by-wire system instead of conventional mechanical controls.

I allegedly maintain a couple of 800's. Hawkers are built
hell-for-stout and as you indicate are an old-fashioned "mechanical"
airplane.

Been that way since the early '60's (first flew in '62?)

Did you hear about the one that survived the SAM strike?

TC

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:09 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in :

The category preference only applies to aircraft converging from
other than head on (apply directly to the forehead).


That's not what it says he

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text... .1.3.10.2.4.7

§ 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.

[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt.
91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]
----------------------------------

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:09 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in :

The category preference only applies to aircraft converging from
other than head on (apply directly to the forehead).

That's not what it says he

That's funny. The regulation you quoted in your post says *exactly* what
Ron said it does. That IS "what is says here".

You ought to read things before you post them.

(And if you're going to use a newsreader that doesn't double-check your
Newsgroups: field, you need to do a better job spell-checking...not that I
have any idea why you decided to add the r.a.gliding newsgroup anyway).

Anyone have an N-number yet?

Ron Natalie wrote:

Who the hell said anything about right of way here. Both aircraft have
a duty to see and avoid. The category preference only applies to
aircraft converging from other than head on (apply directly to the
forehead). I'm sure the NTSB will give study as to what the actual
tracks were and what the visual vantages were from both ships.

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. If a jet is heading nearly head-on, I
imagine it will be nearly impossible to spot the glider until a
collision is all but avoidable, and that's if you know it's there. The
jet itself would only be somewhat more visible head-on.

I haven't been soaring that high, but I imagine this is a good example
of why flight following is a good thing. It isn't perfect, but it
can't hurt.

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:10:59 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:33:09 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in :

The category preference only applies to aircraft converging from
other than head on (apply directly to the forehead).

That's not what it says he

That's funny. The regulation you quoted in your post says *exactly* what
Ron said it does. That IS "what is says here".

We disagree.

I know what you're going to tell me, that this:

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

only applies when:

(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging
at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so),

However, that is only applicable when the aircraft are of the same
category. In this instance, they aren't.

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.

You ought to read things before you post them.

Of course, I did. We just read them differently.