Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

Stefan wrote:
Ron Natalie schrieb:

What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.

Agreed. But, while no glider pilot I know would insist on his right: The
glider had the right of way.


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.

I would have to believe this is going to be a no falt accident. This is a
freek.
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Stefan wrote:
Ron Natalie schrieb:

What we apparently have here (from preliminary data) is a massive
failure of see-and-avoid on the behalf of both parties.

Agreed. But, while no glider pilot I know would insist on his right: The
glider had the right of way.


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.

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 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.

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

wrote in message
ups.com...

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.


It can't help if ATC can't see the targets, and if the glider doesn't have a
transponder they aren't likely to see it.

wrote

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.

It also makes me wonder if the glider had a transponder. It would seem like
a good idea, to carry one, and an altitude encoding one, if possible. That
way, the jet would have been able to get an alert from his collision
avoidance equipment, and this would have been a non-accident. A much better
day, for all those involved.
--
Jim in NC