Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

Aluckyguess wrote:

How could the powered aircraft be at fault if the glider hit him from the
side.

1. I love the concept of a 300kg, 60kt glider "hitting" a 10,000kg,
300kt bizjet - especially from the side! You'll notice in the photos
that the glider's spar joiner is lodged in the radome, not the side
window. It's physically impossible for a 60kt anything to hit a 300kt
anything from the side.

2. Because he failed to see and avoid the glider. ALL aircraft in VMC
are required to see and avoid other aircraft and they avoid them by
following the right of way rules - the powered aircraft alters course to
avoid the glider.

There is no way to know who is at fault.

That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They
tend to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.

If you cant see it you cant avoid it. I think the glider will end up at
fault.

You can see and avoid anything if you go slowly and carefully enough.
Yes, I know that's not how powered aircraft are generally operated but
the law says that's how they SHOULD be operated.

It's no excuse to hitting a guy on a bike that you were in a big car
travelling very fast even if you were under the speed limit.

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

Not always.

ALWAYS, prima facie.

GC
GC

("Graeme Cant" wrote)
That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.


"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
is an act of God."

The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.

No fault to either pilot.
(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

"Next case."


Montblack

Montblack wrote:
("Graeme Cant" wrote)
That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.


"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
is an act of God."

The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.

No fault to either pilot.
(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

Guys!

Hirao was UNDER 13,000 when the jet hit him and was circling in "good"
lift. Those are the facts I Iearned from his mouth. It would not be
possible for him to "run into" the jet.

Matt Herron

"Montblack" wrote:

("Graeme Cant" wrote)
That's true for you and me. But the courts and the insurance companies
and the FAA will certainly find a way no matter how hard it is. They tend
to work at these things more persistently than you and I do.


"Insurance companies are the most religious people in America - everything
is an act of God."

The 'big sky' (at 16,000 ft.) wasn't big enough.

No fault to either pilot.
No ROW rules or see and avoid in play here?

(Under 12,000 ft. is a different matter, in my book)

What difference occurs at 12,000 ft. "in your book"?

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

("alexy" wrote)
What difference occurs at 12,000 ft. "in your book"?


You lose much of the GA fleet at 12,000 ft. The sky gets that much bigger.

TO HIT THE HAWKER 800XP, zipping past:

60 mph = 88 ft/sec
600 mph = 880 ft/sec

300 mph = 440 ft/sec
+20%
360 mph = 528 ft/sec = 10 Hawkers @ 52' long, each.

Or one (52 ft long) Hawker travels 52 ft, in a tenth of a second.


TO HIT THE GLIDER - in the crosswalk:

He's 22 ft long
60 mph = 88 ft/sec

After 1 second, his tail is at 66 ft. His nose is at 88 ft. He's safe.
(That's 14 ft clear of the Hawker's 52 ft wingspan)

After 3/4 of a second, that would still leave 8 ft of the glider's tail
exposed, to the Hawker's wing.
(We'll call it one second to get through the crosswalk)

One second one direction and 1/10th of a second the other direction - on a
two dimensional plane at 13,000 ft.

"My book" calls that ...blame the meteor.


Montblack
And it's a very good book.

"Graeme Cant" gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote

It's physically impossible for a 60kt anything to hit a 300kt
anything from the side.

A one-in-a-million shot? Yes. Impossible? No.

I'm quite sure that the odds could be calculated, even.
--
Jim in NC

GC, you may say "ALWAYS, but I like to say "never say never". Put your
lawyer hat back on for a second. What if, for the sake of discussion,
its 3 o'clock in the morning on a freeway, and you hit the guy on the
bike, having not seen him, until the last second? You the big car
driver have done everything right, but the bike did not make himself
seen, and he was on the freeway where he was not suppose to be. As
we've seen in all these threads, lots of variables to wade through.

Graeme Cant wrote:
Aluckyguess wrote:

It's no excuse to hitting a guy on a bike that you were in a big car
travelling very fast even if you were under the speed limit.

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

Not always.

ALWAYS, prima facie.

GC
GC

snoop wrote:
GC, you may say "ALWAYS, but I like to say "never say never".

I'm usually pretty cautious that way myself.

Put your
lawyer hat back on for a second. What if, for the sake of discussion,
its 3 o'clock in the morning on a freeway, and you hit the guy on the
bike, having not seen him, until the last second? You the big car
driver have done everything right, but the bike did not make himself
seen, and he was on the freeway where he was not suppose to be. As
we've seen in all these threads, lots of variables to wade through.

All those may or may not be true but if the reason HE gives is that he
was in a big car travelling at a speed too high for him to reasonably be
expected to take any avoiding action, then I would say he has no defence.

That's the analogy with the power pilots on r.a.p. They say "How can WE
possibly be expected to avoid a glider at the speeds we're travelling
and with many other important things to occupy us". A sample quote is
"How can you avoid what you haven't seen?" I wanted to remind them that
the law REQUIRES them to travel at such a speed that they CAN see gliders.

There are two aspects here. First - how we need to fly to stay alive.
The discussion on ras has mostly been on this area and I'm in complete
agreement with its defensive tone.

Second - who's at fault if there is a collision. Here, I found the
defensive discourse (My wife taught me that word!) on ras a bit
puzzling. It assumed power aircraft held all the cards and this is
untrue. The glider had right of way. This isn't everything but it IS
the starting point. If you don't assert your rights every now and then,
they disappear. Nobody else is going to grant you rights which you
don't claim yourself. If YOU don't believe in your own case, why would
anybody else see it from your point of view?

I guess you have the same aggressive cycling lobby groups that we have
here. Think of how they never tire of asserting their rights to be on
the road, their right to hold up traffic, their green credentials. I
know soaring won't do it but a tenth of their self-assertion would be
nice to see here.

I entirely agree that being right won't bring you back to life and I
certainly try to fly on the basis that everyone else is out to kill me
but I was trying to inject a little reality into the group with which
this was originally cross-posted - rec.aviation.piloting. You'll notice
I've taken the x-posting out.

Finally, it will be interesting if the glider and the jet have different
underwriters.

GC