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

Jim Logajan wrote:
Graeme Cant gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote:
Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

I'd bet that is no longer the case. There is an insurance fraud tactic
where the perps deliberately cause rear-end accidents by pulling in front
of an innocent driver's vehicle and slams on the brakes. See for example:

http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/v.../aa062203a.htm

Yes, we have that scam here too. Nevertheless, the onus is always on
the car behind to make his case. As I said, prima facie, the rear car
is at fault.

GC

Discus 44 wrote:
There have been many photos of the Jet. While this is remarable, are
there any photos of the remains of the glider? It might shed some
light on where the jet ran into the glider.

The Hawker photos do show it. I believe the piece projecting at 1
o'clock from where the radome was is the spar joiner for the outer
panel. It would appear the glider was hit just outside mid-span.
Probably the right wing.

GC

Anyone with common sense
can see the Jet hit the glider and not the other way around as so many
so called :"journalists" have intimated. It is strange that so many
unknowledgeable people seem to be arm chair experts about this.

I would liek to see FLARM adopted here. It may be a better way than
having Xponders and ATC involved with soaring.

wrote in message
ups.com...

The only injuiry Hirao sustained was a scratch on his right forearm
when he landed in some bush. He refused medical attention, and we all
enjoyed a very celebratory dinner in Minden that night.

I live in Douglas County, flew with John at Flying Start...but the real
question is...where did you celebrate and was the food and service good?

- Curtis

"Jack" wrote in message
et...
Aluckyguess wrote:

If the glider came in from the side how would the Hawker see him[?]

At a 3-4x speed differential the glider cannot "come in from the side".
Nonetheless, there are side windows -- even in Hawkers.

Does the dog crossing the freeway at 15 mph run into the grill of the semi
which is cruising at 55? I think not.

Uh, actually, I got hit by a cat once. Going 20ish, cat going a lot less.
It hit the rubber, spun down the road, scared the crap out of me. After a
trip to a rural vet (no real vets where I lived), got put back on the road
and ran off like it never missed the half hour trying to save it.

-Curtis

"Jose" wrote

It might be 10,000 feet off. It might be off by one bit (whatever that
would cause, depending on which bit).

Oh, how you must like to argue. I'll bet that you just like to see your own
typing on the net, with your name behind it.

Tell you what, Jose. Don't bother responding to me, and I won't respond to
you. I'm done wasting my time with you and your ridiculous "what if's."

Hint: Read the whole post. Also, consider that something not current is
usually just that - not currently inspected, but not necessarily broken,
either.
--
Jim in NC

"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

Dunno about 16K, but I had 1000+ at 11,000 in that area last month.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
wrote:

The glider pilot was circling when he was hit. He reported that he saw
the jet just a blink before the impact with no possibility of evasive
action.

At 16k, what kind of vertical rate of ascent could the glider have been
experiencing in a thermal that day?

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
What difference does that make? Who is overtaking whom is determined
according to velocity vectors relative to the air, not the ground.

Says who?

Says me.

Not that I made a statement about ground track versus movement
relative to air. But you're making a completely unfounded claim here.

It is founded on common sense and elementary logic. See below.

(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?)

The overtaking aircraft is the one that can SEE the other aircraft.

Usually that is true because usually aircraft travel forward. But
helicopters can fly backwards.

Their
specific progress over the ground or through the air is much less relevant
than the question of which direction each aircraft is pointed, especially
relative to their movement through the air OR over the ground.

That is a defensible position, albeit incorrect. I will point out
though that this position is at least as unfounded as mine.

That's the whole point of the overtaking regulation. There's one aircraft
that is aware of the situation and another than is not.

That's part of the rationale, but not the whole rationale. Relative
maneuverability is also a factor. That is why balloons have the right
of way over everyone else. Visibility from a balloon is superior to all
other aircraft, but it's simply impossible for a balloon to get out of
another aircraft's way even if they see it coming.

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.

Again, how does airspeed define "overtaking"? Where is this definition of
which you speak?

It follows from a simple logical argument: Helicopters hover more often
than other aircraft, but any aircraft can hover, or even fly backwards
relative to the ground given a strong enough headwind. Unless you wish
to argue that the right of way rules change if the wind is strong enough
the only possible conclusion is that overtaking is defined relative to
the air, not relative to the ground.

Helicopters are unique in their ability to fly backwards relative to the
air. But again, unless you wish to argue that a helicopter pilot's
choice to fly backwards (relative to the air) absolves him of
responsibility if he should back his aircraft into a balloon, then the
only possible conclusion, again, is that the aircraft's orientation is
not material to the right-of-way rules.

If we are to believe your interpretation of "overtaking", then in the
scenario I describe the helicopter is required to give way to the balloon.

That is correct.

How, exactly, do you propose that a helicopter in a hover give way to the
balloon,

By maneuvering to avoid the balloon. Isn't that obvious?

or even be aware that there's a balloon to give way to?

I would expect the helicopter pilot to ascertain that the area was clear
of balloons before beginning to fly backwards, and I would expect him to
periodically rotate the helicopter to re-check, just as a pilot of a
fixed-wing aircraft in a post-takeoff climb will (one hopes)
periodically lower the nose to insure that they are not overtaking an
aircraft that is obscured by the nose-high attitude, or a pilot
practicing steep turns will do periodic shallow clearing turns.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
Says me.

Well, aren't we lucky you dropped by.