Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.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? 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?


Yes you have to look out the front and scan to see other aircraft.

Because she is a woman JOKING.
Hope that reporter does not read this.
From now on in I think I will enjoy baiting reporters with bull**** to see
if they report it.

Lets see I am in a jet doing 300 knots descending I believe I am under IFR
control and the ATC would advised of traffic!

"Kingfish" wrote:


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? 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?

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

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.

Will be interesting to hear the glider pilot's perspective of where
and from what angle he was hit.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

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.

"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.

"Jim Vincent" wrote:


"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.


You're probably right. It just seemed to me that talk about how hard a
glider is to see head-on might not have been a relevant comment. And
given their relative speeds, without working the math, I'd guess that
the glider was probably at all times between the jet's 11:00 and 1:00,
while the jet might have been in front of, behind, or at any point to
the side of the glider.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Jim Vincent" wrote in message
. ..
I think for all intents, the glider would have been effectively a small
dot in the sky except for the last seconds.

No, it's the Hawker that was a small (2 meters) motionless white dot in the
white sky. The thermalling glider was an 18-meter white cross moving against
the desert background.

The jet was descending, wasn't it? That means no soot trail. Which, I am
convinced, is the only part of the jet visible head-on from far enough to
have any practical chance at all to evade, at glider speed.
--
Yuliy

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

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.

(How many of us have searched the sky in vain for a glider that was in
full view. In my experience most circling gliders can be invisible
until a wing catches some light. Obviously, that didn't happen in this
case.)

Hirao was one of five glider pilots from Crazy Creek at Minden for a
few days of flying. I was supposed to be the sixth, but I arrived late
and didn't complete rigging until 4pm, at which point I judged it not
worth launching.

All the gliders were in frequent communication. About three Hirao
reported he was over the Pine Nuts at 13,000 and climbing in good lift.
That was his last transmission.

As near as we can tell, the jet hit his right wing, slicing off at
least half of it. The canopy popped partially open, he pushed it the
rest of the way and rolled out. As he floated down he could see the
glider below him in a flat spin. It spun all the way to the ground. Our
reconstruction is that the impact must have spun the glider
counterclockwise. Otherwise the intact left wing would have lifted,
ending the spin.

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.

The glider was the ASG-29 that Rick Indrebo flew at the Worlds in
Sweden in July. Herao was part owner of the glider, and this was his
first flight. He'd just passed his BFR that morning. He has more than
800 hours in gliders.

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?

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