Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

Graeme Cant wrote:

Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace,

There is NO SUCH RULE.

they do this by seeing the other
aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.

All aircraft are required to see and avoid regardless of the right of
way rules.

Unlike the nautical rules, there's no stand-on (priviliged) vessel.
Your required to not hit the other aircraft regardless of the who
has the right of way.


Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.

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

If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

Ron Natalie wrote:
There is NO SUCH RULE.

FAR 91.113
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?OpenDocument

(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.

5Z wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:
There is NO SUCH RULE.

FAR 91.113
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?OpenDocument

(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.


THat clause applies only when coverging other than head-on or nearly so.

Head-on (or nearly so) or overtaking operations has rules that are not
affected by aircraft category.

"5Z" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ron Natalie wrote:
There is NO SUCH RULE.

FAR 91.113
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C?OpenDocument

(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,
As long as the glider doesnt pull out in front of the other aircraft.
There are no absolutes.
If you are going the speed limit in a car and someone runs out in front of
you its not always your fault.
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.

Ron Natalie wrote:


If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

I think your second sentence is correct, and that you mis-stated the
first. You would be at fault, not the powered plane you hit.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:


If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

I think your second sentence is correct, and that you mis-stated the
first. You would be at fault, not the powered plane you hit.
Yes, that is what I meant.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace,

There is NO SUCH RULE.

Well, there is in every country that adheres to the ICAO treaties and
annexes and you'd better believe it if you ever fly outside the US. I
know the US is the most non-compliant signatory but I'd be surprised if
these fundamental rules don't apply in the US. They certainly apply to
every US aircraft flying internationally.

I could of course be wrong - I make a habit of it.

All aircraft are required to see and avoid regardless of the right of
way rules.

Absolutely. But when they collide in spite of this, the powered
aircraft is prima facie at fault.

If you flew a glider into another aircraft from behind it would be
at fault. The overtaking rules do not have an exemption for class.

I'll stick to what I said.

1. In VMC, ALL aircraft are required to maintain a lookout so as to see
and avoid ALL other aircraft.
2. When on converging courses, powered aircraft are required to give
way to gliders. Powered aircraft give way to airships who give way to
gliders who give way to balloons.

There is, of course, a lot more to it than this but this is where the
lawyers, insurance companies - and probably the FAA unless you're right
- will start.

GC

"Graeme Cant" gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote in message
...
Kingfish wrote:

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?

Because the rule is that ALL powered aircraft ALWAYS give way to ALL
gliders and, in uncontrolled airspace, they do this by seeing the other
aircraft and avoiding it. Not by squawking.

Prima facie, the powered aircraft is at fault.

How could the powered aircraft be at fault if the glider hit him from the
side.
There is no way to know who is at fault.
If you cant see it you cant avoid it. I think the glider will end up at
fault.
Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

Not always.

GC

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