Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

"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

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

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

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?

When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.

Ron Natalie wrote:

When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.

I think we're in agreement - but "see and avoid" didn't seem to work
here as one or both pilots didn't "see and avoid" the other. Going
round & round over right of way rules (to me) is irrelevant in this
case because visual contact was never made. Let the FAA figger out who
*if anyone* was at fault.

Kingfish wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

When in VMC pilots are required to maintain a visual see and avoid
whether they are operating IFR or flying a bizjet.

I think we're in agreement - but "see and avoid" didn't seem to work
here as one or both pilots didn't "see and avoid" the other. Going
round & round over right of way rules (to me) is irrelevant in this
case because visual contact was never made. Let the FAA figger out who
*if anyone* was at fault.

The FAA held a hearing in Minden yesterday (Wednesady). Obviously there
is no official report as yet, but according to people I know who were
in the room, the FAA found that nobody was at fault.

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. 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.

"Discus 44" wrote in message
ps.com...

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. 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.

FLARM???
--
Jim in NC

Flarm http://www.flarm.com ,
or OzFlarm http://www.rf-developments.com ,
or perhaps LX Flarm http://www.lxnavigation.si/avionics/products.cfm .

On OzFlarm see
http://www.users.bigpond.com/keepits...g/OzFLARM1.pdf .

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.


"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Discus 44" wrote in message
ps.com...

There have been many photos of the Jet. While this is remarkable, are
there any photos of the remains of the glider? It might shed some
light on where the jet ran into the glider. 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 like to see FLARM adopted here. It may be a better way than
having Xponders and ATC involved with soaring.

FLARM???
--
Jim in NC