Hawker vs. Glider Midair - with photo!

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.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Larry Dighera wrote:


Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
right-of-way over powered aircraft.

Because your understanding is incorrect and not supported by the
construction of the regulation. The only part of the rules that
mention category is one that begins with "Converging other than
head on or nearly so."

It's possible that the glider had the right of way, it's also
possible that he didn't.

In either case, there was DEFINITELY A FAILURE TO SEE (and avoid)
as the jet pilot never saw the glider according to reports (and
I suspect the glider pilot never saw the jet) so the right of
way rules don't seem to have mattered because unless there you
know the other guy is there there's not going to be any manouvering
rules to apply.

I would say this is correct. If the glider came in from the side how would
the Hawker see him. I say they are lucky to be alive.

"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

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.

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

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.

Ron Natalie wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:


Because it is my understanding that federal regulations grant gliders
right-of-way over powered aircraft.


Because your understanding is incorrect and not supported by the
construction of the regulation. The only part of the rules that
mention category is one that begins with "Converging other than
head on or nearly so."

It's possible that the glider had the right of way, it's also
possible that he didn't.

In either case, there was DEFINITELY A FAILURE TO SEE (and avoid)
as the jet pilot never saw the glider according to reports (and
I suspect the glider pilot never saw the jet) so the right of
way rules don't seem to have mattered because unless there you
know the other guy is there there's not going to be any manouvering
rules to apply.


You will invariably provoke an argument by making that statement, and
the argument will continue ad infinitum, even after all parties to it
have read and reread the applicable FAR -- though most of your opponents
will understand why you make your claim.

The FAR's are written no more comprehensibly than is the norm for the
Law, from the Constitution down to the lowest traffic regulation.
91.113.(d), even within the full context of 91.113, is just one example
among multitudes. Recent FAR's actually seem to be more poorly written
than those which have been in force for some time, indicating the
problem is no more appreciated by those in charge of writing them today
than ever it was, or we have simply gotten stupider.

If you would care to cite some specific rulings that support your claim,
that would carry some weight. If we go on about it here without such
citations, at the end of 10,000 lines of rant we'll be right back at
this very same spot.


Jack

--------

Sec. 91.113

http://tinyurl.com/loggu

Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an
aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight
rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an
aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this
section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give
way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless
well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all
other air traffic.
(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.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other
head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to
the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the
right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course
to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the
surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force
an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is
attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft
are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at
the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage
of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to
land or to overtake
that aircraft.

=============================

"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

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.

When you are the hood ornament you'll have a different view of things,
whether that chrome greyhound is sticking in your ear or your arse.


Jack

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.