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.

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.

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

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:15:16 +1000, Graeme Cant
gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote:
Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/19...erokeesport4x4

Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.
Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/19...erokeesport4x4

"Prima facie" means "at first sight". The accident would be presumed to
be your fault "at first sight". The investigation acts as "second
sight" and in this case revealed other circumstances which shifted fault.

"Prima facie" does not mean "no matter what".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:15:16 +1000, Graeme Cant
gcantinter@tnodedotnet wrote:
Like when I hit another car from behind, prima facie it's my fault.

Not always... I had an incident where that was not the case...
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/19...erokeesport4x4

Interesting story...and it holds even if the braking is not deliberate (such
as the close pull in/across and brake).

"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 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