Anybody else see this?

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/3754767.html

Edit: For news story that doesn't require registration.

Yeah it amazing her survived, especially since he was found so far from the crash site of the glider. It is unclear how or if he deployed a parachute (he must have!)

"Authorities say the jet was travelling at 300 knots..." I think this is BS since I saw it on the news and it was just speculation from the sheriff. Seems like ATC would have them slowed down too around 200 kts at that stage of the approach. Either way, it's fast compared to the glider who was probably just dorking around doing 360's.

Who's likely at fault here? The guy on no flight plan operating under VFR looking for lift, or the hauling-balls light jet under ATC vectors and IFR flight plan?

zane wrote:Who's likely at fault here? The guy on no flight plan operating under VFR looking for lift, or the hauling-balls light jet under ATC vectors and IFR flight plan?

Good question, since in many mountainous places, ATC radar won't work very close to the ground. It may be that neither plane was even on radar at the time of the accident.
tom

The FAA Incident Report says they collided at 16,000 feet.

Who's likely at fault here? The guy on no flight plan operating under VFR looking for lift, or the hauling-balls light jet under ATC vectors and IFR flight plan?

Fault is a lawyer's word. Fate is more of a pilot's word. A combination of "Lift is where you find it" and "GPS Direct" put these people at the same place at the same time, over the mountains. No place is 100% safe any more. I bet neither of them were expecting to meet anyone on their randomly chosen routes to that point in space. Fantastically good news that everyone made it. They all have un-trumpable cocktail stories now.

I my mind Fault is easy to determine. A pilot in command is responsible to bring the aircraft back in the same condition as he/SHE received it. Once a pilot fails to bring the plane back in the same condition the stigma of fault will follow you around for a long time.

A glider has the right of way over any other powered aircraft unless the powered aircraft is in distress - FAR 91.113. Technically the bizjet driver broke that FAR when he ran the glider down. The bizjet struck the glider, not the other way around as portrayed in the article.

Not that it matters a hill of beans to you if you're a bug on some bizjets windshield.

Everyone who's payin' attention knows the Carson valley is a bee hive of glider activity and ought to have their head on full swivel when operating in the area all the way up to 18,000ft during the entire year - yes the soaring there is that good. Almost all glider pilots wear a parachute because of the ever present danger of colliding with another glider while thermaling in a gaggle. As long as the cockpit doesn't get crunched, the pilot doesn't get hit in the back of the head by the wing spar, or there isn't enough altitude to get out and pull the 'D' ring, glider collisions are usually escapable.

Gliders are not required to use a transponder below 18K (or even above that if they're in a wave window) and most composite sailplanes don't have much of a primary radar signature because of their construction, so you can't expect ATC to point them out to you because often they can't even see them on the scope.

Strata,

Right on!

MTV

Thank you, Strata, for your clarification. Well done!

The only thing I might add, is that ATC often points gliders out as primary targets, but without any altitude info. If gliders are a possibility I usually ask for a deviation around the ATC radar return, even though we are not required to do so. Gliders are very difficult to spot and present themselves awefully quickly in your windscreen at 2-300 kias. Along those lines, it is the norm for air-transport/turbine aircraft to be doing well in excess of 250 kias at or above 10000 MSL. Even the mighty Brasilia is capable of 272 kias or .52M. These speeds can be 300-350 ktas depending on density altitude. And we're "SLOW".

M

I can't really find fault with either pilot under the circumstances. I'm pretty much in agreement with Yellowbelly, I don't think either of these pilots are going to win the lottery after this, they've used up a good sized portion of their good luck in one afternoon. The odds of these two planes occupying the same space at the same time at that particular location are probably much higher than winning the PowerBall drawing.

Dang near flew through a gaggle of gliders last summer over Crystal Air, and I was monitoring their frequency and knew they were there - they are very hard to spot! The closure rates are darn uncomfortable at even 120kts.

I was in Germany flying helicopters several years ago and almost had a mid air with one. He was flying straight at me and the first thing I saw was the pilots face. It was odd, after I saw his face the glider sort of popped into view.

Looks like the glider was a pretty new one - it had a carbon fiber spar cap.





The pilot reportedly kept flying and landed the airplane and did not turn over control to the co-pilot even though the co-pilot side of the instrument panel was undamaged.

Yeah, with the cross sectional area of a basketball and wings as thin as a surfboard, I've watched sailplanes disappear when they turned final, and I knew where to look. I'd be willing to bet the jet pilot never saw another aircraft and thought he had an avionics explosion instead. He gets big points from me for following the first commandment: FLY THE PLANE!

Given the assignment of finding another plane in the sky and ramming it, most of us would fail miserably. That's a measure of how random this event was. Like the FedEx plane and the Russian airliner with all the kids on it that collided over Switzerland... one more head scratch by the pilot, a stutter by the controller, a puff of wind here, and it wouldn't have happened. It scares me the the intercept solution can click in all by itself. So, I guess if I fly at 8349 feet instead of 8500, it won't save me.

Is the bizjet sitting on it's belly as in gear up???



Mark

I guess maybe the gear lever was in the mass of wiring and plastic that used to be a panel. Then again, when your looking over the nose at all the carnage hanging off the front of that thing, your first instinct might be "if it's still flying, why make a configuration change and risk it not wanting to fly any longer". In fact, I guess in such a situation, flying what your left with, right into a fast, skidding on the belly landing with no config change makes a lot of sense. ie no flaps, no gear, etc.

The whole incident sounds like no one to blame but plenty to praise...

Glad it worked out the way it did.

Mark