EJA/Hawker Midair w/ Glider....Everyone OK - Merged!

[ultrarunner]

They landed this!!!!
Best pictures I've seen.
http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

It quickly became the FO's leg, if it wasn't already. Holy $hit!

 

[ultrarunner]

Glider transponders, in case anyone is curious:

http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page4.htm

That link pretty much throw's 727gm's argument out the window!

 

[ultrarunner]

I cant help but say it again after seeing these pictures....Annette and to your co-pilot....you guys did one hell of a job.

I would agree...

...btw, how long did it take dispatch to get you a new ship so you could finish your tour?

 

[RNObased]

Great airmanship, agreed. The glorious Hawker pulls through, again.

Normal run-of-the-mill airmanship to see and avoid the glider in the first place, thereby avoiding demonstration of great airmanship.

Noticed(in 1st post) that the sheriff assumed the glider had hit the jet. Not probable: with the airspeed differential, the glider was in front of the Hawker (in view, in the front windscreen). The larger the speed differential, the narrower the cone of airspace in directly in front of the faster aircraft the slower ship will be located in.

There were two pilots in the jet, one should be looking out in VFR conditions below 18000 especially outside of Class B airspace. The glider also has the right-of-way(not to say a glider would crash rather than yield) over powered aircraft.

There is a major problem today with too much head-down button-pushing, and an assumption that if the TCAS is clear, there's no need to look outside.

Most gliders have no electrical system and no place to put an expensive TCAS system. A mode-C transponder would be nice, and they ARE getting smaller. Gliders carry no fuel, so can stay up far longer than a continuously-replying transponder's battery could last. Many have no nav or com radios. Many have no oxygen, and are therefore below 14000/12500 feet. Typically those above 14000 are better outfitted, with radios, GPS, 0xy, and (possibly) a transponder. Those above 18000 feet will normally be in a "wave window", a letter-of-agreement defined box that ATC will not be letting any other traffic into (very small defined area worked out for Wave flights), so not a problem for airplanes in Class A airspace.

They DO have great visibility. I've seen many jets, 210's, Bonanzas, etc, that I don't think ever saw me, but the glider doesn't have a cockpit full of "Attractive Nuisances" to detract from the job of seeing-and-avoiding.

You know 727, I read you post 3 times before I responed and do you think you could be a less bias??? I realize YOU see every airplane there is to see within 10nm miles of YOU. While the rest of us poor slops barely get by and are lucky if we see another plane when it is pointed out to us by ATC.

If you do have the jet time you claim you do, then you know that 16,000 is a busy time in a jet. Approach checks etc.

Also from what I have heard the capt saw the glider, it was just too late.
Maybe it is time the gliders put in at least one "Attractive Nuisance" ie; a transponder.

 

[cosmotheassman]

How long will it be before transponders are required in gliders now? tick tock

 

[CRAWDADDY]

Nice job everyone! Hard to believe not too long ago, there were people who'd say we weren't worth anything.

 

[Pervis]

Great airmanship, agreed. The glorious Hawker pulls through, again.

Normal run-of-the-mill airmanship to see and avoid the glider in the first place, thereby avoiding demonstration of great airmanship."

We used to play in a number of war game scenarios as both the good and bad guys in Europe. AWACs would call our "bandits", and even when the controllers were directing our eyes at the threat, usually F15s and F16s, it was difficult at best to pick them out, especially the F16s. Even if ATC informed the crew during the descent of glider activity in the area, that small of a target at relatively high altitude would be nearly impossible to see at 300 kts.

Sometimes two objects find themselves in the same space through little or no fault of those directly involved. The superior airmanship of the Hawker crew and the glider pilots' skill and ability to prepare and execute the bail out while no doubt wildly out of control are what saved the day. Transponder equipment goes a long way in reducing the chances of these events, especially if TCAS is involved in at least one of those aircraft. Small price to pay, considering the damage done and possible if not probable fatalities in most midair collisions.

 

[LJ45]

if they had a transponder is should have been on!

c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

 

[Smellycat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYzqGhDkXk0

This is prolly the view from Carson City tower (if there was one.)

 

[RNObased]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYzqGhDkXk0

This is prolly the view from Carson City tower (if there was one.)

No Smelly Cat, no even close. First of all Carson City doesn't have a tower and secondly that is from a 800 that had a gear up landing in LAS oh around 6 or 7 years ago.

 

[Dr Pokenhiemer]

The Hawker in your video lands on Runway 9 and comes to a stop just after the intersection of the crossing runway. Carson City has a runway 9, but no intersecting runway. This is how rumors get started, making you look like an India Delta 10 Tango.

 

[skiandsurf]

The Hawker in your video lands on Runway 9 and comes to a stop just after the intersection of the crossing runway. Carson City has a runway 9, but no intersecting runway. This is how rumors get started, making you look like an India Delta 10 Tango.

Try LAS 19L. Slides all the way to the numbers of 1R. .. .. .. Runway is 9775 feet long.

 

[Corona]

c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

10 points to LJ45!

It will be interesting to see what the FAA and NTSB make of this accident.

C

 

[GVFlyer]

c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

The Alexander Schleicher Gmbh & Co. ASG 29 flew for the first time on 9 November 2005 and does not yet have an STC for transponder operation. Great glider, I'd really like to have one.

GV

 

[imotis]

No Smelly Cat, no even close. First of all Carson City doesn't have a tower and secondly that is from a 800 that had a gear up landing in LAS oh around 6 or 7 years ago.

Not to mention that the Hawker in the video actually still has its nose attached.

 

[ultrarunner]

The Alexander Schleicher Gmbh & Co. ASG 29 flew for the first time on 9 November 2005 and does not yet have an STC for transponder operation. Great glider, I'd really like to have one.

GV

Field approvals are easy enough.

 

[Some guy]

10 points to LJ45!

It will be interesting to see what the FAA and NTSB make of this accident.

C

This is from the NTSB website...Remember, this is just preliminary...

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060906X01297&key=1

 

[ultrarunner]

Leaving your fully functional transponder OFF, simply because you're UNAWARE of the state of your batteries, is a pretty piss-poor-excuse! BUT, he had that comm radio....what good it did him only he knows. But I bet it's pretty safe to say that if he gets in a ship with a transponder, it'll be on, as it should be!

 

[Guitar rocker]

Leaving your fully functional transponder OFF, simply because you're UNAWARE of the state of your batteries, is a pretty piss-poor-excuse! BUT, he had that comm radio....what good it did him only he knows. But I bet it's pretty safe to say that if he gets in a ship with a transponder, it'll be on, as it should be!

Agreed. He should have had that transponder on....no excuse for that at all.

 

[Smellycat]

Raytheon seatbelts suk

Gutshot is absolutely correct about Hawkers and G's... Got close to 4 yrs. in the 800 series Hawkers and I can tell you that they are indeed flying tanks.

Built like brick $hithouses. They were lucky to be flying one.

If it is built like a brick $hithouse, then why cant they make decent seat belts?

Hawker in Midair Had Seat Belt Failure[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
As the Raytheon Hawker 800XP that on August 28 collided with a sailplane in Nevada prepared to land (AINalerts, August 29), one of the jet’s passengers cinched up his seat belt and the inboard portion of the belt fitting detached. The passenger moved to another seat and the same thing happened again. The NTSB has notified the primary maintenance inspector at NetJets, the company that operated the Hawker, and the Raytheon completions center in Little Rock, Ark., to check the rest of the Hawker fleet. At press time, the NTSB investigator in charge told AIN that no further failures had been found. “It would be inappropriate for us to comment at this time,” a Raytheon Aircraft spokesman told AIN. “Raytheon Aircraft Company is actively working with the NTSB during its investigation. We anticipate complete cooperation in those efforts and will incorporate any recommended actions, if necessary, to ensure continued safety for our operators.” [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

________________

???[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[Some guy]

If it is built like a brick $hithouse, then why cant they make decent seat belts?

Hawker in Midair Had Seat Belt Failure
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the Raytheon Hawker 800XP that on August 28 collided with a sailplane in Nevada prepared to land (AINalerts, August 29), one of the jet’s passengers cinched up his seat belt and the inboard portion of the belt fitting detached. The passenger moved to another seat and the same thing happened again. The NTSB has notified the primary maintenance inspector at NetJets, the company that operated the Hawker, and the Raytheon completions center in Little Rock, Ark., to check the rest of the Hawker fleet. At press time, the NTSB investigator in charge told AIN that no further failures had been found. “It would be inappropriate for us to comment at this time,” a Raytheon Aircraft spokesman told AIN. “Raytheon Aircraft Company is actively working with the NTSB during its investigation. We anticipate complete cooperation in those efforts and will incorporate any recommended actions, if necessary, to ensure continued safety for our operators.” [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][URL]http://www.ainalerts.com/ainalerts/up_arrow.gif[/URL][/FONT]

________________

???

Keep in mind how much knowledge the media and their reporters know about anything that happens in aviation. I don't think this story is fully accurate. The NTSB apparently found the seatbelt defects during their inspection. It has to do with a bent metal tab. Are the seat belts safe? Yes, but it does have somewhat of a poor design. When we learned of the seatbelt "flaws", we inspected all of the 800XP's and none of the seatbelts needed to be replaced. This type of belt is unique to the 800xp so no further fleet inspections were necessary.

And in defense of Raytheon, the belts are designed and built by an outside supplier.

 

[C680]

Built like a tank?

I don't think this story is fully accurate. The NTSB apparently found the seatbelt defects during their inspection. It has to do with a bent metal tab. Are the seat belts safe? Yes, but it does have somewhat of a poor design. When we learned of the seatbelt "flaws", we inspected all of the 800XP's and none of the seatbelts needed to be replaced. This type of belt is unique to the 800xp so no further fleet inspections were necessary.

And in defense of Raytheon, the belts are designed and built by an outside supplier.

There must be something to the story if the NTSB lead investigator is commenting on it. You don't think the story is fully accurate, or you know it isnt?

Look, I am not knocking Raytheon, I just laugh at those who say, Oh that aircraft is built like a tank, so glad it happened to a Hawker and not....(insert rival aircraft make and model here.)

Nice to fly a tank, but if the seatbelts are defective, what good does it do?

In defense of Raytheon...nothing. Belts designed and built by outside vendor is a lame excuse for failure of a critical safety component of your jet.

C.

 

[Some guy]

There must be something to the story if the NTSB lead investigator is commenting on it. You don't think the story is fully accurate, or you know it isnt?

Look, I am not knocking Raytheon, I just laugh at those who say, Oh that aircraft is built like a tank, so glad it happened to a Hawker and not....(insert rival aircraft make and model here.)


C.

Is it standard practice for the NTSB to start giving out details of an investigation before it is complete? That part just doesn't sound right to me. The story overall is accurate; however, I'm pretty sure the passengers were not the ones who found the defective belts. It is my understanding they were found during the investigation, after the incident, by the NTSB. Either way, NetJets did the right thing by checking all other belts in the fleet and I'm sure all other companies facing a similar scenario would do the same.
As far as flying tanks, I am 100% with you!

SG