I stated that the glider pilot presumably did not see the other aircraft - ie neither pilot saw the other, or didn't do so in time, therefore they collided. I was trying to avoid presupposing blame, nothing more, by pointing out that both pilots had (presumably) been unable to see each other as it seems a bit unlikely that they'd have collided had either one seen the other in time.
As for how the aircraft above might see the one below, this is entirely possible unless they remain directly one above the other...last time I was involved in maintaining lookout from an aircraft one looked in every direction, including down to either side, there wasn't a presupposition that anything at lower level couldn't hit you. It would, from a glider, be difficult to see an aircraft directly below or one overtaking from below, rather less difficult to spot one coming in from 9 o clock via 12 to 3 o clock. That's 'how the hell'.
Enigm - and you are overlooking the fact that Mike spent much of his professional life 'looking out', that he was an extremely experienced pilot, and you can drill until you are blue in the face and you can legislate all you like - if a chap like Mike can fail to spot another aircraft (assumed) then it can happen to anyone and it makes sense to look at how visible that other aircraft was before assuming human fallibility.
Look, it's actually fairly simple - aircraft ought by default to have high visibility colour schemes, strobes, IFF etc because when they run into each other it tends to be catastrophic. The (usually) fatal outcome of a mid air means we have to minimise the likelihood of collision - painting aircraft low vis white makes as much sense as chocolate teapots, and to suggest that we fix the problem of mid airs by somehow 'training' people to look out better rather than stopping people painting aircraft in low vis schemes is barking.
Last edited by davejb; 27th Jun 2009 at 20:53.