Originally Posted by
EnigmAviation
<snip>
and potentially many averted, - case closed !
<snip>
You can't prove a negative. How many middairs had their been before the patches were applied? Not enough to be statistically significant I suspect, if indeed there were any.
I found an old copy of S&G the other day - Aug-Sep 2003 - which has an article entitled 'See and Avoid?'
Below is my summary (so caveat emptor) of it's description of a series of six trials undertaken (I believe) at RAFs Bicester and Syerston. The article is several pages long, and in fairly small print, so I am not about to retype it all:
Trial 1 - mirror film fitted to the wing, tailplane & fin leading edges during constant-bearing convergence. Results were not statistically significant however there is a suspicion that in sunny weather this could be quite helpful.
Trial 2 - mirror film fitted to the control surfaces and wing leading edges during circuits. Statistically significant, well worth further investigation, but with the caveat that engineer investigations would be required before a recommendation to fit reflective material more generally.
Trial 3 - mirror film as per trial 2 during thermal turns. Again encouraging and statistically significant results.
Trial 4 - Air Cadets Day-Glo patter during constant-bearing converfence. No statistically significant improvement over plain aircraft. Detection was due to the silhouette or a glint, not the day-glo patches.
Trial 5 - Day-glo during thermal turns. Again no statistically significant improvements.
Trial 6 - black underside to a MG during simulated thermal turns. Statistically significant, but the heating effects were not thoroughly investigated. The trials were carried out in October, engineering evaluation would be required to recommend this.
Summary
Both mirror-film and black underneaths appear to produce better results than plain aircraft / day-glo ones. However even with very vigilant crews who know where to look for an aircraft, they do not always see it so a good lookout strategy is essential. However Obviously any lookout is better than 'head in cockpit'. Thermalling gliders are relatively easy to see compare to those in straight and level flight, and of course the later are the ones that are the greater threat. So, *not* flying straight and level will improve your conspucuity....
Make of this what you will. I have no idea if there have been yet more trials since drawing different conclusions, and I have also not seen anything with any mirror-film so I don't know if the outcome from this one fell beside the way, or if there turned out to be either significant engineering problems with it, or if it simply needed replacing so often that most of the time it would have been ineffective.
To me the main conclusions are that the day-glo patches are probably not effective, and it is essential to develop a good lookout strategy and use it with a minimum of head-in-cockpit time.
I'm sure there are some other copies of that particular S&G floating around if people keep their eyes open, and would recommend anyone who is interested trying to find one and read the article. In particular I haven't described the ways they did the testing in the air, which were quite specific and clearly described complete with diagrams.