A minor correction to "Random Bloke"
Random Bloke - with the greatest of respect, no, the report didn't specifically say he failed to carry out either an eyeball check/scan or eyeball check/scan + clearing turn, BUT by the evidence of the facts, there could be no other rational explanation for the evidence of collision. In legal terms "Res Ipsa Loquitur" the facts speak for themselves.
A qualified pilot who had just immediately before contact occurred, carried out the normal pre-manoeuvre checks expected of this grade of pilot, and then knowingly pulled up into traffic in his overhead that he had just "eyeballed" would have been knowingly negligent at best, and suicidal at worst, especially since the aircraft overhead was a glider - and Rules of the air.........power gives way to.......etc. By deed of the evidence he cannot have done so otherwise the accident would never have taken place.
Agreed it's not totally relevant to the current lack of ACO VGS aircraft but it has some relevance insofar as there have been some suggestions in this thread, that all future ACO aerial activity should be led by the professionals, if not flown by professionals.
The current limiting qualifications for the AEF Pilots on the Grob 115 Tutor would ordinarily preclude most if not all VGS Instructors, despite the remarkable similarity between that and the Grob 109B Vigilant T Mk1 aircraft operating systems, and despite the fact that the role in VGS aircraft is of a higher skill level - i.e., instructional sorties rather than Air EX.
All that I aimed to show was that human errors cut across the whole of the RAF, and are not confined to the VR(T) guys. 100% flight safety can only be assured by welding up the hangar doors - something not entirely miles away from where we've been since April 2014 !