"2 RAF personnel killed in mid-air collision" today

[StopStart]

BBC now reporting that the mid air between a glider and a light aircraft over Oxfordshire today has resulted in the deaths of two RAF "personnel". Assuming this is weekend UAS/cadet flying.

:(

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8099551.stm) MoD reporting it as a Tutor.

[scottyhs]

maybe the questions and assumptions should wait until after this day!

[airborne_artist]

TM - I know of a QFI and stude who are alive today because they were able to parachute to safety from a Bulldog in 1979 - they lost control underneath a fast-building Cb, I think.

Your comments on the two Tutor accidents that have not been fully investigated and reported on are not helpful.

[A and C]

A very sad day for all and a stark reminder that "lookout" is not just something that we say on the brief.

Nothing that I say on this will comfort the next of kin of those lost but I of course echo the sentiments of those above.

The only comment that I would make is that I hope the findings of the Board of enquiry are reviewed and acted upon in a cool and calm way, not as a knee jerk over reaction to some political whim from the very top of the MoD.

[CirrusF]

TM - I know of a QFI and stude who are alive today because they were able to parachute to safety from a Bulldog in 1979 - they lost control underneath a fast-building Cb, I think


There were other Bulldog losses where crew did not get out, and one that I remember where the QFI possible released the wrong harness buckle and fell out of his parachute harness.

Without prejudging what happened today, I do think Tiger_mate raises an interesting argument. Modern VFR light aircraft very rarely suffer structural failure or enter uncontrollable flight regimes - the most likely cause of being forced to bail out is in a mid-air collision. As we have seen recently, maybe better to rely on a good look out to avoid a mid-air than to rely on a parachute.

I occasionally hoof around in a Pitts for fun, and I have stopped strapping on a 'chute because it restricts my visibility too much and also as I am 6'4" I don't think I'd be able to extricate myself from the cockpit anyway.

[Mach the Knife]

:mad: TM you are a Tw*t, the parachute makes no difference to the ability to move around and lookout in a Tutor.

[jayteeto]

Agree with mach, I find it very comfortable. A sad day that will fuel the press vendetta against cadet flying :(

[Mil Bill]

Regarding the parachute issue: Someone should tell the glider pilot that wearing one is a waste of time...

[Strobin Purple]

Wot Mach said Tiger Mate, and i'm glad to see his post. Flew with him in a Tutor don't see the connection between wearing a parachute and poor lookout.

[dbee]

Seems from the BBC report, that the glider pilot DID use his 'chute:\dbee

[Lyco360]

Terrible news for the community. My thoughts are with the families and friends that are coming to terms with their losses tonight.



As an aside I never felt the parachute obstructed movement, and the all round visibility with the Tutor's big dome canopy is very good, even more so compared to most other light aircraft. Its so easy to fail to see another aircraft, especially in airspace as busy as ours: and even more so when the other is such a small aircraft with hard to see cross sections... :(

[Wholigan]

Having flown the Tutor for 8 years or so, I have to say that I have never found the wearing of the parachute to have any effect on my ability to look out. Tightening the shoulder straps too tight DOES restrict my ability to move around to improve effective lookout. As the aircraft is a very effective "glider" however, I believe that - under most circumstances - I will have sufficient time to tighten my straps if I am going to be forced to land in a field for whatever reason. Therefore I do not feel the need to wear the shoulder straps "too tight".

However, in my opinion, the single most likely reason for Tutors and/or gliders not seeing each other sufficiently early is the fact that a very large number of gliders and all Tutors are WHITE, which is pretty much the worst colour for conspicuity in the conditions that we experience for the majority of our flying in this country.

I am told that it is "not possible" to change the colour of the Tutors, but I have not yet been given a reason for this that I can understand.

Changing "procedures" once more will - again in my opinion - have little or no effect in making the aircraft and/or gliders any more conspicuous.

Short of changing the colour, I have no answer to how we can reduce the likelihood of such occurrences.

I also agree yet again with all those that get peed off with people that make assumptions or throw blame or produce fail-safe solutions, before the Board and the CAA investigation teams have even convened.

So stop it!

[lightbluefootprint]

My understanding is that the all white finish for the Tutor (and the Vigilant) is to do with the structure of the airframe itself so it will not tolerate painting without some adverse effect on the strength and resilience. I'm no expert, I got that from an instructor at a VGS.

This is a technical remark in response to the post above and is not intended to be speculative.

[brokenlink]

Guys,
Completeley agree with the posts about waiting for proper information instead of speculating. Lets not forget that 2 families have had some awful news this afternoon, think of those people please instead.

[Mach the Knife]

Composite airframes are damaged by heat absorbsion and are therefore generally white, not dark. The one silver lining is that the glider pilot was able to use his "pointless" parachute.

[znww5]

As a civvy GA pilot, I would like to extend my condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives this afternoon.

This tragic event was all the more poignant as there was a thread running very recently on another forum concerning the possible use of FLARM by GA aircraft to reduce mid-air collision risks.

Very sad day indeed.

[gashman]

Is FLARM a ballistic parachute recovery gadget for the airframe itself? I've seen those and thought that they were a terrific idea and a way to make GA as accessible to the everyday man on the street as driving a high-end car. Popular in the USA I believe?

As for today's events, regardless of what or who these RAF personnel were, they were obviously doing something they enjoyed on a sunny day. Condolences to all who are affected by this, hopefully the thought that they were enjoying themselves offers some comfort.
:sad:

[WorkingHard]

It would be of interest to know if any radar service or ATSOCAS was accessed (if available of course). If not accessed was such a service available and if not available could the lack of it be a contributory factor?
I echo was has been said about not requiring knee jerk reactions, we need better services not more control.

[angelorange]

Just read the news on BBC website - v sad, another tragic event. Thoughts and prayers for all the families involved.

From own experience, Grob Tutors in Lincolnshire AIAA much harder to see than black Domnies, Hawks, Tucanos etc.

T67M Fireflies use composites and were originally painted white but soon changed to Yellow uppers and Black undersides. Quite similar to 1930s Avro Tutor scheme:

File:Avro 621 Tutor.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_621_Tutor.jpg)

Dayglo patches used on motor gliders also helpful in a see and be seen environment.

Re-paint Grobs? Apart from additional weight (if not stripped and re-treated) and cost, the main paint issue is not so much a heat v structural problem on UK climate as to do with paint adhesion:


"Sophisticated composites are increasingly being used in aircraft. These are layered materials usually produced in casting moulds from plastic reinforced with carbon fibres and cured at relatively high
temperatures. Starting with fibre glass composites in secondary components, such as payload claddings and covers, carbon fibre composites are used in the main components such as aircraft wings, control elements and fuselage parts. These cast parts are contaminated by mould release agents which frequently contain
silicones. In order to ensure reliable painting these contaminants must be removed completely. Only then is it guaranteed that subsequent painting or bonding tasks will meet the highest standards of quality.

Activation brings about better
adhesion of paint:

Plastic surfaces in composites are often chemically inert since their long polymer chains have only low surface tension and possess no or only few functional groups. As a result of this they are difficult to paint adhesively. The ions and free electrons in the plasma beam cause nitrogen and oxygen to bond to the surface of the polymer so that functional groups such as –OH and –NH are produced. “In this way the plasma activates the surface by selective oxidation processes, discharges it and results in microfine cleaning. The rise in temperature of the plastic surfaces during treatment in this case amounts to ΔT < 20 °C. Activation of the surface takes place and this has a positive effect on adhesion”, declares Plasmatreat Managing Director Christian Buske.

In addition to cleaning, the reactive components in the plasma interact with the composite material and activate it so that it undergoes correct chemical bonding to the paint or coating system. This mechanism is the principal reason for the improved adhesion."


from http://www.plasmatreat.com/downloads/english/08-05_aircraft-painting_plasma-technology.pdf

[Wholigan]

Thanks for the explanations ref the difficulty of changing the Tutor colour scheme. Shame though!

[tmmorris]

No, FLARM is an anti-collision electronic device which warns you of the proximity of other FLARM-equipped aircraft. As such it's mostly used by gliders so it only enables you to avoid other gliders. See Flarm - Homepage (http://www.flarm.com)

Truly awful story. The weather was just about perfect and the world and his wife were flying in the area this afternoon; very close to home. The AEF in question is where my cadets fly.

Tim

[Mil Bill]

The only practical service that is used on these sorts of flights tends to be Basic Service. Even if Traffic Service was used, the aircrew are not required to become visual and there is no 'minimum distance' required between aircraft. Deconfliction Service would (should) keep aircraft apart but Im sure it would not be practicle to use on these sorts of flights. Just my opinion.

[BEagle]

1. What were the AEF accident rates both 10 and 20 years ago?
2. What is different about AEF flying today in terms of:

Aeroplanes
Pilots
AEF flight profiles
Aerodrome locations
Other traffic


When the likes of StopStart was committing aerobation with me almost 20 years ago, there were about 20 Bulldogs and Chipmunks operating from RAF Abingdon. No IFF/SSR, very primitive radios and no navaids. Yet, even though we all operated in the same small area, we managed to avoid hitting each other or anyone else.

I doubt whether we were superior beings, so just what has changed in the last few years - and has it had any bearing on this sad accident?

[Wholigan]

so just what has changed in the last few years

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2008-4/12877.jpg

http://www.harpendenaircadets.org.uk/Image%20Archive/Grob_tutor.jpg

The colour maybe???

[tonker]

I remember being at Farnborough in the late 90's when the Cirrus aircraft were demo-ing their technology for the new aircraft they were just launching.

In front of me were two old duffers claiming it would never work and "in my day" etc. Thankfully the world has moved on and Cirrus are now the top selling western light aircraft.

YouTube - BRS Emergency Parachute test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAwET3Q9Og4&feature=related)

RIP

[ShyTorque]

I've heard this thing about composites having to be white and unpainted for years.

The rotor blades on many modern helicopters are also made from composite materials. They are usually black in colour. The colour stays on at 400 mph tip speeds plus the 150 kts airspeed in the cruise, total 550 mph.

[muppetofthenorth]

Don't think is the appropriate place for such discussions, but the deal with the Tutors [so far as I've learnt] is that if they were painted any other colour - particularly darker [and yes, they are painted] - then they would get too warm on the ground and then the glue that aids the adhesion of the wings to the fuselage has the potential to fail.

Helicopter rotors are fine -or at least better off- because they tend to have a metal-based honeycomb interior structure and their movement through the air works to keep them cool.

[wz662]

A truely tragic event and one very close to home as I know a few of the AEF pilots (I await the release of the names with some dread) and I've flown in the area for the past 30 years nad so have learnt to be extra carefull on days like these.
I looked at the sky today and said "what a perfect day for gliding" and in saying that I just knew that the sky between Didcot and Oxford would be like a crowed motorway full of gliders. On the other hand the AEF Tutors would be leaving/returning to the Benson MATZ at more or less right angles to the traffic to get to the Vale of the White Horse to do their thing.
Increasing the visibility of these aircraft has got to come and if that means testing of composite structures in colours other than white so be it.
Incidentaly the huge patches of Dayglo on the composite wings of the Air Cadets Vigilants and Vikings doesn't appear to have made them any weaker, just a lot easier to see.

[Flik Roll]

Sad to hear of yet another loss at the hands of the tutor. We'll have to wait to see what the AAIB has to say, however I do wonder about the canopy design as I recall how it was often difficult to open during the fumes drill and it makes me wonder how hard it must be to get the canopy jettisoned in a spin....

Another bad day for aviation.

[NightFlit]

Flying Training Command (as it was) and its subsequent merged authorities have investigated various methods of conspicuity over the years, from Silver and Yellow through to the current paint scheme adopted by all military training aircraft which is black all over (note the Tutor is not military).

The composite surface and heat really depends on the nature of the composite structure. The composite nature of the Vigilant T.1s and Viking T.1s prevents the all black paint scheme as yes it would overheat the structure. The Tutor is a much newer composite design and such may permit a greater absorption from sun rays. Likewise rotor blade technology is much different. The Air Cadet Organisation was forced to re-evaluate its conspicuity requirements in the late 1990s following an incident with the Viking T.1s and this resulted in the adoption of the Day-Glo conspicuity designed in 2002-2003, which is currently in use across the entire Glider fleets, as the Training Aircraft paint scheme was not possible.

[ShyTorque]

Muppet, In the thirty years I've been flying them for a living, I've noticed that
helicopters sit on the ground, too, with the blades stationary.

Not all have underlying metal structure and the stresses involved are huge. In fact, many blades use a Nomex honeycomb, including some of our military ones presently working in a very hot place. :)

[cornish-stormrider]

Gentlemen, can we please leave the semantics about causes and conclusions and personal theories until another time. The sad truth is that someones child and someone else's family member have both perished. I am hoping and praying that they did not suffer. Our thoughts at this time should be with the families.

Lets wait for the BOI before we start the would have, should have, should we instead ???

AEF's up and down the country, along with the VGS's provide our youth with the best view a young person can ask. I still remember my first flight, first aero, first sustained glide along the cliffs at Predannack and the marvel of how small the world really is. We must make sure the youth of tomorrow get the same chances we had.

Fly Safe out there.

CS

[davejb]

Perhaps the idea would be to provide a cover for part of the fuselage/wing area in Dayglo that is thermally insulated from the underlying structure then.

I would have thought that a high vis colour scheme, which is - after all - designed to reflect light rather than absorb it, would not absorb enough heat energy to affect bonding of the various layers... after all, surely the difference between flying on a hot sunny day and a bitterly cold one produces a greater temperature change than the difference between heat absorbed from an ornage surface v a white one? Failing that add as many High vis strobes as it takes.


IF your parachute gets in the way, then you design a better parachute.

Leave it to the BOI, meanwhile condolences to the next of kin, family and friends - whilst it's not uncommon to speculate about what might be done differently I suspect there's a fair amount of received wisdom involved here, rather than science...

[Nov71]

A sad day for all concerned and AEF

Nobody mentioned the colour/type of the civvie glider? white composite?

[Big Sand]

First and foremost my sincerest condolences to those who have so sadly lost their lives today.

To add to the debate that hopefully may help try and reduce these dreadful occurrences. I fly a Bulldog (in RAF training colours) around the ULAS and CUAS LFA in Cambridgeshire. In this area there is a LOT of traffic from paragliders, gliders, UAS Grobs, GA, Barkston Heath T67's etc etc.

In my UAS day's when there were no transponders in the Bulldogs it was drummed into us LOOKOUT LOOKOUT LOOKOUT. I am sure these poor lads were doing their lookouts but the facts I have found are that of the traffic mentioned above most are painted white. The Barkston guys are easily visible and, like the Grobs have composite airframes. However,(comma) the Barkston aircraft are painted yellow & black.

In the frequent haze over Eastern and middle England I find white aircraft tricky to spot. Yellow, Black and Red aircraft much less so. Moreover, at the weekends there is also not the same opportunity for your local LARS to 'call the traffic'. May I take this opportunity of also thanking Cottesmore LARS for giving me a head's-up on many occassions. Pity that it's 'not possible' to give some of the Grobs some LARS cover during the weekends? Ironically, this is the time it's usually busiest with a lot of 'white traffic'?!

To all those giving their time and efforts to introducing young people to the fantastic joy of flight please don't be discouraged.


Condolences

Big Sand

[cargosales]

There were other Bulldog losses where crew did not get out, and one that I remember where the QFI possible released the wrong harness buckle and fell out of his parachute harness.


I remember that day only too horribly well. When the news came through it was like a bolt from the blue and for many of us studes it was the first indication that skygods are not necessarily invincible :(. Many of our QFIs had been on the same course as the guy who died and they were visibly affected by the news :(

The Boss promptly stacked for the day, suggesting everybody meet in the bar some 30 minutes hence, whereupon due respect was paid.

CS

[MAINJAFAD]

1. What were the AEF accident rates both 10 and 20 years ago?

2. What is different about AEF flying today in terms of:

Aeroplanes
Pilots
AEF flight profiles
Aerodrome locations
Other traffic

When the likes of StopStart was committing aerobation with me almost 20 years ago, there were about 20 Bulldogs and Chipmunks operating from RAF Abingdon. No IFF/SSR, very primitive radios and no navaids. Yet, even though we all operated in the same small area, we managed to avoid hitting each other or anyone else.

I doubt whether we were superior beings, so just what has changed in the last few years - and has it had any bearing on this sad accident?

Well here is what is on the MoD MAAS pages as regards UAS/AEF/VGS losses from 1980 to 2000.

18 Sep 80 - Bulldog - Abingdon. Undercarriage collapse due to heavy landing during UAS staff continuation training sortie turnback maneuver.

20 Feb 82 - Bulldog - Leuchars. Aircraft successfully abandoned after failed spin recovery.

23 May 82 - Chipmunk - Cambridge Airport. 5 AEF Aircraft flew into the ground due to Pilot incapacitation, pilot suffered major injuries, Cadet uninjured.

25 Mar 85 - Bulldog - Abingdon. Aircraft abandoned after failed spin recovery near Brize Norton. UAS Instructor killed when he fell away from the harness during parachute deployment.

02 mar 88 - Bulldog - Woodvale. UAS pilot killed after entering a spin at 600ft over Southport beach.

06 Sep 88 - Bulldog - base not listed. aircraft damaged by heavy impact on attempted landing, which resulted UAS pilot going around, aircraft lost power, and pilot had to land in a stubble field with minor injuries.

25 Apr 89 - Bulldog - Catterick. Aircraft successfully abandoned by foreign pilot on first solo away from home base after loss of control in cloud.

16 Oct 92 - Bulldog - Belfast. Aircraft hit stone wall during forced landing after engine failure. UAS Instructor fatally injuried.

26 Aug 93 - Chipmunk - St Athan (aircraft from Benson). Aircraft stalled during turnback maneuver. RAFVR pilot killed, ATC CI passanger badly injuried.

05 Aug 95 - 2 x Viking Gliders - Sealand - mid air collision while soaring in same thermal, one aircraft crashed killing the civilian instructor and Cadet on board, while the other instructor (who was badly injured) managed to land his aircraft with an uninjured cadet on board.

21 Jul 97 - Bulldog - Woodvale. UAS student and Instructor killed in crash after engine failure due to fuel starvation during rolling take off.

05 Mar 99 - Bulldog - Leuchars - Cat 5 due to heavy landing during AEF staff continuation training turnback maneuver.

this list is incomplete, as the MAAS for a VGS Cadet Mk 3 which crashed at Weathersfield in 1983 is not listed (Instructor and Cadet killed in that crash).

As regards the Tutor, as the aircraft are on the civil register, AAIB accident and incident reports are the place to look, and as far as I can tell, the first fatal accident with the type was the AEF mid air earlier this year.

There are only 5 reports on non fatal accidents/incidents for the type from 2001 to 2007.

[ShyTorque]

Cargosales,

I remember it well, too. Not long before I had been taken to one side by my Boss. He told me the groundcrew had complained that I should leave my parachute in the Bulldog when changing over to the next QFI because climbing in and out with it strapped on was known to cause extra wear on the chute pack! We were however supposed to do regular aircraft abandonment drills, along with our students (when obviously we did climb out with our chutes on).

I told him I never wanted to undo a chute QRF whilst sitting in my aircraft because I wanted to ensure I never released the wrong one by mistake when it mattered most. Every time I climbed out after a sortie was an abandonment drill, as far as I was concerned.

The tragic accident proved my point and procedures were later changed; it was put down to cognitive failure on the part of the poor victim. :(

[c4aero]

This will be a difficult one for the decision makers, who despite cynical views have a challenge to balance safety and operations against public perception. We have lost 6 colleagues in a few months, and parents will be understandably anxious. The key will be to identify the causes, rectify where possible and then reassure parents and cadets. This will take time and patience, but in the end the ACO will survive, not least as it is the best youth movement in the country.

Any names released yet?

[Winco]

Plodin Along

Would you please pass on my sincere condolences to your own family and the family of the other crew member if you are able. It is truly a sad day for you all especially, but for all aviators.

Unfortunately there has been a huge amount of utter rubbish written on this thread already about the military, parachutes and other things. The fact of the matter is that two families are today grieving at the loss of their loved ones, and I would appeal to everyone such as El Grifo et al to moderate their personal thoughts and opinions and frankly keep them to themselves..

The facts of this tragedy will emerge, but until then, lets try to display a modicum of respect for those fellow aviators (and that includes the cadet) that we have ALL lost.

RIP

The Winco

[flower]

When I got the text from our CO my reaction was Oh god not again.
Such a tragedy for the families , the AEF and the Corps.

Wholigan I trust your judgement perhaps the AEF does need to scream and shout about visibility. In that comment I am not assuming anything about this Accident or the one we had in South Wales but perhaps it is something that does need to be addressed.

After our accident in No1 Welsh Wing we have seen no drop off in enthusiasm for flying or the numbers doing it, I hope that will continue to be the case for Oxfordshire.

RIP to our Colleagues, never forgotten .

[cyclops16]

Eventhough I have not flown for a number of years my first aircraft was as an Air Cadet when 10 AEF were flying Chipmunks and the UAS were on Bulldogs both of which were white and red with black and white props. I have seen the pictures posted of the current colour scheme of the Tutor and it being nearly all white does in my personal view pose a problem.I am an avid aviation enthusiast and even have problems seeing a white aircraft A320 size when they pass by my house 1 mile away at 2500ft on finals into MAN when the weather is totally clear but is hazy and evenmore so when the aircraft is near the hazy aura of the sun. I don't pretend to be an expert,but the colour of the aircraft must have some bearing on this.In a world where we see everyone wearing Hi-Viz jackets,etc so they can be clearly seen,yet we have training aircraft that given the right or wrong conditions as the case may be, could be nearly invisible and also taking into account the use of the busy airspace.
Let's let the AAIB do their job and publish their report and see what needs to be changed if needed.

I dearly hope that these accidents do not see the end of cadet flying. That put a bug in me that has stayed for over 40 years.

Condolences to the families and RIP to the instructor and cadet.

[Wholigan]

I dearly hope that these accidents do not see the end of cadet flying.

The Air Cadet organization will survive and cadet flying will continue. It will just take time and patience to sort the issues, and a heck of a lot of skillful reassurance (in due course) of the parents who may now see the AEF activity as too dangerous for their children to take part in.

The first accident was relatively straightforward to explain as a "one in a million event that is so unlikely to happen again that AEF flying is so inherently safe that you shouldn't really worry about the safety of your children in our charge".

Sadly, this latest accident - following on as closely as it did - makes that argument extremely difficult to justify to people who will now see our previous reassurances about the safety of their loved ones as "not to be trusted". All we can do is trust in the effectiveness of the investigations (and they will be the most thorough investigations that you could imagine) and, depending on the findings and recommendations, use our skills to build the bridges again to regain the confidence of those parents and - indeed - the cadets themselves.

[Ivor Fynn]

Wholigan - wise words, I stood up and tried to reasure parents after the last one, as you did I'm sure. I fear that there may be a bit more scepticism this time.

Condolences to all involved :(

Ivor Fynn

[50+Ray]

Sad News. RIP.
We tried very hard at Barkston to change our colour scheme to something more visible, and yellow/black is much better than basic white. The Tutor colour scheme was a mistake from the start.
All support to the AET and ATC. Keep up the good work.
Ray

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

This is a terrible tragedy, but must be set in context. All adventure involves some risk; those who provide the adventures young people need and thrive on - from parents to professionals - have the task of managing the risks.

The RAF operates 90+ Tutors, all flown by current or retired full time service pilots (the proportion of hours flown by solo students, eg UAS, is negligible). This must make them the largest, most experienced and most structured light aircrft operator in the UK, and it should follow that their incident rate should be the 'best in class' (by some considerable margin).

It would be interesting to see some benchmarking against the civilan GA community in incident rates per hour flown - not for inappropriate one-up-manship, but just to reassure parents and cadets that ACO is indeed discharging its greatest duty, ie safety.

I have every confidence that, of all the many admirable businesses and organisations through which a young person could enjoy a safe introduction to the wonderful world of flying, the research would show ACO to be safest of them all.

Like other posters, I am appalled by the loss of fellow fliers of any age or experience. I hope these two were having a ball, and send sincere condolences to their families, friends and AEF/squadron colleagues. Also I wish the glider pilot a speedy recovery from any injuries he sustained.

[thermick]

Had FLARM been fitted to both aircraft this tragic accident may not have happened. Those of us that have it fitted to our gliders have been very impressed with its performance and heads up warnings. The problem is that it is only fully effective if fitted to all aircraft.
It was very busy in that area yesterday.

R.I.P.

Thermick

[Frank2180]

I was at an AEF yesterday afternoon with 5 first time flyers all kitted up and ready to walk out to the line and all aged 13 -16years. Our slots were cancelled beacuse the weather set in and we could not fly. I have asked for more slots and will ask for volunteers tonight and despite two crashes in recent months I have absolutely no doubt that there will quite a queue wanting a flight.

Yesterday will not dampen the enthiusiasm of these young people two of whom sat in full kit including parachutes for a hour waiting to fly and almost wetting themselves with excitement.

The drive home down the motorway was probably more dangerous than what we might have got up to in the Tutors. Likely I will have a full minibus heading to our local AEF next weekend with full parental support /permission and a bunch of very excited Cadets. My sympathies are quite clearly elsewhere.

[Cows getting bigger]

We really need to stop painting aircraft white (standing by for the plastic aircraft brigade to say "we can't"), insist on strobes and consider high-tech solutions. Can't isn't good enough; it is time for industry, users and regulators to thrash this one out.

PS. Let's ensure that the kids still have the opportunity to fly.

[MAINJAFAD]

Well one of the gutter press comics have already put the id of the Glider's owner out Here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/15/pilot-s-miracle-escape-as-glider-hit-by-plane-115875-21441636/)

[plans123]

How do you 'eject' from a glider? A sad sad day and yet the gutter press still manage to get it wrong.

[airborne_artist]

Well one of the gutter press comics have already put the id of the Glider's owner outThe glider registration was clear on the BBCi picture, and the CAA ownership database is open to all, so it was not hard to find who owned the glider, though I see that the owner's father did not confirm who was flying it at the time.

Fincastle - I see that none of the news outlets are carrying that info. Have you been asked to release it by the family?

[MAINJAFAD]

The glider registration was clear on the BBCi picture, and the CAA ownership database is open to all, so it was not hard to find who owned the glider

True AA, did the same Myself before I found the page on the press web site.

[tmmorris]

Sadly Wholigan I fear you are right. After the previous incident I was able to reassure cadets & parents that it was a one in a million event and they shouldn't worry. I'm not sure what to tell them now.

Flying out of Benson this morning was a sober experience.

Tim

[Gainesy]

Merely an observation. The Tutor has a broad canopy arch.

Another observation, the glider pilot stated that he was hit from underneath.

A local who saw the aircraft come down near Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire, later went to a police station to return a wallet belonging to the glider pilot - and saw him being interviewed by officers.

The man, who did not want to be named, said: "The pilot looked really shaken up. He said he was flying normally when a plane came from underneath him and clipped him. He immediately ejected and saw the plane nose-dive to the ground.


Very sad business.

[jayteeto]

At this time the MOD website giving no names and asking for privacy for the family.

[Plodin Along]

Thank you Winco, you sort of said what I wanted too !!

PA
:sad:

[tmmorris]

By the way there are no gliding sites anywhere near* the crash site. So any speculation about mil ac infringing gliding sites is irrelevant.

Tim

*i.e. within 10 miles in any direction, not counting Abingdon which is a VGS and which is a known avoid for 6AEF.

[10W]

Condolence messages can be placed on the following thread for those who wish to do so.

RAF Tutor / Glider Collision - Condolences Thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/377876-raf-tutor-glider-collision-condolences-thread.html)

This thread can be used to debate the issues and the factors which might have had a bearing on the accident, and which could affect all of us who fly.

For those who wish to wait for the AAIB report and not think about what might have happened till then, please turn the page.

[Sook]

Abingdon wasn't flying anyway. There was a motorsports carnival going on (which had it's own serious accident).

On the subject of colour, having flown out of Church Fenton in a Tutor in the summer, I found it very difficult to pick up the Firefly's against the dry grass through the haze even though I knew they were there.

[Spiro]

Such a waste and condolences go out to all the families concerned - RIP

It is accidents like this and others that should mandate all Light aircraft to have at least a mode A transponder fitted. I am not saying it will prevent accidents on its own, nor will it ever excuse maintaining the best lookout in open airspace that you can, but it would at least show you up to ATC.

As a Pilot who regularly flies in that airspace it is amazing how many primary only contacts get called to me on a traffic service from ATC that always seem to be single piston/gliders/microlights. I am fortunate that i fly an aircraft with TCAS - and it has saved me on more than one occasion in that airspace, but it only works if you are transponder equipped - remember it saves ME and YOU.

During my early career i regularly flew an aircraft without a transponder and without an ATC service - not now, having a transponder and using it will save your life.

I realise it costs to adopt these measures and the GA community has resisted any mandated regulation - but think of what it would potentially save..:(

Per Ardua Ad Astra

[WASALOADIE]

HQAC has announced that all AEF is suspended until further notice

[Bicontatto]

A typical HQAC Knee- jerk reaction:yuk:

[phantom2430uk]

HQAC have resumed all AEF flying has resumed with immediate effect.

[execExpress]

Whether traffic is called by ATC, reported by FLARM, TCAS, PCAS or even a pax - YOU still have to visually aqcuire it to be able to avoid it. Lots of posters in this thread commenting on white paint schemes, quite rightly in my view.

I don't know if Grob or other manufactureres have tried to follow suit for thier 'plastic fanstastics' but take a look at Photos: Cirrus SR-22 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unknown/Cirrus-SR-22/1539079/&sid=8aee1b1ed4395d8136c6dce98baa6173)

Cirrus probably didn't work out how to put colour on their aircraft as one of their safety innovations, but I know I'd rather fly /be looking out for a coloured one rather than a white one.

The colour paint is relatively new technology for the Cirrus. From an 'avoiding mid-airs' I would like to see it used as widely and often as possible, especially considering how much 'Got To Be White' that we are collectively capable of putting in the sky on a nice day (powered and non-powered).

[TimC]

Hi

The 'Cirrus' was a Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus, which would probably have looked a bit like this:

http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/images/stcirrus-2.jpg .

Cheers

Tim

[MAINJAFAD]

The Glider which collided with the Tutor was this one (http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1156941/).

[execExpress]

Both the Schempp-Hirth Cirrus, the Grob Tutor, and other "Got To Be Whites" types might be now be able to be made more conspicuous using current colour paint, such as that now being found on Cirrus Aircraft's SR20 and SR22's.

I hope GRP/Fibreglass manufacturers and users, e.g. AEF, Clubs, may show an interest in exploring the possibilities.

Cant seem to load it here, so uploaded photo of another great example colour scheme to
http://www.upintotheblueagain.*************/ (http://3.bp.*************/_n9iq1bm5fTA/SjnhYEGjb8I/AAAAAAAABx4/pQvsR6lDjbs/s1600-h/SR22-RED.jpg.jpg)

or Google "2009 SR22 N877KC photo"

[lytebyte2002]

Used to go on AEF in a Tutor at Benson when I was in the ATC not long ago. Freaks me out that it could have been me.

RIP to those who lost their lives.

[cats_five]

Firstly, condolences to all - the families first and foremost, but all the friends and colleages as well.

The thread answers a question I had - since the Tutors are G-registered the AAIB will do the report. Can I take it that the RAF will do their own investigation as well?

Someone said that Flarm in both aircraft would have prevented the accident. Probably, but since it is possible to come up with scenarios where it wouldn't have I'd say that statement was rash unless they were an eye witness or have heard a good 1st hand witness account.

However Flarm is a low-cost (in aviation terms!) technology which many glider pilots have been very impressed with, and the uptake of it among XC glider pilots is growing all the time. There are certainly glider pilots who believe it has saved them from an airmiss or a middair.

Why can't we paint gliders something other than white? Because that's what the maker says, and therefore doing so would among other things invalidate our insurance. If I feel the white top of a wing on a moderately sunny day it's cool, if I feel the red wingtip it's quite a bit warmer. Most gliders are not new by any means - the one involved on Sunday was built in 1972 - so any changes in paint / composite technology that would allow a paintscheme have come too late for them. It would be great if we could all have our gliders painted yellow & black, but sadly it's not possible for the composite ones. I do see an old wood/fabric glider painted yellow fairly often and agree it is much, much easier to see. However I'm not how much difference colour schemes make for the aircraft that's a threat - the one that's on a constant bearing and gradually getting bigger, but of course not moving relative to the background. Possibly it depends what the background is - white clouds? Blue sky? High ground?

A question of my own: do Tutors carry transponders? If so, do they always transpond?

Someone asked 'how does one eject from a glider'? Get rid of the canopy (each one has a specific way of doing this), release harness, climb out, pull parachute. I was told that below 2,000' agl it was rare to do this successfully but it has been done once that I know of from about 1,000', though the circumstances were bizarre. Apparently the 'chutes glider pilots (and presumbly Tutor pax) wear are packed to open and fill very quickly compared to sports 'chutes. I imagine jumping is adrenaline fuelled.

[execExpress]

Just to be clear - the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 are composites - and they can be painted with certain colour paints as per the examples above. The sooner more new-build composites come with colour the better.

[Al-Berr]

All RAF Tutors have a Bendix/King mode-S transponder. There is no reason not to have it on mode 3A (Alt).

[cats_five]

Al-Berr, thanks, I suspected they all had transponders but as we know suspicion isn't fact.

Would they normally transpond for the duration of a flight?

[Al-Berr]

All flights departing the circuit should squak from take-off to just before rejoining the visual circuit, depending on local orders. So yes, for the duration of the flight.

[cats_five]

Thanks again.

[tmmorris]

I can confirm from my experience as pax at 6AEF that yes, they do squawk as described from takeoff to rejoin (as indeed we at the civvy club on the airfield have to).

Tim

[Sir George Cayley]

I have many hours on G115s so I hope my comment is accepted in the spirit it's given.

My understanding is that AEF pilots and pax wear full kit, inc 'bone domes'. If true, this causes me some concern as the head room under the canopy isn't that generous and the "A" pillar is quite thick. Add to this the restriction that shoulder harness' could add and one's ability to maintain a good look out could be restricted.

Add in white and thin and one can imagine the Swiss cheese holes lining up.

Is it possible to fix dark vinyl bands on white a/c to increase conspicuity?

I believe it is vtal for the military's future that young people are given the oportunity o experience the thrill of flight so creating a safer environment in which tis experience can be delivered is v important.

Sir George Cayley

[swiftmark]

Angelorange: re painting of composites

What utter rubbish, you obviously know absolutly nothing about composite structures, i have been painting these for years.

[Jolly Green]

Two questions for those who might know

1) Assuming the glider was equipped with FLARM, should it alert off of a regular transponder like the tutor, or just off of other FLARM equipped aircraft?

2) We know that some composites can be safely painted, but does fiberglass have characteristics (unlike other composites) that make it unsafe or unwise to paint in contrasting colors?

[Wholigan]

I guess it doesn't really matter what we in here think or know about composites and painting/colouring them. The investigation will - I am sure - find the real answer for this particular composite, and will determine whether or not it can be coloured in any way to make the aircraft more conspicuous.

[cats_five]

1) Assuming the glider was equipped with FLARM, should it alert off of a regular transponder like the tutor, or just off of other FLARM equipped aircraft?

Flarm won't set off a transponder, just another Flarm. See the Flarm website:
www.flarm.com (http://www.flarm.com)

Takeup of Flarm should have got a boost amongst XC glider pilots now that some of the units are FAI-approved flight loggers, which means the traces from them can be used for badge claims and the like. When I brought my logger 1 1/2 years ago that wasn't the case, and also Flarm has come down in cost a bit since then.

2) We know that some composites can be safely painted, but does fiberglass have characteristics (unlike other composites) that make it unsafe or unwise to paint in contrasting colors?

The issue isn't with painting a glider - a Ventus or Nimbus (sorry can't remember which) at my club was refinished with car two-pack last year and looks great and many others have been refinished with two-pack paint. Both are offered by the East European workshops doing a lot of the commercial refinishing in the EU.

The issue is with a non-white finish because it heats the underlying structure. If you feel the top of a white glider wing it's cool, even if it's been in the sun all day. If you find a glider with (for example) red wing tips they will be warm. You can feel it with washing on the line as well - a pale teeshirt will be cool, a dark one warm.

[ceecl2]

My thoughts are with the families and friends of those involved at this particularly difficult time.

In response to a Q
The MOD will run its own investigation in parallel to the CAA one.

In reply to Jolly Green,

FLARM only reports on other FLARM equipped aircraft and not transponding aircraft. Likewise systems such as TCAS and PCAS only report on transponder equipped aircraft.

There is a new system about to hit the market which will report on both FLARM and Transponder equipped aircraft, which is also ADS-B capable.


The AC Viking and Vigilant fleet have nice big Dayglo patches on their wings, which does help pic them out.

As always, good lookout is essential but these systems do help pick up those contacts that do get past the Mk1 eyeball.

[im from uranus]

Why not just paint the lower mainplane surface in hi-viz colours?

[Wholigan]

You will still get heat problems. There is already a restriction on where, when and for how long you can park a Tutor that has the display aircraft markings, depending on what surface you park the aircraft.

[Sook]

There's not an issue with painting composite structure, it's the colour you paint it which is important. And when you're talking about issues with the "composite" more specifically you're talking about the matrix (resin) part of the composite.

The matrix is susceptible to degradation from a number of environmental sources, particularly IR, UV and condensation. These can cause degradation of the matrix structure and lead to a reduction in the physical properties of the matrix. IR is the most obvious of these (i.e. if you put your hand on a dark part of a wing and a light part you'd be able to feel the temperature difference). UV is less noticeable but in the long term equally as damaging.

Seeing as the matrix provides almost all of the composite structures compressive strength, over time exposure to excessive IR and UV radiation could lead to a reduction in static strength to the point where a manoeuvre (e.g. a loop), which was previously well within the material’s capability, causes failure of the material.

So yes, you can paint composite structures whatever colour you like but you either need to take property degradation into account or use some form of inhibitor (for UV in particular).

[cockney steve]

GRP/ Composites have a long history in the harsh marine environment.

painting /colouring is commonplace and unlike the aviation environment,stressing a structure well beyond it's design limits is commonplace and rarely results in more than a soaking and a lot of ribbing in the bar, afterwards.

There has to be a "middle path" between the High-Vis requirements and the heat-absorbtion problem.

it is NOT insurmountable-As mentioned by other posters, 2-pack, Isocyanate-based Automotive paints have proven adhesion and durability qualities when applied to Alloys and Composites.

Given the mind-boggling prices that a lot of Certified Aeronautical "kit" seems to command, there will be specialist paint-manufacturers out there who CAN develop a heat AND light-reflective finish which is compatible with Aviation requirements.

The likely stalling-point is the beurocracy dragging it's heels and spending years prevaricating before approval.....OTOH. they are well proven to bring in legislation enforcing undeveloped, unproven and in some cases, demands for which NO solution is yet extant.

(cue "crash" development programs and suspension of unworkable rules ,until reality catches up with the beaurocrat's fantasies.

I would NOT be happy flying in a white Composite.....legal or not, I'd be happier with a lightweight LED strobe with a Li-Poly battery,parked on the glare-shield and radiating SOME warning of my prescence, through the windscreen.

[cats_five]

Yes, GRP has been used in marine applications for many years, but the average GRP boat is not relying on the GRP for most of it's strength. How the boat is constructed varies, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they are not designed to be able to do a loop or chandelle.

[cockney steve]

[GRP boat is not relying on the GRP for most of it's strength. /QUOTE] so grp/composite is not composed of "plastic" resin, Glass-fibre/carbon fibre/kevlar :confused:


[QUOTE]but you can bet your bottom dollar that they are not designed to be able to do a loop or chandelle.
Today 12:46

And the average composite aircraft doesn't survive the fuselage slamming at 40 knots into a solid wall of water whilst the airborne wing cants it over to 60*,cantilevering an umpteen -ton weight on the other(submerged) wing!

Yes. there are differences in construction but there are close parralels in technique.....both disciplines attempt to get maximum strength with minimum weight...I'd argue that the shock-loadings on boats is akin to permanently flying in severe turbulence.....but the issue of UV degradation and heat-softening is just as relevant wether cruising the Med or tonking through the Southern Arctic.
Open minds will achieve a way to "announce" their prescence to other "traffic"
Anyone who'se been a "suicide jockey" ?- AKA motorcyclist , will have first -hand experience of making themselves seen.

[angelorange]

Grobs, Fireflys, Extra 300s, can be painted/resin impregnated any colour you like - yes there are issues with black on upper surfaces but all EFT Fireflies went from white to black undersides many years ago with NO structural impact.

The issue is cost and time out of service. In adition, if re-painted after production there may be a weight penalty as there was with the T67M160 early models.

[WE992]

Of interest and not so far mentioned the early Pik 20 gliders made in Finland were available in yellow, geen and I think pink in addition to the more normal white colour found on todays high colour sailplanes. The colours proved to be less than popular with customers and were abandoned.

[Bucaneer Bill]

HISLs to be fitted to everthing that flies?

[Plodin Along]

Mike's funeral will be held on Monday 6th July, actual time to still be confirmed but it will be in the afternoon at RAF Benson.

Anyone who knew Mike and wishes to attend is more than welcome to do so.

Anyone wishing to make any donations please do so to either Hedley Court or RAF Benevolent Fund.

For any further information please do not hesitate in contacting me.

PA
:sad:

[cats_five]

Sorry wasn't very clear. The shape of a well-designed boat gives it a lot of strength (double-curvature). Early attempts to produce GRP versions of boats designed to be build in plywood were very unsuccessful as the flat areas were weak and had to be built much too heavily to (try) to make them strong enough until reinforcing with suitable materials was introducted. High-performance boats plane which needs relatively flat aft sections so the use of reinforcing (foam sandwich construction) was essential.

White decks are not popular because of the glare but white hulls are - they are easy to see when they are inverted. But dark decks are not popular either - a pale grey works well for preventing glare.

High-performance boats have massive rigging tensions and some are built round a metal monocoque frame that takes those tensions. In dinghies the frame can be seen - International 14s are a good example.

High-performance boats are cossetted. Dinghies are kept off the water and under covers except for the few hours a week they are sailed. Serious keel-racers take the boat off the water and cover it between races for a variety of reasons. Boats used by sailing schools (especially marine-based ones) look pretty tired pretty quickly.

So yes, the composite part of the structure does matter but it's by no means the only part of the story, and the forces involved are certainly not the number of Gs that quite a few gliders are designed to withstand -

Also, the consequences for most sailing types of a structural failure are nothing like a serious as those for aviators. Obviously in ocean racing it can be, though there have been some amazing rescues (Tony Bullimore for example). The element that fails most often is the rigging, not the hull.

I'm not sure how the stresses of sailing compare to flying. A common training glider will take between +6.5 and -4 g, and I doubt anything sailing ever experiences those extremes. However a prolonged upwind leg, or a planing downwind one will involve plenty of slamming if the seastate is rough and the wind is brisk. (though the bows are inherently very strong because of their shape)

[Jetscream 32]

Maybe, just maybe the Tutor was aerobating when it collided with the Cirrus -
Hasell checks, couple of manoervres, all ok - coaching and mentoring a cadet who is in his element, pulling up into the loop - BANG.!!!

Million to one accident, and one where i would struggle to aportion any blame... just really, really sad bad luck....

This almost happened to me in the CAP 10 in May but with a C172 as the traffic..

Aerobatics in the most basic form requires intense cockpit and mental management, coupled with good lookout.

But it is incredibly, incredibly difficult to see high performance gliders straight and level coming at you perpendicular when you are looping and rolling above the countryside!

The answer is not to ban AEF flying and stop cadets living the dream
The answer is to have notam'd aerobatic boxes close to the airfields that have these requirements - and yes glider pilots do read notams!!

And / or fit gliders with HISL's top & bottom of fuselage - 90% of close calls with gliders would then probably disappear......!

All IMHO :oh:

[Sook]

Last time a flew in a Tutor (a couple of months ago), the procedure prior to looping was a steep bank one way to check below followed by a reversal to check the otherside, then a good lookout above to make sure it's all clear.

I'm sure any AEF guys out there will correct me if this isn't SOP.

If they we're manouvering when they collided it may have just been one of those occasions where they were in each other's blind spots and simply didn't see each other.

[BEagle]

.....it may have just been one of those occasions where they were in each other's blind spots and simply didn't see each other.

Very probably.

Many years ago, I was pottering along at low level in one of HM's Buccaneers when the Voice From the Back casually said "Have you got that guy, left 11 o' clock?".

"Yes", I replied, seeing an aircraft in the distance, "looks like a Herc, but it's miles away."

"No, it's not a Herc and it's pretty close!"

Then, from behind the canopy arch loomed a Jaguar. It was indeed 'pretty close'. It must have been exactly in my blind spot.

It happens. Only way to mitigate is to keep your head and eyes moving. All the pretty coloured paint and flashing lights in the world in the world won't help if it's hidden - neither will silly NOTAMs. And no-one will countenance the cost of fitting electric alarms to Das Teutor.

As I wrote earlier, what is different about AEFs, their pilots, aeroplanes, aerodromes and practices of today compared with 10-20 years ago? When the only incidents were usually caused by staff officers taxying Chipmunks into solid objects?

[Flik Roll]

Can confirm that a repaint adds a significant amount of weight - we had one that was very limited crew wise following a repaint at Grob. The tutor can be hard to spot and there have a been a few near misses regarding spins, despite a bloody thorough lookout.

The firefly is most definitely a dam sight easier to spot!

[Big Sand]

Jetscream 32,
You point out some valid points regarding the 'Hasell' checks. How many of us when doing our clearing turns automatically look down and call clear and neglect to also look up?! Perhaps a few of us?!

I am sure the AAIB will determine the most likely cause of this dreadful accident. Accidents do happen sadly.

Sincere condolences to all those who sadly died in this incident.

Big Sand.

[Plodin Along]

Mike’s confirmed Funeral details are as follows:-

Monday 6th July 2009 at RAF Benson. Anyone attending could they please be there for 1200hrs where transport to the church has been organised. THERE IS NO PARKING AVAILABLE AT THE CHURCH ITSELF.

Anyone one wishing to go could you please contact the station adj. on 01491 827 099 so they can have a rough idea of numbers attending.

Donations will be for Headley Court and/or RAF Benevolent Fund.

Those wishing to donate to Headley Court by cheque please make them payable to "SFAS DMRC Headley Court", please write on back of the cheques "Patients Welfare Fund". For those attending there will be a collection box in the Mess.

Any further enquiries do not hesitate in PM me.

PA
:sad:

[EnigmAviation]

Yes, well said Beagle, Jetscream and Big Sand, all the technology and paint schemes in the world will never prevent this type of accident.

There is absolutely no substitute for gold standard airmanship and just good plain homely constant lookout combined with a good degree of head/neck movement to compensate for constant rate of closing scenario's. There is also the need for good use of HASELL and including the words.......
"clearing turn to the left / right bloggs , and we're checking below / behind / in front AND ABOVE us"

As we have now seen the demise of three RAF pilots and three Air Cadets little more than as many months, surely it is time for some re-assessment of AEF pilot standardisation, "out briefing and what that brief contains in addition to signing to accept the out brief" - not to mention a look at currency requirements for individuals. If you want to be the best, then strive to be the best and challenge existing standards and regulations !

I cannot believe that we can allow these two fatal accidents to pass by without some well considered changes. Something is clearly wrong.

The VGS world operate similar Grob Vigilant TMG aircraft - and not just flying with Cadets - all of their instructors instruct ( some more so, and some less so) and teach to solo standard and beyond, and many locally on RAF stations fly competently alongside service aircraft and helicopters under RAF ATC directions.

Many senior staff are professional ATPL's in the "day job". -For quite incomprehensible reasons VGS instructors are not allowed to fly on AEF units unless previously fully service qualified, even though they are standardised and supervised by RAF Officers, including a CFS element. The Titanic was commanded by a professional, whilst Noah was an amateur !

Perhaps some more interchange (on a limited and selection based system)and cross fertilization may bring some tangible benefits to Cadet flying - e.g., a little instructional flying and some new young blood, not to mention allowing some VR(T) RAF (Ret'd) Officers to gain an understanding of the conventional gliding world - a possible competency gain for old boys of managing without a fan on the front for longer than it takes to hit the ground on an EFATO !

Cadets would also benefit from some limited learning rather than a 20-25 min pure PAX ride. The VGS staff have adequately demonstrated their professional competency in a more demanding role - why not? - don't let the past hinder the future, and most importantly LEARN from the each and every accident.

[Wholigan]

I beg to differ slightly from some of the views expressed on here.

All the pretty coloured paint and flashing lights in the world won't help if it's hidden

all the technology and paint schemes in the world will never prevent this type of accident

I agree that none of these things will help if it is hidden, but it will help if it is simply bloody hard to see. Last week I was watching a Bulldog from Kemble working between 4 and 7 miles from me, but I could NOT see the Tutor that was reported by Filton only 2 miles from me. The only difference between the 2 was the colour scheme. Many of my pilots made similar comments when they returned from their flight.


Cadets would also benefit from some limited learning rather than a 20-25 min pure PAX ride.

Not sure which AEF you have worked with, but it most certainly is not mine!

Incidentally, on another point you make, the Hullavington guys have been over to fly with us on a few occasions, and I am sure it will happen again. This can only be a good thing. However, we always seem to have every good intention of going there for a reciprocal visit, but time and pilot availability has prevented it so far. I hope it will happen though, because that would also be good value for all of us. Although this is not what you wanted, as the flying of AEF sorties is currently (primarily) limited to pilots who have held Service wings, it is the best we can do right now to facilitate better understanding and knowledge of each others' practices.

[davejb]

Enigmaviation,
Mike Blee was not lacking in experience or professionalism, he had a substantial number of flying hours on rather more complex aircraft, but (and I have no desire to circumvent the BOI here, but some things in life are pretty obvious) he obviously didn't see the glider, or did so too late to avoid it. (Similarly the glider pilot, presumably, didn't see Mike - it takes 2 to tango).

I don't give 2 hoots who you think ought to be allowed to fly cadets, or what you think the cadet briefing/training ought to contain (it is a brave 14 year old who tells the pilot to stop doing what he is doing), I would be amazed if the basic issue wasn't that Mike saw the glider and vice versa too late/not at all and therefore I consider the phrase Yes, well said Beagle, Jetscream and Big Sand, all the technology and paint schemes in the world will never prevent this type of accident to be singularly bloody stupid -
you only avoid colliding if you see the other guy and take avoiding action, if you don't see him you don't avoid him.

For what it is worth I flew with Mike Blee on Nimrods for about a fortnight, we did not get on with each other very well, so I have no vested interest in protecting an old mate as he wasn't one. (A fact I did regret at the time).
Dave

[EnigmAviation]

Most fatal RTA's also read "he/she didn't see the other vehicle" - or the "child didn't see the approaching bus or lorry " - in both these scenarios, they didn't see because they didn't look - or look properly and efficiently !! Or if they THOUGHT that they looked, they maybe didn't scan as well as they should have !! How oftern have we read of pilots who THINK that they did something in checks, but by habit they actually didn't - think about it, and maybe you'll see where I'm coming from - pardon the pun.

You seem to miss the point that if the lookout and drills are not as good as they should be, then there's not a snowball's chance in hell of seeing anything ! Look out and drills can be less than good even from the most experienced Squadron commanders big or small jets, whatever and whoever, - all I suggest is that something is clearly defective with the unacceptable recent losses.

[WorkingHard]

Davejb said "Similarly the glider pilot, presumably, didn't see Mike - it takes 2 to tango" well I have to say that IF (and I have no idea at this stage except for what has been reported) the glider was struck from underneath then how the hell could he have possibly seen any thing coming? This smacks of the infamous BOI verdict on the Kano fatality.

[CirrusF]

This article, from the world of RC models, is not without merit:

::Aero-Experiments:: (http://www.aeroexperiments.org/RChighvis.shtml)

I think the argument to paint the underside black is interesting.

[davejb]

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.

[LFFC]

I will not comment on this dreadful accident because I’m probably not qualified to do so and certainly know nothing of the circumstances. My deepest sympathies go out to all those touched by these tragedies and I’ll leave it to the experts to find out what’s gone wrong. I wish others would too!

However, Beagle talks about what’s changed over the years, and that did awaken the memory of a conversation I had with a friend some months ago. He had recently returned to flying small aircraft after many years flying large aircraft, mostly in controlled airspace. I recall that he was somewhat surprised by the high density of aircraft operating within Class G airspace these days. He mused that the almost constant expansion of civilian controlled airspace over the years had nibbled away at “free airspace” and resulted in high traffic densities in the good areas left. This gradual change may not have been noticed by those operating within it consistently; but it came as quite a shock to my friend!

[astir 8]

Speaking as a glider pilot/instructor local to the area of the accident, it has to be said that the Didcot - Abingdon area does have a LOT of traffic running north-south, especially on a good soaring day (which the day of the accident most definitely was) because of the airspace "squeeze" between the Brize zone and Benson etc.

Plus of course Didcot power station is a very handy navigation landmark/thermal source (the coalyards mostly). It is therefore an area in which an exceptionally good lookout is required by all parties.


It's not an area I would have personally chosen for AEF operations which might include rapid alterations in direction etc.

Are AEF pilots given a choice of where they operate or is it a question of "Smith go north of the airfield, Bloggs east, Brown west and Harris east so that you maintain separation from each other"?

[cats_five]

If you look through the various related threads (there are some in Private Flying as well) you will find there are good reasons why the white Tutors and all those white gliders have to be white - it's to protect the airframe from heating. At present this is no neat solution I know of to this, hence Tutors etc. and modern gliders are white and will stay white.

Therefore, ways of avoiding collisions with hard-to-see aircraft have to be sought given that there are a lot of them around and will be for a long time to come.

[Postman Plod]

Didn't the ATC Vigi and Viking fleets find a nice simple solution in the shape of dayglo stripes on the wings? Surely thats a nice, simple and cheap immediate fix to help with visibility?

[longer ron]

Didn't the ATC Vigi and Viking fleets find a nice simple solution in the shape of dayglo stripes on the wings? Surely thats a nice, simple and cheap immediate fix to help with visibility?

Yes....But.... the panels are not as bright as the old dayglo colours and from a distance look a 'browny' colour so can act almost like camouflage by breaking up the outline(depending on background colour).
The colour/darkness/size/positioning of any hi visibility panels would have to be cleared by the Aircraft Design Authority for structural temperature reasons.
It is as simple as
White = cold
Black = Hot
Red = Hot
The temperature difference between white and red is considerable.

[Chinchilla.612]

I'd have thought the Vigilant stood out quite well with the dayglow stripes to be fair?

http://www.freewebs.com/1372atc/vigilant.jpg

[longer ron]

I'd have thought the Vigilant stood out quite well with the dayglow stripes to be fair?

Not bad...Is that an in service recent image ??
Some I have seen do not look as bright as that,which I assumed was caused by age related fading.
IE ...is it a representative picture of most in service a/c ??

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

One of the issues regarding the addition of dayglo stripes - as with the Vigilant - according to the psychologist at IFS, was that the addition of the stripes effectively makes the wings look smaller; it is only easier to see once you actually have a tally (he explained it better than i ever could:8). It doesn't actually help you see the contact in the first place. You could, of course, argue that that is less relevant when you are only doing 120 kts (ish).

Duncs:ok:

[Chinchilla.612]

It is a fairly representative image yes.
Although the dayglow does obviously fade with time, the "conspicuity patches" have a servicing interval scheduled in the F700 for regular replacement, so should maintain a good standard.

[longer ron]

Thanks C612...the a/c I saw must have been near their 'sell by' date

regards LR

[ACW599]

>You could, of course, argue that that is less relevant when you are only doing 120 kts (ish).<

Not being remotely flippant but that's almost Vne for the Vigilant. Most of the ones you see on cadet training sorties will be doing more like 60kts.

[gpn01]

Didn't the ATC Vigi and Viking fleets find a nice simple solution in the shape of dayglo stripes on the wings? Surely thats a nice, simple and cheap immediate fix to help with visibility?

I thought that the glider pilot, when interviewed, said that the first he knew of the collision was when he was hit from below? If that's the case then it doesn't matter what colour the aircraft was as it was in the glider's blind spot. Happy to be corrected on this (and I'm sure the AAIB report will shed more light on it). That takes us back to the general 'do gliders need to be white' question to which the simple answer remains yes they do because the materials heat up if you paint them in a dark colour. That also takes us onto the conspicuity colour scheme thread - and one of the ways that camoflage works is by disrupting the apparent shape of something - so by putting markings on (even dayglo) you actually decrease the visibility. Dayglo only appears to work because once you've spotted the aircraft you then notice the dayglo. I thought the RAFGSA or BGA did trials a few years ago which confirmed this.

[astir 8]

It depends a lot on whether you are looking at the other a/c from above or below. From below, solid black has to be the best colour to stand out against the sky, white the worst. Dayglo patches on white undersides would help.

From above, solid white is probably one of the better colours, with black worse and a disruptive pattern, even dayglo probably not helping. I have found that spotting "high viz black" RAF traffic from above can be very difficult, especially against dark woodland backgrounds etc.

I believe that World War II Coastal Command aircraft significantly improved their U boat kills when they were changed from night bomber (black) undersides to white. U boat crews generally look at aircraft from below.

The argument about composite aircraft having to be all-white to minimise heating may be valid for the upper surfaces,but has to be less so for the undersides.

However most composite a/c manufacturers are very careful to specify that only small areas of relatively unstressed wingtips, nose cones etc can be anything but white. No dispensations for undersurfaces.

I don't know how the ATC got away with the dayglo on the Vigilants etc. But unless the composite manufacturers change their specs, most plastic aircraft will have to stay all-white.

[boswell bear]

Even with it's conspicuity patches on the wings the Vigilant can be very difficult to spot, in hazy days over the last few weekends 2 pairs of good eyes downwind have had great difficulty spotting a Vigilant turning final.....and thats when you know where to look!
Spotting a Vigilant during a routine lookout can be even more difficult and during an hours sortie out of circuit you may not see another A/C even though all your colleagues are operating in the same upwind area as per SOP's.

One thing all you people crying "piss poor lookout" have to remember is you can only look in one direction a once............and one day you may just be looking in the wrong direction.

[A and C]

I am now told that the glider pilot did see the Tutor at a very late stage and attempted to avoid by diving the glider, unfortunately he as unsuccessful.

What however is clear is that the Tutor has a poor record for escape, three recent collisions and no one has been able to take to the parachute.
No doubt the BoI will be looking into this matter to see if the Tutor canopy design is a problem if the airframe is disrupted.

[EnigmAviation]

Well, Astir 8, firstly it wasn't "the ATC getting away with it" it was the Royal Air Force at the material time, these are RAF aircraft, RAF markings and Registrations, and until very recently were maintained by RAF fitters under RAF Eng Control and procedures. even now, with SERCO "rentacrowd" contract they are still under the control of the RAF Eng Authority. They are used for Cadet activity but they are RAF aircraft 100% - and their fleet size rivals some other RAF types ( not difficult now !)

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever thus far that this conspicuity marking scheme has had any deleterious effect on airframes and I have absolutely no doubt that every single aspect of GRP compatibility issues were considered after GROB and all releavnt authorities were consulted.

We are being led away from the main issues here - Mk 1 Eyeball, good and thorough checks before manoevres or aero's - No paint schemes can take out the risk of somebody NOT carrying out diligent and careful checks. Clearly someone didn't.

Survival aspects - yes Tutor doesn't seem to have a good record on the face of it, but..........

if the impact was taken on canopy area, then there may have been

1) Damage preventing safe egress
2) Injury to occupants caused by impact

There may also have been little height available for safe egress - we don't know whether any attempts were made.

There is also the consideration of whether the pre-flight brief was fit for purpose - we know that the Cadet sees a Video, but was this reinforced by a Staff parachute brief using an actual chute ? In my thousands of Cadet sorties, I have always been particularly careful to ensure that my subject knew exactly what would happen in the event of an emergency, and I always used to think the unthinkable just to condition my mind.

Were all aspects of Canopy jettison/removal correct on FRC's ? - we have seen a fatal many years ago in 1995 where a Pilot and Cadet died and who may have attempted to escape following a mid air where the RAF FRC's written WERE incorrect ( swiftly FAXED handwritten amendment within a day or two and then AL action followed ) - if followed as written then you would NOT have got out and they didn't !!! - although I don't know whether this little Admin detail ever saw light of day in Coroner's Court, and it certainly was missing from the official Accident report survival aspects.

All important questions that will no doubt be addressed by BoI and AIB and hopefully Wg Cdr Flying @ HQAC. I would hope that there would be some joined up thinking about any possible similarities between this accident and the recent S Wales Mid Air.

[astir 8]

Hi Enig

OK "got away with it" might have been a careless use of English, sorry

However the Grob Maintenance Manual for the G103 Twin Acro (which is the Viking glider to the RAF/ATC) Page 25, Section IX "General Care" states

"All structural parts of GFK (= Grob) glider (sic) should have white surfaces to avoid them heating up in sunlight"

(not a great translation from the German but it's the official translation)

I am not trying to score points or any such thing here. I'm a BGA inspector and if there's a modification to the manual out there which allows the application of high viz patches to civilian Grob gliders, please could give me the reference. Ta. PM if you like

In these days of EASA the fact that the glider conforms with the official manuals seems to be regarded as far more important than if bits are falling off it.

[Karl Bamforth]

Astir 8,

For many years the RAF did not have to comply with civil requirements and could self authorise modifications etc to RAF "registered" aircraft.

Nowadays they compy with civil requirements whenever possible.

The motorgliders have had daglo patches for some time.

[Karl Bamforth]

Enigmaviation,

I can assure you that all cadets passing through Benson for AEF flying are required to demonstrate not just the knowlege of how to use the parachute but also how to safely remove it when being dragged in the wind.

After a mid air the crew are at the very least going to be very confused and disorientated. If the cockpit is damaged then possibly unconcious. It the wings or tail are damaged then the aircraft is probably going to be rotating violently. I would imagine escape from any aircraft after a mid air would be very difficult.

What is the accident involving a cadet in 1995 ?

I have carried out jettison/abandonment drills in both Bulldog and Chippy as far back as 1980 and the drills always worked for me.

[EnigmAviation]

Astir 8

I think a following correspondent has covered this - RAF Eng Authority carries where they are RAF aircraft, in similar vein to rules re Pilot qualifications / Glider pilot qualifications vis a vis CAA and BGA. All the evidence will have been considered and a risk assessment and Eng assessment carried out by the RAF.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof - no tragedies caused by dayglow causing wing rot thus far, with tens of thousands of launches and flying hours in Grob 103 and 109B and potentially many averted, - case closed ! Could be a bit of Grob risk management as a cautionary note to avoid any possible future claims - after one of their staff read too many spooky H & S manuals ! All manufacturers of any product have liability insurers that require an "exclude all causes" terms, conditions and risk avoidance bulletins.

I suppose the risk of wing heat absorption caused by colours other than white is to some extent offset by good soaring / flying at higher levels where the lower temperatures provide a natural cooling effect. Avoid the problem, get soaring ! - or use the instant lift lever in a 109B !

[NutLoose]

I remember when the Slingsby was taken on for the initial training, Hunting did the work and they were cleared to have the yellow black scheme added to the later new versions, however amongst them were two used earlier Aircraft G-HONG and G-KONG that came from believe it or not HongKong.

They 2 were painted in the Yellow Black scheme, however they returned to the paintshop soon after the error was noted to be returned to a White Scheme and for some reason the paint had not adhered correctly to the wing and I watched a painter peel off the entire Yellow top surface of a wing in one sheet. There was a fault wth the paint on the two in question and the Paint manufacturer picked up the tab I believe to have them repainted, but this time in white......... God knows how the likes of I think Jordan gets on with them in the heat as even the walkway paint had to be white.

[EnigmAviation]

Karl Bamforth,

In response to your query, Accident was 2 x Grob 103 Viking T Mk 1 former RAF Sealand 5/8/95 ZE 654 / ZE 677. 1 CGI + 1 Cadet fatal. FRC error not mentioned in RAF IFS report, although it was obliquely referred to in "Subsequent Actions" by stating "Measures have also been taken to brief all who fly in Viking gliders on the correct sequence of actions for canopy jettison" ( What they really meant was - we have now corrected the gross error in RAF FRC's, albeit too late for these two guys, but hey, now you know how to get out, it should make it a lot easier)

A RAF spin doctor ( at best interpretation!) must have drafted this, as the Emergencies page of RAF FRC's WAS WRONG and incorrect, was the subject of a handwritten AL within days, and was formally an AL shortly thereafter in print. Is that called being economic with the truth ?

The Viking T Mk 1 has subsequently in more recent years, been modified by an approved Eng Mod, to make the original Canopy jettison instruction in the original version of FRC's correct, and thus there has been subsequent AL action to change it back to the original.

The other spin off of this fatal was a recommendation "that consideration be given to increasing the conspicuity of gliders" - this was done in the case of both Grob 103 Viking T Mk 1 and Grob 109B Vigilant T Mk 1 in RAF service by the addition of dayglow red patches. Since then there has only been one mid air involving RAF vigilant T Mk 1, and no structural failures as a result of the dayglow addition.

The underlying cause was more to do with breaking just about every rule of authorisation in the book, poor supervision, aided by poor skills and airmanship, in attempting to carry out a totally unauthorised air to air photography sortie. Conspicuity here was not an issue. Luck played a part in bringing both damaged A/C back as both were substantially damaged.

I accept what you say re your own safety brief, but we do need to ensure high standards throughout. Keep safe

[angelorange]

Sorry Nutloose but G-HONG and G-KONG were painted yellow and black and stayed that way. They were sold in the same colour scheme as the rest of the EFT fleet soon after Babcock took over from Huntings mainly for engine commonality - M160 and M260 being in the majority.

Also the scheme came from the customer as all the M160s were white at the start of contract.

There are no problems painting G115s another colour - it is down to cost and customer requirements.

[Logistics Loader]

Years ago while gliding in Germany, my glider was very conspicuous or so i thought, being bright yellow..!!

However, when matched against against two low level F4's, approaching from slightly left of the nose, you can imagine the consequences resulting from a mid air..

Suffice to say, banking hard left towards them ( yes i know you are meant to break right, however Mk1 eyeball can see through glider floor), put the glider in a bigger plan view. My take on it was if i turn towards them, then i can see them and take further action.

Risk of collision was slight, but was there..

It was drilled into me, to maintain a good lookout, all single op aircraft have a higher workload in the cockpit, whether its a glider or jet.

With the best will in the world, collisions will happen, but hopefully with increased education/TCAS type systems and good airmanship skills, then hopefully the risk will be reduced...

[NutLoose]

angelorangeDuff info
Sorry Nutloose but G-HONG and G-KONG were painted yellow and black and stayed that way. They were sold in the same colour scheme as the rest of the EFT fleet soon after Babcock took over from Huntings mainly for engine commonality - M160 and M260 being in the majority.

Also the scheme came from the customer as all the M160s were white at the start of contract.


Nope, they were painted Black and Yellow, they were then returned to White after the error was noted and eventually they managed to get a dispensation to have them in Black and Yellow and they were repainted yet again at a later date............. Not Duff Gen as I did all the control balancing on them... Indeed we were involved in the acceptance from the manufaturers of the entire fleet on behalf of Huntings.

[tmmorris]

Q) EGXX/QAFTT/IV/BO/E/000/999/5441N00219W999
FROM: 09/06/24 10:37 TO: 09/12/31 23:59

E) TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF RAF AIR EXPERIENCE FLIGHTS OPERATING
PROCEDURES ACROSS THE AVIATION COMMUNITY, A DRAFT AIC HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED.THIS DRAFT AIC CAN BE VIEWED VIA A LINK ON THE FRONT PAGE
AT NATS | AIS (http://WWW.AIS.ORG.UK)
THE AIC WILL BE PUBLISHED ON 13 AUG 2009 AND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED
THROUGH NORMAL CHANNELS AS WELL AS BEING AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR
VIEWING OR DOWNLOAD.

Some action, at least.

Tim

[astir 8]

As commented elsewhere, it smacks of an exercise in CYA. If for example all weekend civilian traffic (power and glider) passing through the "squeeze point) between Benson and the Brize zone were to try to call Benson, the system would probably collapse.

[EnigmAviation]

Translation of the AIC

"Please look out for RAF aircraft operating in Class G airspace in the vicinity of certain RAF stations outside of published hours and where ATC may not be open. The pilots may not be carrying out full scans, lookouts and HASELL checks, and may, without any warning carry out a hazardous manoevre. Please be advised that you may now be held to be totally responsible for any ensuing accident or incident,as a result of the other pilot's negligent actions or omissions.

No guidance will be promulgated with regard to locations of the many RAF VGS squadrons also operating similar Grob aircraft (Vigilant T Mk1 - Grob 109B), from RAF and other non-RAF airfields. You will just have to spot them when you see them, but then they do have conspicuity markings and strobe lights. Their Instructors/Pilots will be carrying out instructional flight in most cases rather than purely an experience flight. "

A new dawn in air law perhaps.............(removing the airmanship obligations of some pilots, whilst completely overlooking the Vigilant T Mk 1 locations !!)

or could it be a brand new bucket of whitewash just opened by the spin doctors ?

Just like Yes Minister I guess ! Makes it appear that we're actually doing something, but in reality we're not doing much except providing a weasel clause in the event of another accident.

What about improved levels of competency checks, frequency and standards? Does anybody think that this aspect may better re-assure parents of our young prospective pilots ?

Do we think that some new regulations to prevent unregulated sorties may bring some improvements - e.g., permitted on sortie, not permitted on sortie, sign for a specific briefing by duty Auth ?

No sir, at the end of the day, sheer professionalism is what is required to eliminate this type of risk supported by supplementary measures, - not the other way round.

[Wholigan]

Well EnigmAviation - may I suggest that you have not seen an AEF in operation, and most certainly you have not seen mine.


What about improved levels of competency checks, frequency and standards?


There is a requirement for all pilots to undergo a full-blown flying ability test (FAT) every year. This includes examination of their knowledge of checks and procedures, their ability to fly steep turns, stalling (3 variants), aerobatics, fully developed spins, incipient spins, emergency drills and actions, practice forced landings, circuits (normal, flapless, glide and low level), engine failure after take-off drills and actions, and - in the case of my AEF because not all runways in all conditions and circumstances have a safe "straight ahead" option - practice turn-backs. Following the flight test, there is an essential knowledge quiz.

At the 6 month point between FATs the pilots have to fly a "competency" check ride. In fact, I fly a full FAT with all pilots every 6 months rather than one FAT and a competency check. All pilots are further checked and standardised by flying with Central Flying School examiners at a minimum interval of once every 4 years.


e.g., permitted on sortie, not permitted on sortie, sign for a specific briefing by duty Auth ?


There is an order laying out what events can be flown with cadets on board and what events can NOT be flown with cadets on board. All pilots have to fly "essential basic training requirement" manoeuvres every 90 days. To ensure that they can keep abreast of this requirement for the events that can't be flown with cadets on board, each pilots has to fly a certain minimum number of "staff continuation training" sorties each year.

All pilots have to sign authorisation sheets that they understand exactly what they are required to do on each sortie. In the vast majority of cases, I am the one that authorises their sorties. If I am away on leave, detachment, or on a course, then one of my deputies will authorise the pilots on my behalf. All of my deputies are vastly experienced and have been authorisers/supervisors in their past RAF careers. Furthermore, all of my pilots are extremely experienced and have supervised as either squadron authorisers, flight commanders, squadron commanders, station commanders, Group commanders, "Command" commanders and - in at least one case - RAF commanders (ie Chief of the Air Staff).

Therefore, I am confident that my AEF pilots are supervised to a more than adequate level and I am also confident that my pilots all have vast experience and expertise that is tested and proved on a regular and frequent basis.

No I am NOT complacent and we do frequently look at our procedures practices and we do make any changes that we think will improve our efficiency and safety whenever necessary.

[Wholigan]

I forgot to mention that if any pilot goes out of currency (31 days) then he has to fly a currency check with an instructor before he is permitted to fly solo or with cadets.

If he goes outside the 90 day currency for any essential basic training requirement (BTR) then he has to fly that (or those) BTR(s) with an instructor.

[mugwuffin]

well said wholigan. i'm certain there is exceptions to every rule but I'd much rather be in a tutor with a qsp than in a vigilant with a cgi when the proverbial hits the fan. simply put, if a person has earnt service wings then they have demonstrated an adequate (by military aviation) standard.

[wz662]

I visited the VGS at Abingdon this weekend and it was obvious that as far as this accident was concerned they considered it was a case of, ‘there but for the grace of god’. It was all too close to home and involved people they knew
Abingdon is NOTAM’d as an active gliding site and as the VGS operates motor gliders the low overcast of Saturday wouldn’t and didn’t stop them from operating. It is therefore not surprising that the staff were more than a little put out by the poor airmanship displayed by a helicopter and two warbirds who crossed the airfield without the courtesy of a radio call. The warbirds were above circuit height but not by much, certainly lower than any Vigilant rejoining. On the other hand the helicopter was below circuit height. The track of all three aircraft also took them through an adjacent NOTAM’d temporary no-fly area. Presumably these professional pilots had checked the NOTAMS before their flight? Obviously not.
I also learnt that on the same day as the mid-air a small passenger jet made an approach to Abingdon whilst it was being used as a motor race circuit, they obviously thought they were approaching Oxford Kidlington. I was informed that this sort of thing happens more often than it should.
This little corner of England is a congested bit of airspace and throwing even more rules at won’t help if aviators don’t abide by them.
I’ve been vague on purpose in the descriptions of the aircraft involved but if you are one of the pilots involved you’ll recognise yourself, hopefully.

[FJJP]

Wholigan, you always get one, don't you?

I suspect you-know-who has probably amassed 150 hours in a Cessna 150 and considers himself a first class very experienced pilot; certainly on a par with anyone flying with the Red Arrows. So naturally, he considers his analysis of the AIG [ie, between the lines] is quite correct. So there.

It has been a few years since I did AEF [Chipmunks] and remember well the plethera of checks one had to go through each year. But it was worth it. Blokes like him are not worth bothering about, although sadly, his twisted view of military professionals he will spread to whoever will buy him a pint and lend an ear for a few minutes...

FJJP

[Fitter2]

I can quite understand professionals taking umbrage at the tone of EnigmAviation's post, I thought it at least in bad taste.

It did, however, express clearly the disgust at the utter uselessness of whoever produced an AIC which says that aviation takes place by a relatively small number of aircraft in a large part of UK airspace.

One of the tragic incidents took place between two AEF aircraft from the same base, who undoubtedly didn't need the information in the AIC.

I am sure that thorough reviews of procedures are taking place at the operational level, so that appropriate lessons are learnt and useful changes made if identified. I also happen to know that other measures are being considered to make a historically safe activity even safer if possible.

I first committed aviation as a 13 year old ATC cadet, and spent as many hours in the air as I could wangle over the next four years until I joined the RAF. I would consider it an even greater tragedy than the unfortunate incidents if these activities did not carry on.

[Wholigan]

Oh I wasn't "taking umbrage" Fitter2. I just wanted to make sure that nobody else believed that bollox!

[cats_five]

<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.

[EnigmAviation]

"I'd much rather be in a tutor with a qsp than in a vigilant with a cgi when the proverbial hits the fan. simply put, if a person has earnt service wings then they have demonstrated an adequate (by military aviation) standard. " Says Mugwuffin with a slight bias..............

FACTS for mugwuffin

Many CGI's and VRT's are exceptionally well qualified and have ATPL's.

Some Vigilant VGS guys are also qsp's in their RAF day job.

The two most recent fatal mid airs have involved qsp's not CGI's.

And one for FJJP............

I've done hundreds of AE sorties, without incident, and have an RAF Flight Safety award thus your somewhat dismissive remarks are incorrect.

As Fitter 2 says............

The new draft AIC would not have brought much new information to the two qsp's involved in the St Athan mid air. But if CAA feel such a pressing need, then why not include details of all VGS Vigilant equipped units ? Any good reason ?

And Wholigan,..........

Good to hear your high standards, I fully support high standards.

[airborne_artist]

Ms Artiste met the surviving glider pilot on Sunday while she was at a Service gliding club. He recounted his experience, which I think has largely been told already on this and other threads/forums.

[astir 8]

Gentlemen

I have had a keen interest in this thread, since the Abingdon - Didcot area is a bit of airspace which I pass through (in a civilian glider) quite often.

As WZ 662 correctly observed on the previous page "This little corner of England is a congested bit of airspace"

On the day of the accident in question, the sky was booming thermally and a very large number of gliders (and GA power) would have been passing through that same squeeze point between Benson and the Brize zone. The gliders would mainly have been at 3000 - 4500 feet on that day. GA tends to be lower.

Now if we look at the new AIC - quote

2.2 The typical pattern of an AEF flight is a short duration flight of 20 -25 minutes usually conducted between 2000' and 5000' AGL remaining in close proximity (up to 15 NM) to their parent station. Aerobatic manoevres may be conducted. A minority of sorties will also include stalling, or spinning, operating at heights of up to 10 000' AGL.

2.3 Whilst the captain of the aircraft will be an experienced pilot, the passenger could be on his/her first flight; accordingly their ability to assimilate all that is happening around them could be limited. end of quote.

I interpret 2.3 to mean that one can't necessarily rely on the passenger to maintain a good lookout. And I know fine well that in a side-by side glider (or aircraft) that means that the pilot is blind to a lot of what is happening outside the aircraft on the passenger's side.

So given all the above, why on earth were AEF flights being carried out in the middle of the light aviation equivalent of the M25? OK, it was legal.

But sensible?

[FJJP]

EnigmAviation

If you have been involved in AE it makes your post the more puzzling. Why did you see the need to indicate that AEF pilots may well show unprofessional attitudes to safety?

Or am I mis-interpreting a tongue-in-cheek dig at someone or something?

Confused...

FJJP

[mugwuffin]

"Many CGI's and VRT's are exceptionally well qualified and have ATPL's.

- valid, and getting a dash 8 down the llz/dme approach at ronaldsway on a busy day with rubbish wx is going to be bloody hard work but i fail to see how it relates to high energy (ish) flying or the lookout contained within it.

Some Vigilant VGS guys are also qsp's in their RAF day job.

- i know, i was one.

The two most recent fatal mid airs have involved qsp's not CGI's."

- including a good mate of mine.

not good enough work fella, IN MY OPINION there are some great pilots within the vgs structures both in terms of patter and sheer handling skill but the AVERAGE vgs pilot is well below the AVERAGE aef instructor in his abilities.

[boswell bear]

Doesn't matter how skilled or experienced the Pilot/Instructor if they are not looking out or looking in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

[EnigmAviation]

Some essential corrections here old sport - your'e getting too excited and biased - take a headache pill and have a lie down in a darkened room.

Quote:- "valid, and getting a dash 8 down the llz/dme approach at ronaldsway on a busy day with rubbish wx is going to be bloody hard work but i fail to see how it relates to high energy (ish) flying or the lookout contained within it."

Chucking brickbats at ATPL's and trying to compare two entirely different flying professionals is grossly unfair, if not plain silly. What is common to both however, and the amateurs and glider pilots, is the need to maintain good lookout, and carry out ALL checks professionally. Would you agree that there are some bad eggs in both camps - hence both segments have Human factors accidents ! I don't notice any sector of aviation that's been absent from HF accidents.

Quote ex Mugwuffin : "AVERAGE vgs pilot is well below the AVERAGE aef instructor in his abilities. "

Correction - AEF Tutor pilots are employed as pilots not instructors (whatever their previous background and do not give formal instruction) and VGS guys ARE 100% instructors. The recent six months accident data doesn't seem to bear out your contention.

Top marks Boswell Bear - hit the nail on the head - this cause of fatals cuts across ALL ranks, professional and amateur, and being the former doesn't make one fireproof or less likely to fail, because we all have human factors failures.

In fact, arguably having a feeling of superiority, may make one more likely to believe in infallibility, and thus more likely to err, not to mention the whole issue of personailty type and risk averse nature or risk taking.

[ShyTorque]

WZ662, I can fully understand the concern expressed by the VGS about pilots not talking to them on the radio.

However, if you have a personal contact there, it might be useful to pass on to the 612 VGS hierarchy that the relevant radio frequency doesn't seem to be published anywhere for civilian pilots. I needed to land somewhere very close to their airfield a few months ago but couldn't find a frequency. It's not in the AIP, not on the CAA charts, and not in either Pooley's or AFE minor airfield guides. I also tried to contact them by telephone, without success because the phone numbers given on their website are for weekends only. I tried calling anyway but no-one answered. This means that pilots transitting that area are therefore likely to be talking to Benson, Brize, or Oxford instead.

612 VGS could do more to help other pilots in this respect.

[tmmorris]

I've mentioned the issue of the radio freq before to 612 but will do so again - it's the standard NATO Twr freq 122.1, but that assumes you know that!

Tim

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

EnigmAviation,

Being an instructor doesn't make you a better pilot; it just makes you an instructor.

Before you start, I am current A2QFI and know that Wholigan is a better pilot than me - even before he became a QFI!

Duncs:ok:

[Wholigan]

ESPECIALLY before he became a (**cough, spit, retch**) QFI!!!

:E

[ShyTorque]

tmmorris, thanks - No, not all pilots are aware of that (how could they - it could just as easily be a gliding frequency). I suggest they could publish that on their existing website, for a start. More info about their operations, such as circuit procedures and hours would also be of use in the public domain.

Glad to see that they have now stopped referring to it as "Dalton Barracks" instead of Abingdon and expecting all pilots to know where that was.

[wz662]

The frequency used by the VGS at Abingdon is known to Brize, Benson and Farnborough who will and do pass it on, but that assumes the transiting aircaft are talking to any of them after all there is no requirement to in that part of the world.
Agreed the details for Abingdon should be published more, especially as Abingdon is used by military aircraft during the week as well (note the H and parachute symbols on the charts as well as the G). In fact its possible that Abingdon is now busier than it was before the RAF left!
Its also been noted that Abingdon does not appear on some GPS databases, but then again nobody flies with the GPS as their primary means of navigation do they?

[dinoorin]

Gents,
Plenty of 'almost' finger pointing and my train set is better than yours.
Just to clear any confusion on my bias, I am a VGS driver.
Lets not forget that some fine individuals have lost their lives through 'ACCIDENTS'
That is what has happened, nothing more and nothing less. The conviened board will work out if it is a training / skill issue.

Can we please all put our willies away and instead look at how everyone can play and learn from each other.

From a training standpoint, we in the VGS world do what the air cadets ask - teach EFT. So that is what we are trained to do. Doesnt meen anyone is better or worse, just we are not trained to fly complex sorties like the guys doing it full time as a job in not very pleasant places.

Condolances to all involved, especially parents and family.
:ok:

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

I always cringe when I hear people drawing distinctions between professionals and amateurs.

Professionalism is an attitude, not a paycheck

In 20-odd years in flying (paid and paying), I saw both some very professional 'amateurs' and some very amateur 'professionals'

[longer ron]

I always cringe when I hear people drawing distinctions between professionals and amateurs.

Professionalism is an attitude, not a paycheck

In 20-odd years in flying (paid and paying), I saw both some very professional 'amateurs' and some very amateur 'professionals'

............................................................ ............................................................ .....

100 % agree...I have seen the good,bad and ugly from 'amateur' and 'professional' pilots...I have even met a couple of service qualified Test Pilots that I would not trust in charge of a kiddy car,any pilot can get complacent,overconfident or sloppy.
My intent is not to criticize any pilots involved in any recent accident,but just a reply to some potential 'class distinction' vis a vis a few posts on here.
regards LR

[angelorange]

There are no easy answers to increasing the "be seen" part of "see and be seen" but plastic aeroplanes can be painted colors other than white (usually ordered pre-manufacture with carbon composites).

A 1/2 second glance at each of these photos shows how contrast with background helps (Carbon Composite aircraft):

Photos: Zivko Edge 540A Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Zivko-Edge-540A/1589046/M/)

compared to:

Photos: Zivko Edge 540 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Zivko-Edge-540/1576453/M/)

Then this one: Yellow v grey sky:

http://smoke-on.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/sd-lamb-rb-00521.jpg


And From :

Black on Yellow, Best Visible Contrast (http://www.articlesbase.com/hardware-articles/black-on-yellow-best-visible-contrast-327399.html)

"Why yellow?

Yellow, most commonly used in highlighters is the most visible color to the human eye. The reason has to do with the wavelengths of color. Visible light ranges from red, the color with the longest wavelength, through orange, yellow, green, blue, and indigo to violet, the color with the shortest wavelength. Yellow and green are right in the middle of the spectrum's wavelengths, therefore, our eyes are most sensitive to these colors making them the easiest to see. This is even true for people who are colorblind.

For those who are colorblind, green, yellow, orange, and red are all perceived as yellow or grey. However, when the color actually viewed is yellow, the yellow appears brighter than the perceived "yellow" that is seen in place of red or green.

So if we notice yellow and green more quickly than other colors, then why are stop signs and most emergency vehicles painted red? The choice of red has more to do with tradition than visibility. Because yellow has been proven to be more visible, many communities have started to paint their fire equipment and ambulances a very bright yellowish-green, which helps motorists see them coming in which they are able to get out of their way more quickly."

[Windy Militant]

A new development at least for me anyway.
I'm not sure if it was part of the interim report but I was shown a screen grab of a traffic plot submitted to the AAIB this morning.
The plot was proported to show traffic in the area of the collision for ninety minutes around the time of the accident.
The corridor between the Lynham and Brize zone appeared to be solid traffic at first glance. I appreciate that Scale and time factors make things look worse than they really are, but what was really striking was that both MATZs were both completely clear with no traffic indicated at all for the period displayed. This may have been an artifact of the data displayed, but it's worrying that aerobatics were being carried out in the area that was indicated to have the heaviest traffic.
Perhaps a few pounds spent on overtime for ATC and a manouvering block in the MATZ would be money well spent?

[Wholigan]

Perhaps a few pounds spent on overtime for ATC and a manouvering block in the MATZ would be money well spent?


Not sure why ATC would need overtime, as they are on duty during flying operating hours anyway.

The MATZ only goes up to 2000 feet and aerobatics are not to be conducted below 3000 feet, so a manoeuvring block in the MATZ is a non-starter. If you tried to get a dedicated manoeuvring block established above the MATZ, you'd have a riot on your hands from the civvie world.

Anyway, trying to get all the UAS and AEF aircraft that are airborne at any one time to do their aerobatics in an area as small as the MATZ would result in a large number of close calls to say the least, especially if you were talking about operating in/above the home base (Benson) MATZ. If you were suggesting that the aircraft transit from Benson to Lyneham, by the time the AEF Tutor had flown the 30 (ish) miles, it would be time to turn round and go home.

[astir 8]

I suspect that I've also seen the graphic of flight tracks to which Windy Militant is referring.

Whether it's genuine or not remains to be seen. Certainly the AAIB called for glider logger traces for the area at the time of the accident, so I am sure that they are building, or have built up a graphic of flight tracks in the area similar to the one I've seen.

Genuine picture or not, there is no denying that the corridor between the Brize zone, Benson and the Luton zone (not between Brize and Lyneham, Windy) gets very busy, especially on a good soaring day. It is a classic example of the "squeeze effect" of controlled airspace on GA flights

The collision point was right in the middle of the corridor.

The graphic in question shows very clearly that there were areas of far less crowded air to the east of Benson. Overhead the Brize and Lyneham zones were almost totally deserted. Irrespective of the provenance of this particular graphic, I suspect that the reality on the day matched the picture.

Benson's just taken a beating in the Puma inquest. In the collision inquest I suspect that questions will be asked about the decision making process which led to an AEF flight being conducted where it was. It could be another bad session for the RAF.:sad:

[Windy Militant]

Yep didn't think that through I'd forgotten the 3000' foot rule. I seem to recall a block system being operated by Benson with regard to UAS flights in years gone by though. I'd presume similar would be employed for AEF.
Edited to add it was Brize, Lyneham and Heathrow Zone. The Stream was Heaviest along the Eastern side of the zones which put it over Sutton Courtney as they cut from one to the other. But the stream did straggle out as far as Booker.

[ProfChrisReed]

astir8 is right about the squeeze effect of controlled airspace, including (to some extent) MATZs. I wasn't flying my glider XC that day, but the previous night I'd planned a potential flight which would have passed through the accident area.

Because gliders need to plan for the possibility of getting as low as 800 ft or so, they will tend to avoid controlled airspace - if you're down at ATZ level you're rather too busy to want to talk to ATC. In that area there is quite a narrow corridor of usable (800ft to cloudbase) airspace.

The day in question was one of the best of the year for gliding, and from the club where I was flying I estaimate that something between 30 and 50 gliders transited the corridor. This is just one gliding club, though a fairly large one. I suspect the plot might just be all the glider flights transiting that corridor, which could easily have been in the 100s for that 90 minute period. Nowhere else usable to go in that direction.

[angelorange]

How long does a G115E take to get to aerobatic height in time and distance terms?

How long are most AEF sorties?

Traffic density can be reduced by operating further away & higher from base.

Most PPL powered a/c seem to stay below 2500 feet in England.

[Wholigan]

Minimum height for aeros = 3000 ft MSD, so we are already operating above your 2500 ft.

At Max AUW:
Time to 4000 ft = 5.4 minutes.
Distance = 7.1 nm.
Time to 6000 ft = 8.7 minutes.
Distance = 11.5 nm.

AEF sortie length = 25 minutes.

However, you can extend the sortie to enable you to go to a less 'populated' area to increase the safety margins.

At some AEF bases it almost wouldn't matter how far away you went, the air would still be filled with aircraft at times, but of course we do operate where we believe there will be the least traffic. Nothing can be guaranteed though in terms of numbers of aircraft in the area you choose on the day and at the time. Good lookout (and the use of a Traffic Service) is your only saviour, as it is in most aircraft and on most types of sorties.

[SiClick]

And this
Air Accidents Investigation: 5/2010 G-BYXR and G-CKHT (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/5_2010_g_byxr_and_g_ckht.cfm)

[tmmorris]

Read the recommendations; then consider the effects of a 25% cut in Defence spending.

It could spell the death of the AEF system.

Tim

[fincastle84]

A fair report. Glad to see that a dear friend & colleague wasn't left carrying the can. Rest in peace M.

[Jumping_Jack]

....agreed....

[astir 8]

Glad I'm not the cadet's parents reading that report. A classic example of a series of errors in the system all arranging themselves in a row.

[fincastle84]

A classic example of a series of errors in the system all arranging themselves in a row.

Every accident has a chain of incidents, events & personalities that combine as a whole to result in a tragedy. Break the chain, the accident wouldn't have happened.
Wasn't there a flight safety film about that, once upon a time?

[Tashengurt]

I hope the SDR doesn't mean the end of AEF flights but I fear it might. These flights are the catalyst for many young cadets dreams, my own included. On my computer I have a picture of the BBMF Chipmunks, one of which I believe I flew in at Manston. Whether I did or not that flight is a precious memory, the smells, sights sounds of that day still there.
I wouldn't stop my son taking the opportunity for such a flight and I'd have every faith in those he flew with.

[Postman Plod]

I'd say it all depends on what happens to the UAS system - If the UAS system goes, the AEF system goes. However at least the ACO have the benefit of their own motor / winch glider fleet. it may have to be re-profiled / tasked, and perhaps extra resources (if they're available - ha!) pushed into them, but arguably flying in the ACO would likely still continue.

Mind you, without flying, what would be the point of the ACO?! :hmm: Something for a different thread perhaps?

The report made very sobering reading.

[greenedgejet]

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/427476-grob-cirrus-collision-june-2009-report-out.html

[romeo bravo]

fincastle - yes there is a video, cadets are supposed to watch before they go to the AEF, then watch it again on arrival; the problem is that kids just switch off, thinking it will never happen to them.

Interestingly enough, my daugther was flying a couple of weeks later at her AEF and she said everyone sat quietly watching the video, engrossed in the emergency procedures.

But, TBH, if you read the report in total, no cadet would have got out in time at the altitude and angle of descent, panic would have set in and with the limited mobility of the pilot would have reduced the actions in the cockpit.

RIP both.

[EnigmAviation]

I hope that this accident and the parallel Grob Tutor incident in S Wales in 2009, does not sound the death knell for Air Cadet sorties, although I have felt for a long time that the AEF's are poor value overall when compared to the VGS provision in both financial terms and added value terms.

As has been said earlier in recent remarks on this thread, there are many links in the causal chain, - BUT.............the inescapable conclusion here should have been that the AEF Pilot was medically unfit by reason of Ankylosing Spondylitis/restricted head/neck movement and thus should have been grounded permanently as far as RAF flying was concerned and arguably as far as PPL flying was concerned. Everything else pales into insignificance if we clearly see that a pilot was unfit for purpose - i.e., restricted head and neck movement QED !

Neck and head mobility and reported difficulty with scan patterns whilst under review, when completing checks at 115 Sqn Cranwell should have been a sufficient signal and for the possible medical chop ride - indeed the SMO gave evidence to the effect that he himself would have insisted on carrying out the checks himself had he been aware of previous reports.

Many people in the "chain" were well aware of his medical issues, but he slid easily through the net. Training reports highlighted the crucial issue, Medical reports were plentiful and comprehensive but nontheless he managed to continue.

Many of the other issues raised are valid - yes of course, but you cannot allow a system to continue where impaired pilots are allowed to continue - maybe, arguably in a two crew aircraft, but not where the px is unqualified.

As a side issue, I don't see anywhere in the report the stated pilot checks that should have carried out before proceeding with/continuing his aero's.

An urgent recommendation missed here surely should be a review of ALL AEF pilot's medical files within 3 months maximum, including a complete trawl of ALL earlier RAF medical reports. Do it now to avoid another unecessary tragedy ! And for those who may be grounded, retire with a good record !

[Kilonovember52]

Mother of air cadet killed in this mid air receives MoD out-of-court payout

BBC News - Mother of killed air cadet receives MoD out-of-court payout (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-27601460)