"2 RAF personnel killed in mid-air collision" today
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sunny (or Rainy) Somerset, England
Posts: 2,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ slightly from some of the views expressed on here.
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.
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.
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
Cadets would also benefit from some limited learning rather than a 20-25 min pure PAX ride.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
collision avoidance colour schemes for VFR aerobatic aircraft
This article, from the world of RC models, is not without merit:
::Aero-Experiments::
I think the argument to paint the underside black is interesting.
::Aero-Experiments::
I think the argument to paint the underside black is interesting.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As for how the aircraft above might see the one below, this is entirely possible unless they remain directly one above the other...last time I was involved in maintaining lookout from an aircraft one looked in every direction, including down to either side, there wasn't a presupposition that anything at lower level couldn't hit you. It would, from a glider, be difficult to see an aircraft directly below or one overtaking from below, rather less difficult to spot one coming in from 9 o clock via 12 to 3 o clock. That's 'how the hell'.
Enigm - and you are overlooking the fact that Mike spent much of his professional life 'looking out', that he was an extremely experienced pilot, and you can drill until you are blue in the face and you can legislate all you like - if a chap like Mike can fail to spot another aircraft (assumed) then it can happen to anyone and it makes sense to look at how visible that other aircraft was before assuming human fallibility.
Look, it's actually fairly simple - aircraft ought by default to have high visibility colour schemes, strobes, IFF etc because when they run into each other it tends to be catastrophic. The (usually) fatal outcome of a mid air means we have to minimise the likelihood of collision - painting aircraft low vis white makes as much sense as chocolate teapots, and to suggest that we fix the problem of mid airs by somehow 'training' people to look out better rather than stopping people painting aircraft in low vis schemes is barking.
Last edited by davejb; 27th Jun 2009 at 20:53.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?
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"?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
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 ??
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 ??
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
). 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
). 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
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Qatar mainly & Sometimes Oxfordshire or Texas!
Age: 46
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.