"2 RAF personnel killed in mid-air collision" today
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear -some faulty assumptions corrected
"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.
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.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by astir 8; 14th Jul 2009 at 12:35.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
- 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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mugwuffin's wuffin, but not very well
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.
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Duncan D'Sorderlee; 15th Jul 2009 at 18:42. Reason: changed tense
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lets not loose sight
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
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'
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
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
Last edited by longer ron; 17th Jul 2009 at 06:46.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Europa
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"most plastic aircraft have to stay all-white".
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
compared to:
Photos: Zivko Edge 540 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Then this one: Yellow v grey sky:
http://smoke-on.com/blog/wp-content/...b-rb-00521.jpg
And From :
Black on Yellow, Best Visible Contrast
"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."
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
compared to:
Photos: Zivko Edge 540 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Then this one: Yellow v grey sky:
http://smoke-on.com/blog/wp-content/...b-rb-00521.jpg
And From :
Black on Yellow, Best Visible Contrast
"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."
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?