Just heard on the radio that yet another RAF air experience Grob Tutor has been involved in a mid collision, on this occasion with a single seat glider. The glider pilot apparently parachuted to safety:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090614/tuk-t...on-6323e80.htmlThose of you in the UK will know that not long ago, a pair of RAF Grob Tutors collided with one another, also whilst conducting air experience flights, and with similarly tragic consequences:http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/T...200902315225445This is bound to call into question the practices of these flights in the UK, which do seem terribly inept, especially given that the Tutors wear RAF markings, but are actually privately contracted out.Al

Just heard on the radio that yet another RAF air experience Grob Tutor has been involved in a mid collision, on this occasion with a single seat glider. The glider pilot apparently parachuted to safety:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090614/tuk-t...on-6323e80.htmlThose of you in the UK will know that not long ago, a pair of RAF Grob Tutors collided with one another, also whilst conducting air experience flights, and with similarly tragic consequences:http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/T...200902315225445This is bound to call into question the practices of these flights in the UK, which do seem terribly inept, especially given that the Tutors wear RAF markings, but are actually privately contracted out.Al

What is your point?

I should have thought that was obvious: Is there a safety issue with the pilots they use and the company concerned, given that six people are dead, including three children, not to mention four aircraft have been destroyed and only by luck have not killed anyone on the ground too, all in the space of less than six months? And all due to mid air collisions.Al

QUOTE (Chock @ Jun 14 2009, 09:57 PM) *I should have thought that was obvious: Is there a safety issue with the pilots they use and the company concerned, given that six people are dead, including three children, not to mention four aircraft have been destroyed and only by luck have not killed anyone on the ground too, all in the space of less than six months? And all due to mid air collisions.AlThere have been two tragic accidents involving loss of life. Full investigations will be carried out involving the Air Accident Investigation Board, the MoD and probably the local police.I suggest we wait for the outcome of these before making unsupported assertions about terribly inept practices. Do you have any evidence to support your views?

They are not unsupported assertions, I wrote that it seems terribly inept, which it indeed does; six people are dead, all from collisions, both of which took place in good weather with excellent visability, and three of them are juveniles who were supposedly under the care of the military and experienced pilots.Why for example, was it necessary for air experience flights to involve close formation flying? So close in fact, that the aircraft collided with one another. Why has a powered aircraft been flying where it would be known gliders were flying? Moreover, why so when also dealing with the distraction of an inquisitive passenger on board, one who trusts the pilot to keep them safe? Demonstrating flight and having to keep a good lookout for other aircraft, is not a good combination, and I hardly need to remind you that it was the RAF's pilot's responsibility to avoid the glider, since he was in a powered aircraft. Although to be fair, we'll have to wait and see on the facts concerning that.So even if we take a different view, why was a glider in an area where military demonstration flights were taking place? It strikes me as common sense that one should take care to avoid such a possibility whilst someone who is effectively a member of the public is on board a military aircraft. They could just as easily demonstrate a flight remaining in a circuit, where the possibility of unannounced aircraft is less likely.You don't think any of this smacks of incompetence on somebody's part? If it did not, those people might not be dead.Al

The only information available is media reports. Without much more inmformation it is not possible to apportion blame for these two tragedies.Your last sentence rather is interesting.

You don't think any of this smacks of incompetence on somebody's part? If it did not, those people might not be dead.

Just because someone has died in an accident it does not automatically follow that there was incompetence.

That 's true, but then again it doesn't automatically follow that there wasn't any incompetence either, and given that it is not some one, but actually some six, who have died this year on RAF air experience flights, that number is quite clearly is going to raise questions about the possibility of there being something amiss. The only information most people have is the media reports, but I'm a member of the FAI and the BGA, and not merely relying on the media for my own information. But regardless of that, the recurrence of a tragedy was the point of my thread, as I'm sure you were very well aware, in spite of your questioning reply.Furthermore, you will note that I actually wrote 'it smacks of', and not 'it was'. I note that you similarly distort my writing of 'it seems', which transforms into an unsupported assertion by the time you reply to it. As if this is not enough, you kicked things off following my initial post with a rather rude 'What's your point?' which of course hints at me making a pointless comment. Not a very friendly attitude if I may say so.This forum is called 'hangar chat', it is not a court of law and people do not have to prove to your absolute satisfaction the validity of opinions and ideas; they are merely points to be chatted about and discussed in a friendly manner. In spite of this rather obvious and normally pleasant state of affairs, a large percentage of your replies are calculated to do nothing more than start an argument, rather than engage a discussion, and frankly it is as childish as it is tiresome. What is more, it appears to be something you enjoy indulging in, as evidenced by the fact that you are also fermenting the exact same behaviour on another thread in hangar chat regarding the AF447 incident. Behaviour which, someone else has also seen fit to point out.Since you appear to be more interested in being deliberately belligerent for nothing but the sake of confrontation, than you do in having a serious discussion about the possibility of a safety issue, I've no real interest in continuing with the matter.Al

just my opinion.. there is an ol saying " don't get caught watching the paint dry"all it takes is a second of distraction and your seconds behind, it happens to the very bestat the highest regarded skill level(( remember a Pan Am pilot at Teneriffe ?.)) Think out were you are and were your heading Before you take the turn.......poor souls.

All of us are likely to achieve less than ideal humility at times, Al. I wrote this almost twenty years ago, and review it every morning before beginning my day's activities. I only wish I could live by each of these points faithfully: HUMILITYAllow me to remind myself that among otherevident signs of a lack of humility are:Thinking that what you do or say is betterthan what others do or say;Always wanting to get your own way;Arguing when you are not right, or - when you are - insisting stubbornly or with bad manners;Giving your opinion without being askedfor it, when charity does not demand youto do so;Despising the point of view of others;Not being aware that all the gifts and qualities you have are on loan;Not acknowledging that you are unworthy of all honor or esteem, even the groundyou are treading on or the things you own;Mentioning yourself as an example in conversation;Speaking badly about yourself, so that others may form a good opinion of you, or contradict you;Making excuses when rebuked;Hiding some humiliating faults from your spiritual director, so that he may not lose the good opinion he has of you;Hearing praise with satisfaction, or being glad that others have spoken well of you;Being hurt that others are held in greater esteem than you;Refusing to carry out menial tasks;Seeking or wanting to be singled out;Letting drop words of self-praise in conversation, or words that might show your honesty, your wit or skill, yourprofessional prestige;Being ashamed of not having certain possessions...

yep , the fallen not wanting others to fall calls out the warning yet knowing the reminder that must be called out.calls us (me) out. ....... thanks for that Bill

That 's true, but then again it doesn't automatically follow that there wasn't any incompetence either, and given that it is not some one, but actually some six, who have died this year on RAF air experience flights, that number is quite clearly is going to raise questions about the possibility of there being something amiss. The only information most people have is the media reports, but I'm a member of the FAI and the BGA, and not merely relying on the media for my own information. But regardless of that, the recurrence of a tragedy was the point of my thread, as I'm sure you were very well aware, in spite of your questioning reply.Furthermore, you will note that I actually wrote 'it smacks of', and not 'it was'. I note that you similarly distort my writing of 'it seems', which transforms into an unsupported assertion by the time you reply to it. As if this is not enough, you kicked things off following my initial post with a rather rude 'What's your point?' which of course hints at me making a pointless comment. Not a very friendly attitude if I may say so.This forum is called 'hangar chat', it is not a court of law and people do not have to prove to your absolute satisfaction the validity of opinions and ideas; they are merely points to be chatted about and discussed in a friendly manner. In spite of this rather obvious and normally pleasant state of affairs, a large percentage of your replies are calculated to do nothing more than start an argument, rather than engage a discussion, and frankly it is as childish as it is tiresome. What is more, it appears to be something you enjoy indulging in, as evidenced by the fact that you are also fermenting the exact same behaviour on another thread in hangar chat regarding the AF447 incident. Behaviour which, someone else has also seen fit to point out.Since you appear to be more interested in being deliberately belligerent for nothing but the sake of confrontation, than you do in having a serious discussion about the possibility of a safety issue, I've no real interest in continuing with the matter.Al

I am confused. Are you or are you not suggesting that incompetence played a part in these tragic accidents?My point was, and is, that we do not know enough about these incidents to know whether or not incompetence played a part. There will be thorough investigations and , if justified, prosecutions for manslaughter in line with current UK practice.Indeed most people only have access to media reports. Perhaps you can tell us what additional relevant information you have as member of the BGA and FAI. That would help us to have a more informed discussion.Moving on from the substance of the discussion, you argue I twice distorted your words You said pointed that you actually wrote 'it smacks of', and not 'it was'. But I quoted your complete sentence in my reply, including the words 'it smacks of'.You also said "This is bound to call into question the practices of these flights in the UK, which do seem terribly inept, especially given that the Tutors wear RAF markings, but are actually privately contracted out."Those are your words so I assumed that they seemed terribly inept to you. If they don't, who do they seem terribly inept to?as you say these are discvussion forums and discussion involves challenging and confronting view of others , otherwise they are pointless.I'm puzzled about your reference to the AF447 thread. You agreed with me when I suggested that comments about "so-called "expert" analyses without even having ANY concrete facts" in the media also applied equally to that thread. (posts #161-164)My other remarks in that thread related to a poster who supported his argument by a factual claim that I believed was wrong - based on a link I provioded. When the poster failed to provide any evidence theh I admit I challenged him. Do you think that inventing facts to support an argument is an acceptable way to conduct a discussion here - and that someone who does so shouldn't be challenged?