High Vis Markings

Well, I stand corrected. However, if you google military high visibility markings you will find formations of aircraft with and without high vis markings. One can really see the high vis aircraft better. Ever noted how all the roadside workers wear orange vests, certainly improves their visibility, same for hunters, crosswalk monitors, school buses, fire trucks, bicycle riders...etc. Out west I have only see two gliders with high visibility markings, one in blue, which did not improve my ability to spot it in the sky, but another glider had fluorescent orange markings and it stood out like a sore thumb! Not a statistically significant sample size, nor a controlled experiment, but I could spot that glider against any background even out of the corner of my eye. Vanity kept me from using the same color scheme as I thought it was too "in your face" and on the ground the color appeared to hurt my eyes it was so bright.

Thanks for the studies, glad I have an LED strobe, Flarm and good eyes!

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 7:00:07 AM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:

Silver reflective tape, or mirror tape only works in sunshine. Gliders
spent a lot of time in shade, under clouds, and again at the same
level the effect is minimal.

Nothing is going to work from all directions and under all conditions. But some combination would improve the odds.

LED lights for the shade and mirror for sunlight would be complementary.

A forward facing LED strobe is a big payback even though it works on only one axis.

How about something like this on top of the fuselage and another on the bottom? If mounted from the inside through a hole it would be less than 20mm tall and I'm guessing a streamlined bubble to cover it wouldn't add any significant drag.

https://www.superbrightleds.com/more...Specifications

This appears to be the same as used on emergency vehicles and with a draw of over an amp at 12v, it sure seems like it should be bright. I'm sure a much slower flash rate would reduce the current draw.

I've seen a bicycle headlight strobe while looking into the rising sun from more than 4 miles. I was sure it was a police car flashing headlight with someone in front of him covering one of the lights. But when I got closer it was a bike!

5Z

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 12:11:48 PM UTC-8, son_of_flubber wrote:
LED lights for the shade and mirror for sunlight would be complementary.

A forward facing LED strobe is a big payback even though it works on only one axis.

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 2:29:58 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I searched this thread and did not see an actual study referenced, only urban legend, that bright colors not found in nature somehow act to "work as camouflage because they erode the edge of the plane's outline/silhouette". ..

The study you mention that disputed the effectiveness of day-glo patches on the wings was reported in Sailplane and Gliding Magazine for December, 2000. The tests conducted for the report were conducted during June, 2000 at RAF Bicester.

Another study, on mirrored surfaces, was "Glider Conspicuity Trials Held at RAF Bicester in June and October 2002", carried out under the direction of Dr. Tony Head, then of the Human Factors Group, School of Engineering, College of Aeronautics, Cranfield University. It as this study that, to some degree, suggested that mirrored control surfaces did improve conspicuity. although the report does include several dislaimers, based on weathser conditions during the testing. I have a copy of THAT report (but not the 2000 study) if anyone's interested (jim at kellett cot com)

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 6:51:28 AM UTC-5, Jim Kellett wrote:

Another study, on mirrored surfaces, was "Glider Conspicuity Trials Held at RAF Bicester in June and October 2002"

This study also tested orange and found no benefit.

Here is the .pdf

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/gl...uity-study.pdf

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 11:29:58 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
I searched this thread and did not see an actual study referenced, only urban legend, that bright colors not found in nature somehow act to "work as camouflage because they erode the edge of the plane's outline/silhouette". Is this not the same ilk as "we only use 10% of our brain" or "it is improper English in end a sentence in a preposition"? BTW, all three urban legends have no basis in science, fact, or English structure. If you think so, you do not have a leg to stand on. Perhaps you do not know what you speak of. What are you talking about? Just three examples of one urban legend mentioned above. Autonomous processes of the body take more than 10% of brain function alone. Military uses high visibility paint on training aircraft, because it works. If you travel Russia you will also find most Russians do not wear seatbelts because they all know someone, who knew someone that was friends with someone that was saved because they were thrown free in an auto accident. Of course no one knows anyone first hand that was so saved, but they all believe the BS legends. Hmm... I wonder why hunters wear high visibility clothing? Is it to be seen so they are not shot... no I am sure the orange would just blur they edges so it would be difficult for a center shot.

France mandated high vis markings for a reason, they saw a statistically significate difference. France mandated Flarm for the same reason, it works.

I am not a fan of the big sky theory, have had way too many close calls, from the airport environment, to the middle of nowhere, thus the only possible conclusion is the theory is bunk. Sure, most aircraft do not collide, but the theory that only works 98% of the time is not really a theorem, is it. Then it just becomes probability, fate, vicissitudes of life, karma.... Imagine if the theory of relativity only worked 98% of the time. What if the laws of physics only worked 99% of the time.

Four times in the airport environment, under tower control, I have been place directly in the path of another aircraft, and this is by trained professionals. Too many times to count out in "the Big Sky", I have only had time to flench as another aircraft streaked by, once so close I did not even see an aircraft, just a grey blur filling the entire windscreen as I heard the roar of jet engines. And this was over the roar of my own jet engine and through noise cancelling headset.

Not intending to offend anyone, just to solicit thought, not rote acceptance. Show me the beef. (by way of full disclosure, I not not eat beef).

Assuming no one is considering wrapping their whole glider in orange glow, only the wing tips, part of the rudder and maybe part of the nose. How could this possibly act as camouflage?? By reducing the visible wing span by less than 5%? This sounds like a myth. Worst case scenario it will have no impact, base case scenario the small orange surface will catch your attention and save your life. So instead of debating it to death, best is to just purchase a stripe of orange vinyl (less than $50) and stick it to your wing tip/winglets/rudder. It will make your glider look prettier, more unique, and maybe even safer. And if you dont like it - remove it...

Ramy

At 05:03 28 January 2016, Ramy wrote:

Not intending to offend anyone, just to solicit thought, not rote
acceptance. Show me the beef. (by way of full disclosure, I not
not eat beef).

Assuming no one is considering wrapping their whole glider in
orange glow,
=
only the wing tips, part of the rudder and maybe part of the nose.
How
coul=
d this possibly act as camouflage?? By reducing the visible wing
span by
le=
ss than 5%? This sounds like a myth. Worst case scenario it will
have no
im=
pact, base case scenario the small orange surface will catch your
attention=
and save your life. So instead of debating it to death, best is to
just
pu=
rchase a stripe of orange vinyl (less than $50) and stick it to your
wing
t=
ip/winglets/rudder. It will make your glider look prettier, more
unique,
an=
d maybe even safer. And if you dont like it - remove it...

Ramy

Camouflage works by breaking up the outline of a familiar object so
that the eye/brain does not recognise it, or alternatively confuses
the eye/brain.
British soldiers in your war of independence wore red coats,
because red made it difficult for the enemy to count the number of
soldiers, to camouflage the size of their force . Ships in WW1 were
painted in garish zig-zag patterns which broke up the outline so
they were less likely to be recognised as ships and made range
estimation difficult. It is not as simple as it seems.
Sticking it to your rudder is a bad idea, as has been pointed out
earlier. Altering the mass balance of a control surface, even by a
small amount, without comprehensive testing, is unlikely to end
well.

I was at a Nationals at Caesar Creek, OH one summer and was running in the mornings. Like everyone else, I knew bright orange was highly visible (duh) so that's the color of the shirt I wore. One morning at the pilots meeting, a competitor commented that he hadn't seen me alongside the road that morning until he was almost on top of me. "Wear white," he suggested, "it's more visible against the trees and vegetation in this area." So I did, and he confirmed my greater visibility the next day.

The trouble with conventional wisdom is that so many people assume it's true because it seems logical--but without ever checking. There's another category of experts who continue on with, in essence, "don't confuse me with the facts; I know what I know," evidence from experimental studies to the contrary.

For the record, the Big Sky theory works very well. 99%+ (probably high 9s) of aircraft in flight don't collide. But it's not perfect. That's why we keep our eyes open, look for ways to make our gliders more visible in the environments in which we usually fly, and rely increasingly on electronic anti-collision technology to improve the odds still further.

The studies on glider conspicuity I've seen were all performed in Europe. It would be interesting to see the results of a similar study in an area like Nephi, or Hobbs, or Uvalde, or Minden on a typical summer soaring day. I've flown at the latter three sites but not at Nephi.

Chip Bearden

I would like to see the experiment method described in detail. While I have not conducted any tests on high visibility colors, I can tell you they work on my eyes for roadside workers, construction crews, hunters, and they single glider I have seen with the day-glo orange, all the above were highly visible. I also know from merging and formation flying the aircraft with red really stood out.

As a former engineer I will gladly accept well designed test results. But if you do not publish the experiment method, in detail, then the conclusion is suspect as it has not undergone peer review. Having said that, I am depending on eyes, Flarm and LED strobe in my bird.


The studies on glider conspicuity I've seen were all performed in Europe. It would be interesting to see the results of a similar study in an area like Nephi, or Hobbs, or Uvalde, or Minden on a typical summer soaring day. I've flown at the latter three sites but not at Nephi.