Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tigers_gonads]

I said at the time he went over the top flat without enough airspeed.
He could have rolled 180 degrees and flew the aircraft out in the opposite direction but he chose to try to complete the manoeuvre and failed 
He fcked up and people died as a consequence 
And now he has to pay the price and live with it ...........

[Kevin Wood]

This is one of the most significant findings of the AAIB report. He had a "gate" at the top of the loop - a certain height at a certain airspeed, and hitting it should have been a go/no go, where he could roll erect and abort the loop. He failed to meet it by a considerable margin but continued the loop. They also found that the engine wasn't producing anything like full power on the way up. Whether there was a mechanical issue that put him in the wrong position is irrelevant, though. He would have noticed that he hadn't met his gate and aborted. Did he fail to check it? Were his instruments lying to him? Did he misread them?

[Nick W]

Aeronauts will sympathise with him, families of victims will want him crucified. Most others are probably somewhere in the middle.

Most of the pilots etc that I spoke to have no sympathy for him whatsoever; the opinions at the time were that he was sole cause of the crash. The people that actually knew him were particularly scathing.

[Andy H]

What I really don't understand is why, with a choice of displaying over the sea, the airfield, farmland or the river he chose to pull his failed stunt along the A27 (the main road along the South coast)

[tigers_gonads]

This is one of the most significant findings of the AAIB report. He had a "gate" at the top of the loop - a certain height at a certain airspeed, and hitting it should have been a go/no go, where he could roll erect and abort the loop. He failed to meet it by a considerable margin but continued the loop. They also found that the engine wasn't producing anything like full power on the way up. Whether there was a mechanical issue that put him in the wrong position is irrelevant, though. He would have noticed that he hadn't met his gate and aborted. Did he fail to check it? Were his instruments lying to him? Did he misread them?

I've never read the report if i'm honest and can only go on my experience of working with fast jets and been sat in the back / side seat of fast jets, also watching the videos of that tragic day.
To me, I would have thought it would feel totally different in the seat of the pants if you fly over the top, not fall over the top like he did hence my comments above.  It just looked wrong 

I know the Avon 200 series was slow to spool up but who knows if the reduced thrust was down to slow engine OR the pilot not opening the throttle quick enough 

Did the aircraft have a ADR fitted ?

[Kevin Wood]

Did the aircraft have a ADR fitted ?

Nothing mentioned in the report IIRC. It just had basic instruments and the data they used was a partial view of the instrument panel from a Go Pro in the cockpit, estimated N1 from the engine sound picked up by the GoPro and radar returns from the aircraft's transponder.

[Lazydocker]

Having read the report alongside other less “official” information I’m not at all surprised charges have been brought. But I’m surprised the pilot is facing them alone... I expected the over to face them too and possibly even the maintenance company.

There are a lot of errors made but the biggest single one is by the pilot even starting a display he hasn’t been cleared to perform, let alone failing to abort at the upper gateway.

Doesn’t mean I don’t feel for the guy... He’s got to live with the consequences for the rest of his life without any charges anyway! He tried to put right the mistake but simply didn’t have the height or Airspeed to do it!

[2boxerdogs]

Saw this coming right from the start, doesn't surprise me at all, won't be surprised if poor maintenance of the aircraft contributed as well as pilot error.

[Doctor Gollum]

Saw this coming right from the start, doesn't surprise me at all, won't be surprised if poor maintenance of the aircraft contributed as well as pilot error.

Maintenance is a side issue...

You wouldn't drive a vehicle at work without at least checking the lights, levels and tyres

[2boxerdogs]

Saw this coming right from the start, doesn't surprise me at all, won't be surprised if poor maintenance of the aircraft contributed as well as pilot error.

Maintenance is a side issue...

You wouldn't drive a vehicle at work without at least checking the lights, levels and tyres

. 



Tell the victims relatives that.

[Doctor Gollum]

Fundamentally, the pilot was the one who made the choice to do what he did... As an experienced pilot, he should have been aware of not only his position but also the condition/performance of the aircraft, (he had previously flown the aircraft involved) before attempting the maneuver...

Ultimately the burden of responsibility is on his head regardless of mitigation.

[Kevin Wood]

Indeed.

The AAIB report found failings at virtually every level of every organisation that put that plane in the sky on that day. Everything from show organisation and risk assessment to maintenance and signing unsuitable planes, pilots and displays off on a "nod and a wink" basis.

The bottom line, though, is that the aircraft would have completed the manoeuvre safely if the pilot had ensured the gate conditions had been met.

[2boxerdogs]

Unfortunately a lot of people like to maintain "on the cheap" these days, the blame must be with the pilot who was in charge of the aircraft at the time , unfortunately we all think it won't happen to us but time & again it does, and ultimately innocent people pay with their lives.

[Entwood]

Indeed.

The AAIB report found failings at virtually every level of every organisation that put that plane in the sky on that day. Everything from show organisation and risk assessment to maintenance and signing unsuitable planes, pilots and displays off on a "nod and a wink" basis.

The bottom line, though, is that the aircraft would have completed the manoeuvre safely if the pilot had ensured the gate conditions had been met.

And that is the cruncher .. all the rest are peripheral, not saying "not important", but they are peripheral to the ACTUAL cause ... insufficient energy at the "gate" .. from which point the manoeuvre was bound to fail, the pilot should have realised this and aborted the manoeuvre .... this is not "specialist knowledge" .. it is a basic fundamental of aerobatics .. 1) gate conditions & 2) base height .. two things that are NEVER broken ... in failing to ensure 1) and not aborting the manoeuvre..... he broke 2) ... and we know the result ..