Originally Posted by
sharpend
A lot has been said here, some from me explaining why the jurors came to their conclusion. No blame should rest with them. However, having read the CAA report, not much has been said of the fact that he ran in for his loop at 100 feet, instead of the minimum height of 500 feet as prescribed by the rules. So, even before he had a chance to make an error, or indeed suffer an impairment, he deliberately broke the rules which probably contributed to the disaster. Or have I got that all wrong?
The pilots DA permitted minimum flypast height for Category G aircraft was 100ft with 500ft being the minimum for aerobatics. It was (and still is) permitted to commence a climb into a vertical manoeuvre from 100ft so long as the manoeuvre can be safely completed by the 500ft minimum. This is now clearly defined in CAP1724 in that you should not exceed 30 degrees pitch angle before your minimum aerobatic height and that safe recovery should be assured by your minimum aerobatic height, before you can start relaxing the recovery down to the flypast altitude if necessary.
Bottom line: a smooth pull into a loop from 100ft was not a violation of his DA and should not have been a risk to its safe execution had the aircraft had enough energy to complete the manoeuvre by at least 500ft AGL.
Airshow aerobatics should be flown with necessary margin ie. a looping manoeuvre should not be flown by ‘max performing’ the aircraft. Instead the aircraft should have excess energy in which the pull can be somewhat relaxed, allowing for increased altitude over the top (gate) and thus ample margin on the way back down. These techniques are not ‘taught’ during military flying training or if one was doing competition aerobatics. It is specific to the safe execution of display flying where one is looking to show off the aircraft in an attractive manor. Not displaying ones skill for executing the manouevures or the full capabilities of the aircraft.