Originally Posted by
Just This Once...
I still don't know how AH can live with himself with the defence he offered. My professional open-mindedness was slammed shut when he claimed almost no knowledge and no RAF training with respect to the effects of G when flying high-performance aircraft - including the relatively low G available when flying so slow. These were utterly absurd and untruthful statements that were designed to deceive, yet the prosecution did not have the counter to hand. I understand that he was entitled to defend himself and that the burden of proving a case is with the prosecution but you would struggle to find any RAF or RN fast-jet aircrew who thought his answers on that subject were accurate or truthful.
The chap came close to crashing on take-off on that fateful day - that could have been a better outcome for all concerned. We could then just debate the wisdom of no proper performance calculations and the mystery of accepting a tailwind in an aircraft that he had almost no experience flying.
I totally agree. The fact that AH had been trained and qualified as an RAF fast jet pilot mean that he HAD been trained in G Awareness and all of its facets, be it on aircraft performance or effect on the human body. The fact that the prosecution did not expose these lies makes them negligent in performing their duty. A qualified RAF QFI, past or present, could have testified as to what RAF pilot training involves.
As for
In fact no, that was the allegation made by the prosecution but denied by the defence. The defence produced evidence that the aircraft was not flying a loop. In reaching their not guilty verdicts the jury were not satisfied that a loop was being flown.
What a load of nonsense. AH's display card showed that an offset loop was planned at that point. Apart from starting a few hundred feet TOO Low and over 100kts TOO Slow there was clear intent to attempt a loop. At that point in time, due to "something" he clearly thought that he was in a different aircraft , possibly a JP? Poor discipline based on complacency.