Originally Posted by
airsound
Bearing in mind that the jury (of eleven people) came to a unanimous verdict after about seven hours of consideration, it seems clear that they accepted the defence arguments over the prosecution’s. Who are we to disagree with that?
We are professional aviators who are expected to understand and learn from tragedies such as this. I also don't doubt the independence, professionalism or experience of the AAIB and their report is sobering. I would be concerned if AH was presented as a skilled or experienced Hunter pilot - he was not. I would count someone such as LOMCEVAK as a highly skilled and experienced Hunter pilot and he didn't achieve that status with a handful of sorties.
AH 'qualified' after 3hrs 25min flying the Hunter. By the time of the crash 4 years later he had amassed 19hrs 25min total time displaying the Hunter, including transits, with an average of just 5 sorties per year. It was the only fast jet he had flown since leaving the RAF 11 years earlier, after completing just 1 frontline tour and with no RAF display experience.