Great post BV - hope you dont mind if I give my own thoughts in line below...
Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
If we are to state that AH is an ‘experienced FJ operator’ then I think we need to define what we mean by that.
Why does that need defining? If your point is "was he experienced enough to be flying that aircraft that day at an airshow" then per the CAA display flying rules and regs of the day he either met or exceeded all the criteria laid down related to experience, currency and competency.
Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
AH had 1500 FJ hours (800 of which were on the JP) and left the RAF 21 years before the accident. There was then a 9-10 year gap before he started flying JPs again.
I wouldn't argue for a second if someone said he was an experienced JP pilot. With 14000 total flying hours we can all agree he is also an experienced pilot. The bit I take issue with is that most of his flying was either so distant or on a completely unrelated type to the Hunter.
You make some salient, but obvious, points. The question, in my mind, is why was the environment so permissive that it allowed (you could almost say encouraged) AH and others to display high performance vintage jets in a public environment with such appalingly low levels of overall flying time, type experience and/or currency? If you want a real eye-opener look at the flying hrs table in the
AAIB report (P.68/69) for the Carfest Gnat crash. I should add, with respect to the deceased, that like AH he was in full compliance with the rules and regs of the day....
Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
I stated earlier I have a fair amount of current Hawk experience but I wouldn’t go and fly low level aerobatics tomorrow without an appropriate work up (or work down depending on how you look at it).
I can accept that AH was not criminally negligent. I also accept that the CAA bear a lot of blame for allowing the regulations as they were.
That's a fair viewpoint and I personally believe rules and regulations, although not a substitute for commonsense,
are there for a reason - usually to try and prevent the worst excesses of human nature (fallibility) from spilling over. But for any rules/regs to be effective in preventing whatever they are meant to prevent they need to be appropriate at the outset, kept under regular review, be open to change as circumstances dictate, and be enforced consistently. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the CAA display flying regs in place at the time of the Shoreham tragedy failed most of those key tests.
Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
As an ‘experienced FJ operator’ though I question why he felt suitably qualified and current to fly those manoeuvres
Questioning why AH got in the cockpit that day to fly those manoeuvres in that way in that plane is a bit like asking why somebody that mowed down a child was driving at 30mph past a school at 8.30am or 3.30pm. With our sensible head many of us would recognise that it's inappropriate but in many areas its still legal to do it, so some of us take advantage of it. It's human nature to be overly confident in our own abilities and generally have an overly optimistic view of possible impacts and consequences. And when we are confident we are fully compliant with the laws of the day that makes the decision making process a whole lot easier. Unfortunately what seems so obvious to some is often completely overlooked by others - back again I am afraid for the onus to be on the rules and regs to be fit for purpose.
Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
The upshot, for me personally, is that I would not take my family to an air show with these old Warbirds displaying as things stand. I’m all for flying them as a hobby (I wouldn’t do it but I understand why others want to) and even performing flypasts but until I know something has changed markedly then my family and I will not partake.
So a personal recollection that I think I shared on here some time ago, so forgive me for repetition. I was at the Carfest event that the Gnat crashed at and saw it unfold first hand. I had a deep sense of foreboding the moment I saw the Gnat pair arrive in the overhead and ushered my wife and kids into a marquee whilst I stood outside and watched what I believed was a inappropriate display at an unsuitable venue in marginal weather conditions. I've read on here that others had a similar sense of unease as they saw AH pull up into the vertical at Shoreham. Not possible to turn back the clock, regrettably, but I do believe a LOT of lessons have now been learned (or re-learned) and that many of the factors that led to both these accidents have now been addressed, such as to make the chances of reoccurence substantially lower. I still regularly attend airshows and take my family with me occasionally.