still worth trying
Let us consider the para 1.4.201 HSTF analysis.What a difference it would make if the text was NOT “while landings were achieved on a few occasions” BUT “more than one landing was achieved” - and if the text was NOT “On almost every occasion the HSTF showed indications of stall” BUT “occasionally there were no indications of stall”.
The panel seems to regard the “contract” parameters as critical to their investigation. It is however clear that the “contract” is only incidental to the exercise that R3 was conducting. It should be appreciated that the “Contract” is for the instruction of students and for the guidance of experienced Hawk pilots.
The panel might have examined the possibility that the “contract” actually interfered with R3’s safe execution of the exercise. Have the simulations discussed in para 1.4.201 and the successful landings achieved been fully reported to, at least, the Red Arrows ?
The new rule of 1400ft at the final turn, deemed essential to meeting the “contract” terms, could not be met by R3 and might almost never be met by the Arrows. The Arrows presumably risk an EFATO on every launch and still brief for it, on the clear understanding that the “contract” cannot apply. I expect that even to land on the launch runway would still be briefed, if there was no alternative and since the simulations have shown it can be done.
Last edited by rlsbutler; 12th Oct 2019 at 14:12.
Reason: quote marks disappeared from the first paragraph