I am very aware that I am a guest in this Mess, and have only ever had a single flight in a JP (tho regularly fly light aircraft). I have however been an expert witness and was very aware that I had a duty to do the job properly.
It seems that much of the reportage of this trial was lacking in veracity but nevertheless accepted and as such forms the basis of strongly expressed opinion.
So - Lomcevak, Airsound, Legalapproach: “The videos shown in court of other displays and practises by AH did not, as airsound has said, show any of the critical errors that occurred in the Shoreham accident display. However, they did show errors such as inadvertent airbrake out in the upward half of a loop, infringing display lines etc.“
Was it not the case that the suggestion that AH had infringed display lines part of the prosecution’s attempt to characterise AH as cavalier in his approach to flight and display safety? But that the allegations regarding display lines were refuted in court and that the prosecution and one of the expert prosecution witnesses (JW) exposed as not having done their homework properly?
I ask only as a seeker after truth.
Caramba