Caramba
The issue that many posters have, myself included, is not just about whether or not some form of CI took place.
Our concern is more about how AH was adjudged to have been so experienced an aviator that only an incident of CI could explain his poor flying in the lead up to the crash.
As many of us have pointed out, 40 hours on type in 5 years and a FJ experience base of 1500 (ish) hours from twenty years previously (plus a few JP hours in the intervening period - which by the way had been proven to apex at a very similar height to the accident sortie) does not, in the opinion of many current and former FJ operators, make an experienced pilot. Not in terms of flying low level aerobatics in a FJ anyway.
I know I keep banging the same drum but I have checked my logbook and I have accrued 40 hours Hawk in the last 6 weeks and I still wouldn’t fly low level aerobatics. I think an experienced aviator should be able to recognise their own weaknesses.
The fact that flying hours in privately owned jets are a precious commodity should not dictate the amount of practice a pilot gets. My view would be that if you can’t afford it, don’t do it. Even if your business model relies on display fees.
The presence of CI on the day is effectively conjecture (though it is of course a potential explanation) and rests on the assertion that there could be no other explanation for the mistakes made. Many of us believe that lack of experience, currency and recency (on type) could be just as likely an explanation.
Our views, though, are obviously irrelevant to the outcome of the court case since the CI defence won the day.
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 8th Jul 2020 at 04:47.