Originally Posted by
Waltzer
So the fact that an aircraft going into display trailing enough smoke to make the guy on the ground think that it has a smoke system fitted isn’t worth consideration.
Also the fact that the pilot carried on with his display after being told on more than one occasion and in the full knowledge that he was trailing a lot of smoke from somewhere at the front.
Any pilot worth his salt would have been looking to land asap whilst it was still producing power.
Ignorance at best, dangerous to the point of deadly at worst.
If the above turns out to be fact, and in the absence of other reasonable circumstances that may have affected the PIC's decisions etc, then you may well be justified in your opinion.
However what I heard in the youtube link seemed to be based on hearsay, with a fair degree of political comment and meandering from the subject thrown in. To me if there were any facts amongst it they were difficult to extract and - at this point - unsubstantiated as to source and evidence.
I make no comment on the accident itself because I wasn't there, I don't see a lot of actual fact or background, and I'm not sure opinion based on vague hearsay is all that helpful?