Originally Posted by
Hebog
I think you will find the aircraft itself had restrictions on aeros placed by a maintenance organisation. It had a major issue which has not been mentioned by the CAA or the AAIB. This major issue may have resulted in the flying controls being compromised. The failure would most likely happen under high G.
Therefore did the CAA carry out a proper inspection of the aircraft and it records at all. Did the AAIB have the full maintenance records for the aircraft going back at least 10 years prior and if the failure had happened would it have been realised and identified in the wreckage. Were all the records proved to the AAIB.
Also remember the AAIB sometimes ask maintenance companies that may have been involved with the maintenance of the aircraft for help an assistance during investigations. Surely this is a conflict of interest by the AAIB.
Personally I think too much was placed on pilot error / judgement and trying to prove this. More investigation into the pre flight condition of the aircraft, maintenance carried out or not carried out and reported problems should have been looked into more detail and the impact these could have had on the aircraft and the reason for the pilots response or non response.
Could you please give some indication as to the nature of what compromised the flying controls? There may well have been an issue but it did not degrade the flying qualities of the aircraft on that sortie. There was sufficient elevator authority available to maintain the aircraft at an angle of attack that gave maximum instantaneous turn performance/pitch rate throughout the manoeuvre and enabled the aircraft to be pulled into an accelerated stall before impact. Wings level was maintained during the downward portion of the manoeuvre and there was no evidence of any sideslip. Therefore, although you may have some information that indicates a potential problem there is no evidence to show that the performance of the aeroplane was affected in any way whatsoever.