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.
I think you have little understanding of the maintenance of any aircraft as well! If there was any restriction by a maintenance inspection on the aircraft especially being an ex military Permit to Fly aircraft, the CAA regulations state that the maintenance recording should follow the service recording for the aircraft in military service. Thus if there was any limitations by a maintenance inspection that restricted the scope of handling of the aircraft such as high energy manoeuvres should have been recorded in the F703 limitations red pages of the F700 tech log. BV would have known such as some of his Jaguars flown had limitations on MTOM and landing weight. G limitations on some airframes as well due to high fatigue life. Pilot signs the tech log to say he is happy to take the aircraft in the condition it is in and will consider the limitations is part and parcel of his operation of the airframe. If it had maintenance limitations, the engineers should legally have recorded it, he should have known them from reading the tech log AND should have abided by it. If you are an engineer involved in knowing about such and not recording it, I would quite happily hang, draw and quarter if you did not record such detail. The CAA do not do inspections on aircraft, they empower A8-23 or A8-24 orgs to do such under audit and proof of competency of the engineering staff employed by such. I must admit reading and hearing of the standard that the CAA will allow people to hold certifying positions in such A8 companies shocks me (I am an unrestricted B1 CAA AML type rated and current holder that has C cert rights as well). I know the AAIB inspector that did investigate the accident as lead and and on hearing of his involvement on the case, I mentioned the name of the pilot. We were sitting with two FJ pilots in the conversation and the way their lips curled with the name mentioned said it all. Both have done Hunter instruction time and multi thousand hour FJ logged hours. 2+2 =4 unlike your 5.