Originally Posted by
Chugalug2
Sean Cunningham's BoI stated that there was no Safety Case for the ejection seat he died in. That meant by extension that his aircraft was unairworthy. Thus all Hawks were also unairworthy then. Subsequently the T1's were to be grounded but the Reds' T1A's are to continue flying. Of course, the MOD avoids mention of the A word at all times, so is the Hawk still unairworthy? By the same token the Nimrod was officially airworthy until the MOD grounded them all and then said that it wasn't. I don't query that this fatal accident happened with the aircraft in an irrecoverable stall on short finals leading to the death of its rear seat passenger, but was it airworthy?
Airworthiness and Air Safety are not the same. Not having a safety case does not necessarily mean not airworthy.
Safe to Operate and Operated Safely are different questions.
It was not a technical failure that lead to loss of the aircraft.
Performing high risk manoeuvres with pax in the aircraft was prohibited for many activities such as LL flying, where the situation could degrade too rapidly for pax to observe, assimilate and act to a deteriorating situation.
The absence of command eject was a known issue and an aggravating factor.
Why was this activity allowed?
XX204 was not being operated safely.