Originally Posted by
tucumseh
I'm afraid your claim as to serviceability is wrong.
The AAIB report confirmed it was neither airworthy, serviceable, nor fit for purpose. The pilot was not told this.
Regardless of any airmanship shortfalls (which I cannot and do not comment on), no pilot should be given an aircraft in such an appalling state.
We await an explanation from the CAA as to why the airworthiness certification was based on the premise that the RAF (not MoD) was the Hunter Design Authority, and therefore responsible for the Safety Case and an Aircraft Document Set which the AAIB reported was decades out-of-date.
MoD later confirmed it was NOT the Aircraft Design Authority, further proving significant liability on the part of the CAA.
You never just look at the final act. It's moronic.
You may very well be right that the aircraft was unsserviceable, but that has nothing to do with the accident. No-one has made any claims that the aircraft failed the pilot in any way. The failure was entirely his. There were failures by others that:
put this unqualified pilot in charge of the aricraft, and
approved a display plan that put the public at risk
but none of these were in any way related to airworthiness of the poor old hunter, the opportunity of flying which was no doubt enthusiasticly grabbed by the pilot concerned.