Originally Posted by
tucumseh
Idle B (and Diff)
It's not that I 'may very well be right', it's that I'm simply repeating the conclusions of he AAIB, which I agree with. And where they did not comment or explain, I'm relaying the meaning of the evidence they reproduced. (e.g. the incorrect certification). Unfortunately, the legal ruling meant there was little opportunity to discuss technical details, like the fuel pump being completely buggered.
Had the CAA got the facts right, then the aircraft would not have been flying. That's a root cause, in the same way the pilot's actions were. (In saying that I'm accepting the word of pilots here, coupled with his own admissions). Elsewhere, there were many Contributory and Aggravating factors. Each is part of an insidious chain, and the opportunity was there to break that chain long before the pilot climbed in.
I'd like to understand the CAA's thinking when predicating the Airworthiness Approval Note on the RAF being the Aircraft Design Authority. If they were, that would be the largest project team in MoD. Did they not even ask MoD? Does someone not go through the certification and double check the assumptions? And it's pretty clear MoD weren't told of this assumption, because when it was pointed out they very quickly refuted it. Given the duties of a Design Authority, the required output, and the pilot's complete dependency on it, there was simply no legal authority to fly that aeroplane. I came to realise long ago that pilots tend not to think of this, because it's taken as a given that the legal and technical audit trail resulting to them being given an aircraft to fly has been satisfied. After all, the grown ups in the CAA tell them it has.
I think you're probably right when saying the pilot grabbed an opportunity. I guess many would. But I'd like to hear his response if asked 'What would you have done if told the aircraft was manisfestly unairworthy and unserviceable?' If he said 'Fly it', then that would be a far greater sin than the error of airmanship he made. The obvious question is - Why wasn't he given that opportunity?
?
Whaaat? Are we saying that flying an aircraft that is a former military aircraft, withdrawn from service half a century ago, which flies under a PTF, is not airworthy as there is a question as to who was the approving office for the Military COA that the aircraft had around the time that the Wright Bros had tired of trying to chase flight attendants with bicycles and decided that a natty cap and bars would serve better?
I presume you wish to terminate the BBMF at the same time? After all, they are not CS-LIGHT/Part 23, or CS-LARGE/Part 25 and therefore should not be gracing the skies and threatening the public with the potential for a cloudy with a chance of meatball event. The Hunter crashed as the apogee of the manoeuvre did not have sufficient blue space below it for the speed that the aircraft was at, and the g that it could sustain to keep the shiny bits all in one piece. If the UK wishes to vacate the skies with the aircraft that are used to show the heritage of the country, which is a show of respect to those that have dedicated to protecting the very turf that your comment appears to be objecting to having their demonstration continue, then, please make sure I get an invite to the auction, there is a whole bunch of these that I would like to find a home in a country that is not run by tossers.
IMHO. If you can show any evidence that the aircraft crashed as the CAA or the RAF were remiss in 0.03 grams of paperwork stuck to the side of the cockpit, then I may reconsider the position that has been presented. I have less than 1,000 hours flying ex military high performance aircraft and only 5000 in uniform flying some state aircraft that were basely able to keep up with the ones I owned. If we enter a vertical manoeuvre and have failed to verify our energy state at the top of the manoeuvre, then in the unlikely event that we are still around to comment thereafter, I doubt that I would be complaining that the AFM was in Russian, and was last updated when Robin Olds was pushing tin over the highlands of North VietNam. To blame the CAA for this as far as the aircraft documentation goes is embarrassing. Again, if you guys don't want them, there are a lot of guys in other countries that would be happy to take them. (I prefer T-birds, it tempers one from getting too close to the edge of sanity). [The other 22,000 hours is common or garden heavies, R&D and certification, so maybe my opinion is irrelevant]
The Manoeuvre done on this occasion was badly done, and the fact that the pilot suggests that the event that took the lives of many other people was a medical condition that impacted his competency is not a grand basis to then come back and say, "I'm better now, whatever that was is over, can I go and do some more please?" If that is assumed to be prudent by the CAA and courts of the land, then perhaps y'all should turn up somewhere else where the barking mad is becoming the norm.
