Sorry guys, I'm just not getting this. The rationale given is that the G suit may get in the way when the aircraft are flying
really close to each other. Hence, you get rid of the g-suit (which is essentially a safety enhancement whether you take either the GLOC or extended fatigue argument) in order to allow you to fly closer to other elements of the formation with a perceived degree of increased safety.
Now, I wasn't of the opinion that military formation display flying was an operational necessity - it is a significant chunck of an effective
PR machine. Surely someone should have done a proper risk assessment here? If they had, are they not obliged to re-visit that assessment after this unfortunate crash? Maybe the answer is to wear the G-suits and not fly so close to each other (
Do the Red Arrows wear a suit?).
I'm not stirring things up, I just don't understand some of the rationale.