Okay, I'll throw in my two penneth...
Beagle makes some valid points. It wouldn't be the first time that an accident has been "blamed" on the guy who got killed, thus precluding any chance of the perceived culprit defending himself. Not saying this has happened in this case but it's hardly unknown.
As for the g-suit argument, it's specious to say the least. If a g-suit has any risk of fouling controls then it's useless by definition. If the gear can't be safely used in the location/conditions it was specifically designed for, then you have to wonder what point there is in buying it!
True, the Reds back seaters don't wear g-suits but having sat-in on a number of full displays with them in the past, I really can't see how the presence of a g-suit would make any difference one way or the other. There's not much room in a Hawk's cockpit to start with so you have to make a conscious effort to push your legs towards the cockpit sides, to ensure they steer clear of the control column. A g-suit (which isn't exactly cumbersome in any case) wouldn't make any difference, and ultimately I think it's just down to the team's own preferences . It's not as if a g-suit suddenly turns the wearer into a Michelin Man - it's fitted tightly to one's legs and in practise it doesn't add any more "bulk" to the wearer's presence at all.
As for the Blue Angels, I flew with them too, and they just don't wear g-suits (or oxygen masks) as a matter of common practise. They certainly never mentioned anything to me about this being because of any perceived risk of fouling controls - they just seemed to think that such gear was unnecessary - simple as that. Maybe (*gulp*) they're wrong? My belief is that they like to stick with their traditions and pride, and they just don't want to get into the business of having to remove additional gear when they're in front of the public, plus their undeniable "can do" attitude makes g-suits sound just a little bit girly for them.
Certainly, they remove the artificial feel from the Hornet's control colum so that they can fly their close formations more precisely, but I really can't see how a g-suit would make any difference to formation flying. When you consider just how much physical force is required to hold the aircraft without artificial feel, then somebody's slightly over-inflated leg really wouldn't be of any significance, even if it was (for some bizarre reason) pushed hard against the control column.
Ultimately, their choice not to wear g-suits can only be seen as a simple matter of personal taste, and you have to wonder whether they ought to compromise their "image" a little in order to add a little bit of built-in safety. Incidentally, I can vouch for the fact that in the Red's flat display, the continual g loadings are often around the 5g mark, and on some of the manoeuvres, the g load does crank up to 6g or more. Likewise, the same is true of the Blue Angles. On one of the display flights I sat-in on, the g load went past 7.5g and even broke the tape head on the internal video recorder (something which happened frequently, they told me), so the flying can get quite brutal at times.
The question of whether a pilot could be heard making any effort to withstand g is hard to answer I guess, as everyon handles these things differently. From my experience with the Blue Angels, there wasn't any particularly audible grunting and groaning, so maybe this is also something which their "pride" discourages. If so, you have to wonder whether this could have contributed to the accident. It compares starkly to the Reds, where the RT is packed full of groans, gasps, expletives and the like.
I suppose the cause of the crash will (by definition) never be known, but even though it does look slightly like a "cop out" to attribute it to "pilot error" ,it does sound like the most likely cause. Even the most hardy of individuals has an off day, and maybe in this instance he was just that little bit over-sensitive to the g loads. We'll never know for sure. But regardless of this, you'd think that if there was even the slightest possibility that the accident was caused by G-LOC, then maybe they ought to forget about the "cool" image, and get themselves some g-suits? The notion that wearing them would render the pilot "weaker" in terms of his ability to withstand g is nonsense, as g-suits don't offer any practical protection unless you still push and grunt at the same time. Realistically, as pilots often say, the g-suit simply gives you something to push against.
Having said this, I have to add that the Blue Angels are a bunch of great people, truly professional and of course, fantastic pilots. Same applies to the guys on the RAFAT who really are exceptional in my opinion, from what I've seen of them. Sad business indeed.
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 19th Jan 2008 at 20:35.