Originally Posted by
chopjock
I'm not happy with your answer. It still does not state the flight broke rule 5 anywhere. Least of all on page 8.
It doesn't really matter whether or not you're unhappy, the facts are that the AAIB say that the whole flight was conducted at below 500' agl and that they overflew a farmhouse (which is structure, I think you'll find) at an estimated 275'. Now, even if that estimate was 200' out (an unthinkable margin of error), Rule 5 was still broken.
You're picking on semantics. If the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph and I tell you that I drove at 80mph on the motorway, we all KNOW that I broke the limit without having to spell it out in words of one syllable.
As has been said elsewhere, whilst the low flying did not directly cause the accident, it was symptomatic of the attitude of the pilot on that day. His attitude is what caused the accident. The whole thing smacks of "having a bit of a wazz about" and the dangerous "hey, watch this" attitude that leads to so many accidents. The AAIB all but said this in the report - they have to be diplomatic and careful due to the legal context but their intent is obvious, I would say.