Mike,
You were worried about me falling foul of a curious Google leading to the press findingstate secrets here. You might want to be careful about your clear accusation that the RED ARROWS ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND ARE CAVALIER.
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
It's not the noise that worries me, it's the cavalier attitude. One has only to read the official accident reports to learn just what attitude some allegedly professional service pilots have toward safety procedures
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
I have in front of me MAA/OP/04/Reg/Waiv/FlyDis12/02 which says differently.
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
You flyboys should do your dangerous flying in dangerous flying areas, where there is minimal risk to the innocent civilians who have to pay your tax-free wages and accommodation and food and whatever else we have to pay for.
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
just giving you guys a chance before making a good case to send to "the respective event Flying Display Director"
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
My copy came from MoD under foi. It is my understanding that RA 2335 complies with European Law and that RAFAT have negotiated waivers with some but not all European countries to permit rear entry.
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
My concern is purely the risk of leaving one big smoking crater in the center of a town
Originally Posted by mike=wsm
So why not stick to European Law and take those risks out over the sea?
Originally Posted by mike-wsm
If RAFAT obey the law and recognise that the waiver is not applicable over towns then the risk to our and indeed other towns will be reduced by one hundred per cent.
Shall I call the Daily Mail with this story or would you like to?