Amongst the critics, there appears to be a continuing tendency to confuse the issues.
On the subject / accident flight, I am yet to see the legitimate criticism.
If you wish to talk about
other flights, where there were successful loops (at or about the height demonstrated by the instructor for this simple manoeuvre) allowing for differences amongst aircraft, we can probably all agree that the more height the better for the inexperienced. Other than that, what else?
booke23:-
Really?......discounting the 13 hour dual military flying grading evaluation
course 20 years previously, he had 1 hour of stall spin awareness training in a
Cessna 172 and a few loops shown to him when he joined the tiger moth
group.
Not even close to any aerobatic rating syllabus I have ever seen.
So not that it is relevant to the accident beyond the speculation which was dismantled at trial, but regarding loops, you appear to take it upon yourself to discount the grading course as relevant experience. Where there is no requisite aerobatic rating for aircraft type, (and indeed some of the best aerobatic pilots are self-taught) would you say that experience of 50+ loops, many of which were with an instructor in the demonstrate, follow through, perform environment has probably resulted in the pilot being able to perform a loop (this number not including all those he did subsequently in the TM)? Or have you just made your mind up...