Originally Posted by Pace
Banning of vintage aircraft founded or public pacification?
I find it very odd that the CAA have banned vintage aircraft from anything other than mild banks and flyovers over land!
Does this mean they suspect structural failure due the the aircraft being old ? If so does a spitfire rebuilt to as new count ?
Are the CAA suggesting that a vintage jet has inferior handling to a modern jet and this played a part in the crash ?
Or are vintage aircraft being used as a scapegoat for public reassurance only ?
The media has made much of the Hunter being a 60-year-old aircraft (early reports even attributed it to be a WWII aircraft), so the public are being appeased ("Something should be done!") by specifying vintage (SIC) jets.
Of course there would be an outcry if true vintage aircraft such as the Spitfire were to be prevented from displaying in this 75th year since the Battle of Britain - the upcoming event at Duxford (where the Hunter was scheduled to appear) would have been decimated.
This way, by grounding the Hunters and restricting the older jets to low-energy fly-bys, it avoids the embarrassment of prevent the Red Arrows and the Typhoon from displaying.
There remains the Vulcan, and, IMO, the Vulcan display will be judged to be acceptable and allowed to continue (especially as it is a swansong for XH558).
That it appears that the incident might have been as a result of inadequate 'safety' consideration (the display location - not the aircraft) will be overlooked by the public (as the '60 year old' jets will no longer present a danger to spectators and the general public at large).
Of course, there is nothing to prevent a non-displaying aircraft from crashing onto a highway (or, indeed, a built-up area) when in transit . . .