Unsubstantiated speculation and misinformation:
It seems Mr Sharp thinks that the aircraft was put down on the A27 on purpose as he had lost power instead of going for the airfield.
Mr Sharp has no way of knowing about the condition of the engine nor Andy's intentions. The clip was heavily edited so his comments may have been misrepresented or he has made a complete fool of himself talking about stuff he doesn't understand.
Originally Posted by Captain Kirk
there is no obvious indication of an engine malfunction
I understand that's an observation, but there are plenty of failure modes that may not be obvious from a distance.
Originally Posted by Captain Kirk
As for waiting for the facts. A complete video of the accident sequence is available as well as a plethora of images - many an accident enquiry has been conducted in its entirety without any such material to draw upon. Yes, there will be other details to consider, but the basic physics of why this ac came into contact with the ground can be deduced by those with adequate experience.
Sorry, that is absolute hoop. An amateur video from a hand-held camera does not show a fraction of the detail about the state of the aircraft or the pilot or to assume parameters from which to draw any conclusions at all. It can form a part of the picture, but it will be the forensic evidence that will answer some of the important questions. The camera is roughly tracking the aircraft with few fixed points of reference for much of the footage for estimating pitch angles, pitch rate, altitude, angle of attack or aircraft speed - there are some. The video is useful to suggest that the wings are still attached, the aircraft did not appear to be on fire, etc, and it may be useful to confirm or discount possible factors later. But will only once the investigators have ALL THE FACTS they can reasonably establish.
Originally Posted by andrewn
explicitly I'm saying that many people on here can probably make a relatively informed judgement call as to the primary cause of incidents such as this one based on evidence presented and background knowledge and often this indicates "pilot error". In this particular case i am thinking it may not be as straightforward.
If by "evidence presented" you mean a video, then I would suggest there are insufficient data to go on. "Many people on here" have more sense than to make any form of judgement nor to print any such speculation here. Unfortunately, that is clearly not the case for everyone. You appear to have examined enough "evidence" to conclude that this case may not be straightforward. Well done.
Originally Posted by flying anorak
there is no sign of the gas tube I would expect to see had the ejection been initiated.
You would not see a "gas tube" unless the main ejection gun had fired. One can initiate ejection, but the seat will not fire if an interlock or failure interrupts the sequence. The lack of visible "gas tube" would not necessarily mean ejection had not been initiated.
Originally Posted by grimweasel
One photo quite clearly shows pilot slumped fwd in seat prior to impact. Could this be g lock where pilot blacked out? Do these older pilots still undergo strict medicals that allow for high G aerobatics? Same with Gnat in my opinion. Both crashed after performing high g manoeuvres. Look at Reds crash few years back. Same thing. Even happens to the medically fit pros.
It's called gloc, sometimes g-loc, and of course it will be a factor for the investigation, but It would be highly unlikely at the airspeeds used to fly a loop.
Pilots do have medicals, early fifties is hardly old, but as you say it can even happen to medically fit pros, so the question isn't worth asking unless you're trying to make a point. As for your speculation about the same factor causing three separate incidents, the less said the better. "Same thing"?
Originally Posted by stanwell (also commented by BEagle)
I'm surprised that Eric 'Winkle' Brown was reported as having opined that 'pilot-error' was a major contributor to the crash.
I'd thought he was a bit more astute than that.
Indeed. He should certainly know better. A stupid supposition with no basis in evidence. Leslie Hatcher's remarks are even more out of order. He should hang his head in shame.
Originally Posted by wingswinger
Using flap in the pull out is not only not necessary, it exposes the aircraft to the well-known Hunter flap-trap. His speed at the bottom of the manoeuvre would I guess have been in the order of 360-400kts, more than enough for the flap-trap to have seriously limited elevator authority.
If you're going to set yourself up as an expert, at least make statements that are true. To hit M0.9 at or near sea level he would have needed to have been doing around 540kts, well beyond your "guess". The use of flap in Hunter aerobatics has been standard and safe practice for decades and its effect well-understood at slower speeds. Now I'm going to speculate: you clearly missed something important during your 800 hrs on Hunters.
On a personal note, I wish Andy a successful recovery and I hope his family and friends are not unduly affected by some of the unnecessary speculation and I'll-informed comment here and in the media.