Originally Posted by
Cows getting bigger
Err, terminology please. The CAA have not made any form of legislation, they are not empowered by the Government to do so. They have put in place temporary measures and will review as necessary.
Let's look at this another way. A Gnat and a Hunter, both operated on Permits to fly, both based at North Weald, crash within a couple of weeks of each other. Now, I've no real visibility of how many 'vintage' jets there are out there, nor do I know how many operators, engineering organisations etc support these jets. To date, no one has presented any evidence of technical malfunction, or not. We, the great unwashed, simply don't know.
You only have to follow the breadcrumbs and see where they lead.
We've had two incidents in recent weeks, one involving a Gnat, the other a Hunter.
Look at what they have
not done; they haven't brought in any temporary restrictions on airshow *venues*, on the *nature* of displays that may be performed, on the *display line* or box, or on *who* may perform aeros, in terms of hours or qualifications. Their concerns clearly are not in any of these areas.
Instead, they've grounded Hunters, and confined all other vintage jets, and *only* jets, to low-energy manoeuvres. To me, that says pretty damn clearly that they must Know Something, and their primary suspicion IS in the technical/maintenance/airworthiness area - of Hunters specifically, and vintage jets in general.
Otherwise, there would be no logic whatsoever in permitting (say) a P-38 to perform any aeros they like, but restricting (say) a Vampire to flypasts; the consequences of either landing on your head are equally dismal.