Originally Posted by privtpilotradartech
Now for some simple logic.
1. The aircraft descended to 200 ft, though it was not authorized to descend below 500 ft during aerobatic maneuvers.
2. The aerobatic maneuver was deliberately performed over a busy carriageway.
3. It struck the carriageway, which was 500 feet below the minimum authorized altitude.
Draw your own conclusions. That's it. If you'd like to dispute any of those three points, have at it.
Now for some simple facts.
1. By joining the blood fest late and not bothering to read what has already been discussed and explained at length in this forum and more recently in this thread, you have neatly demonstrated the pitfalls of using a single reference without understanding the facts. 15 Sep 2015: "The 100'/500' minima are normal in DAs and as this was a vertical manouver, the pilot would expect to reach gate height for a vertical recovery by 500' ." 14 Sep 2015: "There is a miscomprehention around minimum fly by altitude and minimum aerobatic altitude. Convert to "agl" or "qfe" as you need. The run in was legal according to current regs and there is allowance for pulling up from there into a defined aerobatic manoeuvre." 14 Sep 2015: "The display regulations would allow a 100 foot fly past to pull up into an aerobatic manoeuvre and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the entry, provided the FDD, CAA or the pilot's DAE had not imposed additional restrictions." The physics of entering the manoeuvre from below exit height are both simple and previously explained. So your point 1 is not relevant unless other evidence is published to indicate otherwise.
2. There were local restrictions in place, but not displaying over the A27 was not one of them, as far as we know. Again diagrams of restrictions imposed by the FDD have been posted on this forum months ago. From your reference, there is no evidence to suggest that your point 2 contravened any DA or local restrictions.
3. Stating that an aircraft crashed below the display minimum height, whilst true, is not the point. The obvious question that is at the centre of the ongoing investigation is why the aircraft descended below the display minimum and ultimately struck the ground - mechanical/structural failure, human error or other factors yet to be determined.
Therefore, no conclusions to be drawn at this stage.