Sorry gentlemen had some snacks and a sponge down in a corner....
It moves on a pace.
OK lets put down some ground here. I'm expressing a view, I don't claim to be an expert in anything but then this is a public global forum and actually I don't see what I've ever written on PPRuNe is so contentious.
Yes I've commented upon some accidents and actually those who seem to know my postings will see that I posted upon this one when I suggested that actually you could see things in the accident via the video. In fact I used the term 1/4 clover only to spend 4 or 5 pages getting flamed for saying so! At least we agree its a 1/4 clover now!
So to some points of reply and I'll retire to my corner. I accept the criticism and my confusion re my comments re: pitch and height. In post No.1070 my comments/questions to Lomcevak were generic, in that I was talking display flying in general given any rules / regulations are unlikely to be type specific. Unless they are and please direct me appropriately.
So CM in answer to your post 1086 sure you can be right. My reply re: the rolling element is that because the figure being flown is a 1/4 clover which has rolling and looping then it isn't only pitch angle that is relevant. However actually my view is that this blurring of when is an aerobatic figure relevant is not clear and I don't know where that is written. After all it really means that the bottom 59deg of the entry and exit of a loop is never aerobatic. My view is that that argument becomes weak if there is no clear break between maneauvers. But thats my view, happy to be pointed in the direction of something that clarifies.
I was using this video as a ref:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw75lBTZO2E
I think its rolling by 12secs. Again my view.
On the point re: angles & heights as reflected by Lomcevak in post 1078 no doubt angles and heights require more detailed analysis to be 100% but of course the people on the ground in supervision have no such equipment nor do they have time and so clearly any system needs to be unambiguous and able to be judged simply. Your system may work and be relevant for Cat G aircraft but of course there are other aircraft covered by the same umbrella/framework of rules. Or are they not?
I don't think I've hidden from any points? In fact actually there are many points I've asked that have been left hanging and whilst my skin is thick enough and to in reply to FLawyer. Yes I've commented upon some accidents although tell me what is your opinion on those that I have? What parts have irritated you so much?
I don't fly a mil. jet and I don't have time in a Hunter, there is nowhere I have said that I have. Although are we now saying that unless you do anything said is invalid? Does that apply to any accident? Anyone else commented upon an accident which involves a type they have no time on? PPRuNe would have some thin threads if they did. Crikey it would be pretty limiting to those reviewing the regulations for air displays wouldn't it!