FL @ post 1312.
First of all may I ask for your personal opinion on the GAPAN statement and how it might relate to various comments in this thread.
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...airshow-3.html
You ask:-
if, as some here have suggested, the pilot intended to perform a loop and began it lower than his intended entry height, I don't understand why that would result in him crashing into the ground.
I assume that an experienced Hunter pilot would be able to complete a loop by at least his entry height, probably higher.
Is my assumption wrong?
The answer has already been hinted at earlier in this thread @ post 1073 where someone you have great respect for says:-
With respect to 1/4 clover type manoeuvres in an aircraft of the speed category of the Hunter, if you start as you suggest at less than 60 degrees nose up there will be a significant reduction in the apex height for a given g/pitch rate flown during the pull up; it also means that you will probably reach the apex not quite wings level or you will have to roll through more than 90 deg to achieve wings level. I have no experience of flying these manoeuvres in light aeroplanes and therefore if you do I defer to you knowledge in this category. However, in the category B, C and G aircraft that I display I frequently fly 1/4 clovers and I start to roll at about 80 deg nose up such that the roll is symmetrical about the vertical line. I think that this looks neater and it minimises the reduction in apex height.
That element re: technique is IMO of significance, apex height, the management of that height and being alive to having a plan when that height isn't sufficient to pull through. The starting height allows for more latitude (i.e. if you start a 1/4 clover at 10000ft then you have a lot of range to fly it badly and/or deal with any other issues that get thrown at you.).
Recency specific to the figures and type being flown become contributory - what was that old sporting saying? "the more I practice the luckier I get". The 1/4 clover is an interesting figure because that description alone doesn't fully give you all the colour - i.e where is the rolling element? Answer that and consider if the Bray airshow the same display as Shoreham, did it even need to be?
Points helpful in managing risk one might argue.
Regards the AAIB process and the 28 days to review. If you had a hypothetical situation, lets imagine some point in the future, when the AAIB could not conclude the exact cause of an accident why should any statements of fact regarding the flight be subject to delay in publishing? by statements of fact I mean it was 1020mb pressure, nil wx, x hours on type, y litres of fuel, this was the profile of the flight, etc, etc
Also if the pilot himself has not contributed to the accident investigation process - by which I mean he may have died in the accident or survives and says he can not recall anything - who drives the review and what might their motives be?