Dear Arfur Dent,
Just a couple of points about your post there.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
How the authorities allow someone to get a DA on a Jet Provost and then display a Hawker Hunter is beyond belief.
AH was issued an Aircraft Type Rating Exemption (Full) by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA) on 27 August 2014 enabling him to fly the Hawker Hunter, Jet Provost Mk 1-5 and Strikemaster aeroplanes, valid until 27 August 2015. He held a European Union Class 1 Medical Certificate with no limitations, issued on 20 January 2015 and valid until 31 January 2016.
He held a valid Display Authorisation (DA), issued by the UK CAA, to display the Hawker Hunter to a minimum height of 100 ft during flypasts and 500 ft during Standard3 category aerobatic manoeuvres.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
How the authorities don't demand further action against display pilots whose actual display manoeuvres are deemed to be so dangerously incompetent that they are given a "Stop" order on more than one occasion is beyond belief.
I only know of one occasion. There was no statement that his display manoeuvres were deemed "dangerously incompetent".
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Why the pilot himself is allowed to be so delusional that he personally forgives himself is beyond belief.
Has he said that to you? If not, who has he said it to?
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
And all this with minimal flying hours on the actual display aircraft and virtually zero practice.
He had also met the requirement stipulated in Schedule 2 of his DA to have flown:
‘three full display sequences, one of which was on the aircraft to be displayed, not more than 90 days prior to the flight in question.’
From the pilot’s electronic logbook, it was established that the pilot had flown a total of 40.25 hours in the Hunter since 26 May 2011, of which 9.7 hours had been flown in the last 90 days and 2.1 hours in the last 28 days. He had also flown air displays in other types of aircraft, and the investigation will study his other logbooks for further information.
Originally Posted by Arfur Dent
Of course he should be charged with manslaughter but so should those who authorised him in the months and years leading up to this catastrophe.
Police only charge people if they have evidence that a crime has been committed. I do not recall them claiming any such thing. They have purely stated that they are investigating as we already knew and as is their duty.