Lemain:
2.2.1.2 The apex of the manoeuvre
The pilot looked down towards the general area of the flight instruments on
two occasions as the aircraft arrived at the apex of the manoeuvre but it is not
known which, if any, of the instruments he observed. The available evidence indicates that the aircraft reached a height of approximately 2,700 ft, which was below the pilot’s stated target, at an airspeed of approximately 105 kt, which was slower than normal.
Test flights indicated that the aircraft required a minimum of 2,700 ft to complete the second half of the manoeuvre and that consequently no margin existed for it to do so safely in this case. The aircraft did not achieve the target parameters at the apex of the manoeuvre because it entered the manoeuvre below the target airspeed and climbed with
less than maximum thrust. The maximum height achieved would also have
been reduced by any roll initiated before the aircraft reached a vertical attitude in the climb.
At the apex of the manoeuvre the altimeter would have indicated that the
aircraft was approximately 800 ft below the minimum height that the pilot
stated was required. Tests of the left altimeter indicated that under-reading and lag in its operation may have caused it to indicate an even lower altitude (see Section 2.3.1.1). It was not possible to determine what the altimeter displayed at the apex of the manoeuvre. However, the investigation found that when the altimeter indicated approximately 2,700 ft, the pointer would partially obscure the height counter, which provided the only indication of thousands of feet (see Figure 28).
The pilot stated that if the aircraft achieved a height below 3,500 ft he would
perform an escape manoeuvre by reducing the rate of pitch, increasing the
airspeed, rolling the aircraft upright and climbing away. The pilot had not
practised the escape manoeuvre he described, but the execution of such a
manoeuvre would have been consistent with his background and experience.
The RAFCAM HF report identified four reasons why the accident manoeuvre
may have been continued:
• The pilot did not check the altimeter.
• The pilot checked the altimeter but did not or could not read
it correctly.
• The pilot read the altimeter correctly but did not accurately
recall the minimum height required at the apex of the looping
manoeuvre for this aircraft.
• The pilot read the height correctly but decided that an escape
manoeuvre was no longer possible.
If a false understanding of his height at the apex led him to believe it was
sufficient to complete the manoeuvre, he would have had no reason to
discontinue it or eject.
A crucial part of this is the term
The available evidence
indicates that the aircraft reached a height of approximately 2,700 ft I think this relates to radar derived height info and the known issues with the aircraft instrumentation.
Having read again, and pasted here, the section you refer to, I am still unable to find a suggestion by the AAIB to support your assertion that:
The report does state that the GoPro had poor performance when inverted:
Can you tell me where they say it has poor performance when inverted?
I started this thread to discuss the report. People selectively misquoting it is not likely, in my opinion, to result in a better understanding of the risks to flight safety. All three of my GoPro cameras work just fine when inverted.