Pitsextra
 

You have to read paragraph one and two together, basicly im saying that if you don't get a report right first time the ambulance chasing lawyers will rip the report apart resulting in the AAIB loosing credibility, so the answer to this is to take time to make sure the report is watertight.

The other issue is that once the report is written all the interested party's get to read the draft and comment, this may result in some parts being rewritten to correct of clarify some of the facts.

Unfortunatly in these times of 24 hour rolling news journalists with little understanding report things as if they were fact and the public digest this as fact and a matter of record ( I have also herd a radio journalist mis correct an AAIB report because they did not understand it !) so the AAIB takes time to ensure that what is written is as near the truth as is humanly posable.

It is much better for those affected by the situation to wait for a definitive report than have a report that has not fully covered all the issues and then have the pain of a controversy where the Journalists and lawyers can shout "cover up " just to line their own pockets.

I hear you A&C and I'm sure we are two sides of the same coin.

As a pilot we should be less interested in how lawyers earn there money than about the process that decides and governs how we and others fly. After all very often it takes an event that gets the AAIB involved for other pilots to even be made aware what goes on elsewhere with other spheres of aviation - yet at some point we are in the same sky.

The irony with the typical lawyer argument is that when you press someone for example it won't be long before Rogers v Hoyle gets thrown in there. Despite the aviation world getting its pants in a twist over the use of an AAIB report in court during the build up, ultimately it made no difference. The plaintiff's case ultimately was unsuccessful.

Its the same with this fashion of pointing a finger at the media when actually I don't think they are so terrible. Maybe they miss name a type of aircraft, maybe they use poor terminology in trying to describe events (stunt pilot, loop the loops and the the "B" is randomly switched in Air Accident Investigation... etc). That said is that the worst we suffer?

Maybe the "media' just listen to any summer Sunday RT and roll their eyes in confusion.. "Errr..Hullo...Golf....err.....request....errr....passin g.. err no overhead, etc."

I digress. The point is that yes there is 24hour news, internet feeds, social media. So why not produce robust and professional press releases? The AAIB could easily send out a release that sets out the work they are doing and when there will be an update. How hard can that be?

It seems very hard because with Glasgow they explained that they had a draft final and gave a very broad final release date - which they then missed! It was post that expectation and the continued silence that triggered others, including political figures, to get involved.

Looking at part of the Glasgow report (page 79 & 80 if you care to find it) talks about a 3-4 min delta between No1 and No2 engine flameout when in the event it was 32 seconds. How that sits in the mind of other 135 pilots and what their personal plan is in the event of OEI who knows but that kind of information is of a timely nature and its release nothing to do with the whims or desires of lawyers and the "media".

Who knows what Shoreham will uncover ultimately but the aviation community is served better and serves the public better if we get on with it and move beyond arguments as fundamental if it was even a 1/4 clover or not!

I like you would prefer if accident investigation was just an aviation technical issue but unfortunately there are others who want to stir the pot for there own ends, the AAIB is not and should not be put under pressure from anyone to publish until they have the report as close to the facts as posable.

This is inconvenent for politicians , journalists and lawyers who all have agendas that are unlikely to be in the intrest of flight safety.

My view was also held by late wife (PPL/IMC/Night) who started her career as a journalist, in her opinion air accident investigation was far too important to be swayed by any of the above mentioned professions by rushing out a report and getting some of it wrong or having it written in a manor that can be misinterpreted.

My guess is in the case of the Glasgow helicopter accident much political pressure was applied and just as the AAIB had announced a publication date new evidence came to light, the resulting delay needed for reevaluation of the facts resulted in a missed publication deadline, naturally that women from the SNP was all over this for self promotion purposes and the AAIB ended up looking less than professional............ Well it is the last time they will do that !

A & C
 

Sorry to hear that (PPL/IMC/Night) is now "late" - sounds like she was a wise lady :sad: - we could do with more journos like her.

ExSim

Give us a clue to your qualifications then? I witnessed Shoreham first hand. Let the AAIB do their stuff in their own time. Please.

Thanks for that insightful value add. In the meantime we didn't have to wait very long for some news to come along that illustrates the point I was making...

Was helicopter crash pilot 'under pressure' to complete flight? - Get Surrey

You'll have to pick your way through the formatting but that is an interesting conversation is it not? And one that I'm sure was not reflected in the AAIB report of the same. Odd because it does seem relevant?

Then consider that this accident happened in Jan 2013 and then in March 2014 G-LBAL crashed. Its report contained this gem:-

Sadly the C-CRST report wasn't published until September 2014...

Of course until then we had the usual flaming of anyone who dared to speculate on the why's and wherefores.

Truth, justice & Legal decisions plus a mix of politics
 

Courts in the UK are nothing to do with truth or justice, they are constructed to find legal decistions.

Being as one side has to prove a point and the other repute it the story's you will get from the prosecution lawyer will paint an entirely different picture than the defence lawyer and that is precicly why you can't trust what the lawyers say, with this in mind we have a jury that hopefully sees through the legal profession twisting the truth and gives a sound verdict.

Once politicians get involved things get worse, following the crash of a Cypriot airliner the Cypriot courts tried three of the directors of the airline and found them not guilty, during the investigation the Cypriot authorities looked at all involved and decided there were no further cases to answer. Because the aircraft crashed into a Greek hill the Greek courts needed to find guilty person, they wanted to try the three airline directors but could not do this as EU legislation prevents trial for the same offence in two jurisdictions. So what do they do ? Spend years trying to convict a licensed engineer who the Cypriots did no think had a case to answer. All this because the crew who made a number of mistakes were dead and could not face a court. To crown the issue the Greeks also breached EU & international law by attempting to use data from the flight safety investigation to try the engineer. Fortunately after years of chasing the engineer the case ended as the Greeks realised that there was a good chance all of europes flight deck unions would put a ban in the place and stop the tourists with the money visiting.

Justice ? Is it Justice when a court finds a person who has over medicated a late stage terminally ill loved one in order to put them out of their pain guilty of murder ? Unfortunately a murder conviction is what they will get !

I think Mr Pittsextra you might see what happens when Lawyers, courts and politicians get involved with flight safety, have a misguided journalist stir the pot and the first victim is the truth.

Fortunately the UN via ICAO & the EU split accident investigation from all the party's with their own agenda and try to ensure ( despite the worst efforts of the Greeks) that information disclosed in an accident is not used to prosecute anyone, this results in people disclosing things that their lawyers would stay silent about. This serves the cause of flight safety very well and is a pain in the butt to those with agendas.

Truth ? Well you won't get it from the courts, all you get is a leagal decision, you won't get it from a politician unless it serves their career and journalists won't let the truth get in the way of a good headline.

If you truly want the truth then the only place to get it is from the AAIB or NTSB as the only axe they have to grind is air safety.

As for Justice ? How can there be any justice for the people who unconnected with the air show at Shoreham had a jet land on them just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time ?.........There can't ! But closure for the bereaved can only come with the full truth and you won't get that by rushing the AAIB into putting out a half baked report.

Well there's a cogent response. Once again, your expertise is...?

A&C is spot on. You obviously have a problem with the way you perceive that the AAIB and the CAA works, so why not advise them directly? It seems from the rotorhead forum that you have overlooked certain facts in the accident report concerning G-CRST.

I repeat. I witnessed Shoreham first hand. I await the AAIB report because they will provide a factual report based on the available evidence when all the requirements have been met.

Thank you A and C

JF

Well said A and C. It is well to remember that a law court is a court of law. It is not a court of justice and neither it is a court of morals. In law it is permissible to starve or dehydrate a brain dead patient to death but not to administer a drug to terminate their life. And what A and C says about the lawyers versus the AAIB or similar body is absolutely correct.

As Anatole France succinctly put it: Justice is the means by which established injustices are sanctioned.

What you call "justice" does not necessarily have to follow every accident. "Justice" in its true sense certainly doesn't; real justice is a process that tries and punishes criminals.

What 99% of people mean, these days, when they call for "justice" for someone, is some kind of revenge or retribution, and I'm fairly certain that this is what you have in mind. But revenge should never be confused with justice.

Capot
 

All living languages move on, as apposed to dead languages like Latin, so meanings of words slowly change sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, sometimes it is because of the wish to sound as if user has spcalist knowlage, the careless use of "runway" by the more talentless members of the press when describing any part of an airfield is a good example.

The term justice is now being used to mean a moral outcome rather than a judicial outcome and it is in those terms that I used the term justice.

Murder is the correct judicial term for the mercy killing I described in my post above but most people would not see someone driven to such actions as a murderer in the criminal sence.

The people who died at Shoreham who totally unconnected with the air show and just happened to be in the wrong place had a great moral injustice done to them, through no fault whatsoever they died, it is in those terms I use ( or may be misuse) the term justice.

This is all a bit academic as it is playing on the dynamic use of modern language and its meaning, but one thing about all of this is that the only thing that will bring any closure to the bereaved is knowing the truth of the situation. That truth can only be delivered if it is uncorrupted buy the influence of those with axes to grind or money to make.

In the context of the victim of an accident, I imagine "justice" as being the public acknowledgement that in some way, a member of society failed to protect the victim. I say this in the most broad sense possible, rather than the specific placing a shield in front of the victim to be the moment before the event.

In this case, a pilot erred somehow, so directly, that pilot failed to protect a fellow citizen. But more than that, there was a failure of imagination as to what could happen. Were the imagination of the show organizers and regulators to have been effective, they both would have acted before hand in their role, to limit or otherwise cause the conditions so no one would be in the path of an aircraft in uncontrolled flight.

The AAIB will take its time to carefully evaluate the role of everyone in this event, not just the pilot. The result will be a report, which will very certainly include recommendations as to how this type of accident could be prevented in the future. Pilot action will likely be one or a few of them, but not all. The "justice" will be the enacting of those recommendations for future events. That will sound draconian - "More rules! http://www.pprune.org/images/icons/icon8.gif" everyone will cry. But the new rules became necessary to assure "justice" where the actions of a pilot, and the failure to imagine of the organizers, resulted in gross injustice.

Revenge is pointless, this was an accident. Accountability? That's what the lawyers will fight about in court!

I would think that the AAIB have been snowed under this year. Stop for a minute and consider the number of cases that are under investigation at the present time. Their resources are not infinitesimal.

Lawyers and the so called "media" are going to do what they are going to do regardless of the date of a report - timely or otherwise.

Nobody is pushing for inaccuracies, nobody is suggesting a grand conspiracy and I'm surprised there is push back over better communication and faster reporting given the intended purpose of accident reporting. Timely reporting and good communication would seem front and centre to me.

In fact given the recent "head of communications" appointment at the AAIB I don't think they are oblivious to that need.

The helicopter reports were referenced in this Shoreham thread as an example of why time and communication matters.

G-WIWI was subject to an AAIB investigation over an incident that occurred in May 2012.

Some 18 months later there is an AAIB report and one safety recommendation is 2014-035 that relates to helicopter operation in IMC.

Sadly before the AAIB publish that report both G-CRST had crashed in London and G-LBAL in Norfolk.

When the G-LBAL AAIB report gets published the prior safety recommendation 2014-035 is once again referenced and the CAA have a 1st October 2015 target for response. (which was already knowingly been missed by the AAIB because the G-LBAL report was published October 8th!) But regardless, guess what we are still waiting for that Oct 1 response.

The police helicopter accident in Glasgow highlighted a difference of minutes between reality and published data in fuel starvation between engines. So time does matter.

The inquest currently ongoing over G-CRST has witnessed differing emphasis on the pressures the pilot faced but of course it's almost 3 years since events - perhaps things can be blurred over that time? I guess it doesn't help the families affected, doesn't change events but again I think it shows time matters.

The proof of the continued failings here will be if (and read that word if) the Shoreham report comes it follows that trend set by those previously referenced helicopter reports, which is this. It becomes apparent quite early on that the failures point toward human not mechanical failures. A great deal of time passes before that is confirmed and in the meantime we see a paralysis whilst everyone contemplates their navel hiding behind a narrative which is " let's wait for the final report" which whilst absolutely appropriate they seem to have no incentive / desire to resource that process to ensure its publication is sooner rather than later.

Recent posts from others here give a better illustration

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/547...ml#post9198727

The rush to publish ?
 

It is very easy to want to rush to publish a report and I do have some sympathy with the argument that witness statements may become blurred with time, however as the witnesses are usually interviewed quickly and statements taken it is likely that any re-interview will find things forgotten in the heat of the moment and/or with other evidence gathered bring a different understanding to the situation.

It is mature reflection of the facts that is needed in air safety investigation not a rush to provide a sound bite for the 24 hour media to misinterpret.

Imortant yes but only after accuracy.

Perhaps the important question, not being asked, is "is AAIB being adequately resourced to report as quickly as the aviation community would prefer, as accurately as the aviation community requires".

I suspect that the answer is increasingly "no" - not least because it is also, far too seldom now, publishing any broader reviews of accidents with collective recommendations - that has happened in the past and was a Good Thing, but unless I'm missing something, really isn't happening nowadays.

I appreciate that we have a government busy trying to drive down public sector costs, but aviation does need a competent and adequately resourced accident investigation body, just as it also needs a similarly provided authority. Not having either is causing everybody to suffer.

I'm not proposing that safety is being immediately compromised by lack of resources - but maybe in the longer term it is. Perhaps we need a law whereby the AAIB can bill aircraft insurers for all or part of the cost of investigating accidents - that'll pass the cost on to us as aircraft operators, but it would be a mechanism that resources AAIB better, and keeps t'government happy about the use of taxpayers' money?

G

Given the number of nasty incidents this year, it is a great shame the AAIB isn't as resourced as it should be. And now we find the MORs are being restricted as well thanks to some EASA rule.

As pilots we aren't like journalists, but tend to use the reports to help in a safety culture. We need as much info as possible

Pilot interviewed by Police
 

BBC internet report this afternoon:

The pilot of the Hawker Hunter jet which crashed onto the A27 in Sussex killing 11 people, has been interviewed by police for the first time.
Officers spoke to 51-year-old Andy Hill at a police station in Hertfordshire.
Police, who did not name Mr Hill, said a man voluntarily attended an appointment and was "interviewed under caution but not arrested".

Shoreham crash: Pilot Andy Hill interviewed by police - BBC News

Shoreham air crash report finds jet 'had expired parts' - BBC News

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a...-g-bxfi-update

.............

I think the AAIB did very well in publishing the initial report only 13 days after the accident.
That report included the radar track, peak altitude (per radar at 2600ft) and an entry height of 200ft. It also assumed from cockpit camera video that the maximum inverted speed at the apex was 100 kt and that the controls appeared to be responding the pilot's inputs.

Three cheers for the AAIB for divulging that much info so quickly!

We read from the press that the pilot has eventually been interviewed under caution (which means the police suspect that an offence may have been committed). We also read that the AAIB is still waiting to interview the pilot. Without that key input, the AAIB simply cannot speed things up, so patient we must be.

The latest report, however, concerns me as it already smacks of the big hand of over-regulation ... and it has little if anything to do with the actual cause of this accident, but that is another topic...

You would expect them to do an audit of the paperwork, and that's what they've done. They appear to be suggesting that it's worth having a look to see whether some of the bureaucratic systems in place are fit for purpose, and that seems reasonable too - what use is a system which nobody can understand and/or which nobody can obey?

What gives here?? Yesterday the AAIB publish this.

In a formal representation to the AAIB, in relation to this Special Bulletin, the CAA reported that it was unclear whether a legally valid AMOC to MPD 2001-001 was in place for G-BXFI at the time of the accident. On this basis it could not determine if the aircraft met the requirements of its Permit to Fly from December 2014 onwards. The CAA indicated that it was trying to clarify the postion.

Then we get this response from the CAA today...

https://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-statement-on-AAIB-special-bulletin/

In relation to the validity of the alternative means of compliance (AMOC) for ongoing maintenance of the aircraft, we have already informed the AAIB that this was in place and was valid at the time of the accident.

Work under the alternative means of compliance was carried out in January 2014 with the next inspection due in January 2016 making the organisation and the aircraft compliant with the Mandatory Permit Directive.

Do these guys have each other's telephone number??!!!

This thread has naturally produced a lot of comments, some of them very good and helpful, but others have shown a limited understanding of low level aerobatics.

To help the general reader or would be pilot think a bit about what is going on when they next go to an airshow, I would like to make some comments (not specific to this accident) which apply to all aerobatic displays not just fast jets.

There are two categories of manoeuvres, those that include the possibility of something called a ‘gate’ and those that do not.

A ‘gate’ in this context is a point in the manoeuvre where it is possible to positively determine that all is well to continue and complete a downward manoeuvre without hitting the ground.

A nice easy example of such a ‘gate’ are the conditions that exist where an aircraft is upside down at the top of a loop and before the pilot carries on to flying the second half of the circle by what is called ‘pulling through’. Common sense says a minimum height will be required at the top of the loop and this will vary with the aircraft type. However the speed at this point also matters because too little and the aircraft will produce less lift on the way down, thus increasing the radius of the pull through. Perhaps surprisingly too much speed can also increase the radius of the pull through because of the extra centrifugal force involved at the higher speed. Thus the gate a pilot will look for at the top of the loop is a minimum of H feet in height and a speed between X and Y knots in the event he is outside one of these parameters then he must abandon the manoeuvre by rolling erect and carrying on as appropriate afterwards.

So a safe loop or pull through is easy eh? Well yes and no. There are many possible reasons why an aircraft is outside the gate but the pilot does not realise it. It could be he plain forgot to check, it could be the altimeter setting was wrong (remember the Thunderbirds F-16?), it could be he was distracted by some R/T that was going on at the time, or a number of other possibilities.

Please note that one thing that does not determine the safety of a loop is the height at which you start it. You could be an inch above the ground when you pull up but providing you fly up to your minimum height at the top, with your speed in the bracket, it just does not matter.

Now for the other category of manoeuvres – those that can have no gate. For me these are inherently trickier than those with a gate. Take the simple wingover as an example. This is initiated by pulling up into a climb, then pulling round in a tight turn to face the opposite direction to the original climb. This turn is overbanked so that the nose goes down during the turn and the aircraft is in a dive when rolling out on the reciprocal direction to the original pull-up. Hardly an aerobatic manoeuvre some might say – just a bit of overbanking. So easy and safe despite no gate at the top? My answer is again yes and no. Done a bit more enthusiastically (because one wants to put on a good show) the pull-up can be a bit steeper, the turn a bit harder, the overbanking a bit more and the next thing you know you are facing steeply downhill at too slow a speed and too low a height to pull out before hitting the ground. Of course the pilot avoids this by using skill, currency and being in practice. The trouble is such factors can vary from display to display unlike the loop case where checking the simple gate conditions does not require the same skill, currency or practice.

Planning, practising and executing an airshow routine involves much more than I have touched on here. Much more. Most of which is outside a simple post such as this and I would not want anybody to think otherwise.

Thanks John, good advice.

We had a very interesting presentation by John Turner on demonstrating aircraft, at the ITPS flight test pilot's symposium last week, and he discussed these topics well.

As said, there's a lot more to this than can be included in a post here.

In my opinion, one of the many "dividers" of piloting experience would be: Those pilots who have been looking at oncoming ground while upside down and had to make a decision about what to do next, and those who have not.

Very good post John, succinct and hard to argue with.

We know that the donut expands with speed, so yes, entry height is technically irrelevant. And in a perfect world, it will all pan out nicely. Yet, being at the lower end of the speed band at the gate means that you have less energy to play with, less margin, and the pull-through may suddenly become less certain.

Your wingover example is good. Coming out facing the opposite direction is a downward vertical manoeuvre and the same laws of physics apply.

unable to resist the "hard to argue with"
and because chrimbo is coming, I may have been on the juice a little early with my breakfast (bucks fizz goes better with egg and bacon that a pint of Murphy's.....And i am trying something I used to do at school....have a little onion marmalade with my sausages. I recall my father first introduced me to this when we were living at RAF Tengah. :ok:)

I wish you all a great x-mas, and a fantastic new year.

"Please note that one thing that does not determine the safety of a loop is the height at which you start it. You could be an inch above the ground when you pull up but providing you fly up to your minimum height at the top, with your speed in the bracket, it just does not matter. "
Agree. But is this good airmanship? Why make life tough for yourself so you have to use those superior piloting skills to get within the gate?
Most pilots familiar with aerobatics will know for types of aircraft on which they are current how much altitude they will gain in performing the first half of a loop and how much speed they will lose for a given power setting. And i would suggest this is what is normally practiced?
and....
"Thus the gate a pilot will look for at the top of the loop is a minimum of H feet in height and a speed between X and Y knots in the event he is outside one of these parameters then he must abandon the manoeuvre by rolling erect and carrying on as appropriate afterwards."
Agree. I would just add that if said pilot notices his speed is too low, and decides to roll erect too soon - ie because his speed is below stalling speed - then a roll off the top below stalling speed will bring a host of other problems.
Please remind me, from the information released so far from the AAIB. What was the speed over the top. Could you have rolled erect from this speed in a Hunter?

Back to the seasons festivities.
:p

JF,

Very well expressed.

mrangryofwarlingham,

Things are not quite as simple as you imply regarding the interaction between stalling speed, flying an escape manoeuvre and flying a roll-off-the-top as a deliberate aerobatic manoeuvre. The 'stall speed' that most people consider is the speed at which the aeroplane will stall in 1g flight. If at less than 1g the stall speed will be lower and at 0g the stall speed is 0 kts. Also, the ailerons are usually effective at a speed significantly less than the 1g stall speed so that it is possible to roll down to quite a low speed (think about maintaining wings level during a crosswind take-off and landing). In a deliberate roll-off-the-top the pilot attempts to maintain the aircraft level and straight by the co-ordinated use of elevator and rudder, for which an airspeed significantly above the 1g stall will be required. However, if the gate criteria at the top of a loop have not been met the pilot simply selects and holds neutral elevator and rudder and makes a gentle roll input. The nose will drop (with respect to the earth) as a function of true airspeed and the time that it takes to roll such that erect flight will be regained in a dive and altitude will be lost. However, airspeed will then be increasing and a controlled pull out from the dive can be made back to level flight well above the ground. Such a manoeuvre can be flown safely from starting the roll up to a few seconds past the apex so that the pilot does have time to make a decision and react.

Merry Christmas

L

Hello LOMCEVAK

Agree that roll off the top requires greater than 1g stall speed plus some for safety margin.
Agree you can fly at below 1g stall speed if you don't need to apply 1g.
My point is this. If the gate is not met, and you are below stall 1g speed, you need to speed up before you attempt 1g.
Otherwise when the "nose will drop" during the roll to the upright- i would call it undemanded yaw - you are in real trouble if not only are you below stall speed but also you missed your gate height.
More sensible to me is to keep going through the gate for a little, apply appropriate UP recovery action.

will this be a record mild and warm winter?
:O

mrangryofwarlingham

Thank you for your post 696 re my 693

I was taught that when making a case, or introducing a topic, one should keep it as simple as possible and not stray off the subject. In my view going into the how and when of the roll erect manoeuvre in my post was not relevant to the topic of introducing the two categories of manoeuve.

Turning to the detail of your comments about the roll erect manoeuvre why did you assume that it would be carried out at a low speed? Why did you assume it would be carried out at the apex of the manoeuvre? Why did you assume the low speed of any gate would be slow in relation to the 1g stall speed for the type? In my opinion none of these assumptions is likely to be correct in the real world of display flying with pilots that hold a CAA Display Authorisation.

I disagree your comments about start height for reasons that I won’t go into for fear people will think I am trying to get at you - and I wouldn’t want that.

Your point re: start height

Is spot on with one other element. You must be flying whatever figure accurately because stick position also has an effect. Which in relation to this accident is relevant not only in the vertical but in the rolling plane.

As you say practice and having a plan is your friend.

John. You can have a go at me if you wish.
But I don't recall saying much about start height. I did agree it didn't make much difference if you made the gate. I did however question the airmanship of not caring about start height.
Why did I assume role erect would be carried out at slow speed. I didn't. I cautioned against doing so.
Why did I assume it would be carried out at the apex of the manoeuvre. I didn't. Didn't say so either. You should read what I posted.
Why did I assume the low speed of any gate manoevure would be close to the stall speed. I didn't. I don't know where you think I said that.
I did however ask the question of whether the speed close to the top of the manoeuvre performed by the Hunter as published by the AAIB was a speed at which it would be possible to roll erect.

mrangryof warlingham

Of course you must be right and I must be wrong.

The start height, and gate at the top are of course, elements of a successful loop which is intended to be more or less "round". If, however (and I don't know in this case) the planned location for the maneuver was being affected by winds, that upsets everything. Could the otherwise well planned entry and top gate become inappropriate of the whole maneuver were being blown out of position? The pilot, referring to landmarks, rather than invisible references to the position of the maneuver relative to the start point, and gate, attempts to suddenly tighten the loop to maintain position, and in doing so, upsets the otherwise well planned geometry and inertia?

I can say that my many years of aerobatics have been for my satisfaction, rather than a ground audience. So, as long as I was respecting airspace, traffic, and "built up areas", I was otherwise unconcerned about the geographic location of my maneuver. Placing an aerobatic maneuver in a particular geographic location, with the variable of winds, and maybe mechanical turbulence, certainly adds complexity!

AAIB update 21/12/15
 

Everyone seems fixated on this being a pilot error. When looking at this report I would query the condition of the aircraft and what has or hasn't been done to it.


I also have a query about the hrs. According to the AAN dated 1997 the airframe had done 5566hrs and the engine had 130 remaining of 450 hrs life. Does this mean in 1997 the engine had done 320 hrs.
The sale advert around 2011 (as it states service due Jan12, seat cartridges due Jan2013) the airframe is on 5931 hrs and the engine 351 hrs.
If this is the case the airframe has done 365 hrs between 1997 and 2011 but the engine has only done 31 hrs.


Are seat cartridges given a unique serial number by the maker, so that they can confirm manufacture date and to which aircraft they were supplied and fitted to. I note that the cartridges were replaced in Nov2012 by North Weald but were due to expire Jun/Jul 2014. so only valid for about 18months not the 2yrs installed due to manufacture date. So where were the cartridges between 2008 and fitment in 2012, could they have been put in another aircraft and already been used. As it would appear cartridges are made to order hence lead time of 52 weeks, I have doubts that these were sitting around unused for 4 yrs!

Probably because the initial AAIB interim report mentioned the pilot entering the manoeuvre below his DA floor and that the onboard footage suggested no abnormal indications present.

It will be interesting to see how the AAIB deal with the points you raise

In my opinion, the specific reasons for the crash are the least important questions for AAIB to address.

Much more important questions are about the management of the airshow, approval of the display, location of the display line, and management of spectators on and off the airfield site.

G