What time did this happen? I left as soon as the Reds arrived. They arrived on their display time only they landed instead.

Thought the Spitfire/Red flypast was good. When we tried to mix military and civil Spits in 1988 we were not allowed. Nice to see things changed there.

PN - just before 1630 local on Friday.

Flap
Mmm. . . you're right, on re-reading my post it does seem simplistic. :O

What I meant was that the Typhie's undoubted abilities plus the pilot's use of them produced a result that few (I think) other aircraft would get away with in that situation. Surely this is a good thing?

Tigs 2.

"The reason we do not crash as many aircraft is because our understanding of material science and our maintenance and servicing techniques have improved drastically. NDT and environmental health monitoring systems mean that these days the engineers can do a better job for us than ever in the history of aviation."

Really - you need to get out to DASC/AAIB and such places and find out why we crash our planes. Agreed we crash less today than we did in the 1940's and 50's but that is as much about safety awareness training as it is mechanical/engineering improvements.
80% of crashs are still attributable to the carbon base unit having a bad day - yep the human sat in the cockpit having a momentary lapse or whatever else you like to call it.

we have fewer aircraft to crash and less flying hours to crash them in.

More pics here:-

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...t=45487&page=2

Nige

It seems to me that the system worked perfectly. Low level display base heights are there for this reason - same as fixed fuel reserves:- In the event that the normal sequence of events is disturbed, how much flex is required to still recover the situation? To be considered under the 'disturbance from the normal sequence of events' are such things as aircraft malfunctions, distractions and pilot handling errors.

If he was operating at a 100 foot base height than this proved adequate when balanced against the need for a flashy display of the aircraft.

Those last pics explain a lot - it was heading directly towards Muggins. Chap next to me has video and is going to send same to me, but I may be able to short circuit that process, with a trip to Cirencester. We shall see tomorrow.

Good job I was wearing shorts - easier to hose out... I am delighted that ME is safe and that nobody was hurt. To be fair, this man has enormous cojones After all this he flew again on Friday just a few hours later and put in a great display. I take my hat off to you Matt.

Conan

I once read that "A superior pilot is one who uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill".
This predates pc, but I'm sure the sediment still stands. Never done display flying, just plenty of "beat ups" and the like; pulling like a b*stard or exit stage left always worked for me.

nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

Tigs2, I didn't intend the red card comment to be seen as any kind of punishment. I was merely explaining what I believed the procedures to be based on what I saw when I was on the circuit many moons ago, albeit with nothing like the performance available to the Typhoon! We were red carded ourselves, although nothing was bent and nobody was injured. We had a comprehensive debrief and eventually figured out what had gone wrong and took steps to ensure it wouldn't happen again.

I have no problems with him displaying the next day, but was a bit surprised that he displayed again the same day. Having said that he was allowed to display the same day. Having said that, I've seen guys who have scared themselves, been red carded and did a very "slack" show the next day - very understandably. There may be something to getting him back in the saddle as soon as possible, provided that was inadvertant, the lessons were learnt and he wasn't trying to do something "extra special" to get himself into that situation.

As for the seat comment, I accept that he was probably in parameters having seen that F-16 Thunderbirds cockpit video. But, as someone else commented, I wonder (out of idle curiosity) if he ever contemplated using it or was too busy tying to bend the stick and get that extra bit of turn rate!

Still waiting for some video footage...........

I'd go to more airshows if they could promise more flying like that :ok:

Thanks Beags.

Another reason for flying again the same day is that it was still the practice day and far fewer crowds still around I guess as I was not the only one leaving as the Reds landed rather than displaying.

Ali Barber
thanks for the candid reply no offence meant or taken.

BigTop
Please dont get me started. I train people on AIB's. Been to DASC many many times.in the 1950, 60's 80% of accidents were caused by aircraft failure. We the carbon based items were always screwing up, but aircraft/technology/maintenance/servicing was the issue. We have done a lot to train our techies and cover their six with the technological advancements/quality sytems etc. We have done little, if anything to address the safety training issues. DRM is an established concept in commercial aviation and some military organisations, but the Brit military is still writing papers on how to implement it and when to implement it. We are 15 years behind some organisations.
80 % of accidents are, these days, caused by carbon based life forms - because of the swing in technology. The 80% figure can never be reduced. All we can do is try to reduce the numerical number of accidents each year. As technology and servicing techniques improve (and that is a science) then almost all accidents will be caused by CBLF's. Dont sit on a course watching some crash and smash vids going ooh, aagh, bu**er! and then come out with a statement that displays that you have no statistical understanding of the problem whatsoever.

I nearly agree. I would just delete 'almost'. This is because God does not design, manufacture, maintain or operate aeroplanes - only your CBLFs do that. Therefore all accidents (in some way) can be traced back to people.

If anybody can come up with a case not covered by the above please take me to task on a new thread.

JF

JF
agreed. I guess i am looking at those incidents we would typically categorise as pilot/crew/techie/ATC error etc. Your logic cant be argued with.

surely that cant be an AAC Apache in the background on one of the pictures?

Wow!
You lot sound like anoraks, going on about performance, being lucky, just made it, skillful flying, recovered in time, just missed the ground, avoided a crash, saved a valuable aeroplane, flew later, got his laundry serviced, great photos, wish I'd been there, what was the ac number, blah blah!

From the photo evidence, the pilot clearly made an error of judgement causing the the ac to depart from the established display profile, putting himself, the ac and the public at risk!

This will be fundamental to the BOI

Check out the Nimrod crash at Toronto

I will be interested to see your comments later

Why not??

Here's one that wasn't in the background...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/nick.bl...407/apache.jpg