Report is out for the Harrier Crash at Oxford
 

For those that are interested, see link below

The way part of it is worded, it makes it read as if they have Aircraft hitting cars all the time and they are Au Fait with it.



http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publicati...gr9__zg512.cfm

Have read the report but can't work out what it is saying. Seems to suggest that the a/c was in good working order at the time of the crash but makes no comment about blaming the pilot. Can anyone clarify?

The AAIB report doesn't really say anything. Lots about what happened, nothing about why (which is what accident investigation is all about).

Is the RAF BoI crash mag out? That may be slightly more informative.
Eject in time - good call Crispy.

NutLoose, I got the same feeling.

Maybe the driving license test should include a module about dodging RAF aircraft :rolleyes:

AAIB reports do not apportion blame, they merely analyse the facts.

Nevertheless, having been authorised for a 'practice diversion', then cleared to join for Runway 19 for a low approach and ‘go-around’, to me doesn't quite accord with flying down Kidlington's Runway 19 at 500 ft aal and 430 kt.

Fun though that undoubtedly was.

Fortunately, no-one was seriously injured. But what was the overall cost of this 'practice diversion', one wonders?

Wee-wah, wee-wah, fun police!

Not seen the BoI report, so may be proved very wrong, but can't see the speed of the run-in as having been too much of a player in a loss of control style incident, which would surely happen a wee bit after the break, other than possibly by leaving him in a bit of a clatter of bits as he turned final.... but not too different really from any other RIAB? Standing by to be proved wrong!

500lbs of water for tea and coffee is a lot even for aircrew....

I thought that was a concise and sensible response from BEagle which demonstrates his experience.

I't didn't apportion blame, just inferred it. Did any one also detect the word 'compensation' coded into one of the paragraphs!;)

Hopefully he's one of the few left that was doing a 'bow and brake' at a mate's house as apposed to a 'RIAB' at Kidlington....
Or are we all now "Tsk, Tsk , naughty boy" it was ok in my day but now I'm old it's called joyriding:=

Load Moving......

Nowt wrong with showing a little spirit but one must be able to do it without crashing!

Goal of this post is ?
Could we not surmise that he posters here are yearning for the blame culture and do not have the intellect/moral courage to look for ways forward?
Ask the wider Harrier community re the circumstances and there is a firm/unamimous opinion that this is one of those incidents that does not deserve the coverage sought...tough scenario...unsuspected ac reaction....
Legal LL in uk is 420kt and 250ft....................this is a complete and utter 'red herring'
BEAGLE............430kt and 500ft after approval......over KID....dare I say your point? What is the instrument error of a UK fast jet at LL? Whas he breaking the rules? What is the significance of your comment? what is wrong? What would you do.........better than criticising? All Americans are Coke drinking great people unless they don't drink Coke where they are still great. Listeners are KO...........
At the end of the day the pilot was not breaking the rules and, it is generally accepted amongst the learned, experienced a dramatic and deteriorating circumstance that CR pilots would not have predicted.
73 in a 70?......40 in a 30?.......56 in a 40? ..... All more illegal than the post topic.
Some mischievous illiteracy methinks. Target chosen due to weakness of argument. Intellectual would have identified a more rigorous debate.......sign of the times.

I have difficulty in comprehending the content of the prvious post.

That's putting it mildly!

Ask the wider Harrier community re the circumstances and there is a firm/unamimous opinion that this is one of those incidents that does not deserve the coverage sought...tough scenario...unsuspected ac reaction....

Tough scenario? Cobblers. If the aircraft had flown the approved 'low approach and go-around', the scenario would have been completely benign.

But a VRIAB follwed by a tight visual circuit at high-ish weight which led to to the totally avoidable loss of a valuable airframe? Most certainly that requires a fuller explanation.

I'll accept that a 430KIAS/500ft VRIAB is totally reasonable if that is what both the authoriser and ATCO approval sanctioned, but why did the rest of the flight in a fully serviceable aircraft under perfect conditions lead to the total write-off of a scarce asset - and very nearly a member of the general public?

Read the AAIB report and you will see the (unusual) reason for them reporting at all, and the extent of their involvement, is detailed. You are not going to see there the full "facts"... On a public website we might eventually see the sanitised MoD report...