She was set straight on all counts, told to wind her neck in and had to produce the data protection paperwork. As I made clear it was entirely up to you if you choose to respond and it was done by PM to keep it all in-house if you decide not to.

Last time was Operation Yewtree where one soul being pursued was released from enquires via the content on the Mil forum proving him right. Open knowledge here.

Rob

It would make sense / might be an idea for people to announce in the threads such as this that the plods have contacted them, thus allowing / warning other members it is happening.

But then again it is up to them. It just came as a surprise so far along from the incident.

My comments related to the amount of practice historic jet display pilots (don't) get. It was an observation which I still believe in but will not be contacting the Sussex Police because I don't wish to be instrumental in prosecuting a fellow aviator.
I thought Rob's advice to me about it being my decision, to respond or not, was helpful - thanks for that.
Be careful what you write..........

Having thought long and hard about the matter, I have decided not to respond - for the very reasons Arfur makes.

My comments concerned the totally normal use of 23° flap when manoeuvring the Hunter and were confirmed by others with far more experience on the type.

Hydrobooster jackstall only occurs above M0.9 with flap extended; that would equate to around 590KIAS at low level and Andy's aircraft was flying at nowhere near such a speed.

And that's all I have to say about that.

I have come to the same conclusion.

My comments, from a distance of 33 years from a Hunter cockpit, were based on what appeared to happen in the video, the use of flap and the possibility of it reducing elevator authority at higher speeds. My memory was slightly defective as others pointed out. I also wrote about G-LOC and medical fitness.

There are others out there with much more recent experience on Hunters, including former Hunter display pilots. I'll leave it to the AAIB.

Yes, in the right circumstances. I have a very good mate who lost one of his family in the accident. If I knew something that was incriminating then not only would I have a legal duty to report it, but also a moral one as well. Sorry, but no-one is above the law and that is that.

Finally, I suspect they may also be looking at the companies and trusts that operate these aircraft plus also those that look after airshows - it certainly looks like there have been failings within the organisation. Might they be looking at corporate manslaughter with respect to those that do the training, supervision, engineering and direct operation for these aircraft (I'm thinking the Hunter and Gnat operators plus the airshow organisers)? I understand there is no custodial sentence for corporate manslaughter but a hefty fine and compensation. Thoughts?

LJ

Re:your fellow aviator - why not? If he did wrong, he needs to be brought to court and his actions assessed, and if found wrong, punished.

Just because he's an aviator doesn't mean he gets to be involved in a fatal accident and not have every action scrutinised.

Thoughts?

...this is an internet thread of armchair experts speculating without access to all available facts, without experience of the requisite skills or the characteristics of the specific aircraft.

The thread is full of crap. (sorry, I stared at the screen for ages to get the precise wording). Nobody posting here actually 'knows' any pertinent fact -it is just guesswork, mostly bad.


The thought that Sussex Police ( did they shoot an unarmed naked man in Brighton?) are trawling here for expert testimony fills me with alarm for the future of justice in this case.

I think the Jjury seems to have reached a verdict...and the report is not yet issued.

I am sorry someone known to you had a relative who died in this event. i hope the final report allows closure.

And not just this case. I know we are in the "post expert" era but this is rediculous.

Hypothetically let's say someone has a accident driving an old car such a Ford Capri......would one expect the police to trawl a hypothetical "former Ford Capri owners forum," asking "what do you think caused the accident" and then using those regarded as giving the most suitable answer as some form of expert witness.

(Nothing against Capri's BTW, used to have one.)

Not entirely. It would appear that some have flown the type, albeit a long time ago and have made some useful comment, usually with the caveat of failing memory.
I recollect flying a Bucker Jungmann about once a month and thinking 'This ain't really enough.' Now, say, an Avions Robin, not a problem.
We don't have very current Hunter people any more. (Been told I could be wrong there)
It's over ten years since I've touched the controls and I'd be very reluctant to pass serious comment (Not to be confused with pub talk in which I'm 200% better than I ever really was ;))

I'd be surprised if the Police were trawling Internet forums looking for snippets of info.
More likely someone connected to the incident has mentioned comments made on this thread as being potentially relevant at which point those investigating would be duty bound to at least assess that relevance.

Form? The police are well on to investigating crimes decades back when, by definition, they are trawling fading memories. Then we have the barrister with his question, answer Yes or No.

I am 100% certain that I have full, complete and accurate memory of events during training 50 years ago.

I am also 100% certain that I am wrong. There you go Basil, my 200% too.

Not as such. But there was a case when a driver on some kind of club run was involved in a serious accident and the police trawled the drivers previous contributions to the club's internet forum for statements that could be read out in court to portray him as a hooligan.

Which is a good reason for being careful what you post online.
(Note to self: Heed foregoing advice!) ;)

The Sussex Police don't really need to ask me whether an Airline pilot who used to be a Fighter pilot should be displaying a Hunter with virtually no sensible currency on that type. It's like the Base Commander of a Typhoon station suddenly deciding that he will be the Display Pilot as well as running the base. It simply would never happen.
Who authorises these people and gives them a Permission to Display Authority?
They are culpable too.

An extract states:

I womder if the Regulator (ie. CAA) will be sued? After all their apparent lacklustre procedures for civilian display requirements have already been found wanting and have undergone significant review. :confused:

Mr Dent, While I don't necessarily not disagree with your sentiments about currency, I could not comment about a specific display without either watching it or reading the list of intended manouevres.

A show of fast/slow, clean dirty fly-bys linked with practised wingovers would give the punters a chance to see, hear, photograph and generally marvel at a pretty aeroplane in flightwith minimal need for rehearsal. Even a station master could do it.

Clearly the perils of a birdstrike, engine failure, or even an FCU or linkage failure would give a high probability of a column of greasy smoke, especially if the runway is a bit short.

I have wondered the same. The CAA had set incredibly low standards that were way below comparable military requirements and yet appear to have no demonstrable audit chain to underpin such low recency/currency requirements for high-performance swept-wing jets. This would struggle to meet the Clapham Omnibus test, let alone a reasoned expert witness.

That they allowed someone to achieve a display qualification on a straight-wing basic trainer such as the JP as a means to display a Hunter is professional madness - yet this is what the CAA did, whilst billing people for the privilege.

There has been a lot of focus on Mr Hill and the company (rightly so of course) but it does not take long to tug on the threads of this incident to find a supine, target-driven and business-focused CAA at the other end. Somehow the CAA has lost 'aviation' as one of its core competencies.