Pilot porked it, whilst others that could have stopped it, also porked it...

That is all...:sad:

That's how I read it too, padded out with a lot of recommendations re seats and engines etc that didn't actually contribute to the accident. :(

Well I dare say the pilot is in for a pretty long term in the clink based on other sentences today...

Aircraft Accident Report 1/2017, G-BXFI
https://assets.publishing.service.go...017_G-BXFI.pdf (28Mb)

Air Accidents Investigation Branch Published on Mar 3, 2017

Yes Spaz, we've all seen the video, read the report.

I get a faint feeling that the pilot reverted to a recent JP experience/mind-set and associated numbers. Am I wrong?

Seats and other things make lots of money for the lawyers. Out of date carts may be fine for "it will do a trip" mentality, however for your insurance loss adjusters, it is a get out clause that "Your PtF wasn't really valid and we are not coughing out". Lawyers will have a field day on the aspects of airworthiness too.

Not sure which thread this should be in..and apologies if its already been done..
Was any mention made of that spotter video doing the rounds which shows his extremely long takeoff run on the day in question?

Well like the rest of us you could have a wade through the report....it is online and the answer is in there..

But just this once, since it is late Friday evening and I'm felling mellow...yes the initial takeoff is mentioned in the report, from a slightly dulled memory caused by having waded through 400 plus pages of the report this PM as I recall it there was no adverse comment other than it was down wind, warm, and AH lifted the nose off at a slightly lower speed than normal etc.

The mention of JP experience is spurious. He had his entry height dictated to him. He was. well below his entry gate.

Think the JP reference is Southport.

gpzz

Yes , the departure is covered and it notes a few points: the t/o was downhill with some tailwind component, the engine parameters are not specified but, described as "normal"(or words to that effect), the rotation was non-standard.
You have to read all the report to get the detail. Overall, I am not impressed with the analysis of engine performance in the whole report. There seems little attempt to accurately assess the performance of the engine in that t/o where known details exist. The whole report notes deviations in engine performance and instrumentation that include multiple gross overspeeds on test flight, gross undereading JPT indications and fuel system degredation. I don't really understand why the performance on that t/o is not fully tested, after all, it must have been a full throttle event.
Maybe there was a problem with using this engine at full throttle-how can we know?

OAP

Likewise, though I do appreciate that with the lack of a FDR the analysis will be bleedin difficult.

In a number of places, the AAIB report mentions "visual limitations, such as contrast and glare".

Interestingly, in the aftermath of a fatal accident in 2003, MoD stated that only the effect of direct light, not glare or reflections, need be considered in an aircraft's design. If this were still a military aircraft, those references would not be permitted in the report; although I'd like to think the AAIB would insist.

MPN11. Who knows. But he still entered the manoeuvre far too low.

Entry too low/slow, power insufficient, not realizing situation at the loop top and then '1/2 cubaning' out - rest is padding, but all excellent background.

The problem with display flying as with any other types of "demanding" flying close to the limits, you need to be doing it almost full time and be very current. Both with the maneuvers and a/c type.

The CAA plan to implement "higher qualifications" is certainly a step in the right direction.

Takes a lots b***s to be a display pilot, as if you screw up, the world is watching. Everyone's worst nightmare is to involve the innocent, when you screw up.

I refer to my #1746 ...

Crash pilot ?forgot which jet he was in? | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

I obviously defer to experts here, especially those who fly several different types on a regular basis.

I would however note that I have been driving for over 50 years. In the last decade, I have driven may more miles in the USA than in UK/Jersey, and in a wide variety of rental cars. I quite frequently have to press the "THINK" button to remember where I am, where the necessary switch is, and what the local rules are. My best 'fail' was a couple of days after returning from the US, where I blithely left a multi-storey using the 'UP' ramp. Now if that can happen doing perfectly ordinary car-driving, can we evaluate the challenges of aero displays in different aircraft types?

No, it's NOT old age, I suggest it's just the most recent mental imprint that causes the problem.