Carryfast:
In which case as I’ve said the whole point of the CAA is to maximise safety and minise risk while maximising the enjoyment of those who like to see historic aircraft in action.
To be fair I think the CAAs job extends a fair bit beyond keeping air show visitors happy. Be like saying the DVSA exist to make sure Truckfest visitors have a good time.
We are discussing the CAA’s role specifically related to airshows in this case.Which obviously means balancing risk against the enjoyment of airshow enthusiasts.
In which case the idea of not allowing and even not recommending that significantly historic,relatively more spectacular and more importantly more reliable aircraft,be kept in military historic flight operation.
As opposed to grounding them while then allowing,older relatively primitive and known less reliable,first generation jets,to carry out displays in private hands,at unsuited civilian air fields in urban populated areas.Seems like a predictable accident waiting to happen to me.While at the same time putting on an inferior airshow experience for enthusiasts.IE the worst of all worlds risk v enjoyment compromise possible as opposed to the best.
Carryfast:
In which case as I’ve said the whole point of the CAA is to maximise safety and minise risk while maximising the enjoyment of those who like to see historic aircraft in action.
To be fair I think the CAAs job extends a fair bit beyond keeping air show visitors happy. Be like saying the DVSA exist to make sure Truckfest visitors have a good time.
We are discussing the CAA’s role specifically related to airshows in this case.Which obviously means balancing risk against the enjoyment of airshow enthusiasts.
In which case the idea of not allowing and even not recommending that significantly historic,relatively more spectacular and more importantly more reliable aircraft,be kept in military historic flight operation.
As opposed to grounding them while then allowing,older relatively primitive and known less reliable,first generation jets,to carry out displays in private hands,at unsuited civilian air fields in urban populated areas.Seems like a predictable accident waiting to happen to me.While at the same time putting on an inferior airshow experience for enthusiasts.IE the worst of all worlds risk v enjoyment compromise possible as opposed to the best.
Well, I think all your concerns are up in the air so to speak now. They’re going to review it all. Hopefully some good safety findings will emerge that increase safety and allow the continued enjoyment for those who pay to watch these events with their families as well as those in the local area.
smokinbarrels:
I’ve also seen quite a few air crashes over the years. I wouldn’t even begin to start speculating on what caused this accident. The only thing that matters at this stage is that people have died due to a tragic accident.
RIP to all those involved.
+1
But it wont stop trucknets very own expert on everything dissecting the evidence and telling us all why it happened and why anyone who says differently is wrong.
The-Snowman:
But it wont stop trucknets very own expert on everything dissecting the evidence and telling us all why it happened and why anyone who says differently is wrong.
I’m sure that the unfortunate pilot and those close to him would be happy to at least see some balance regarding the issue of possible cause.
Freight Dog:
Well, I think all your concerns are up in the air so to speak now. They’re going to review it all. Hopefully some good safety findings will emerge that increase safety and allow the continued enjoyment for those who pay to watch these events with their families as well as those in the local area.
Hopefully that might include news of at least returning a Lightning and maybe also a Phantom to RAF historic flying status within the type of strict regime which I’ve suggested.Together with the grounding of all remaining first generation jets especially the Hunter.
I won’t hold my breath waiting though bearing in mind MOD budget cuts and the CAA’s efforts so far.
The-Snowman:
+1
But it wont stop trucknets very own expert on everything dissecting the evidence and telling us all why it happened and why anyone who says differently is wrong.
Expert my arse … one of them that know all, about ■■■■ all
“The fact is virtually take off power was what was needed in its climb to height and to get out of trouble after seemingly having abandoned the manouvre and the engine clearly didn’t provide it when and where it was needed. ”
Doesn’t matter, you’re only throwing your ideas around. Some like to do that. Others find it disrespectful and prefer condolences. It doesn’t bother me, as it’s not a condolence book and I don’t personally feel it’s disrespectful so long as people aren’t saying clearly disrespectful things and talk about it in a considered manner. I personally don’t feel the desire to propose theories on accidents and incidents in life as all too often everyone is surprised by the findings. But that’s me. I just find it sad. This one unusually so for some reason.
I think what you said re direction displays of these vintage vehicles will take is pretty accurate.
Freight Dog:
Well, I think all your concerns are up in the air so to speak now. They’re going to review it all. Hopefully some good safety findings will emerge that increase safety and allow the continued enjoyment for those who pay to watch these events with their families as well as those in the local area.
Hopefully that might include news of at least returning a Lightning and maybe also a Phantom to RAF historic flying status within the type of strict regime which I’ve suggested.Together with the grounding of all remaining first generation jets especially the Hunter.
I won’t hold my breath waiting though bearing in mind MOD budget cuts and the CAA’s efforts so far.
Hell will freeze over before they allow a civilian owned phantom to take to the sky again.
Freight Dog:
No no, I mean this you stated as fact
“The fact is virtually take off power was what was needed in its climb to height and to get out of trouble after seemingly having abandoned the manouvre and the engine clearly didn’t provide it when and where it was needed. ”
Doesn’t matter, you’re only throwing your ideas around. Some like to do that. Others find it disrespectful and prefer condolences. It doesn’t bother me, as it’s not a condolence book and I don’t personally feel it’s disrespectful so long as people aren’t saying clearly disrespectful things and talk about it in a considered manner. I personally don’t feel the desire to propose theories on accidents and incidents in life as all too often everyone is surprised by the findings. But that’s me. I just find it sad. This one unusually so for some reason.
I think what you said re direction displays of these vintage vehicles will take is pretty accurate.
I’m obviously going by the ( hopeful ) ‘fact’ that the pilot knew how much height he needed to carry out the intended loop.
Followed by the ‘fact’ in that case of an Avon running at a high proportion of its maximum power output to get there.
As we’ve seen for ‘some’ reason it didn’t make the required height to make the loop safely.
Followed by what looked like a split S type rolling turn,as opposed to the intended loop and then a predictable dive.
Which was then recovered into firstly level and then climbing attitude with the nose pointed sky ward with less than safe but still sufficient height to spare before hitting the ground.
For some reason the aircraft then didn’t climb but still kept losing height.
Feel free to explain possible reasons for all that assuming the extremely unlikely possibility of 1 not being correct and bearing in mind all the points which I’ve made regarding video,photographic and the Tintagel pilot’s comments regarding the design’s record.
The-Snowman:
But it wont stop trucknets very own expert on everything dissecting the evidence and telling us all why it happened and why anyone who says differently is wrong.
I’m sure that the unfortunate pilot and those close to him would be happy to at least see some balance regarding the issue of possible cause.
smokinbarrels:
Okay, hell will freeze over before they allow an RAF owned Phantom/Lightning to take to the sky again.
If you mean because of supposed ‘safety’ reasons in either case.Then that would obviously show the stupidity and inconsistency of the CAA’s policy,of allowing less reliable older generation junk like the Hunter etc,to fly instead.
… one of them that know all, about ■■■■ all