Gnat Crash At Carfest
Discussion
converted lurker said:
Personally I think referring to him as the dead guy is a lot less insulting than calling him Jester as:
The iconic Top Gun quote featuring the name is Maverick whooping excitedly "Jesters dead!"...
Jester is almost certainly not what he was nicknamed in RAF service or in the display team.
It is extremely naff to reference Navy Tomcat operations to piddling about in a 1960's training aircraft
But that's just me. Turns out the seats were live and ejection may have been initiated as the canopy seems to have been blown. I suspect the report on this one won't take that long.
Can someone pick the toys up and put them back in the pram please?The iconic Top Gun quote featuring the name is Maverick whooping excitedly "Jesters dead!"...
Jester is almost certainly not what he was nicknamed in RAF service or in the display team.
It is extremely naff to reference Navy Tomcat operations to piddling about in a 1960's training aircraft
But that's just me. Turns out the seats were live and ejection may have been initiated as the canopy seems to have been blown. I suspect the report on this one won't take that long.
Why is it disrespectful to consider Gnat display flying by amateurs as potentially too hazardous to be permitted? Many people said so years before the practice killed this fine man in this tragic accident. Thank god it didn't wipe out innocents on the ground.
That type of display in those type of aircraft using that type of pilot was not wise, I said it, others said it and now there's a smoking hole in the ground and a weeping widow to prove it. I'm damned if aviation safety is enhanced by people wishing to close off criticism on the grounds of faux grief at the death of strangers.
That type of display in those type of aircraft using that type of pilot was not wise, I said it, others said it and now there's a smoking hole in the ground and a weeping widow to prove it. I'm damned if aviation safety is enhanced by people wishing to close off criticism on the grounds of faux grief at the death of strangers.
converted lurker said:
Why is it disrespectful to consider Gnat display flying by amateurs as potentially too hazardous to be permitted? Many people said so years before the practice killed this fine man in this tragic accident. Thank god it didn't wipe out innocents on the ground.
That type of display in those type of aircraft using that type of pilot was not wise, I said it, others said it and now there's a smoking hole in the ground and a weeping widow to prove it. I'm damned if aviation safety is enhanced by people wishing to close off criticism on the grounds of faux grief at the death of strangers.
So an ex RAF pilot is an amateur????That type of display in those type of aircraft using that type of pilot was not wise, I said it, others said it and now there's a smoking hole in the ground and a weeping widow to prove it. I'm damned if aviation safety is enhanced by people wishing to close off criticism on the grounds of faux grief at the death of strangers.
He had been flying the Gnat for over 10 years so I would like to think he knew what he was doing. How do you know that a mechanical failure didn't cause the crash rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, a pilot flying an unsuitable aircraft was responsible.
Jeez. I would love (not) to read your views on 558......
And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!
converted lurker said:
Why is it disrespectful to consider Gnat display flying by amateurs as potentially too hazardous to be permitted? Many people said so years before the practice killed this fine man in this tragic accident. Thank god it didn't wipe out innocents on the ground.
That type of display in those type of aircraft using that type of pilot was not wise, I said it, others said it and now there's a smoking hole in the ground and a weeping widow to prove it. I'm damned if aviation safety is enhanced by people wishing to close off criticism on the grounds of faux grief at the death of strangers.
Oh my god a Boeing 747 has just gone overhead imagine if it had fallen out the sky and landed on me?? Will someone please think of the children!!! That type of display in those type of aircraft using that type of pilot was not wise, I said it, others said it and now there's a smoking hole in the ground and a weeping widow to prove it. I'm damned if aviation safety is enhanced by people wishing to close off criticism on the grounds of faux grief at the death of strangers.
fatboy69 said:
So an ex RAF pilot is an amateur????
He had been flying the Gnat for over 10 years so I would like to think he knew what he was doing. How do you know that a mechanical failure didn't cause the crash rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, a pilot flying an unsuitable aircraft was responsible.
Jeez. I would love (not) to read your views on 558......
And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!
I believe that the pilot in question was professionally employed in the banking industry for the last thirteen years. Was he an amateur banker and a professional pilot then? He had been flying the Gnat for over 10 years so I would like to think he knew what he was doing. How do you know that a mechanical failure didn't cause the crash rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, a pilot flying an unsuitable aircraft was responsible.
Jeez. I would love (not) to read your views on 558......
And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!
Mechanical failure may have caused the crash - I've said repeatedly that it's a tricky aircraft with quirky and demanding systems. It was so hard to master that many students when it was in service were actually taken off it and taught on hunters instead because the front line fighter was easier to fly than the Gnat trainer... The combnation of that type, at this age by amateur pilots doing those sorts of displays was the thing that I, and others, said would end in tears. :-(
You're just focussing on the bit about me questioning the piloting ability of the guy who got killed because you think that other pilots shouldn't t do that. Well they do, all the time.
I think 558 is great, no oroblems with the Vulcan display. It's got four engines, tons of performance, good handling characteristics and can do a great display with nothing more complicated than a wing over. Totally different kettle of fish to the Gnat display.
Edited by converted lurker on Tuesday 4th August 09:56
converted lurker said:
fatboy69 said:
So an ex RAF pilot is an amateur????
He had been flying the Gnat for over 10 years so I would like to think he knew what he was doing. How do you know that a mechanical failure didn't cause the crash rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, a pilot flying an unsuitable aircraft was responsible.
Jeez. I would love (not) to read your views on 558......
And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!
I believe that the pilot in question was professionally employed in the banking industry for the last thirteen years. Was he an amateur banker and a professional pilot then? He had been flying the Gnat for over 10 years so I would like to think he knew what he was doing. How do you know that a mechanical failure didn't cause the crash rather than, as you seem to be suggesting, a pilot flying an unsuitable aircraft was responsible.
Jeez. I would love (not) to read your views on 558......
And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!
Mechanical failure may have caused the crash - I've said repeatedly that it's a tricky aircraft with quirky and demanding systems. It was so hard to master that many students hen t was in service were actually taken off it and taught on hunters instead because the front lie fighter was easier to fly than the Gnat trainer... The combnation of that type, at this age by amateur pilots doing those sorts of displays was the thing that I, and others, said would end in tears.
You're just focussing on the bit about me questioning the piloting ability of the guy who got killed because you think that other pilots should t do that. Well they do, all the time.
I think 558 is great, no oroblems with the Vulcan display. It's got four engines, tons of performance, good handling characteristics and can do a great display with nothing more complicated than a wing over. Totally different kettle of fish to the Gnat display.
converted lurker said:
ecsrobin said:
Oh my god a Boeing 747 has just gone overhead imagine if it had fallen out the sky and landed on me?? Will someone please think of the children!!!
That's a bit distasteful in the light of the Lockerbie tragedy but hey, each to his own.Why single out Lockerbie?
There was that block of flats in Holland for a start.
fatboy69 said:
So an ex RAF pilot is an amateur????
Well strictly speaking, in this case, yes - as he wasn't a professional making a living from flying.As you say though, probably more recent Gnat time than most. The Gnat routine they fly is a relatively gentle and graceful display routine that had been flown many times without incident (and one time with - see Abingdon video), but it is a type that the CAA have been nervous about for a while... hardly a death trap / accident waiting to happen but I can kind of understand some of convertedlurker's concerns.
There was an article in one of the flyer magazines about 10 years back where the CAA bods in charge of deciding which ex-mil types can be flown in private hands were bemoaning that under their current rules they wouldn't have allowed the Gnat through but as they had already done so they couldn't really go back on the decision. If I recall rightly it was more about the type's accident rate in service than any particular other aspect of the type, but it is a surprisingly complex little jet. Having said that, this is only the second Gnat accident in civilian hands in the UK since 1979 (the other being a successful belly landing in a field when it ran out of fuel).
Eric Mc said:
List the aircraft YOU think are too dangerous for private display - and the reasons why you think so.
Off you go.
In the UK just the Gnat. Cramped cockpit, longitudinal stability, complex failure modes, excessive roll rate, high maintenance cost per operating hour, difficult maintenance procedures to work on, poor visibility from rear seat, in service safety record.Off you go.
Some of the privately flown warbirds are a little on the shaky side but they tend to crash at 100kts not 400kts and they bring dissproprtionate joy to everyone compared to a small obscure swept wing jet which most people mistake for a Hawk anyway.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff