Gnat Crash At Carfest

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

fatboy69 said:

And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!

Oh I'm opinionated! But I'd be the first to state that I definitely do not 'know it all'.



I've been reading this thread with an increasing sense of frustration.

Firstly, I'm not about to speculate as to the ins and outs of this crash, certainly not until I have a lot more information.

Secondly, I think it's pretty fking disrespectful to the deceased to cast aspersions as to his flying ability and/or capability(s), at least until such time as the causative factors are properly determined.


I would suggest that 10 years displaying the jet, working with a highly qualified Team Leader and having a CAA Authority to Display rather trump the opinions of some anonymous internet Herbert.

What's doubly annoying, aside from CL's rather grating tone, is his insistance upon stating his opinions as 'facts' coupled with some complete fabrications of 'facts'.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have some reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed, the fact remains that the Gnat team had had permits to display at UK Military airshows. As someone who has themself displayed Military a/c, and as someone who sat on the 'Display Panel' at HQ 1 Gp, I can say with certainty that such permits do not come lightly.

So lets have a look at CL's so called 'facts'.

Firstly he states that the Gnat is difficult to fly. According to my friends who actually did fly the Gnat (unlike CL) that is a load of horlicks. The Gnat had quite benign handling within the fact that it is a swept wing jet with the quirks that such a/c have.

Secondly he states it had complex failure modes. Well yes, lose tail authority and you had to get it into manual reversion mode pdq, but then I would suggest knowing one's a/c is something that pilots do; that practicing emergency drills is also something that pilot's do. Surely, as someone who claims to have had Hawk experience CL would be aware of this?

Thirdly rate of roll. Not really a player, yes the Gnat had a good rate of roll but so do many swept wing a/c. The 'extreme' rate of roll was something that the Reds achieved by popping Fuse 13. To bring Ray Hanna in to try and prove the argument is, IMO, particularly specious given that he was instrumental in the Reds developing the 'twinkle roll'.

Fourthly there is all this horlicks about the Gnat having a particularly bad accident rate. Really?

There were 18 Gnat losses (abandonments or attempted abandonments) during its service in the RAF. Compare this with the 45 losses of the Hawk!

Fifthly, CL stated that 4FTS RAF Valley retained the Hunter for those that could not handle the Gnat because it was easier to fly. Again this is utter horlicks. 3 Sqn, 4FTS (The Beach Boys) retained the Hunter until such time as the Hawk entered service to cater for those pilots who were physically too large to fit into the (somewhat diminutive) cockpit of the Gnat.



Now, as I said, I have reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed (and by whom, and where), so in that sense I suppose I have a certain amount of sympathy for CL's stance. However that sympathy is seriously diluted by his aggressive and confrontational posting style coupled with his repeated willingness to make up 'facts' to support said stance.

When you start spouting made up crap sunshine, I stop believing anything you say.

[Eric Mc]

Apparently, he has been banned from this thread (see his comments on the Blackbushe crash thread).

[aeropilot]

Eric Mc said:

He's only been on here a short while and has succeeded in winding quite a few people in a very short time.

The only ones getting the hump are predominately the ones that don't understand....IMHO.

[ecsrobin]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

fatboy69 said:

And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!

Oh I'm opinionated! But I'd be the first to state that I definitely do not 'know it all'.



I've been reading this thread with an increasing sense of frustration.

Firstly, I'm not about to speculate as to the ins and outs of this crash, certainly not until I have a lot more information.

Secondly, I think it's pretty fking disrespectful to the deceased to cast aspersions as to his flying ability and/or capability(s), at least until such time as the causative factors are properly determined.


I would suggest that 10 years displaying the jet, working with a highly qualified Team Leader and having a CAA Authority to Display rather trump the opinions of some anonymous internet Herbert.

What's doubly annoying, aside from CL's rather grating tone, is his insistance upon stating his opinions as 'facts' coupled with some complete fabrications of 'facts'.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have some reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed, the fact remains that the Gnat team had had permits to display at UK Military airshows. As someone who has themself displayed Military a/c, and as someone who sat on the 'Display Panel' at HQ 1 Gp, I can say with certainty that such permits do not come lightly.

So lets have a look at CL's so called 'facts'.

Firstly he states that the Gnat is difficult to fly. According to my friends who actually did fly the Gnat (unlike CL) that is a load of horlicks. The Gnat had quite benign handling within the fact that it is a swept wing jet with the quirks that such a/c have.

Secondly he states it had complex failure modes. Well yes, lose tail authority and you had to get it into manual reversion mode pdq, but then I would suggest knowing one's a/c is something that pilots do; that practicing emergency drills is also something that pilot's do. Surely, as someone who claims to have had Hawk experience CL would be aware of this?

Thirdly rate of roll. Not really a player, yes the Gnat had a good rate of roll but so do many swept wing a/c. The 'extreme' rate of roll was something that the Reds achieved by popping Fuse 13. To bring Ray Hanna in to try and prove the argument is, IMO, particularly specious given that he was instrumental in the Reds developing the 'twinkle roll'.

Fourthly there is all this horlicks about the Gnat having a particularly bad accident rate. Really?

There were 18 Gnat losses (abandonments or attempted abandonments) during its service in the RAF. Compare this with the 45 losses of the Hawk!

Fifthly, CL stated that 4FTS RAF Valley retained the Hunter for those that could not handle the Gnat because it was easier to fly. Again this is utter horlicks. 3 Sqn, 4FTS (The Beach Boys) retained the Hunter until such time as the Hawk entered service to cater for those pilots who were physically too large to fit into the (somewhat diminutive) cockpit of the Gnat.



Now, as I said, I have reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed (and by whom, and where), so in that sense I suppose I have a certain amount of sympathy for CL's stance. However that sympathy is seriously diluted by his aggressive and confrontational posting style coupled with his repeated willingness to make up 'facts' to support said stance.

When you start spouting made up crap sunshine, I stop believing anything you say.

[dr_gn]

Presumably if a training aircraft (like the Gnat) was too easy to fly, it wouldn't have been much use if subsequent progression to a front line type was too great? Obviously that's not to say it's necessarily a 'bad' aircraft.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

dr_gn said:

Presumably if a training aircraft (like the Gnat) was too easy to fly, it wouldn't have been much use if subsequent progression to a front line type was too great? Obviously that's not to say it's necessarily a 'bad' aircraft.

There was a claim doing the rounds in the 80's that the Hawk was too easy to fly and that the transition to the older, hairier FJ was therefore difficult; that it was really only suitable for those going on to fly the 'fin' (Tornado). Strange then that, after the introduction of the Hawk in 1976, those types (Lightning, Harrier GR3, Jaguar, Buccaneer, F4) continued in service until the late '80s/early '90s (2007 in respect of Jaguar) with aircrew transitioning just as well as ever.

The point about a FJ trainer (or any advanced trainer for that matter and I include the Jetstream multi-engined trainer in this respect) is that, after the (relatively short) CONVEX phase, the flying is assumed (ie those coming off BFTS are expected to be able to 'fly') and training is all about how you operate the a/c.

[fatboy69]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

fatboy69 said:

And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!

Oh I'm opinionated! But I'd be the first to state that I definitely do not 'know it all'.



I've been reading this thread with an increasing sense of frustration.

Firstly, I'm not about to speculate as to the ins and outs of this crash, certainly not until I have a lot more information.

Secondly, I think it's pretty fking disrespectful to the deceased to cast aspersions as to his flying ability and/or capability(s), at least until such time as the causative factors are properly determined.


I would suggest that 10 years displaying the jet, working with a highly qualified Team Leader and having a CAA Authority to Display rather trump the opinions of some anonymous internet Herbert.

What's doubly annoying, aside from CL's rather grating tone, is his insistance upon stating his opinions as 'facts' coupled with some complete fabrications of 'facts'.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have some reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed, the fact remains that the Gnat team had had permits to display at UK Military airshows. As someone who has themself displayed Military a/c, and as someone who sat on the 'Display Panel' at HQ 1 Gp, I can say with certainty that such permits do not come lightly.

So lets have a look at CL's so called 'facts'.

Firstly he states that the Gnat is difficult to fly. According to my friends who actually did fly the Gnat (unlike CL) that is a load of horlicks. The Gnat had quite benign handling within the fact that it is a swept wing jet with the quirks that such a/c have.

Secondly he states it had complex failure modes. Well yes, lose tail authority and you had to get it into manual reversion mode pdq, but then I would suggest knowing one's a/c is something that pilots do; that practicing emergency drills is also something that pilot's do. Surely, as someone who claims to have had Hawk experience CL would be aware of this?

Thirdly rate of roll. Not really a player, yes the Gnat had a good rate of roll but so do many swept wing a/c. The 'extreme' rate of roll was something that the Reds achieved by popping Fuse 13. To bring Ray Hanna in to try and prove the argument is, IMO, particularly specious given that he was instrumental in the Reds developing the 'twinkle roll'.

Fourthly there is all this horlicks about the Gnat having a particularly bad accident rate. Really?

There were 18 Gnat losses (abandonments or attempted abandonments) during its service in the RAF. Compare this with the 45 losses of the Hawk!

Fifthly, CL stated that 4FTS RAF Valley retained the Hunter for those that could not handle the Gnat because it was easier to fly. Again this is utter horlicks. 3 Sqn, 4FTS (The Beach Boys) retained the Hunter until such time as the Hawk entered service to cater for those pilots who were physically too large to fit into the (somewhat diminutive) cockpit of the Gnat.



Now, as I said, I have reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed (and by whom, and where), so in that sense I suppose I have a certain amount of sympathy for CL's stance. However that sympathy is seriously diluted by his aggressive and confrontational posting style coupled with his repeated willingness to make up 'facts' to support said stance.

When you start spouting made up crap sunshine, I stop believing anything you say.

GG15G - I recall 'falling out' with you some months ago when I expressed an opinion that you were a smart arse. I was proved wrong & I apologised then as I have again now.

At the very least your arguments have substance whereas the aforementioned CL seemed to be hell bent on naffing people off with his high-handedness & provocative replies.

I don't think that you were rude or dis-respectful as was/is CL.

So, again, I offer my apologies for being an arse when it comes to your posts.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Thanks FB, accepted. No worries here.

[Hooli]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

fatboy69 said:

And I always thought, wrongly as it turns out, that GG15G was an opinionated know it all. GG15G - I owe you an apology!!!

Oh I'm opinionated! But I'd be the first to state that I definitely do not 'know it all'.



I've been reading this thread with an increasing sense of frustration.

Firstly, I'm not about to speculate as to the ins and outs of this crash, certainly not until I have a lot more information.

Secondly, I think it's pretty fking disrespectful to the deceased to cast aspersions as to his flying ability and/or capability(s), at least until such time as the causative factors are properly determined.


I would suggest that 10 years displaying the jet, working with a highly qualified Team Leader and having a CAA Authority to Display rather trump the opinions of some anonymous internet Herbert.

What's doubly annoying, aside from CL's rather grating tone, is his insistance upon stating his opinions as 'facts' coupled with some complete fabrications of 'facts'.

Notwithstanding the fact that I have some reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed, the fact remains that the Gnat team had had permits to display at UK Military airshows. As someone who has themself displayed Military a/c, and as someone who sat on the 'Display Panel' at HQ 1 Gp, I can say with certainty that such permits do not come lightly.

So lets have a look at CL's so called 'facts'.

Firstly he states that the Gnat is difficult to fly. According to my friends who actually did fly the Gnat (unlike CL) that is a load of horlicks. The Gnat had quite benign handling within the fact that it is a swept wing jet with the quirks that such a/c have.

Secondly he states it had complex failure modes. Well yes, lose tail authority and you had to get it into manual reversion mode pdq, but then I would suggest knowing one's a/c is something that pilots do; that practicing emergency drills is also something that pilot's do. Surely, as someone who claims to have had Hawk experience CL would be aware of this?

Thirdly rate of roll. Not really a player, yes the Gnat had a good rate of roll but so do many swept wing a/c. The 'extreme' rate of roll was something that the Reds achieved by popping Fuse 13. To bring Ray Hanna in to try and prove the argument is, IMO, particularly specious given that he was instrumental in the Reds developing the 'twinkle roll'.

Fourthly there is all this horlicks about the Gnat having a particularly bad accident rate. Really?

There were 18 Gnat losses (abandonments or attempted abandonments) during its service in the RAF. Compare this with the 45 losses of the Hawk!

Fifthly, CL stated that 4FTS RAF Valley retained the Hunter for those that could not handle the Gnat because it was easier to fly. Again this is utter horlicks. 3 Sqn, 4FTS (The Beach Boys) retained the Hunter until such time as the Hawk entered service to cater for those pilots who were physically too large to fit into the (somewhat diminutive) cockpit of the Gnat.



Now, as I said, I have reservations about how ex Military a/c are displayed (and by whom, and where), so in that sense I suppose I have a certain amount of sympathy for CL's stance. However that sympathy is seriously diluted by his aggressive and confrontational posting style coupled with his repeated willingness to make up 'facts' to support said stance.

When you start spouting made up crap sunshine, I stop believing anything you say.

At last, sense from someone who says they are a pilot.

No offence intended there GG, I believe you are what you say you are but being the internet I obviously have no proof. On the other hand, I don't believe CL. They don't appear to have the right attitude to make them successful.

[anonymous-user]

fatboy69 said:

GG15G - I recall 'falling out' with you some months ago when I expressed an opinion that you were a smart arse. I was proved wrong & I apologised then as I have again now.

At the very least your arguments have substance whereas the aforementioned CL seemed to be hell bent on naffing people off with his high-handedness & provocative replies.

I don't think that you were rude or dis-respectful as was/is CL.

So, again, I offer my apologies for being an arse when it comes to your posts.

I hope you've flogged yourself.

Why on earth are you apologising again? It sounds a bit creepy and weird. It's just an internet forum.

[DamienB]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Fourthly there is all this horlicks about the Gnat having a particularly bad accident rate. Really?

There were 18 Gnat losses (abandonments or attempted abandonments) during its service in the RAF. Compare this with the 45 losses of the Hawk!

What's the rate of loss per flying hour though?

105 Gnats over 16 years of service vs 175 Hawks coming up to 40 years in service?

[EskimoArapaho]

DamienB said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Fourthly there is all this horlicks about the Gnat having a particularly bad accident rate. Really?

There were 18 Gnat losses (abandonments or attempted abandonments) during its service in the RAF. Compare this with the 45 losses of the Hawk!

What's the rate of loss per flying hour though?

105 Gnats over 16 years of service vs 175 Hawks coming up to 40 years in service?

I'd be interested in knowing this, too.

[Red555]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Oh I'm opinionated! But I'd be the first to state that I definitely do not 'know it all'.

I think it's pretty fking disrespectful to the deceased to cast aspersions as to his flying ability and/or capability(s), at least until such time as the causative factors are properly determined.

Couldn't agree more love.

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Beyond Rational said:

Aren't there quite a few cases where the working engine has been shut down by the crew though?

Yes, because they were idiots very silly pilots.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Red 555.

I suggest you go and read the AAIB report into the Kegworth crash.

[ecsrobin]

NeMiSiS said:

Please whip me.

Hopefully we can get back on track after a small worship of G15.

For me personally I hope they can move on from this tragic incident and continue to display the gnat, I enjoy seeing them fly and knowing my grandad built the aircraft for Folland makes seeing them in flight even more special.

Here's an image I took 2 weeks ago. Not sure if it's the aircraft that was sadly lost though but a great looking aircraft I'm sure you'll agree.

[Red555]

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Red 555.

I suggest you go and read the AAIB report into the Kegworth crash.

Your (frankly ignorant) point from another thread was in reply to the question that there were quite a few cases of this happening - not just Kegworth.

Notwithstanding that, I suggest you re-read the report yourself noting in particular the number of recommendations that relate to improving pilot training, crew communication and system interfaces. While you're there, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the findings from human factors and error management studies since the Kegworth crash and show me where any of them conclude that previous sets of crews in such accidents were 'silly' and/or idiotic.

I do however understand that this may be your opinion of the events. My opinion of people who continue to be critical about pilots' personal attributes in spite of what was concluded from other accidents before and since, is in full agreement with your 'secondly' point in this thread.

Edited by Red555 on Wednesday 5th August 23:53

[sanf]

ecsrobin said:

The Gnat is a really pretty aeroplane, very sad to see the events of the weekend. I've enjoyed watching the Gnats display the few times I've seen one in the air. I have a slight fascination with the Gnat as my dad was one of 4 QFI's on 4FTS killed in a mid air collision in 1976. I was 1 at the time and have done a fair bit of research over the years, including chatting to P1 from the surviving aircraft in the 3 ship. Plus my step dad is an ex FJ pilot and QFI/CFI so I've had a good few chats with him, as he flew both the Gnat and the Hawk.

One of common comments I've heard on the handling of the aircraft is it's 'sports car' like, quite easy and enjoyable to fly, very nimble - but if it lets go it bites hard (which may just be a swept wing characteristic?).

Does anyone know if this Gnat had a black box fitted? The ones in service didn't - having seen my dads accident report, having no black box to pull data from makes quite a 'light' report with a fair amount of speculation.

Very sad for the pilot and his family left behind. God speed.

[DamienB]

ecsrobin said:

Here's an image I took 2 weeks ago. Not sure if it's the aircraft that was sadly lost though

No, it was the all-red one that was lost.