Gnat Crash At Carfest

[fatboy69]

Reported that a Gnat has gone down at Carfest.

Appears to be one of the aircraft based at Kemble although nothing has been officially confirmed as yet & no idea what happened or whether got out.

Pictures on FB don't look good though.

[fatboy69]

I was about to correct it to North Weald.

Reports say that the aircraft was inverted when it went down & that no parachute was seen by anyone.

Not good.

[fatboy69]

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????

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!!!

[fatboy69]

converted lurker said:

ecsrobin said:

I feel like we maybe giving you a hard time PS, what is your military flying background?

PERSEC suggests it unwise to disclose that to you. You seem focussed on trying to work out who I am and that could be sinister.

I don't think that is the case. You don't have to be exact - just a general answer would be good.

Nobody really cares who you are - I think people would be interested to know what your experience is given your 'I have an answer for everything' replies.

Edited by fatboy69 on Tuesday 4th August 10:18

[fatboy69]

CL has a series of opinions largely unaffected by whatever evidence is presented to him/her. The tag amateur to any display pilot is also highly disrespectful as the rating is hard won and kept. 10 years flying on a Gnat doesn't happen by chance. Mr Whyman had skill and until we know the facts I am at a loss how CL can be disrespectful to Mr Whyman and opiniate in the manner that he has.
[/quote]


This is what I was getting at in my earlier post - just written more elloquently.

My Whyman had many many hours on Gnats & he would have been well aware of what he could & couldn't do with the aircraft & I very much doubt that he would have got into the Gnat if he was scared or worried by it.

Likewise he would not have agreed to display the aircraft at a public event had he thought that it might crash & hurt people.

Also would not the CAA have grounded the Gnat if they were concerned over to safety?

I also think that CL is being extremely dis-respectful both to Mr Whyman & the many other display pilots who give us the excitement of seeing these aircraft in the sky.

Lets be honest here - even current airforce pilots can have accidents - as was the case with the Russian helicopter pilot who, sadly, lost his life over the weekend.

[fatboy69]

J

converted lurker said:

fatboy69 said:

I don't think that is the case. You don't have to be exact - just a general answer would be good.

Nobody really cares who you are - I think people would be interested to know what your experience is given your 'I have an answer for everything' replies.

Edited by fatboy69 on Tuesday 4th August 10:18

>20,000hrs, flown Hawks, displayed aircraft, instructor, airline captain, trainer, AAIB approved unit flight safety officer, gliding champion, aircraft owner, Duke of Edinburgh Gold holder.



Thank you.

Quite an impressive list. I think what winds people up is the manner of your replies.

You might very well end up being proved correct however the tone of your replies suggest an air of superiority which is not necessary.

[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.