Ops-Normal.org

I'm assuming (dangerous I know) that it's his brief that asked if he had ever heard of G-LOC. That being the case I'd expect the prosecution to be asking if he'd been taught about the effects by any other name.

FWIW Mr Hill lives just a few miles from me. Don't know him, never met him and I've no dog in this fight but some of the locals aren't keen.

The thing is, Flint, to my mind there is no question of 'g' being an issue here - I sense a distraction. The whole manoeuvre from the top of the loop appeared to be low-speed and 'floppy' and thus low 'g'. If the defence 'claim' is that he was affected by 'g' earlier ie before the top, my wisdom suggests that an experienced display pilot would exercise extra care before continuing the planned manoeuvre.

As a non'display, non'aeros pilot yeah, I saw this as a distraction. But a stupid one that can be knocked over in very little time.

It is certainly technical and will fail if the prosecution can convince the jury

I suspect Mr Hill is splitting hairs.

I would hope AH has been expertly briefed by his brief and was answering a carefully phrased question. Whilst many people know about G-LOC and indeed its been discussed in current TV programmes on Red Arrows and Red Bull Air Races I wonder when the term was invented and when it surfaced in any RAF training. Should be relatively easy to uncover documentary evidence of that. Training on effects of G and G-LOC are two different things my lord.

Having been on site that fateful and warm day; then waded through the AAIB report and only flown aero's in assorted gliders I'll be interested in the answers as to why he started too low, started too slow, didn't use full power to start the loop and having missed the gate at the top by a substantial margin didnt take corrective action. Gliding gates I remember were 2000' feet start height , stuff the nose down until 100 knots then pull back on the stick but don't exceed 3g to complete a very egg shaped loop.

Ask ex-A, who has been through RAF training including aeros/g - had he ever heard of 'G-Loc' specifically?

No, not that term. But obviously in training we were made aware of the effect. Same thing but not the jargon. So effectively as has been said highly paid brief 'splitting hairs' and confusing the jury. That is what he is there for after all.

Whilst he might not have been 'taught' G-Loc, it seems unlikely that he had never heard the term . . .

This is really an irrelevancy. Andy Hill would be well aware of the effects of high g on consciousness and would have doubtless learned how to combat the effects throughout his RAF career and after, doing any aerobatics 'outside'.

If 'G-LOC' is being put forward as a defence I think my view is obvious! I would re-affirm my belief that he was 'conscious' to the end, even if not, as suggested by defence - for whatever reason - fully 'cognitive'.

Boac wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 12:57 pm

This is really an irrelevancy. Andy Hill would be well aware of the effects of high g on consciousness and would have doubtless learned how to combat the effects throughout his RAF career and after, doing any aerobatics 'outside'.

If 'G-LOC' is being put forward as a defence I think my view is obvious! I would re-affirm my belief that he was 'conscious' to the end, even if not, as suggested by defence - for whatever reason - fully 'cognitive'.

Yes indeed Boac, if he wasn't 'conscious to the end' who the hell was pulling back on the stick as he stalled into the ground. His fairy godmother?

I don't think that this is going to end in guilty or not it is a question of how guilty and how lightly his brief can get him off.

We had a top lawyer in Greece who defended murderers (that was not our case by the way). We said how can you do it when you know they are guilty. He said he was only there to try to reduce their sentence.

Given the evidence that has been presented so far, has anyone changed their mind about the value of holding a trial?

I have never questioned it, compo - it is the legal system of our country. For me, the verdict and any determination by the judge are the debatables.

Ex-Ascot answers that question immediately above.

Where blame is due, it can be seen for any event, not discussing this one, that can be 'see' where the blame lies.

However in UK we work to case law. The first issue is deciding the charge and so it goes on. In the final analysis it depends on the skill of the barristers. The ISIL bride would be a good case in point.

On Thursday, Hill told a jury at the Old Bailey he had about 35 hours’ experience in the Hunter, primarily at a handful of displays since 2011.

Only 35 hrs and he was displaying it, come on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -of-flight

I have just changed an edit. Too much inside info to post. I know a guy who would be a perfect expert witness to either side. After the verdict I will cough.

Leaving aside the alleged causal factors, it's the reference to temps. that interests me as an engineer....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-47256160

And the bit about a "min " temp given it was always stressed on ground runs, that, this must at the minimum prior to full power / trim run or "slam " checks.

So it's interesting to read the allegation about indicated temps because even with the delay from start-taxi-take off surely the temp would have risen during this elapsed time period if sufficient time had been allowed ?

I know nothing about Avons I may add.

What on-type flying do Pilots of these historic types get? I imagine during the off-season maintaining currency is difficult and flying transatlantic hops in a large jet barely counts.

How many practices do the make in a typical pre-season work up.

In this case, 35 hours on type over 5 years is not much.

Isn't it like riding a bicycle?

I think the danger is that unless you fully prepare, you could get confused about gate heights especially if you fly different types on display. It should be a 'golden rule' that you carried the minimums with you, either on a knee-pad or a sticker somewhere and you 'refreshed' for each manoeuvre.

G-CPTN wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:55 pm

Isn't it like riding a bicycle?

A basic bicycle maybe but a vintage high performance jet is different from a vintage low performance jet or a high performance large passenger jet.

Only a nav, but when fully worked up time slows. When new on type you have to work hard to keep ahead of the aircraft. There are many little things which can be 'ignored' and have no impact on the flight until something goes wrong.

A simple example is oxygen checks. You plug in, switcher on, check and it works. There after you check in the climb and periodically thereafter. Don't check and you will probably be OK, unless the regulator failed, your tube disconnected, it leaked etc etc.

At least his defence have not blamed hypoxia....

Boac wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:00 pm

I think the danger is that unless you fully prepare, you could get confused about gate heights especially if you fly different types on display. It should be a 'golden rule' that you carried the minimums with you, either on a knee-pad or a sticker somewhere and you 'refreshed' for each manoeuvre.

As with commercial type ratings perhaps you should only hold a display licence for only one type at a time.