Tiger Moth down in Dorset-two hurt(2011)

And BBC R4 announced (sigh) that he was performing, “..a loop-the-loop” manoeuvre.

I find it odious that he is mounting a defence.

Good thing you weren’t on the jury, then. Innocent until proven guilty still holds sway in this country.

The pilot has been found not guilty of manslaughter.

The CPS have prosecuted a few now along these lines, both maritime and aviation, and the juries have always returned a “Not Guilty” verdict.

If I had to report on how to bath a baby, I’d e-mail MumsNet or ring the WI for some expert advice.

Sadly, a lot of people are not prepared to pay for proper reporting. And a lot of publishing companies don’t seem to care either as long as losses are kept to a minimum (or even a small profit is made). What reporters should do, and are able to do within limits of time, money, deadlines and what all, are unfortunately worlds apart.

This discussion aside, and returning to the subject, the story behind this accident is nothing short of tragic. Both for the passenger’s family and friends, and for the pilot who faced a traumatic experience, trying recovery from very bad injuries, and now a court battle. There are no winners here.

If I had to report on how to bath a baby, I’d e-mail MumsNet or ring the WI for some expert advice.

Well they are journalists so will not have had any “trade training”. Specialists will always pick holes in journo writing, whatever their specialism happens to be. And it can be as irritating as badly written English, for which there is no excuse.

Or my major annoyance: using the word ‘aerodynamic’ to describe something that should be described as, ‘aerodynamically efficient’.

Thus, Concorde’s shape is described as ‘aerodynamic’. Well anything that’s moving is ‘aerodynamic’ for goodness sake!

Or ‘wind resistance’ instead of ‘air resistance’.

All of the above betray a basic lack of trade training!

Ranking well alongside ‘loop the loop’ and ‘jump jet’ is the ever present teeth grinding media ‘fighter jet’.

Its a bit of an odd thing. I’m not sure any aviator would refer to it as having carried out ‘a loop the loop’, they would just say ‘loop’. As reportage, eg ‘We looped the loop’, it would seem more acceptable.

Its a bit like the term ‘Jump jet’, used to describe the Harrier. It was common vernacular when the aircraft was first flown, but quickly fell out of use with enthusiasts and those in the know, yet every journalist will still describe it as such.

Bruce

‘Loop the Loop’

My 1992 copy of Chamber English Dictionary defines ‘loop the loop’ as “to move in a complete vertical loop or circle, to move downwards at the top of the curve.” It notes “Ety. dub.” (Etymology doubtful), meaning that no-one quite knows where it came from.

The earliest I can find it after a quick search is in Flight for April 9 1910:
http://flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1910/1910%20-%200274.html?search=loop%20the%20loop
(about halfway down the righthand column) although the way it’s used there suggests it was already in common parlance, even if suspected of being slang.

And of course there’s the chorus from ‘Those Magnificent Men…’
“Up, down, flying around,
looping the loop and defying the ground.

They’re all frightfully keen,
those magnificent men in their flying machines.”

And plenty more.

But yes, in any aeronautical circles I’ve been part of, the term does generally evoke a smirk or a snigger… :highly_amused:

And I agree with Propstrike’s thoughts on the term, ‘loop the loop’!!! Was such a term ever in use?

Yes very much so, even by my ex-RAF groundcrew dad in the 1950s

Both variants can be seen in the Dail Mail article, the even worse one being ‘loop-de-loop’

Moggy

Yes, I thought much the same.

“Loop the loop” has been ‘street parlance’ for as long as I can remember.

Hours on type 35.Wonder how many BoB pilots would like to get told that they were “Novice” during 1940.

I note that the victim’s weight was quoted as 18st 7lbs: the team which owns to ‘black’ CA Tiger Moth specifies a max weight of 15st.

As ever with these things, there were many causes, but the responsibility would seem to rest in greater part on the pilot.

And I agree with Propstrike’s thoughts on the term, ‘loop the loop’!!! Was such a term ever in use?

I note that G-INFO has the aeroplane as ‘Permanently withdrawn from use’, but notwithstanding that is it on re-build somewhere?

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=AOIL

Regards

I find it odious that he is mounting a defence.

All the evidence points one way. Even if his story of control restriction were true and he wasn’t actually attempting a loop at 1200 ft, he as PIC carries the responsibility for ensuring the safety of his passenger.

Moggy

There is nothing humorous about any of this , but the Daily Mail report is as mangled as always.

”Loop-de-loop” ?? !!.

The pax was 18.5 stone, which must have affected handling, and C of G .

Court case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2976529/Novice-former-Royal-Marine-pilot-killed-passenger-light-aircraft-attempting-loop-loop-flying-low.html

Anyone know how the pilot is?

As damning as every other low level aerobatic manouver AAIB report .