Wrenchbender, if you read my post through you should see that I actually agree with you.

I see where you are coming from Airgage. I guess that if you come from a non-aviation background (or have little knowledge about aviation) then “Pilot Error” can only be interpreted as straight forward incompetance. Those with an understanding of flying know there is a lot to flying an aircraft as complex as the Firefly and that “Pilot Error” can mean a lot of things.

Personally though, I consider “pilot error” is less damning than a driving charge of “undue care and attention” which is also used as a blanket label that is not always truely discriptive of what happened.

“Human factor” is a little PC for my taste. If I mess up then I mess up, I do not have a “Human Factor”, I mess up. Now that is not to say that it is not human to make a mistake.. we all do from time to time.

When you paid your fine what was the wording? Driving with undue care and attention is a common wording for driving accidents.

Just my 2p worth.

Thanks for the link Damien. I didn’t realize the verdict was already out.

Pilot error is not the only factor that led to the tragic accident.

One of the main factors that hits me is the lack of time on type. It is very hard to get experience flying these aircraft, they cost an awful lot to run and I believe there are limitations laid down on how many hours each of the RNHF aircraft can fly in a year (for the Swordfish I *think* Neil once told me that it was 60 hours per year total). That includes crew training flights, transits to and from the displays and the displays themselves. I am not sure what the limits were for the Firefly, but I suspect they are similar.

Being a pilot myself I can say hand on heart that I have never had a perfect flight. There is always something that I can look back on and say “I could have done that better”. I am sure any other pilot would say the same if they are honest about it. Even so, when you are new to a particular aircraft type it is a demanding transition for the first few hours (and I am talking about moving from a C172 to an Arrow or a twin – I found it almost overwhelming to start with, but after a while it starts to fall into place). So you have to be very careful during this time. The Firefly would be no different in this respect, but I can only imagine much, much harder.

My personal belief is that Bill should not have been authorized for low level aerobatics in the Firefly. He was a very experienced pilot, but not in that aircraft.

I do feel that Bill did let Neil down by flying beyond what his experience level made safe. As pilot in command you are responsible for the safety of all on board your aircraft. However, to a greater degree I feel the ‘system’ let both Neil and Bill down by authorizing Bill to fly that routine at low altitude with so few hours on type.

I hope I don’t sound completely bitter, I just miss my brother. It is just such a sad situation all round for both families. Hopefully the resulting changes will help to prevent another accident with similar circumstances.

It will be good to get the inquest over and done with. I doubt the outcome will tell us much more than the thorough RN investigation report. After the inquest is concluded I will be able to talk more freely about it, but I imagine you will know all you need to by then. At the end of the day, whatever the outcome , nothing will bring Neil and Bill back. The main thing is that I suspect there will be some pretty major changes made that will hopefully prevent a similar accident happening again. Display flying is a dangerous activity (compared to other types of flying), so regretfully, whatever rules and regulations are in place there is always the risk of an accident.

Pimpernel, I will say you should keep an open mind as to the cause. Seems like you have drawn your conclusion already.

The important thing is that the pilot walked away. Looking at the aircraft on it’s back like that reminds me of Paul Morgan’s Sea Fury accident which had such a tragic outcome.

Thanks for the links Robbo.