Oh, I know it’s in the report, Mog, I read it – I meant the discussion here. I was hoping to take it away from the ‘Inside or outside the airfield’ argument.

Do current rules really minimise risk? Would saying ‘inside a perimeter only’ help? Would saying ‘no overflight of A-Roads’ help? I would argue no, and in fact they would both make things much more dangerous. It is possible, for instance, to argue that ‘no figure that ends along the axis of a major road within a parallel distance’ is a far better rule. ‘No overflight’ of a road could actually guarantee occasional time spent over that road, travelling along it and not across, while out of shape. But people are calling for more ‘no overflight’ type rules.

I know one cannot guarantee the safety of anybody – but minimising risk of the activity has to be just that, even if it means splitting hairs.

This is the kind of idea I was hoping to discuss, in the light of everything the report had to say.

I don’t agree with jag that this conman is somehow the fault of the left. Please don’t delete me again for saying this, mods. Or if you do, please delete the equally irrelevant right-wing ‘position statement’ that I was responding to as well.

Were these items really fitted to Spitfires

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282355218889
I’ve got 3 of them of which 2 are marked 110BB/879 then NAF68986-1. They look to be exactly the same. What makes me question them is that they have the makers details marked on them as ‘Doolittle Radio Inc’ which smacks to me as an American item. Wouldn’t have thought they were fitted to Spits ??.

The type 93 was a standard aerial for the MkIII IFF system, which was standardised during WWII so that kit was common to both the UK and US. I think the 93 was speed limited to 350mph – so technically probably not correct for Spitfire, and ‘Doolittle’ does suggest US kit in this case. My ref – http://www.qsl.net/pe1ngz/airforce/airforce-raf/raf-iff.html

Surprised at that, Meddle. The history of aviation deserves to be properly represented, not reduced to the pointy and shiny. And if you wish to be Darwinian, the Bristol Freighter was far more commercially sound, and produced in greater numbers, than Concorde.

I have nothing useful to add regarding the incident itself, but perhaps if any of the gentlemen of the press are still looking at this please stop calling aerobatics ‘stunts’ or worse ‘tricks’ as has happened repeatedly in the current wave of reporting. A debate of the kind John raises is not helped by those words.

I said lots of people could be Farage. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can for myself when I say I would rather not be. No delusion.

I am sorry I am not impressed by the man the way you are.

To what end?