RIAT - Ticket Only Admission [Archive]

The Swinging Monkey

15th Jul 2009, 13:04

The problem as I see it is that many thousands of people, especially from overseas, just pitch up at fairford expecting to be able to purchase a ticket on the gate (not unreasonable really) What are they going to do with them all?? Tell them to Bu&&er off? I can see the police having to be called!!

I didn't know it was an all ticket event until I called a mate this morning and asked him if he fancied going down on the saturday, only to be told that he didn't have a ticket, so wouldn't be going. It was then he told me about it being all ticket affair.

I have a nasty feeling that there are going to be a great many dissapointed people who will be on their way by ferry from the continent, and many others from this country who will not have even considered looking on the RIAT website to check on the entry arrangements.

Did they put it in the avaition press? Flypast etc??

Anyway, if you are going (and I'm not now) take a brollie 'cos it's going to hose it down again I' told !!

TSM

ursa_major

15th Jul 2009, 14:15

TSM, IIRC it's been advertised as advanced-ticket-only from the outset this year.

I seem to recall that last year was advance-tickets only too, though I could be wrong on that front. It may have just been day-specific tickets up to a point and then made into advance tickets only - it was certainly the latter by the time the show dates arrived.

HTH

G.

mayorofgander

15th Jul 2009, 15:20

Hi Guys;

Although this will be seen as a bit of 'glass half empty'....

Have you seen the BBC weather forecast for the weekend???:eek:

To those that brave it, hope you have a good time and get to see the Vulcan fly!!!

Regards;
MOG:cool:

airborne_artist

15th Jul 2009, 15:24

Have you seen the BBC weather forecast for the weekend?Sunday pref to Saturday, I'd suggest, if you can choose...

collbar

15th Jul 2009, 16:07

Was told at barclays today that saturday is sold out. They were only selling sunday tickets

staplefordheli

15th Jul 2009, 19:47

Lost me on advance tickets, as with an autistic child, it is often a morning decision as to daytrips, and after the waddo let down, dont think i can dissapoint a second time, but may go down monday for deps if he is up to it and 558 is still on the ground.
shame as many familys etc are in the same boat.
We often dont know if we are working the weekend till late frid night
And as for the weather, who wants to spend hours getting bogged down in mud, you wouldnt go to a village fete if it was p!!!! down would you! No you wait till the weather forecast on the day.
sorry but captivating the audience is as short term thing , and once stung by a non appearing triangle and heavy rain, they wont come back.

ElSupremo

15th Jul 2009, 20:01

Slightly off topic but it seems this year that the US aren't flying much, is this normal? Is the lineup typical of what it usually is?

seafuryfan

15th Jul 2009, 20:51

Stapleford Heli - we have something in common. PM me if you get this, otherwise see you at the Griffin if you make it in with your child. RC

unclenelli

16th Jul 2009, 17:38

Good weather combined with the presence of XH558 drew in plenty of punters at Waddo to ensure the gates shut early to ticketless punters, and then later to ALL punters on Saturday.

Tickets for Saturday were honoured for Sunday Entry, the the gates still shut early due to lack of parking, despite the bad news of XH558 not flying.

Official figures are at 170,000 for the weekend.

If the weather's good, then it'll be by ticket only, but if it's crap & raining, and they don't cancel & claim on their insurance, then they might reconsider in order to recoup costs.

As the Met Office can reasonably forecast about 5 days in advance, then I suppose a decision must be made at about the same time based on that forecast. I admit I've not checked, but anyone know the forecast for FFD? - I reckon it must be good.

November4

16th Jul 2009, 19:13

I admit I've not checked, but anyone know the forecast for FFD? - I reckon it must be good.

Depends on where you look

Weather City (http://www.weathercity.com/uk/gb/fairford/) says

Sat and Sun mostly cloudy with showers 18°C

Google says pretty much the same but 21°C |

Holiday Weather (http://www.holiday-weather.com/fairford_raf/seven-day-forecast.html) says rain 21°c

MadsDad

17th Jul 2009, 11:04

XH558 still on the ground at Yeovilton. Hoping to fly up to RIAT this afternoon if they get a break in the clouds (2:30 been mentioned on the radio as earliest possible).

BEagle

17th Jul 2009, 11:21

Unfortunately the TAFs - even allowing for Met Office CMA-factor - are looking pretty grim:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

YEOVILTON: 171026Z 1712/1721 29012KT 9999 BKN015 TEMPO 1712/1714 6000 -RA FEW006 BKN012 BECMG 1714/1721 7000 -SHRA SCT020

FAIRFORD: 171030Z 1712/1721 31015KT 9999 BKN030 BECMG 1712/1713 31018G30KT TEMPO 1712/1716 4000 SHRA BKN015 PROB30 TEMPO 1712/1715 3000 +TSRA BKN012CB

BRIZE NORTON: 171037Z 1712/1812 32018G30KT 9999 BKN025 TEMPO 1712/1720 6000 SHRA BKN015 PROB40 TEMPO 1712/1718 3000 +TSRA BKN010CB BECMG 1719/1721 29013KT

However, provided that the TEMPOs really are TEMPO and the 18G30 wind is more 18 than 30, a lowish level transit might still be possible later this afternoon. Although I wouldn't put any money on it.....

Cannonfodder

17th Jul 2009, 12:13

Does anyone know where i can view and print off the running order for the flying displays at RIAT?

Grimweasel

17th Jul 2009, 16:27

what's the point - there is nothing new there and the US presence this year is rather light - I'll only go when I can see the F-22 display; otherwise it's a little dull - same each year :(

SilsoeSid

17th Jul 2009, 17:53

what's the point - there is nothing new there and the US presence this year is rather light - I'll only go when I can see the F-22 display; otherwise it's a little dull - same each year :(

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Fv2OvjTrlI&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-Fv2OvjTrlI&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

1. Take along your laptop ;)
2. How can it be the same each year? 2007 Hot and sunny, 2008 called off, 2009 forecast changeable. Pretty varied I'd say. :ok:

u boring fukcers

17th Jul 2009, 21:06

I still get goose bumps when she buzzes by.

Why? You really are a bunch of old boring fukcers. Surely there will be more than one aircraft at RIAT? You lot of boring old stupid spotters are never happy. Moaning even before the event, moaning two weeks after Yeovilton has finished. What a bunch of boring old fukcers you are. GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

SRENNAPS

17th Jul 2009, 21:11

Does anyone know where i can view and print off the running order for the flying displays at RIAT?

No disrespect there but I am not worried about the order. Does anybody know what time the flying display starts?

We are planning on leaving at 6 in the morning with the hope of getting there by 8.

I would like a couple of hours to see the static...........especially the Tornados and Chinooks........dam, I do miss them.:O:O

206Fan

17th Jul 2009, 22:10

Flying displays start at half 10 i believe..

Yea three of us are leaving bristol at half 6, should be time enough getting up for 8!

GPMG

17th Jul 2009, 22:43

Christ, that F-22 vid is amazing, I had to watch the take off 3 times alone, is it really that short? I realise that it is cutting edge but the manoevers that it is pulling (I take it that it has no weapons on board) are amazing.

I stand to be corrected but the modern Typhoon didn't do anything like that in the displays that I have seen live or on video, I thought that the Typhoon was the all out manoueverable fighter? Bar Russian vector technology.

SRENNAPS

18th Jul 2009, 07:14

Thanks Davy07....Have a good day.

A simple question from a simple ex sooty; :confused::confused:

I have an FM Air Band Radio with a frequency range of 114 to 135 (KHz, I think?). Will this be of any use to me at the RIAT on Sunday?

Thanks

green granite

18th Jul 2009, 07:27

Last years frequencies, probably the same this year (It's AM not FM, and Mhz not Khz) but if it's an air band receiver it'll be fine. the higher freqs are the military ones so you may not hear the mil stuff talking to the tower.

Fairford Director 1: 123.550 & 241.825

Fairford Director 2: 134.550 & 339.850

Fairford Tower: 130.675 & 338.225 (also display freqs)

Fairford Ground: 119.150 & 234.250

Fairford Delivery: 124.550 (Monday only for clearances)

Weather: Brize ATIS 259.0

SRENNAPS

18th Jul 2009, 07:42

green granite

Thats brill!! Thank you very much indeed.

(It's AM not FM, and Mhz not Khz) I did say I was only a simple ex sooty:):)

hurn

18th Jul 2009, 09:43

Last went to RIAT in 2007 on the 'spur of the moment'.
That was the last year you could just waltz up to the gate and buy a ticket, and it was packed, mainly due to the weather being more favourable on the Saturday than the Sunday.
Many people were stuck outside in massive queues and I think this is why they made it all ticket only from last year.

Thought about buying a late ticket and going this year again, but after suffering at Yeovilton last weekend I don't think I could stand anymore low cloud and rain. :{

Artie Fufkin

18th Jul 2009, 13:06

Anyone know what state the car park is in this year? I'm going tomorrow and my little 2 seater isn't the best in slippery mud...

LOTA

18th Jul 2009, 15:00

Artie

Should be no bother for the two-seater.

RIAT pre-publicity said parking for the first time since 9/11 on the base, therefore on hard-standing.

Well, that's what I'm planning on for tomorrow!

airborne_artist

18th Jul 2009, 15:30

Tickets for Sunday still be sold on Ticketmaster - just print the ticket off after payment.

Artie Fufkin

18th Jul 2009, 18:02

LOTA, thanks, I bloody hope you're right. Louis Hamilton's donutting at Silverston may well have been entertaining, but I have no desire to re-create the incident for the RIAT masses.

SRENNAPS

19th Jul 2009, 21:00

When we got up at 0440 this morning I thought, is this going to be worth it? When we left at 0550 and drove down the M4, I really began to question my sanity about driving in such torrential rain to go to an air show.

When we arrived at 0750, the rain that we had just driven through for the last 100 miles also arrived and by now we were starting to get thoroughly cheesed off. (When I say we, I mean one wife and daughter!!!! I was too busy trying to work out how to keep my camera and programme dry).

Then the rain cleared and the tanoy confirmed that that the flying display was going ahead. What an inject of “yes!!!!” that was.

Listening on my newly purchased Swansea Maplins’ scanner radio (see my earlier post) I was well aware of the problems that some of the heavy rain showers caused. But the determination by all involved not to let the crowd down was obvious.

What a brilliant day we have had. The flying display was spectacular and it is a big thank you to all that was involved.

I have to mention special praise for the Wing Walkers (who were left in a holding pattern for ages), The Hungarian Gripen Pilot (who after he landed sounded so chuffed about performing at the RIAT), and the Vulcan (obviously!!!). Finally the 27 Sqn Chinook.....brilliant!! Thanks for bringing back a lot of good memories.

Wycombe

20th Jul 2009, 08:24

....yes, got soaked, then dried out, then got soaked, but had a good day. Some great flying in at times awful conditions (many fast air items creating their own micro-climate for about 50% of their displays)

Only moment of concern for me was The Breitlings who had to abort mid-display and completely disappeared under a lowering cloudbase and +RA.

Somewhat more sporting (than we have been used to since return to flight) departure by XH558, I thought, straight up towards another oncoming Cb.

Nice touch to see her taxied the full length with the Buff after landing, a probably not too oft to be repeated photo opportunity.

206Fan

20th Jul 2009, 12:59

That was my first time at RIAT, awsome day i had apart from fekn up my SLR :(..

True pilot skill at its best! :ok:

Bob the Doc

20th Jul 2009, 20:55

Was on Fireball on the Tech side of RIAT this year for the first time (has been next to the med centre the other years I have done it). Meant that we were directly underneath the display line and most of the a/c taxyed past us on the way back to their stands. Great close-ups of XH558, B52 and various fast and pointys.

Personally thought the Italian Mini-Herc was one of the more impressive displays. Apparently he had to tone it down for Fairford! There were rumours that he was planning to roll and loop it originally!

Always thought Fireball was a slightly macabre name for the SAR asset at RIAT!

Unfortunately, got a short notice trip to another airfield a few thousand miles East on Sunday so missed that display day but still a great weekend. If you were wondering where the C17s were, I was on one of them! All back now and hopefully the gentlemen we brought back with us will do well in Selly Oak

BTD

Wycombe

21st Jul 2009, 08:14

.....the G222 (C-27 "classic" I suppose) was aileron rolled on several occasions during past RIAT displays - I guess the FCC put the stoppers on that?

One year (forget which) we were also treated to a looping Ukrainian An-72!

Faithless

21st Jul 2009, 08:43

Unfortunately, got a short notice trip to another airfield a few thousand miles East on Sunday so missed that display day but still a great weekend. If you were wondering where the C17s were, I was on one of them! All back now and hopefully the gentlemen we brought back with us will do well in Selly Oak

:D:D:D:D Keep up the good work Bob the Doc. You guys do a great job:ok:

backseatjock

21st Jul 2009, 18:26

" .....the G222 (C-27 "classic" I suppose) was aileron rolled on several occasions during past RIAT displays - I guess the FCC put the stoppers on that? "

No flares (not the trousered type) allowed from display aircraft either this year, apparently. Better for car parking this year, perhaps, but solution made for a pretty dismal static line up IMHO.

Tim McLelland

31st Jul 2009, 18:58

Apparently he had to tone it down for Fairford!

Well of course - goes without saying. Heaven forbid that the paying public was ever given an opportunity to see aircraft performing anything other than pedestrian manoeuvres, usually over an adjacent field. Then RIAT wonder why more and more people prefer to watch what remains of the once-great show from a farmer's field! And as for flares, well really, we can't have that can we? It smacks of entertainment.

No no, let's stick to what they do best - a line-up of museum-like static exhibits and a rather dull flying display which is occasionally brightened-up by a Paris/Farnborough visitor or a much-appreciated civilian jet, heroically making-up for the lack of true military participation. Then they'll go and say that they're constrained by operational commitments, budgetary considerations, safety and logistics... it's enough to make you weep all the way back to the rubble that was once Greenham Common.

TEEEJ

31st Jul 2009, 21:01

No flares, but the Hungarian Gripen display did brighten things up a bit!

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h261/TOMMYJO/DSC_0109RIAT09.jpg

TJ

SRENNAPS

31st Jul 2009, 21:03

Tim,

Sadly I have to agree with your post, you are so right in what you have said. I for one have already booked a campsite adjacent to the airfield for next year to watch it. I noticed that the majority of aircraft flew directly over it.

However, I am pretty certain that most of the participating aircrew wish they could do what used to happen during flying displays many years ago. I explained to my daughter that once upon a time aircraft would finish off their display by bomb bursting across the crowd. It thrills everybody and it brings the magic of what flying is all about.

Sadly, the rules state you cannot.....just in case!!!!. Blame the publicity that has followed the “very few” accidents that have occurred at air shows.
Statistically I sure you stand more chance of winning 6 million quid on the lottery and walking out of your house, getting run over by a double decker bus driven by Cliff Richard on a summer holiday, than you do by being killed by an aircraft crashing at an air show.

But, sadly it has happened in the past and people in charge are not prepared to take the risk anymore.:(:(

But I still thank the aircrew flying the display aircraft for everything that they do (within the rules) to excite the crowd. Especially the 27 Sqn Chinook... you boys were bril!!!:D:D

TJ - Cracking photo!

Fortissimo

31st Jul 2009, 21:23

Tim

The only problem with flares is that they don't always go off and you have no control over where the (live) duds end up. This happened at Waddington a few years ago (2001?), when the Israelis managed to park unburned flares in the bomb dump and the main dispersal, both a long way from where they were released. Result, a no-flare display for the public days - disappointing for the punters, but no option for the display controller on safety grounds.

Tim McLelland

31st Jul 2009, 23:57

I don't buy that argument at all. Other countries allow aircraft to pop flares indeed RIAT did too, but subsequently changed their minds.

It's time the air show organisers and regulatory bodies in this country got their proverbial thumbs out of their butts and sorted-out the air show business while there's anything left to sort out. If we follow their over-zealous safety obsessions to their logical conclusions, we'll be watching virtual shows on TV's generated by computer, to be watched from the safety of our beds in a few years from now.

Sooner or later somebody will have to realise that we have to accept some responsibility for our own actions and safety, otherwise we'll be suffocated into a world of uber-caution which is so sterile that we'll all lose the will to live. RIAT kinda gives you that urge already, sometimes!

Tim McLelland

1st Aug 2009, 00:14

Statistically I sure you stand more chance of winning 6 million quid on the lottery and walking out of your house, getting run over by a double decker bus driven by Cliff Richard on a summer holiday, than you do by being killed by an aircraft crashing at an air show.

This is what amuses me about our crazy set-up. There's virtually no chance of being injured by an aircraft at an air show - a supreme triumph for safety regulations. But these same regulations regard the safety of people standing on the other side of a perimeter fence as being irrelevant. The inescapable implication is that unless you pay a show admission fee, your safety or even your life is judged to be less important than everyone else's. Inexplicably the show organisers and regulators never, ever address the absurdity of this point. Anybody would think that this is because they have no credible answer.

What makes it even more absurd is that the folks who pay-up for a ticket get an inferior view of the show when compared to that enjoyed by the folks who stay outside and pay nothing. I wonder how many more years will go by before somebody stops and points-out that the whole set-up is ludicrous, offensive, and totally pointless.

SRENNAPS

1st Aug 2009, 08:07

Reference the photograph posted by TEEEJ, I saw the flames coming from the Hungarian Gripen several times during the show. It was very effective at the top of the loop.

I know that the F-111 did something similar (admittedly the flames were a bit more dramatic) and that was achieved by dumping fuel which then ignited.

Does anybody know how it was done on the Gripen?

TEEEJ

1st Aug 2009, 08:35

Cheers Srennaps,

The first time that I saw it I thought the worst. I actually put the camera down as I thought it was a flame out or that the jet had ingested a bird. I didn't hear anything on the scanner as to a problem so continued to track the Gripen. I didn't expect it to happen again and was simply tracking the Gripen waiting for it to come out of the loop. I can only imagine that the fuel vent is located on the port side.

TJ

Uncle Ginsters

1st Aug 2009, 08:48

It's all well and good looking for pure, unadulterated entertainment, but remember that organisers of RIAT and the like have to mitigate against a repeat of this (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/28/ukraine.detained/index.html) in the UK. The rules are there from bitter lessons learned throughout history, lest we forget!
Of course, some issues such as flare release should be possible in certain cases, especially at seafront locations, but the line has to be drawn somewhere to protect the public from a repeat of Lviv or Ramstein.

ambidextrous

1st Aug 2009, 08:50

One pristine RIAT 2009 cap and two light blue 'T' shirts, size L, embossed with crest Air Tattoo as issued to Staff.
PM me with offers please.
with fraternal greetings,
ambi:ok:

SRENNAPS

1st Aug 2009, 10:09

It's all well and good looking for pure, unadulterated entertainment, but remember that organisers of RIAT and the like have to mitigate against a repeat of this in the UK. The rules are there from bitter lessons learned throughout history, lest we forget!
Of course, some issues such as flare release should be possible in certain cases, especially at seafront locations, but the line has to be drawn somewhere to protect the public from a repeat of Lviv or Ramstein.

So based on your argument, can I assume that in the extremely unlikely occasion when an incident occurs over the top of one of the surrounding campsites, resulting in a major tragedy equivalent to Ramstein or Lviv, your recommendation will be to ban air shows in total.

My belief is that even under today’s regulations, should an incident occur within the boundary of the airfield there is a significant chance that a tragedy would still happen depending on the direction of flight, number of aircraft involved and size of the aircraft. Several aircraft flying at a few hundred miles an hour have a great deal of momentum and tend to become quite un-controllable when things go wrong!!

When I was a young lad living in married quarters at RAF St Athan, we were able to watch the practice flights for the Battle of Britain Airshow held in September. The aircraft, (particularly the Patroule de France and the Red Arrows using Gnats) flying only several feet above our house, were truly spectacular. How many accidents can I remember??

I am not suggesting that reckless and uncontrolled flying should occur, but I do believe that the rules have gone slightly over the top only because of the media hype on the extremely few accidents that have occurred over the years.

Uncle Ginsters

1st Aug 2009, 10:25

when an incident occurs over the top of one of the surrounding campsites, resulting in a major tragedy equivalent to Ramstein or Lviv, your recommendation will be to ban air shows in total.

Now that is 2+2=5. In that event, I'm sure the organisers and local authorities would have to look very carefully at the areas surrounding their sites and manage future risk accordingly.

My belief, from studying the Display Guidance for Aircrew from DAS (admittedly not for a year or two) is that any good display looks very carefully at the vector at all stages and minimises the on-crowd element of that during certain manoevres. Of course that may not be the case in all displays at all times, but the guidance is there....

I don't think any rule that might help prevent 83 people being killed at a show is reacting to Media Hype - it's a bitter lesson learned.

hurn

1st Aug 2009, 10:32

This is what amuses me about our crazy set-up. There's virtually no chance of being injured by an aircraft at an air show - a supreme triumph for safety regulations. But these same regulations regard the safety of people standing on the other side of a perimeter fence as being irrelevant. The inescapable implication is that unless you pay a show admission fee, your safety or even your life is judged to be less important than everyone else's.I don't think that's the case at all.
RIAT has an obligation to provide safety for the public who come into the airfield, but has no jurisdiction over people who choose to stand outside the perimeter fence and watch, even if its in a potentially dangerous position.

Ultimately, responsibility for those peoples' safety is with the individuals themselves and probably to a degree with the farmers/owners who allow them to stay there.

Tim McLelland

1st Aug 2009, 13:24

I don't think that's the case at all

You've lost me there! As you say yourself, the current situation is that RIAT aim to ensure the safety of their paying spectators and everyone else is left to their own safety decisions. So, as I said, the implication is - quite clearly - that anyone who doesn't pay to go in is deemed to be unimportant. It's absolutely ridiculous.

It's really a question of proportionality. It's fine to mention disasters like the Su-27 and Ramstein but it's also very easy to make knee-jerk safety restrictions as a direct response. Taking Ramstein as an example, the cause of the accident was basically poor planning on the part of the team, who evidently failed to recognise the potential for a collision if the cross-over was mis-timed, and the added danger of rising ground behind the crowd line. Naturally, it makes good sense to ensure that such a manoeuvre is performed without any undue risk (as it is now) but in all other respects the show's overall safety rules had absolutely no bearing on the accident.

Likewise, the Su-27 accident could only have happened here if we were to allow display pilots to recover from aerobatic manoeuvres directly over the crowd and I don't think anybody would suggest that this would be a good idea. But we have gone off to the other extreme and we now have a situation where a great deal of spirited flying is forbidden and the aircraft are separated from the viewing public by a huge margin - for no obvious reason. The Buffalo crash? MiG-29 crash? Ramstein?, P-38? Firefly? Vintage Pair? Vampire? Kingcobra? G-91? The list goes on... Not one of these accidents would have been any more catastrophic had the crowd been closer to the display aircraft as in every case the aircraft have impacted either on the runway or far beyond it. And yet the response has been to move the spectators even further away!

Clearly, there will always be a risk of accidents unless we're prepared to keep every aircraft on the ground without the engines running. But likewise it is simply absurd to separate spectators from the aircraft to such a degree that many flying demonstrations are simply boring. There's a broad middle ground in which a great deal of flying could be done with much more flair and spirit, and sometimes at a much closer separation distance. The current situation is just ridiculous.

As has been said, RIAT obviously have a responsibility for the safety of the ticket-paying public but it's ludicrous (and vaguely offensive) to then assume that by implication, everyone who hasn't bought a ticket is expected to just take their chances. Indeed it could be argued that the current safety laws are specifically placing members of the public at risk by exporting aircraft out of the show site into surrounding fields. What kind of a daft situation is this?

It's time the air show regulators grew-up and stopped this nonsense. They must be perfectly aware that things have gone way too far and simply pushing aircraft further away and restricting every flamboyant manoeuvre is just a simplistic response to a more complex risk. Personally I think their attitude is just plain lazy.

Likewise, despite the litigious nature of such matters, I think RIAT would do us all a favour by creating an environment where the ticket-paying public is made much more aware of the risks associated with being in the vicinity of active aircraft. It's not good enough to wrap the public in cotton wool, encouraging them to close their eyes to possible dangers and to simply scream for monetary compensation when things go wrong. We really ought to be more adult about the way these events are staged. Ultimately, I think most show-goers would be prepared to accept that there is an obvious (if small) risk of danger, in exchange for a more engaging day out.

hurn

1st Aug 2009, 14:59

You've lost me there! As you say yourself, the current situation is that RIAT aim to ensure the safety of their paying spectators and everyone else is left to their own safety decisions. So, as I said, the implication is - quite clearly - that anyone who doesn't pay to go in is deemed to be unimportant.Now you've lost me. Are you saying that the RIAT organisers feel that people who've not paid are unimportant? That's ridiculous.
If people choose to freeload off base in a farmers field then while it's likely a concern of RIAT, they are really powerless to do anything about it. Or are you suggesting they fly even further afield to go around the freeloaders?

There's a broad middle ground in which a great deal of flying could be done with much more flair and spirit, and sometimes at a much closer separation distance.Yes, I'd certainly like to see things a bit closer, lower and more lively than what's allowed at present.

As has been said, RIAT obviously have a responsibility for the safety of the ticket-paying public but it's ludicrous (and vaguely offensive) to then assume that by implication, everyone who hasn't bought a ticket is expected to just take their chances.If you're going to stand outside under the flight path of displaying aircraft then 'taking your chances' is exactly what you're doing. Why should the event organisers have to cater for the welfare of people standing off base on private land that in general shouldn't be there anyway?

Indeed it could be argued that the current safety laws are specifically placing members of the public at risk by exporting aircraft out of the show site into surrounding fields. What kind of a daft situation is this?Are you suggesting the aircraft stay within the confines of the airfield? Now that's daft! It would be nigh on impossible, especially where fast jets are concerned.

Likewise, despite the litigious nature of such matters, I think RIAT would do us all a favour by creating an environment where the ticket-paying public is made much more aware of the risks associated with being in the vicinity of active aircraft. It's not good enough to wrap the public in cotton wool, encouraging them to close their eyes to possible dangers and to simply scream for monetary compensation when things go wrong.Sadly the compensation culture is the way of the world right now, and I can't see it changing anytime soon.

We really ought to be more adult about the way these events are staged. Ultimately, I think most show-goers would be prepared to accept that there is an obvious (if small) risk of danger, in exchange for a more engaging day out. Perhaps, but the increase in insurance costs would probably kill off any event that offered a few more 'thrills and spills'.

Tim McLelland

1st Aug 2009, 16:41

Think perhaps you're misinterpreting what I'm saying? Obviously, I'm aware of how RIAT see their responsibilities, the impossibility of confining demonstrations to the inside of the airfield perimeter and so on. I was getting-at the wider implications of current safety policy. It's not about RIAT as such but more a question of air shows in general. We all know why show organisers have a duty to ensure (or at least try to ensure) the safety of the paying public but my point is that this very policy implies that anyone not actually in the show site is deemed to be somehow less-important. Essentially, the idea of "protecting" one group of people at the possible expense of others is just ridiculous. You really can't just wash your hands of anyone who doesn't pay for a ticket and say that it's down to them to take their chances. Well, okay, maybe RIAT can, but in a wider public safety sense that's an outrageous position to adopt.

What I was trying to get-at is that there should be some effort to look at the public's safety in a wider context, taking into account everyone's safety, not just those within the venue's boundary. Naturally, this may well mean that the safety of the paying public is compromised to some degree in order to improve the safety of everyone else (and to be fair it's not just "freeloaders" - there are residents to consider too at many show venues). Consequently, this goes back to what I said earlier about getting away from this notion of wrapping the paying public in cotton wool, and making the potential risks as clear as possible. The currently-supported notion of making an air show a risk-free environment might sound plausible for those who are worried about litigation, but as I've said, it completely ignores the safety of everyone else (which is wrong no matter how you look at the "freeloaders" issue) and ultimately it also destroys the value of the air show experience for those for whom the current rules are supposedly designed to protect.

In short, my point is that the understandable urge to constantly tighten safety rules is a dubious path to go down. As has been said, accidents are unpredictable by their very nature and to make rules to prevent one type of accident simply leaves the door open for a completely different accident to occur; simple truth is that there's an infinite number of potential accident scenarios and it's impossible to create enough regulations to avoid them all. The lessons of air show history paint an interesting picture and suggest that (perhaps with some irony), the considerably tighter rules we have today have probably failed to prevent so much as one public casualty. If that is the case (and okay, I accept you could argue this point but you can see where I'm going with this), then what on Earth is the point of it all, if not to simply ruin the air show experience for no good reason?

Uncle Ginsters

1st Aug 2009, 17:14

the considerably tighter rules we have today have probably failed to prevent so much as one public casualty.

That's an impossible call to make. The reason for that is that for every rule that directly affects th conduct of the public at airshows, there's at least one rule that applies to the display crews - whether it's the workup and display clearance, the auths, the MDHs for each phase of the display, the currencies - it all adds up to make the ultimate risk to the public ALARP. The fact that (touch wood) we haven't had any major accidents in recent times could be testiment to that.

Tim McLelland

1st Aug 2009, 21:24

Well I agree that use of word like "rules" covers a broad range of regulations that affect many aspects of shows, display flying and so on. What I was getting-at is that when you look at the long history of air show accidents, there's really nothing to suggest that any of the restrictions on proximity to the crowd, flying over the crowd (at least in a straight line), shutting-down an engine (Neptune, C-130, G-222 etc.) dropping flares, low flypasts and all the rest of it, has contributed to any real safety at all. Okay, you can argue that if all the regulations had been different then there may have been some very serious accidents but that's only an abstract theory which cannot be proved or disproved. But at the same time, it suggests that continually tightening regulations in response to accidents that have actually taken place is ultimately pointless. Surely, it would be better to start with a proverbial fresh page and look seriously at what really can be considered as safe and what isn't? It's very easy to just move crowd lines further and further away, raise base heights, ban single-engine manoeuvres and so on and create the impression that this is somehow making shows safer for everyone but you have to ask whether this really is the case, or whether we've simply drifted into a situation whereby the regulations don't bear any real relationship to any actual risks?

Just as one example, look at how we got into this obsession with rules concerning flying over the crowds. The poor ol' Red Arrows were unable to make their spectacular arrival from behind the crowd and even now they're obliged to arrive at a respectful altitude (so high as to make their arrival a mere shadow of their past performances). But why? Clearly, nine Hawks flying over the crowd are hardly at any risk of crashing onto the crowd if they're already heading out into open space. Conversely, during many of their manoeuvres they are pointing directly towards the crowd, therefore by definition they must be at a greater risk of hitting spectators at these points than they ever are by arriving from crowd rear. But it seems that whilst it is unacceptable to fly over the crowd whilst heading directly for open land, it is perfectly acceptable to fly over open land and point directly towards the crowd. What sense is there in this kind of logic? It was (and is) just stupid, and this is just one example of over-zealous regulation which doesn't bear any serious scrutiny. We've been victims of countless knee-jerk regulations which were - and are - simply unnecessary.

Wensleydale

2nd Aug 2009, 07:56

I think that we have lost sight of why the regulations are there - it has nothing to do with common sense, safety or anything else. They are there for anti-litigation. If we are not allowed to do something then the organisers of the event cannot be blamed.... and sued.

A typical example.... My Boss was standing in for the Stn Cdr on one wintery day a few years ago. The footpaths were very slippery due to ice after rain. Boss put out a tannoy warning personnel of the conditions to be shortly followed by a phone call from the (civilian) H&S rep who advised him that the phone call was not necessary and he shouldn't have done it because it wasn't needed under current H&S regs and no-one could sue for the icy pavements. Enter one very angry Boss who tore the man off a strip because he was concerned with safety and not stupid rules....and if he wanted to warn people then he would do.

Bottom line - the warnings and regs are there for legal protection - not for the enjoyment/safety of the punter. If we don't fly over the crowd then nothing can fall off into the crowd. Risk assessment has little to do with it.