I didn't want to post here originally and I don;t consider a lot of what's written here to be worthy of reply. However, for those calling for airshow activity to be demonstrably zero risk, then you are either being wilfully obtuse or have absolutely zero understanding of risks and probabilities. I'm afraid this is an unfashionable view in today's blame culture, but there is ABSOLUTELY NO ACTIVITY ON EARTH WHICH IS ZERO RISK. Ask an insurance actuary.
The correct and proper method for such analysis is to reduce risks to As Low as Reasonably Possible, or ALARP as we military folk refer to it. That may indeed mean cancelling the activity. The subtlety and judgement is in the word reasonable.
I'm sorry if this makes some of you uncomfortable, but those people in the Shoreham area over the weekend were statistically more at risk of a car-car road collision or being struck by a road vehicle whilst a pedestrian, than of the unfortunate outcome of the day. Indeed, those complete cretins who have profited from photographing and videoing the immediate aftermath instead of responding to the injured were at a higher risk being run over on the road or inhaling toxic smoke than anything else they did that day.
What I am certain will occur is a detailed and careful investigation into the event, its build up, and its supervision, and a set of reasoned recommendations by professional experts will be made. Anything else, based on what you read here, or in the red-top rags is just conjecture, including in fact this post of mine.
Rant off.
