As someone said, the real question isn't really why this piece of ex mil high density hardware crashed, but where it crashed, and how that makes a big difference.
I did a quick search throughout the thread and it seems that the insurance question
whilst posed on page 11, hasn't been run with. There's been suggestion that airshow premiums must surely now rise, assuming the insurance coverage is adequate but that the premium rates may not be. I am actually wondering whether the airshow and operators insurance limits of indemnity might need to rise too? They might surely be tested by both the effects and breadth of carnage in this incident.
I haven't seen much in the press about the type and extent of life-changing injuries that are likely to have been sustained, as the reports such as the one in the Argus link slfie gave in the post above are thankfully professionally restrained. But I think we can read between the lines that what resulted from the event has remained a hell on earth for a large number of people which will have to be very properly compensated.
So whilst we can guess who unfortunately will find themselves in the frame for paying for the aftermath, can we be confident that the insurances will be adequate?
I think CAA have been concerned about this type of accident for decades (ex mil high density). Although maybe only 1/4 the problem (half the weight) of something like the Lightning which CAA effectively banned from the airshow circuit in the UK long ago, the Hunter has always been a bit of a worry and always a potential handful I think? Hopefully CAA have long been insisting on some pretty bombproof insurance liability limits as a condition of approval of these type of ops/events?
I think there are probably many on the forum who could comment sensibly on the size of insurance limits airlines typically carry, but anyone know what aggregate limits are typical for this type of display op?
As a general statement, rather than it simply being something agreed privately between CAA and operators, if the risks are regularly approved by CAA as publicly acceptable, then evidence of the risk transfer devices required as a public protection (insurance) should I think also be exactly that (public). A notice on the gate, in the programme and on a website would suffice. Anyone seen such ? Sound a bit OTT? Not something many think of I guess.