idlebystander,
It was not my intention to be disingenuous, merely to demonstrate the position of the road relative to the 20 threashold means that it is overflwn at low altitude very frequently. As Tourist rightly points out risk is the combination of effect AND likelihood. Shoreham is home to private aircraft, a flying school, bis jets, helicopters, scheduled flights and pleasure flights totalling 57,000 annual movements in recent years (2014 figure). The frequency of aircraft landing over the road is far greater than overflights generated by the annual airshow, the future of which may be in doubt.
So when you say,
Originally Posted by idlebystander
it was unsafely executed, unsafely planned, and unsafely approved
I do not believe that is correct. There is an element of risk, but it is not unsafe. Perhaps you are trying to use a single incident to prove a broader statistical probability - stats don't work like that.
A quick glance at the fixed wing pattern below (there is also a helo pattern to superimpose on that) gives an idea of just how crowded the area around the airfield really is. It's not just a road at the end of the runway. But before jumping to the conclusion that it is "unsafe" for displays or even to remain an operating airfield, you need to look at the entire aviation business in the UK (probably in very many countries) and consider how many other airfields are similar to this.
Mostly, the safety record is extremely good and the risks exceptionally well managed. Whatever way you look at it, the additional risk of the airshow is not terribly significant compared to daily operations. I certainly see no evidence that the planning, approval and execution were "unsafe".
