BUT you do not get a knee jerk reaction as this elsewhere , refuse trucks are still in Scotland collecting rubbish, Ferries still sailing across the Channel from Zeebrugge, Airliners still flying over the Alps. True we learnt from these things, but sad as it is, financial implications rule the roost.
I am surprised this post hasn't attracted adverse comments before now, because the analogies that Nutloose has made or some of the most crass I have seen. Tic, you are right in the Herald is a much studied example, as are Piper Alpha, Kings Cross etc. And indeed these massive failures were in the main what led to the sea change in safety management in the UK.
However, comparing the events that Nut has cited to Shoreham is particularly bone headed. He has compared activities from which people gain real tangible benefits, e.g. refuse collection, travel, transport (people, food, goods etc) with an airshow. Yes, leisure activities are important too, but in this case (and others), it seems more about an individual satisfying his lust for flying with doing it an airshow somehow legitimising the risk or more likely, helping to fund it. What many on here seem to forget is that in assessing risk, the benefits gained from taking the risk need to be considered. Airshows provide entertainment. The activities that Nut uses as a comparison provide far, far more.
Leisure activities and entertainment are a vital part of life by the way, but when one persons entertainment exposes others to risk, then that person has to think very carefully about the consequences if things go wrong, because individuals can and should be held to account.
S-D