If the loop had been to the north over fields, or south over the airfield, or
the loop had been perpendicular to the A27, then things would have been much safer.
In the event, very bad decisions have been taken.
A parallel route over the road, with the most dangerous aspect directly over the road, descending vertically over the road, opens up a maximum of danger.

Is there a problem with planning displays with these restrictions ?

I suppose one will have to put a stop to that as well. :E

@henry_crun: the point of the video you posted seems to be that AH was an experienced display pilot.

@ASRAAM: some good points that got me thinking. The 5500' ceiling/limit has been mentioned quite a bit during this discussion. I would take as a given that all of the display pilots for that day would know that limit in advance, and would plan their maneuvers with that limitation very much in mind -- busting such limits would be apparent to any radar operator on the day and brought the kind of attention one prefers to avoid.

@rideforever: The above leads me to the conclusion that the maneuvers for this display were planned within that constraint, as well as all other limitations, and determined to be achievable within the rules for display flying. The orientation of the maneuvers tend to be based on where the display audience is. (I have some very small experience with pre-planning (I was assisting) for airshows at air stations, which included airspace constraints as well as "no go areas" on the ground).

@MachineBird: g-limits without a suit vary. When I learned aerobatics initially, I wasn't as good at dealing with 4g's as I became with more experience. The question you raise on possible g-loc will doubtless be pursued by the AIB. Hopefully there is enough evidence for them to arrive at a finding regarding that possible cause factor.

@Jazbag (and others interested): over on the Military Aircrew Forum, BEagle made some comments on manual reversion.

@CourtneyMil: that long post from your friend might benefit from being edited to all italics, or being in a quote box. It initially was difficult to discern "whose voice was on the radio frequency." I had to go back to the beginning and find the transition point from your voice to the beginning of your friend's discourse.

No one goes to any show spectacle motor race or whatever to be killed or seriously injured. You only have to look at the tragic accident at Alton Towers where kids went for the excitement and thrills of the rides?

I do not see a lot of difference between willingly choosing and paying to attend a venue where there is a tragic event or being a innocent person with no interest in the event who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

both are equally tragic and neither chose to be involved in such an accident
But people go for the thrill as in Alton Towers and its a difficult balance putting on a show which gives that thrill or is so protected that the spectator is filled with boredom and does not go again.

Pace

There is another important issue for airshow organisers.

If the display is offshore in places such as Bournemouth or Dawlish, how do they get the entrance fees that help pay for the event and to seedcorn next year's? Donations?

Think of what would happen with Fairford if it relied on donations.

@Pace:

Different risk assessments. I may be driving along the road unaware that there is any additional risk beyond the normal, while someone with a ticket to the show has at least had the opportunity to factor in the risk.

The Southend airshow was of course over water, fantastic viewing from the cliffs area, and free to get in.

Cancelled because it cost too much. You'd have thought the income just from parking fees would have made it pay, before you get to the increase in trade, but it appears not to be the case.

Other seaside locations would most likely have the same issues, too hard to control and therefore ticket, the public access. And by their very nature, paid airshows can be watched for free by people just outside.

Quote:

---

Hawker Hunter's final take-off 'unusual' expert says

---

Humpf! Initial acceleration looked good for a non-afterburning aircraft.
The disappearance across the horizon was about the same as with my old F-9 Cougar from the same time period.

@rideforever

He didn't descend vertically over the road, the vertical element was well to the north. And had he been descending vertically over the road he would have been further south over the airfield on pull up and clear of the road.

I am sure the aaib will be considering the total weight (mass) of fuel carried and whether or whether not this might affect the performance of the display routine.

I've been trying hard to stay of this thread.. but this takes the biscuit..

Utter rubbish. They died because of an accident.

And all the utter garbage about performing a display over a road.

Get real. It was'nt over a road, it was over an airfield. The aircraft ended up on the road by accident.

Some people seem be indulging in schadenfruede and making ill informed and grossly inaccurate claims.

The display was not over a road, it was over an airfield. People did not die beacuse of other people 'getting off' on entertainment. That is tantamount to comparaing air displays to gladiator fights .

The facts are, the display was organised and performed over an airfield. Such displays are tightly controlled and the pilots who engage in these take a huge amount of effort in not only planning the display but choreographing the entire performance.

It is tragic that people lost their lives going about their daily business, no one can disagree that, but stop with the blatant histrionics. The uninformed media read this site also.

Were the same people shreiking about banning movements over roads and bridges when Air Florida went through 14th Street Bridge ?

Were the same people shreiking about banning movements over aparment buildings when El Al 1862 went in at Schipol ?

There was no intent to ever put the lives of the public, nor that of the pilot at risk. This accident was exactly that, an accident.

Let the investigators perform their task in the professional way they under take these sad and tagic events and reach conclusions in order that revisions may be made predicated on fact rather than histrionics.

[/rant off]

Over and out.

Can't see where you got that quote from stuckgear but it seems pretty factual to me. Of course, you're right, it was an accident but I guess we have to wait and see why it happened. However, revisions would appear to have already been made by the CAA.

To me it seemed to pose a nose up then down just before he pulled hard back, could this be due to a stall during the decent?

Aha, and the road was part of the airfield ?
Did anyone pretend it was done on purpose ?

The airshow would have been carried out with in the boundaries as specified in the NOTAMS.

Ground Risk Assessment
 

Directly below the apex of a vertical maneuver might be the safest spot on the ground when things fail to go according to plan.

It's been pointed out that a local school is closed down during the event, but that did not prevent a crowd gathering nearby to watch as can be seen in photos from high ground just before impact. The toll might have been much higher if the Hunter wreckage came through that crowd.

While risks within the airfield and to adjacent structures are managed, we also need to include areas where people can be exposed to risk during all phases of maneuver.

A road closure would have done that. If a road segment is too busy for closure, then maneuvers have to be planned to reduce the risk at that point to no more than that with aircraft on normal approach and departure.

stuckgear

I've no knowledge or expertise regarding aviation in general or flying displays in particular and certainly nothing to offer regarding what went wrong with the Hunter crash that resulted in several dozen people killed and maimed.

But it is not simply an accident. It's not just legal mumbo-jumbo to distinquish between various types of activities and the degree of risk inherent in and/or assumed by those who participate or choose (paying or not) to gather and watch as opposed to those who are uninvolved but get killed or injured without assuming any risk.

To stay away from this event. A person killed in a car accident is dead, no matter whether the driver was drunk, or speeding, or in a poorly maintained vehicle or one that ran off the road and killed a child playing in a schoolyard. The liability varies especially if it it determined that negligence or recklessness were involved. More relevant, at least for this discussion, is that any changes to rules or safeguards arising out of the analysis should reflect greater care for different populations. So, the rules and constraints intended to protect participants or spectators are different from those designed to safeguard others who assumed no specific risk related to the activity. To suggest that the killed motorists who assumed the (perhaps statistically-greater) risk of driving on a public highway therefore also assumed the risk of being incinerated or crushed by a jet aircraft engaged in a spectacle seems a stretch.

Willfully assuming the risk of an accident by engaging in an activity doesn't -- for legal or remedial purposes -- mean assuming all risks from any type of accident.

If that's not what you were implying, then apologies in advance.

Council Van asks "What is the fatality accident rate for air displays?"

The answer is there is not one. However in considering the chances of becoming a victim as a spectator, the reminder is the worst so far in history, namely the Sknyliv air show disaster in July 2002. It resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of the pilots and three military officials. In this instance the death and injury toll were confined to the spectators. What distinguishes the Shoreham disaster is the fact that it was those who were using the public highway that lost their lives. The attendant risks of an air display, for reasons, cause and circumstance yet unknown, were not confined to the areas laid out for the display. More for these reasons than any other, the public interest aspects of this accident will be of considerable significance in the aftermath to this tragic event.

Hairey

You have a very valid observation rather than all the pointless discussion on whether he was doing this or that in earlier parts of the manoeuvre.

its the point that he lost the aircraft which is relevant and I noticed that sharp and abrupt dip too.

his profile was smooth till that point so don't think it was a high speed stall or stall recovery pitching forward to lower the AOA.

I have a suspicion that something upset its smooth trajectory hurling the aircraft down with a frantic attempt to recover.

Maybe a failure of some kind

Pace

The Red Arrows were asked to participate in a Shoreham air display. They looked at the map and said no. If they, the most gung-ho band of go-getters, refuse to fly their fast jets there, then it simply is not safe for fast jets.