Rgsaero
 

I am sad to say you are correct about the inability to close roads for Motorsport in the mainland UK, ( that is precisely why I said IoM & IN in my post !), fortunately the laws in the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland are more enlightened, but this does not take away the fact that small areas around these public roads are prohibited to the public on safety grounds during the event.

While my critics shout about the wholesale chaos that my idea will bring I would remind them that the intention is to prohibit the public from small areas of high risk Not to slap a ten mile exclusion zone around the airfield.

The intention is to keep people out of the high risk areas of the extended display centre line to mitigate the risk of a high energy accident.

Very few human activities are totally safe and as an attendee at airshows and Motorsport events held on the closed public roads I understand that these events carry a greater risk than going to a football or cricket match and accept those risks, however airshows are a little different the in that due to the much larger area that aircraft can cover and that people who have not decided to take the informed risk of airshow attendance can be put at greater risk than in their daily lives. For this reason SMALL areas of high risk ground outside the airfield should be able to become closed to the public during an airshow to protect the non participating public from this greater risk.

The alternative to my suggestion is likely to be airshows that become little more than slow fly pasts.

I know the area around Shoreham airport very well indeed. It would be near impossible and demand vast amounts of manpower to ban people from vantage points close to/either side or under the display routes.

The locals, if not at the show itself, are well used to their favourite spot and would simply shift to another if needs be.

Alternatively, those who wish to use the public commons (in this instance, airspace) for private spectacle will need to pay for the costs of insuring against catastrophic consequences. That may prove commercially non-viable but, if so, that outcome isn't a regulatory problem. Rather the burden will appropriately fall on those who choose to attend airshows and are willing to pay the extra costs of increased insurance premiums likely to result from the Shoreham deaths, injury and damage.

It would be manifestly unfair to shift the increased costs to anyone else.

Film the airshow with 3D panorama cameras. Then troop off to nearest IMAX cinema where virtual attendance will be experienced and suitable smells injected into the air. You can take your own picnic. The same show can be visited by 1000's over a few days; no muddy bogged down cars; no endless queues to enter/exit. There would even be pilot-eye cameras on board many a/c and you could fly a Red Arrows or Extra 300 or Pitts display etc. from the inside. A few hardy souls could brave the day it self. I wonder at the business plan, but there have been dafter ideas. There are some fantastic airshows in stunning settings that most of us can never attend. I think of the summer show that used to be over Lake Geneva. I was sat on the neighbouring hills and watched the military formation displays from above: truly stunning. Over a season the enthusiasts could revel in a magnificent choice of worldwide shows. Much better than U-tube.

Personally, I'd rather attend a shoddy old airshow in person with just a few creaking planes doing basic displays than see all the stars in a stunning setting while I sit in a cinema munching popcorn. But maybe that's just me...

"The [Jim Clark] rally has traditionally taken place on closed public roads in Berwickshire."

Jim Clark Rally organisers reveal revised plans - BBC News

.....hence the death of airshows.


People will not pay more for dull flying.

This is rightly or wrongly what the majority of people would like to see.

https://www.facebook.com/streetfx/vi...6118891140112/

Forgive me, missing quite a lot here because I have not read ALL of the voluminous opinions. But, loving the Tom Cruze stuff, Top Gun & all that ; whatever happened to the "Hard Deck" concept. As a Trainee pilot, that concept was driven hard into my very soul. We NEVER did ANYTHING below the "hard deck" of the day. QNH, OCL etc . So, if a HD was calculated, the unfortunate display pilot should not have considered a pull out below that level.

Regrettably, I agree with everything David Learmount said in yesterday's Daily Mail Quote. Sad, but true.

A lot of people commenting on this event for the media are not as knowledgeable as they think they are.

I'm not sure if it has been covered on this thread but a fly past doesn't become an aerobatic manoeuvre until the nose passes 30 degrees nose up. Therefore it is perfectly permissible to fly past at 100ft, pull to 30 degrees, and when passing 500ft commence an aerobatic manoeuvre.

Therefore pulling into the vertical after a 100ft fly past isn't necessarily rule breaking if done correctly.

Very few pilots plan to have a crash, so if one occurs there's always a reason. Let's wait until the final report is out, learn lessons to try to prevent a similar accident and continue to enjoy air shows.

LD

Back in the day a fully laden DC10-10 did a fly past at Biggin Hill; not a stunt or some loop the loop but a low fly past with 380 bums on the seats.
The manoeuvre would certainly (as much as is possible) have been safe.
We have to decide what is reasonably safe (as much as a reasonable person would expect) and what is not.

gcal says: "We have to decide what is reasonably safe"

In the strange world of the HSE, this would be done by "Risk Analysis" and some fairly complex Mathematics. I expect the CAA and AAIB may function in the same way. We should ask to see their Maths and see what we think of their conclusions.

I believe that it's already been mentioned that 'easing up' from 100' to 500' is going to rob the aircraft of much needed energy for the aerobatic manoeuvre.

Basil

Are you seriously suggesting that a Hunter or any similar high performance aircraft has insufficient power to deal with the energy loss of climbing to 500'?

Just because somebody mentioned it doesn't mean it isn't utter b@llocks.

This is my first post on this thread and I have followed it closely. As ESG's post #464 of the 2nd September remains unacknowledged I thought I would add this and share his concern for the unfortunate pilot.....


I wish AH (and his wife and family) all the best and that A makes as good a recovery in time as is possible. What no one has said is that every pilot takes off on a flight expecting to land safely and go home after a day in the "office" and it makes no difference if it is a routine hop in a puddle-jumper, a flight in an Airbus or Boeing commercial jet or a combat mission in a fast jet or an air show display.

Whether the jet was "vintage" or not is irrelevant if the jet was serviceable and properly maintained which I believe will be clearly established by the AAIB so blanket bans based on the age or the aircraft is pretty irrelevant. (The Hawks flown by the Red Arrows are over 30 years old and have used up much more FI (fatigue index) than this unfortunate Hunter had - the RCAF Tutors used by the Snowbirds team are even older - should they be grounded too?)

This was a tragic accident and lessons will be learned. All I would ask is that a thought be spared for the pilot involved; he didn't set out for this flight to end the way it did: may he get fit to fly again as soon as possible and be spared everlasting guilt and anguish. And before anyone asks, I don't know AH or his family, but I did spend 10 years in the RAF and met a few "bona mates" along the way...and I've been lucky, so far my tally of take-off's is = to my landings.

Get well soon AH.


MB

Basil

Basically what Tourist said...

If you're at >100 feet at any sort of decent speed in a fast jet if you apply power and pull back in any sort of meaningful way by the time you hit 30 degrees of pitch you'll already be well above 500 feet....

I think majority would agree that, although the question of being able to repeat things accurately is something different, especially if you then include a rolling element; and how is the DAE or FDD evaluating this 30deg pitch up, especially if you are off axis - how much pitch do you see when the aircraft is in plan view?

What you are then introducing is another problem. If 500 was truly planned and the aircraft has more than enough energy something subsequently goes badly wrong to burn all of that 500ft on the way back down......

A BBC Inside Out programme including an article about this is just finishing.

Sorry I didn't mention it earlier, only seen part myself

Possibly only in BBC South region, but maybe you can find it on iPlayer.

These kind of comments, about 500' & 30 degrees, is focusing on the legal limits, definitions etc. As has been quoted many times about many various other scenarios where legality seems to be 'just' on the side of the pilot, but airmanship definitely wasn't, law is not always the aduicator of righteousness.
At the pearly gates it does not gain any kudos to claim to have been 'in the right'.

11:45 on:-
BBC iPlayer - Inside Out South East - 07/09/2015

Can somebody point me to the document (CAA, EASA, ICAO etc) in which aerobatics is defined as exceeding 30 deg pitch?

From EASA FCL:
"Aerobatic flight’ means an intentional manoeuvre involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight or for instruction for licences or ratings other than the aerobatic rating."

But no particular pitch or bank angles are defined?