Death of the Airshow?

[NutLoose]

I would think this will probably just about kill some of them off, and possibly another nail in the coffin for the likes of Waddington as well if and when it returns, especially as it's supposed to be for Charity, all I can see is the cost being passed onto the punters to the detriment of all.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/statutory%20charges%20GA%20final.pdf




..

[Stitchbitch]

Wait for it...wait for it...ladies and gentlemen, from your left, hangarshuffle!

[Pontius Navigator]

NL, all RAF air shows were hijacked for the staish's charity tick in the box. IIRC the air shows or At Home used to be free. As they got larger so traffic control, police, toilets all started to cost, then a charity % was added, civilian displays were brought in and the original focus was lost.

RIP.

[Planet Basher]

Air shows might survive in a reduced flying environment if there was more ground based aviation activities.

[NutLoose]

What, like formation towing and speed jacking? Somehow I don't think they will catch on, people go to see them flying and displaying.

[AtomKraft]

If government agencies insist on recovering 100% of their costs by charging us, why the hell do we have to pay tax?

[Krystal n chips]

" Air shows might survive in a reduced flying environment if there was more ground based aviation activities" .

On that basis, this would prove a shade problematic for Cosford....and it makes you wonder, having read the proposals, how much longer this event can survive.

An astute move by the CAA however.....rather than simply banning airshows and thus being classed as the "bad guys" for doing so, simply levy an increase in fees and thereafter, as they become prohibative, a natural attrition results....winner !

[dctyke]

Is a RAF graduation,Royal event or funeral fly past counted as a air display?

[BEagle]

NutLoose wrote: What, like formation towing and speed jacking?

The 1953 At Home programme for RAF Merryfield includes 'Three Vampire aircraft have been jacked up; for a small charge you can raise and lower the undercarriage'....:\

Which would no doubt break a whole load of H&S and MAA rules these days...:rolleyes:

[POBJOY]

I well recall being able to fire a bren gun (live ammo) at one of the Biggin At home's.(always on a Saturday)
The 'crowd' barrier was minimal and as i recall the gun was not secured to the ground in any way.
It was on the following Sunday that the Spitfire 'dropped' into the cricket match at Bromley !

[Red Line Entry]

Cosford has made about a quarter of a million quid for each of the last 3 years, so I don't see the hike in costs being prohibitive.

Dctyke, mil flypasts are regulated by the military, not the CAA, so the fees don't apply.

[FAStoat]

Was not that one "Larry the Lamb" ,who became an Air Marshall??I seem to recall it was the Martlesham B of B Mk16 that then became a Gate Guardian to fly again some 40 years later!?

[AR1]

You cant help but feel we're slowly having the life squeezed out of us. Everything is regulated and policed, costs need covering. The local bonfire went the same way years ago for similar but smaller scale reasons.

Then there's Joe Public. That's every one of us, fueled by the prospect of monetary gain, wringing the financial hell out of every bump scrape or waferless Kit-Kat (see todays papers)

Am I getting old?

[Pontius Navigator]

AR1, yup. I see three women are suing their travel company after they were injured on a beach where flags said it was safe to swim.

Personal responsibility?

Where I am right now in the Canaries there are no notices saying dont walk on the seawall, don't swim you'll get wet, beware the coffee's hot etc.

[Finningley Boy]

AR1 and Pontius,

It all started the day an American Lady reportedly brought a successful Law Suit against a company which made microwave ovens because the set of instructions did not warn against placing small dogs and other pets in the microwave oven to dry off following bath time.

On the airshow front, people are also uber synical these days and any attempt by the likes of the CAA to try and rail road such events out of existence, through unreasonable and difficult to justify charges to meet various risk, legal and insurance requirements, certainly won't be missed! Unfortunately I don't think they'll give a toss either, life is becoming increasingly restrictive. It'll soon cost an arm and a leg to be insured to walk down the road on the grounds that you've no need to risk leaving your front door any longer because you can shop online read the news online and so on.:rolleyes:

FB:)

[Martin the Martian]

Llandudno Air Show cancelled.

Llandudno Air Show 2016 cancelled - Daily Post (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/llandudno-air-show-2016-cancelled-10844729)

[Wander00]

I thought it was when Piper were done for umpty million dollars because there was no placard saying "Don't fly this when pi$$ed"

[NutLoose]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628

[POBJOY]

FAStoat Mk16 SL574 bellied in on the cricket pitch** (during lunch break) minimal damage but was not restored to 'flight status' and now resides in San Diego Air Museum.
**OXO sports ground. Mega thread on this a few years back which 'unearthed' lots of information with regard to the reason and confirmed the actual location.

[Martin the Martian]

Couple of good reads:

CAA Airshow Charges Consultation 2016: Cause & effect in overview | GAR (http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2016/02/04/caa-airshow-charges-consultation-2016-cause-effect-in-overview/)

Potential effects of CAA CAP1373b ? The end of the UK airshow? ? The People's Mosquito (http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2016/02/05/potential-effects-of-caa-cap1373b-the-end-of-the-uk-airshow/)

[NutLoose]

Sywell has now cancelled too, and that supported the air ambulance service.

A fascinating post off
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137812-e-Petition-to-ask-the-CAA-to-re-think-their-latest-announcements/page1

This from Mark Jefferies - Display Pilot ( Organiser of annual Children In need Dispaly, Little Gransden)



Authority and responsibility

Is the over reaction based upon advice from Lawyers that said you are (CAA) liable?

CAA cashed the cheque, read the application, looked at the organisers submitted map and issued their own map and air show permission.
CAA looked at the list of submitted acts/ aircraft on the application and issued the permission.
CAA cashed the cheque and certified the aircraft.
CAA cashed the cheque and issued the DA
CAA cashed the cheque and issued a "Aircraft Type Rating Exemption" for permission to fly an aircraft "without being the holder of an appropriate type rating". (This is to do with Permit to Fly jet aircraft)
CAA approved (dont know if there is a fee involved) the DAE to act on their behalf
CAA cashed the cheque and granted the AME a licence to medicaly evaluate pilots
So, to reduce liability you pass the buck. i.e. make everyone else liable except yourself
To reduce the risk you reduce the number of shows
To reduce the number of qualified pilots you make it an unattractive profession
With reducing the number of shows increases the cost burden on those remaining (CAA will only reluctantly and slowly reduce staffing as managers need people to manage-pay structure etc)

With costs increasing it will be like a J curve on those remaining
All this has happened once before in history. People cut down the trees to move the giant heads (Easter Island) with no trees they could not support themselves and as a race they slowly but surely died out. Returning the island to a barren landscape
Is this the intended future our CAA would like?

There is a very significant industry with many jobs created in the UK restoring very historic aircraft for future genarations, lest we forget why these aircraft were built in the first place. The end user (temporary owner) recovers a small amount of his ownership costs flying air shows. Has the CAA done a projected jobs lost analysis of there proposed actions?

Authority without responsibility.
There are some sencible suggestions in the document but it does not justify 100% + cost in fees and an aditional post show tax.
Be it in this instance (Shoreham) or a multitude of other unfortunate disasters we (as a body and country) should all be on the same side pulling together for the better of everybody.


SO SIGN THE PETITION PLEASE

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628

This will have a knock on effect to the military airshows and maybe even the BBMFs survival, think about it, if a lot of airshows are priced out of existence where are you going to display the BBMF or the Reds? Once a year at Cosford? You then have problems justifying their military budgets as the airshow circuit dries up.
It also all has a knock on effect, without a plethora of airshows to offset the costs of owning and maintaining warbirds, owners will simply not be able to afford the operating costs, and sell off their aircraft, ( something that is already happening with some of the changes maintenance wise that has been foisted on them of late ) this will then in turn lead to a further demise of airshows as the acts are no longer in place to support them. And let's face it, the likes of Cosford would then be a pretty short show if you took the civilian side out of it, and who would pay to see that.

Shows cancelled so far

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137872-Sywell-Airshow-2016


..

[Nige321]

Sywell cancelled
Sywell airshow (http://www.sywellaerodrome.co.uk/index.php)

Barton cancelled
Barton air show (http://manchesterairshow.co.uk/)

Reds cancel Torquay Regatta after 28 years...
Reds cancel (http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/BREAKING-Red-Arrows-Torquay-display-dropped/story-28708393-detail/story.html)

:uhoh:

[Pontius Navigator]

BBMF does a fair number of non air show events and probably not as dependent as the Reds.

As well as air show cancellations and the expense of maintaining warbirds, there is a whole industry out there with professional display teams and the industry support.

One event that could lose it display element it Battle Proms. Each event has one display by one Spitfire. The audience is necessarily small compared with an air show so the per capita increase could be huge. As the air element is a minor aspect the obvious thing is to cancel it. That would then put another war bird at risk.

[NutLoose]

Llandudno cancelled

Llandudno Air Show 2016 cancelled due to safety changes - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-35502513)

The DH Club Moth Rally at Woburn Cancelled

Moths at Woburn (http://www.mothsatwoburn.co.uk/)

Who next?

http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2016/02/05/potential-effects-of-caa-cap1373b-the-end-of-the-uk-airshow/

Rob Feeley on 6th Feb, 2016 at 17:54 (http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2016/02/05/potential-effects-of-caa-cap1373b-the-end-of-the-uk-airshow/#comment-921) said: UKAR have just tweeted that only 75 letters have been received by the CAA. Everyone must contact them

[Pontius Navigator]

Petition signed.

I don't go to air shows but do enjoy the Battle Prom sequence and our own Spitfire display at East Kirkby each year. I would miss both and of course the regular displays over my house.

[Mandator]

It was cost and the uncertainty of the weather which killed Woburn for the Moth Club, not the CAA airshow fees. The Moth Club announced the demise of Woburn long before the CAA announced the hike in its fees.

Wonder how the CAA people are getting on at the BADA/CAA/MAA conference at Shrivenham today?

[MSOCS]

Ask what the purpose of an Air Show is.

Is it to raise awareness, understanding and air mindedness amongst the non-aviation community?

Is it to encourage the youth to fly or be involved in flying?

Is it to raise much-needed funds for charities various?

Is it to give something that's value-for-money back to the taxpayer for their ritual salary deduction?

Is it to showcase the skill and professionalism of our military and civilian pilots and entertain in the process?

I think it's all of these and more.

We are literally standing on a precipice of change that will remove every bit of goodness in that list. Forever. Once gone, it will be inordinately harder to reinstate Air Shows in future.

If the CAA are on these forums, please get a grip on reality. Did we stop doing Air Shows after Ramstein? No. We took stock of what went wrong and put defence mechanisms in place to make them safer. Don't use liability and reputation to drive up beaurocracy and cost and kill them off. That's weak and feeble.

[NutLoose]

Trouble is they just do not see it is a double edged sword, put up the cost of a show prohibitively forcing them to cancel and you will see owners simply deciding to get out of the business and sell off their aircraft because the revenue stream that makes it viable to operate these aircraft by offsetting some of the costs by displaying them disappears, result,

Company owning the aircraft go
Company operating the aircraft go
Company maintaining the aircraft go
Companies supporting the Aircraft maintenance companies go
Air shows Go
Companies supporting the air shows go

And all the CAA REVENUE from all of those Companies goes too and I bet that amount will far exceed the £120K they are trying to generate through these new charges.
Plus all the jobs that will be lost, and everything that entails.

[MSOCS]

Perhaps they could be re-named as the:

Curtailment of Aviation Authority

:ugh

[Above The Clouds]

Perhaps they could be re-named as the:

Curtailment of Aviation Authority

CAA = Campaign Against Aviation

[Pontius Navigator]

Is it to raise awareness, understanding and air mindedness amongst the non-aviation community?

Is it to encourage the youth to fly or be involved in flying?

Is it to raise much-needed funds for charities various?

Is it to give something that's value-for-money back to the taxpayer for their ritual salary deduction?

Is it to showcase the skill and professionalism of our military and civilian pilots and entertain in the process?

Your list was true of military air shows with charities a spin off for RAFA etc.

As the number of military shows is near vanishing point the RAF is hugely dependent on civilian shows which are much more commercial shows, even the 'free' ones where the pay off is tourism.

It really is a lose-lose situation and CAA will probably replace licence money lost with jobs lost :)

[TyroPicard]

The problem is the funding model that the government chose for the CAA. Costs have to be covered by the aviation industry. But the CAA exists to make aviation safe for every person who flies in or lives underneath a G registered aircraft. So "the public" should cover the CAA's costs.

[NutLoose]

Herne Bay now under threat over the charges

New fees 'huge threat' to Herne Bay Air Show's future | Canterbury Times (http://www.canterburytimes.co.uk/New-fees-huge-threat-Herne-Bay-Air-s-future/story-28684004-detail/story.html)


Bridgenorth Wings and Wheels cancelled due to News Paper saying it was an air show

https://www.facebook.com/Bridgnorth-Wings-Wheels-1527586080871030


THIS EVENT IS NOW CANCELLED. Owing to the Express and Star and the Shropshire Star using the words 'Air Show' in their report of the new venue the local villagers have been in uproar, and Roy, who, naturally, does not wish to upset his neighbours has cancelled. The event never was an 'Air Show' not even a Fly-in, we would have had a handful of invited light aircraft owners land, and that is all. The event was planned more on the scale of a large village Fete, but now this is not to be, and the charities involved will have to look elsewhere to raise money.Remember without all of these shows how long will the BBMF and Red Arrows survive.

Links to write to your MP's BELOW, and please Email the CAA

please comment

CAA 2016/17 Statutory Air Display and Low Flying Permission Charges Consultation (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=58)

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628

Write to your MP. Template Letter -and how to do it. CAA Airshow Charges etc.... (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137838-Write-to-your-MP-Template-Letter-and-how-to-do-it-CAA-Airshow-Charges-etc)

[robin]

Torbay Airshow now losing the Red Arrows

Torbay Royal Regatta says the Red Arrows are too busy to appear this year after 30 years of displays at the event.

"The Red Arrows have a very hectic programme over the summer and a lot of organisations, air displays and regattas all bid for them and they are oversubscribed," said regatta spokesman Julian Chandler. The Red Arrows are yet to comment.

[Pittsextra]

Its an utter shambles from the CAA.

[Above The Clouds]

Pittsextra
Its an utter shambles from the CAA.

+1 CAA = Campaign Against Aviation

[NutLoose]

Add Little Gransden to the list of possibly ceasing

Little Gransden Air & Car Show 2016 (http://www.littlegransdenshow.co.uk/)

The CAA paperwork takes approximately 30 minutes to issue. £1497 is extortionate but £6994 is eye watering.we have been running our show since 1992 and have raised over £300,000 for charity over the years - including a whopping £60,558 for Children in Need in 2015!BBC Local Live: Cambridgeshire on Thursday, 11 February 2016 - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35542860)

One of the organisers of The Little Gransden Air and Car Show h (http://www.littlegransdenshow.co.uk/)as warned that this year's event on 28 August could be their last. Dave Polie says a rise in insurance costs and flying permits means they're paying out about £9,000 just in fees.

[connoisseur]

There is little, if any point in targeting the CAA for criticism in this case. The Government, or more specifically, G Osborne esq. is raising indirect taxes/reducing services in all areas, the CAA is just one. This is surprising only in as much as people appear surprised, and if the final outcome is less air shows then George is happy because CAA staff numbers/costs can be reduced even further, thus saving him more money.

'It is not the role of the state to provide or support air shows' would be his line. Watch this space as things are unlikely to get better, am just disappointed that so many of our Conservative MP's seem happy to go along with this.

[Heathrow Harry]

all you have to do is to tell them you'd be happy to pay more tax.....

Osborne has to cut as we are all paying around half the tax rates we did in the 1960's & 70's

[TyroPicard]

connoisseur and HH
The CAA does not cost Osborne a bean .. all CAA costs are paid by the aviation industry. The group makes a profit and has £millions in retained earnings.

[Widger]

On the CAA's website
CAA statement on air show charges consultation | UK Civil Aviation Authority (http://www.caa.co.uk/News/CAA-statement-on-air-show-charges-consultation/)

From the Manchester Airshow site

"We are also aware of a consultation of CAA charges in relation to Airshows currently underway. Whilst we shall be providing a response to the consultation with our views, we should emphasise that the charges are not a factor in our decision not to hold the Airshow in 2016, and regardless of the consultation outcome, we fully intend to review the feasibility of holding a future Airshow in the coming years."

Never let the truth get in the way......and all that

[Yellow Sun]

To expand on TyroPicard's reply:

The CAA’s funding model
91. The CAA does not have monies voted to it by Parliament and must instead recover its operating costs, plus a rate of return on capital set by the Government, through charges on the aviation industry for its regulatory services and on users of UK airspace through the Eurocontrol en route charges system.

The chapter and verse may be read here at page 34. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtran/809/809.pdf)

YS

[NutLoose]

But if you read the other parts Widger, It does say the timing of the review and its possible outcome is a factor in their decision making.

The organisers of the Manchester Airshow are following this review process closely. Due to the timing of the completed review which is not expected to be fully published until early March 2016, and due to other planned unrelated developments at the Aerodrome venue, the organiser regretfully decided in December 2015 not to plan a full Airshow event in 2016.

[Pittsextra]

There is little, if any point in targeting the CAA for criticism in this case ?? You really believe that? Of course Shoreham has been the catalyst here but its been so dramatic on so many levels that one wonders who and where the accountability lies for the past. Its a thankless task to debate the accident but you can see that there is commentary over airworthiness of the accident aircraft - such that the CAA are now scrambling to employ an airworthiness engineer, but it rather begs the question what level of oversight was being provided before? What metrics were they using to decide if they were doing a good job?

The last question of course could also be asked about the more general point of display regulation. It isn't good enough to simply say "well we hadn't had an accident that killed members of the public since Farnborough" because as we know from all other areas of aviation risk management that this attitude is not acceptable. Yet we are now expected to allow the very people that crashed the car to now write the new rules, it beggars belief and worse not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation.

Its the same with the fees. This concept of self funding isn't a new one - so why all of a sudden this huge lurch?? Did they ever have a look at the finances in Gatwick because why wake up after Shoreham and bang the table and demand a 100% increase?? Its insanity and again these same people are at the helm/wheel/stick.. I'm running out of vehicles!!!

Airshows are being binned because 1) the funding is a shock and comes very late in the day and 2) the CAA are providing such weak guidance around risk that FDD's are becoming terrified as they shoulder the liability should anything go wrong in future, which with clear guidance and strong support and leadership with your regulator I'm sure they would be confident and willing to do so - but its late Feb and these things are not in place.

The CAA might want to reflect that with the continued erosion of GA they will eventually erode their own mandate and another reason for even existing goes with it.

The No1 desirable quality of a regulator is confidence and I don't see how it is fulfilling that. Perhaps Pilot magazine could ask the CAA for an interview?

[NutLoose]

I totally agree, the CAA have for a long time been shifting the liability off themselves and onto Engineers, that way they can steer clear of any blame or liability, and as for GA, don't get me started.

[andrewn]

?? You really believe that? Of course Shoreham has been the catalyst here but its been so dramatic on so many levels that one wonders who and where the accountability lies for the past. Its a thankless task to debate the accident but you can see that there is commentary over airworthiness of the accident aircraft - such that the CAA are now scrambling to employ an airworthiness engineer, but it rather begs the question what level of oversight was being provided before? What metrics were they using to decide if they were doing a good job?

The last question of course could also be asked about the more general point of display regulation. It isn't good enough to simply say "well we hadn't had an accident that killed members of the public since Farnborough" because as we know from all other areas of aviation risk management that this attitude is not acceptable. Yet we are now expected to allow the very people that crashed the car to now write the new rules, it beggars belief and worse not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation.

Its the same with the fees. This concept of self funding isn't a new one - so why all of a sudden this huge lurch?? Did they ever have a look at the finances in Gatwick because why wake up after Shoreham and bang the table and demand a 100% increase?? Its insanity and again these same people are at the helm/wheel/stick.. I'm running out of vehicles!!!

Airshows are being binned because 1) the funding is a shock and comes very late in the day and 2) the CAA are providing such weak guidance around risk that FDD's are becoming terrified as they shoulder the liability should anything go wrong in future, which with clear guidance and strong support and leadership with your regulator I'm sure they would be confident and willing to do so - but its late Feb and these things are not in place.

The CAA might want to reflect that with the continued erosion of GA they will eventually erode their own mandate and another reason for even existing goes with it.

The No1 desirable quality of a regulator is confidence and I don't see how it is fulfilling that. Perhaps Pilot magazine could ask the CAA for an interview?

Wow, at last someone is finally bringing the real issues to the fore; failures of governance, unwillingness or inability of the regulator to adapt to the changing nature of airshows, be they venues, the aircraft or participants alike.

We've had pages and pages of guff about why a perfectly serviceable aircraft struck the ground, whilst ignoring the less obvious but much more pertinent points that allowed the tragedy to happen in the first place

[Flying Lawyer]

PittsextraOf course Shoreham has been the catalyst here but its been so dramatic on so many levels that one wonders who and where the accountability lies for the past. I am interested in the future.
ie What lessons should be learnt from the past? What changes need to be made to further reduce risks in future?The last question (What level of oversight was being provided before? What metrics were they using to decide if they were doing a good job?) of course could also be asked about the more general point of display regulation. It isn't good enough to simply say "well we hadn't had an accident that killed members of the public since Farnborough" because as we know from all other areas of aviation risk management that this attitude is not acceptable. The CAA has neither said nor implied that is "good enough", nor anything even remotely similar.
It has correctly, and entirely reasonably, pointed out that UK air displays have an excellent safety record and in particular that, until Shoreham, no member of the public had been killed as a result of a UK air display for 63 years.
The efficacy of existing procedures/regulations, as they have gradually been developed, cannot sensibly be dismissed as irrelevant. They are the foundation for assessing and evaluating what changes are necessary now.
The CAA immediately and reasonably took steps relating to the aircraft type and other privately operated former military jet aircraft, and identified enhanced risk assessment criteria for future displays. When steps are taken to reduce risks/enhance safety in light of accidents (generally, not just in aviation) it does not necessarily follow that there was anything lacking previously.
I respect the CAA for not going into 'kneejerk reaction' mode. Yet we are now expected to allow the very people that crashed the car to now write the new rules, it beggars belief. What do you mean?
Who do you suggest should write any new rules?and worse not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation.The CAA is absolutely right not to say any more at this stage.
That is the most sensible and appropriate course until it is possible to make carefully considered comments following the AAIB's final report and recommendations, and make any carefully considered changes that are then considered necessary.
It is entirely reasonable that the regulator should explore what further improvements to public safety need to be made by reviewing/evaluating current guidance and regulations. The objective is to assess whether it is possible to reduce even further the risks associated with air displays.

Short of banning displays, which would absurd as well as a great pity, the risks can never be reduced to zero. They could be reduced significantly by restricting aircraft to s&l flypasts but that would also be absurd and probably lead indirectly to the demise of airshows. The No1 desirable quality of a regulator is confidenceI have confidence in the CAA as a regulator.
It cannot fairly be accused of under-regulating. Far from it. It could reasonably be criticised for over-regulating the GA sector.

Increased charges are, of course, a separate issue.
See comment by TyroPicard at post 40.

[Flying Lawyer]

NutLoosethe CAA have for a long time been shifting the liability off themselves and onto Engineers, that way they can steer clear of any blame or liability, and as for GA, don't get me started. I'm not in a position to comment about engineers specifically but I wholeheartedly support the CAA moving further towards a safety management system which gives operators/organisations power to make responsible decisions in order to ensure an acceptable level of safety. That approach includes removing regulations where possible, regulating only where necessary, regulating proportionately and delegating where appropriate. Heavy-handed regulation often amounts to using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.

Transport Canada was one of the earliest regulators, perhaps the first (1999), to start moving towards a Safety Management System approach, asking individuals, companies and organisations to put systems in place to identify, assess and mitigate risks, and to analyse whether they are meeting their safety goals and continuously improving safety performance. ie To be proactive.

As far as I'm aware, it has not been interpreted as shifting responsibility in a negative sense but widely welcomed and preferred to the previous 'traditional' approach to regulation.
It's possible that attitudes have changed since but my impression is based upon 10 days in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in 2013 discussing flight safety issues and associated regulation with a wide variety of very different types of operators and sizes ranging from small GA to a regional airline and also an airshow organiser, as well as meetings at Transport Canada (with the Director General of Civil Aviation), the Transportation Safety Board (two members of the Board and several senior investigators) and ending with a meeting with the then Secretary General and two heads of relevant departments at ICAO.

The SMS method appears to work. Canada has one of the most successful and safest civil aviation systems in the world.

[Evalu8ter]

FL,
Having experienced working with a SMS as both mil and civ I agree with you. I'm not sighted as to whether the large display operators run an airline style SMS, but if they don't perhaps they might adopt one. Although very time consuming, a SMS based on SIRAs is a powerful tool for identifying risk, and putting appropriate barriers/mitigations in place. With an SMS endorsed by the CAA perhaps FDDs would have more confidence in hiring aircraft and staging displays?

My concern would be the 'one man bands' who own/operate a single/small operations. A proper SMS requires a number of honest inputs, and the outputs can drive expensive solutions. It might be the final straw for some.....

[salad-dodger]

FL. Excellent posts, thank you.

However:
When steps are taken to reduce risks/enhance safety in light of accidents (generally, not just in aviation) it does not necessarily follow that there was anything lacking previously.
Whilst this may be correct, I would also suggest that in many cases it does follow that something was lacking previously. As for this one, I think one could fill a book on with what was going wrong prior to the accident.

S-D

[Pittsextra]

FL - Just to pick up on this first

FL said: It cannot fairly be accused of under-regulating. Far from it. It could reasonably be criticised for over-regulating the GA sector.

My post was not a view on the degree of regulation and actually I'd agree with your point. Mine was a viewpoint upon the process.

If we talk CAP403 (update 13) as was in force at the time of the event that caused a review. I'd absolutely agree that it can not be dismissed as irrelevant - it has been the cornerstone of this type of activity for decades.

What data are the CAA using in order to support your comment:

Flying Lawyer said: The CAA immediately and reasonably took steps relating to the aircraft type and other privately operated former military jet aircraft, and identified enhanced risk assessment criteria for future displays. When steps are taken to reduce risks/enhance safety in light of accidents (generally, not just in aviation) it does not necessarily follow that there was anything lacking previously.
I respect the CAA for not going into 'kneejerk reaction' mode.

I think there has been a lot of kneejerk going on precisely because they have little real data and that has limited options. They grounded civil Hunters - why? was there a specific issue they were unhappy with beyond it simply happened to be the accident machine? If you extrapolate that to other accidents if a 737 crashes tomorrow will they ground all 737's? They didn't ground AW139's when one crashed in Norfolk, or AW109's because of the London crash.

So when I wrote the comment:

Pittsextra said: not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation

I was thinking of many different elements, including perhaps a walk through of how and what the thinking was behind the decision making.

Never the less in the absence of anything else I suppose grounding civil Hunters and the other actions, regardless of any real effectiveness, did create a "look of doing something" and didn't affect very many people in any event. OK fair enough you can see or work out the why part there.

Lets move on to the:

identified enhanced risk assessment criteria for future displays.

Really, based upon what? Is there some new science? Is there some new way of thinking - and if there is what was the flaw in the old way of thinking and what led us down that path... etc etc. You can see where this is going.

What I'm saying FL is that everybody including the CAA roll out the line "We must wait for the AAIB final report"....or similar. So on what basis have these "enhanced risk assessment criteria" been formulated? Are they even based upon Shoreham events - well they can't be can they? We don't have a final report and I believe you reacted to that by saying:

The CAA is absolutely right not to say any more at this stage.

Actually there may very well be elements that are apparent from Shoreham already - in fact we know that there are hence the Airworthiness focus.

So the reality is that it is partly influenced by Shoreham but what else? Are you saying that all the other historical data as ignored up until edition 14 of CAP403 and now we have this crash and suddenly things that were not relevant are suddenly front and centre? If that isn't knee jerk I'm not sure what it is.

But again what data is this? Again hence my comment:-

Pittsextra said: not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation

Do they have a lot of airshow/display data? because actually as Shoreham is the catalyst why some of the changes to medical and flying experience given the pilot involved here? I may or may not agree with that change but I'm very surprised that this Shoreham accident was the catalyst for these things and not (as example) the 2007 accident at the same venue.

Lets be honest here you can not seriously expect us to believe that all of these risk assessment elements are some sudden great revelation post Shoreham 2015?

Although that does rather lead us to your very well made point:-

the most sensible and appropriate course until it is possible to make carefully considered comments following the AAIB's final report and recommendations, and make any carefully considered changes that are then considered necessary.
It is entirely reasonable that the regulator should explore what further improvements to public safety need to be made by reviewing/evaluating current guidance and regulations. The objective is to assess whether it is possible to reduce even further the risks associated with air displays.

OK so they have suddenly woken up to a bunch of factors they had no idea existed - which almost certainly means there is little data pre-Shoreham and then at some point we get this AAIB FINAL report... What then?!

Imagine we are now end of 2016. We have the final report and it suggests something like "couldn't find anything conclusive mechanically wrong with the jet, pilot remembers nothing, video shows controls were working and all we know is he missed a gate, didn't roll wings level, pulled through and crashed."

Now without getting into a bun fight over that wording what then? What regulation can stop that type of event? Perhaps time on type, perhaps DA's not being issued across all classes (i.e I fly a pitts and have a DA, which means if I fly a Hunter I have a DA for that too.) Changing all of that would be very sensible maybe some guidance/rule/focus on abort points - but are we really saying we were oblivious to all of that before? Now of that can be a surprise can it?

Again what does the data suggest? Did/Do we capture anything?

Of course then we come to an over arching point which is that of finance. What activity was being funded before? It might be reasonable to expect that the money paid to the CAA was being spent in a way that ensured data was being captured, that risk assessments were being made and with some sort of methodology and to Evalu8ter's point that would include the "one man bands"...

[Widger]

There is a fundamental point to make here and that is related to Safety Management. As part of any safety management system, periodic reviews or audits are undertaken to look at specific areas. This principle is embedded in ICAO Annex 19.

3.1 Safety Oversight
The State has established mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring of the eight critical elements of the safety oversight
function. The State has also established mechanisms to ensure that the identification of hazards and the management of safety
risks by service providers follow established regulatory controls (requirements, specific operating regulations and
implementation policies). These mechanisms include inspections, audits and surveys to ensure that regulatory safety risk
controls are appropriately integrated into the service provider’s SMS, that they are being practised as designed, and that the
regulatory controls have the intended effect on safety risks.

My emphasis.

This audit is exactly what ICAO requires, not some knee jerk reaction. The audit could have been undertaken any time in the last 30 years. If it had happened pre-Shoreham, would there be as much noise? The State i.e. the CAA is required to conduct such audits and yes this is probably well overdue but that is not a reason for saying they should not do it.

It is also worth saying that whilst Shoreham was the first fatality of uninvolved third parties, you could say the UK has been very lucky in the last 63 years. Shoreham was not the only accident in the last few years. i.e CarFest Gnat in the very same month as Shoreham.

I cannot understand your opposition to work which is intended to look to improve safety. I can only conclude that it is the increase in fees which is behind your vehement opposition rather than any particular issue with the report. In your comments Pitts, I cannot see any reference that you have read the report or any logical argument or debate about the specific recommendations within it.

I am in no way defending the CAA here but I can see the logic in what they are doing after a tragic 2015.

[Wander00]

Has there been a report on the Gnat accident yet?

[Pittsextra]

Widger - which report? The airshow review?

I'm not arguing against a review. I'm asking about the process that gets us to this point so that one might see how that fits within the framework and we then might have some greater confidence that its been done in the right way by the right people.

when you say:

It is also worth saying that whilst Shoreham was the first fatality of uninvolved third parties, you could say the UK has been very lucky in the last 63 years. Shoreham was not the only accident in the last few years. i.e CarFest Gnat in the very same month as Shoreham.
Why lucky? It has had these reviews in the last 30 years, which is why CAP403 is onto revision 13 and more detailed CAP403 revision history is available on a page within CAP403.

So what - if anything - has changed in the thinking that will create version 14 to that which created v.12 or 13 etc? You pointed out the Gnat accident but nothing changed at that point. They weren't alive to change then? What about the other incident that is linked to Shoreham - did that have any outcomes? Or maybe there was? I don't know. Do you know? Could you know? What data is captured and by whom and who and when can you learn? Do we only use an AAIB report to learn? We only learn after we get a smoking hole? You don't think there have been 63 years worth of "wow that was fukking close... better not do that again...." And now we are right back to timescales and communication........ that old chestnut.

[Widger]

This report

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1351UKCivilAirDisplayReviewProgressReport.pdf

It answers most of the questions you pose

[Pittsextra]

No it doesn't. It explains the current review process. It neither addresses methodology of assessing risk or change nor (if any) how that relates to the process that got us to v.13 of CAP403. After all none of the items being considered in this review are new. Nothing. So how are these elements considered now? Will each and every change to CAP403 have explanatory notes to the change or outcome??

Then how is its success being monitored on an ongoing basis?

[Widger]

I am still struggling to understand what your point is. ICAO requires audits under Annex 19 and this is being conducted. Yes the catalyst was Shoreham but the investigation into that accident investigation is separate. The report is an interim update. It is a wide ranging audit in accordance with ICAO with an independent challenge panel.

I am failing to understand what your beef is. You could argue that the horse has bolted, which would be a valid criticism not not an argument for not carrying out a review or is it the money that is riling you?

[Flying Lawyer]

Pittsextra

I'm inclined to agree that grounding Hunters was unnecessary and that the decision may have been influenced by PR considerations. Further, given what has already emerged from the AAIB investigation, perhaps it could now be lifted?
However, I am not party to all the information available to the CAA, nor to CAA decision making.
So when I wrote "not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation" I was thinking of many different elements, including perhaps a walk through of how and what the thinking was behind the decision making. You did not make that clear. Now that you have, I disagree.
You have not explained what other "many different elements" you had in mind. That is merely an observation, not a request for further information.

I sometimes have difficulty understanding points you are trying to make, not helped by the fact, as others have commented in various threads, that you have a propensity to shift your ground. Like Widger, I am struggling to understand what your beef is here.
Is there some new science? Is there some new way of thinking - and if there is what was the flaw in the old way of thinking and what led us down that path... etc etc.No "new science" nor new way of thinking as far as I'm aware.
It is part of the ongoing process of reviewing all spheres of air safety. Given that 11 people died at Shoreham, it would have been surprising, to say the least, if the CAA had not announced a further review of air display safety notwithstanding that one had very recently been completed.
I hope that any further restrictions introduced at the conclusion of the review are not OTT and confined to those which are really necessary.
Are you saying that all the other historical data as ignored up until edition 14 of CAP403 and now we have this crash and suddenly things that were not relevant are suddenly front and centre? If that isn't knee jerk I'm not sure what it is.
No, I am not.
If I thought any of those things I would have said so. I don't.
Lets be honest here you can not seriously expect us to believe that all of these risk assessment elements are some sudden great revelation post Shoreham 2015?Let's be honest here: I did not say that, nor did I imply it.

I have no control over what you choose to infer from what I say, merely a passing curiosity about why you do and that fades quite quickly.
.

[Flying Lawyer]

Widger
you could say the UK has been very lucky in the last 63 years.

You could, because luck plays some part however small in most things, but I wouldn't say it.

That impressive statistic has been achieved against a background of the UK having a very large number of airshows. I understand, but cannot confirm, that we have more air displays every year than the whole of the rest of Europe combined.

Accidents sometimes happen. That, in my view, is inevitable although every reasonable measure should be taken to minimise the risk. However, when I was involved in the air display world (warbirds), safety was taken seriously.
eg I was present at a meeting of the Historic Aircraft Association in or about 1984 when the then Chairman, John Allison, proposed adopting a voluntary system for approval and supervision of display pilots. I wasn't persuaded by his arguments at the time, partly because I was strongly opposed to and irritated by one aspect of the proposal, but it was carried by an overwhelming majority. I readily concede that he was right and believe that much of the original voluntary code was later adopted and developed by the CAA.
.

[falcon900]

At the risk of sounding rather cynical, could I suggest that the actions of the CAA hitherto post Shoreham all come straight from the Ladybird book of how to cope with a high profile disaster, 2015/16 edition?
The death of so many members of the public, coupled with the graphic footage of the crash would have put the organisation at "Defcon 1".
It was inconceivable that it could do nothing, even if it genuinely thought that everything was perfect. Grounding the Hunter fleet and announcing a review of airshow safety was a no brainer, and bought them some time. Regardless of how recently a review of airshow safety had been completed, and regardless of its conclusions, another had to happen. Regardless of how thorough the previous review was, does anyone expect the latest review to conclude that everything is OK? Does anyone expect organising an airshow and display flying to be easier after the review?
As for the new fee regime, we should be clear that the one thing it isnt about is the CAA's finances. Airshow and display flying fees will represent a pimple on a pimple in the context of the CAA's overall budget, and the proverbial blind man running for his life can see that recovering a smaller number of larger fees will have little effect on the overall income. The revised fee structure is about sorting out the wheat from the chaff and ensuring that we have a smaller number of larger airshows, where the CAA will have a reasonable chance of discharging its responsibilities in accordance with the increased expectations of the organisation.
In similar cynical vein, why would they be in any rush to lift the ban on the Hunter fleet? When Daily Mail readers have yet to have the benefit of the AAIB report into the accident, why on earth would the CAA draw more attention to itself by effectively saying "we dont yet know what caused the accident, but we are saying it wasnt the aircraft".
All very cynical, but the realpolitik of public life in 2016?

[West Coast]

My concern would be the 'one man bands' who own/operate a single/small operations. A proper SMS requires a number of honest inputs, and the outputs can drive expensive solutions. It might be the final straw for some.....

Spot on.

Like anything else, SMS via the SRA/SRM/SIRA process can be manipulated to arrive at a desired outcome, yet stil show compliance to regulators. It was hard at my airline where a small group of wise man held the reins and moved flight operations by decree. SMS must be accompanied by changes in the company structure as well to avoid man law driving the outcome, such as a safety department that's the equal of others.

All in all, I like SMS, if only because it does away with the old boy system.

[FAStoat]

Is there anyone in the CAA dealing with this matter that is 1) a Current Pilot of Display Aircraft Either Jet or Piston?2)OR an Ex Military Pilot who has flown either one or the other above?3)Assuming Rod Dean has now retired,and of course Barry Tempest has long retired,there must be Ex Service Pilots in various CAA Departments that should be dealing with this.It seems to me that knee jerk reactions from non pilot people in the CAA are very much the reasons that the Air Displays that Jo Public have for a long time been so enthusiastic about,are about to be consigned to the Bin.Once there can never been resurrected.It is far easier to just say "NO" to get rid of the problem, than spend time and more money to get a Team of Expensive Advisers to move more and more paperwork,which DFDs and Lawyers must wade through plus,Health and Safety issues,which eventually will rule them out on pure cost grounds anyway!!!A very grim future and if you are an Operator or Owner/Driver of a Civvy Jet then it has to be a ruddy costly nightmare!!

[Mach Jump]

After 9/11, someone said, 'Never let a crisis go to waste', and a whole raft of hitherto impossible to justify, draconian measures, including the inexplicable occupation of a foreign country, became a reality.

Many of these restrictions if they had been in force at the time.would have done little, if anything to prevent the events of that day,

There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)

Until Shoreham 2015 not a single person, other than those associated with the event, as either participants, or spectators, has ever been killed, in the entire history of airshows in the UK.

I believe we may well be attempting to eliminate the risk of a 'once in 100 years' event, by decimating the UK Airshow industry.


MJ:ok:

[Wander00]

How many people sadly killed on the roads each year, not seen a regime suggested that would ban driving. Clearly a review is necessary which might lead to some changes, but the CAA approach seems to have all the look of babies and bathwater

[NutLoose]

NutLooseI'm not in a position to comment about engineers specifically but I wholeheartedly support the CAA moving further towards a safety management system which gives operators/organisations power to make responsible decisions in order to ensure an acceptable level of safety. That approach includes removing regulations where possible, regulating only where necessary, regulating proportionately and delegating where appropriate. Heavy-handed regulation often amounts to using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.

Transport Canada was one of the earliest regulators, perhaps the first (1999), to start moving towards a Safety Management System approach, asking individuals, companies and organisations to put systems in place to identify, assess and mitigate risks, and to analyse whether they are meeting their safety goals and continuously improving safety performance. ie To be proactive.

As far as I'm aware, it has not been interpreted as "shifting responsibility' in a negative sense but widely welcomed and preferred to the previous 'traditional' approach to regulation.
It's possible that attitudes have changed since but my impression is based upon 10 days in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in 2013 discussing flight safety issues and associated regulation with a wide variety of very different types of operators and sizes ranging from small GA to a regional airline and also an airshow organiser, as well as meetings at Transport Canada (with the Director General of Civil Aviation), the Transportation Safety Board (two members of the Board and several senior investigators) and ending with a meeting with the then Secretary General and two heads of relevant departments at ICAO.

The SMS method appears to work. Canada has one of the most successful and safest civil aviation systems in the world.

While it all seems fine in principal, one of my major concerns from all of this is without a clear cut, laid down and cast in stone set of requirements for airworthiness, the system is open to abuse where maintenance standards in smaller companies can become driven by pure financial reasons and not safety.

Through all of this and from what I have read from the AAIB reports so far on the Shoreham disaster, a lot of emphasis is being foisted on the likes of seat cartridge lives and the maintenance schedules, neither which I doubt had anything to do with the incident, but that will be seen when the final report comes out.
However maintenance systems failings are already being compounded by the CAA, under the previous system the maintenance was carried out IAW the manufacturers maintenance manuals and they were the basis that everyone had to adhere too, that has changed.
Now as an example of what I mean, Cessna worried about ageing aircraft began purchasing high houred examples of their product and strip them down, they would then identify problem areas to be addressed and issued Special Inspections called SIDS, these started with their twin 400 series and permeated down the 300 and 200 ranges, all being required by the CAA to be embodied. When the 100 series SIDS came out the CAA took the unusual steps in not making them mandatory and allowing individual companies to determine if they complied with them.
This then set a strange precedent, because in EASA which was brought about to create a level playing field it was left up to individual countries authorities to decide if they mandated them or not. Thus in my eyes obliterating the whole reasoning behind EASA.
Cessna then introduced into the 100 series maintenance manuals the SIDS and when querying this with the CAA I was informed only items in section 4 were mandatory, but as Cessna wrote the manuals prior to the ATA 100 system, their limits are in section 2... I was then told you could ignore those parts, and that in my eyes is where the system collapsed, prior to he changes where the book had to be followed to the letter, by saying parts could be ignored opened up the whole manual to individual interpretation as to what is required or not.
I was also told unofficially that Cessna will not rewrite the manuals as that then brings them back into the realms of product liability again for another 10 years in the USA, whether that is correct I do not know, but it sounds reasonable

[LOMCEVAK]

Pittsextra,

Re your #51. A DA in Category A which covers the Pitts does not read across to Category G for the Hunter. Therefore, even if you had a ATRE for the Hunter you could not display it. In fact, in Category G an initial issue DA must be made for each type and so a DA for the Hunter would not cover, say, the Gnat.

Rgds

L

[Pittsextra]

my appols I was meaning renewal

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Widger:
It is also worth saying that whilst Shoreham was the first fatality of uninvolved third parties, you could say the UK has been very lucky in the last 63 years. Shoreham was not the only accident in the last few years.

The Biggin Hill A-26 comes to mind: "21 September 1980 a Douglas B-26 Invader (registered N3710G) crashed during an air display. The aircraft was attempting to carry out a climbing roll in front of the crowd when the nose dropped sharply, and the aircraft continued rolling until it dropped vertically into a valley. The pilot and six passengers were killed." It barely missed a group of spectators and a row of houses, and one of the passengers was a child. So it could have been a lot worse.

[LOMCEVAK]

PPRT,

The A-26 was a non-aerobatic aircraft. Passengers were being carried in contravention of the regulations, some of who, I believe, were not strapped in and which may have been a contributory factor. Such flagrant disregard for the rules cannot be considered as indicative of a dormant problem with the existing operating framework of UK airshows.

About a month before that accident I was taxiing out to take off when the same pilot in the same aircraft did a departure flypast at another airshow with some bank applied and his wingtip was VERY low over my canopy; I genuinely did think that he was going to hit me.

[airpolice]

MachJump:
Many of these restrictions if they had been in force at the time.would have done little, if anything to prevent the events of that day,

There is something of that same concept here, in that the Hunter accident at Shoreham has enabled people to dust off and propose many already held ideas for even more heavy handed regulation/cost, that would, most likely, have made not a scrap of difference to this accident. (The specific cause of which is still unknown.)

Regardless of whether the changes prevent civilian operation of bang seat equipped aircraft in the future, the investigation so far has surely prevented the situation where a seat is flown with life expired cartridges.

[Mach Jump]

Regardless of whether the changes prevent civilian operation of bang seat equipped aircraft in the future, the investigation so far has surely prevented the situation where a seat is flown with life expired cartridges.

I think that the seat cartridge 'issue' is a is a major red herring.

The problem with the supply of seat cartridges for vintage jets has been well known for many years, and the continued use of expired cartridges until replacements could be obtained subjected to the professional judgment/risk assessment of the engineers and pilots involved. I know. I was one of them.

The point is, that the risk of operating with expired cartridges, however small that may be,(and I believe it to be very small) is borne entirely by the occupants, and it should not be a factor when assessing the risk to the public.


MJ:ok:

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Mach Jump:
The point is, that the risk of operating with expired cartridges, however small that may be,(and I believe it to be very small) is borne entirely by the occupants, and it should not be a factor when assessing the risk to the public.

Logical.

[G-CPTN]

I think that the seat cartridge 'issue' is a is a major red herring.
The point is, that the risk of operating with expired cartridges, is borne entirely by the occupants, and it should not be a factor when assessing the risk to the public.

Unless, of course, the aircraft falls onto 'spectators'.

[PrivtPilotRadarTech]

Originally Posted by G-CPTN. Unless, of course, the aircraft falls onto 'spectators'.

Hmmmnnnn.... I hope there is never a situation where a pilotless jet is less of a hazard to spectators (or anyone else on the ground) than a piloted jet...

[Flying Lawyer]

LOMCEVAK
Passengers were being carried in contravention of the regulations

To be fair to DB, that regulation wasn't introduced until much later.

The HAA included a 'no passengers' rule in its voluntary code circa 1984, wrongly and unnecessarily in some members' opinion including mine but we abided by it. (I still think an adult should have the freedom to accept the risk, such as the risk is.)

Before that, passengers were almost always restricted to other pilots and the volunteers who gave their time to help keep the aircraft flying. I say almost only because a very small minority, including DB on the day the A-26 crashed, sometimes extended that to others.
The HAA rule was subsequently incorporated in the regs.

The above doesn't in any way detract from the valid point you make.

[LOMCEVAK]

FL,

Many thanks for the correction - I was going from memory.

[Pontius Navigator]

To regulate or not?

Nutloose said: While it all seems fine in principal, one of my major concerns from all of this is without a clear cut, laid down and cast in stone set of requirements for airworthiness, the system is open to abuse where maintenance standards in smaller companies can become driven by pure financial reasons and not safety

While FL said (apologies if I misunderstood) was to reduce prescriptive regulation.

I can see that tight regulation can be used to ensure that things are properly done and controlled. However they can also be an excuse not to go further in the line of SMS.

Loose regulation should be a gold standard where an enterprise aims at best practice and regular oversight and review.

How could safety be assured with loose regulation and tight regulation not be used as an excuse not to do something?

Now regarding safe life of components and exceeding these limits in an apparently approved (by the company) way, there would appear to be an issue on whether the safe life may be exceeded and under what circumstances.

As for being a red herring in the case of this crash, it can also, as has been averred in many previous instances, be used to show that other safety systems have not been managed correctly. In other words it is germane to the present investigation.

Finally, regarding the grounding of all Hunter jets, until the report states there was no technical issue, is there a real case for lifting that restriction?

[Martin the Martian]

Has anybody heard any news from the BADA symposium this week?

[chopper2004]

Thankfully Yeovilton Air Day, RIAT and Farnborugh going ahead though w.r.t flying displays wondering how badly will they be affected at these venues so to speak.

cheers

[Wander00]

In the context of the surrounding urban area, how can Farnborough get approval, but questions be raised about predominantly rural sites like Duxford. Just a thought

[G-CPTN]

questions be raised about predominantly rural sites like Duxford.
Duxford has two major roads that run in close proximity (one being a motorway).

Plane comes down at Duxford airfield (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3119497.stm).

History of airfield crashes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3061561.stm).

Aerial view of Duxford (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Imperial+War+Museum/@52.0904925,0.1231593,1930m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x47d870963894862d:0x7c69bf53a1c0382 d!6m1!1e1).

[vintage ATCO]

The DH Club Moth Rally at Woburn Cancelled

I have only just seen this . . .

As one of the Organisers of the DH Moth Rally and the author of the note on the Moths at Woburn website and FB page the cancellation had nothing whatsoever to do with the increase in CAA charges (or Shoreham, for that matter). The decision not to run it any longer was made in December for commercial reasons. An air display was only a very small part of the event and could have easily been left out and therefore leave us outside the new charges.

If you care to do a bit of research, which you clearly have not, I think you will find some of the other events you are now trumpeting as cancelled were called off before the consultation was published.

Having been in the air display 'business' for 25 years and recently attending the BADA Symposium I heard first hand why the CAA are having to go down this road. We need clear thinking, not hysterics.

[Wander00]

TN - I know Duxford well, so do not disagree - the point I was making, probably not well, is that Farnborough is surrounded by urban sprawl, , and therefore potentially a greater risk

[Never Fretter]

Petition now past 13000: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628
The government must respon at 10k. At 100k a parliametry debate can occur.

You can also need to comment on the CAA 5 year Strategy, which talks about reducing the regulatory burden(!), and the display / LL flying charges consultation (both close THIS Friday).
https://www.caa.co.uk/our-work/Consultations/Open-consultations/

[NutLoose]

TN - I know Duxford well, so do not disagree - the point I was making, probably not well, is that Farnborough is surrounded by urban sprawl, , and therefore potentially a greater risk And so is Heathrow!
An easy fix for Duxford would be to buy the fields near where BBD went in and swivel the runway slightly if needed.

VintageATC, thanks for clarifying that. Nothing against safety changes, simply the fact they are pricing a lot of Charity supporting airshows out of business.

[Nige321]

Having been in the air display 'business' for 25 years and recently attending the BADA Symposium I heard first hand why the CAA are having to go down this road. We need clear thinking, not hysterics.

VintageATCO
Perhaps you could enlighten us...??

[NutLoose]

A guide on how to fill out the consultation forms

"How to fill in CAA form consultation". "Save Our Airshows" NEW website with tips etc (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137917-quot-How-to-fill-in-CAA-form-consultation-quot-quot-Save-Our-Airshows-quot-NEW-website-with-tips-etc)

[vintage ATCO]

As it was put to us, greater oversight of air displays including Enhanced Risk Assessments, requires four additional people (2x Flt Ops, 1x Airworthiness, 1x Admin Support) which equals £250K pa. The CAA Board have directed that this cost is met by the user, this year. Might not agree with it but couldn't argue with the maths.

There are other changes to DA/DAEs which I am not really qualified to talk about but others have eloquently. Many seem sensible, others not so.

[Wander00]

Petition signed, response sent

[NutLoose]

Well this tells the CAA how things are and really lays it on

JOINT STATEMENT BY THE ?HONOURABLE COMPANY OF AIR PILOTS? AND THE ?BRITISH AIR DISPLAY ASSOCIATION? : British Air Display Association (http://www.bada-uk.com/2016/03/joint-statement-by-the-honourable-company-of-air-pilots-and-the-british-air-display-association/)

[Flugplatz]

Looks like the RAF (sort of) are getting in on the act: Carol Vorderman hits out at red tape which led to cancellation of Llandudno Air Show - Daily Post (http://www.dailypost.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/carol-vorderman-hits-out-red-10991234)

As a Wing Commander, it doesn't surprise me that she is in contact with members of parliament etc. Grant Shapps is no doubt on her speed dial...

Flug

[theonewhoknows]

Really! So she's an expect!

[Red Line Entry]

Actually, she's a group captain (if not an expect!)

[Nige321]

"Dogfight over UK airshows intensifies "

From the RAeS... (http://www.aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/4100/Dogfight-over-UK-airshows-intensifies)

[NutLoose]

But that's how the CAA are these days, take a look at the HAA, an attempt to offload warbird maintenance regulation onto industry, the same has happened to other parts of the job, and does it make it safer? No, a lack of a regulatory authority laying down concise and cut in stone rules leaves it open to interpretation, for myself the realization came when they told me that the previously mandatory maintenance manuals were now open to interpretation as to what needed to be complied with... Previously it used to be the backstop that the CAA would use, these days it all feels to be covering their backs as they are worried about getting sued.

[Martin the Martian]

It's turning into quite a minefield.

https://www.facebook.com/Hangar11Collection/posts/685852481555042

Sorry to be predictable but here I go with another apology .
It’s been a few weeks and I have not been able to respond to the many hundreds of posts and comments received on the site but I will be better, I promise , so please keep sending for me and others to enjoy.
So do I start with a rant or go to news, no I’ll go right in with the rant This season , post Andy’s accident , that few seconds of tragedy has become the 9/11 of our little world. I am not for a moment ignoring the great tragedy and loss of life at Shoreham and I am always cognisant of the fact that regulation needs to be tightened to avoid any such tragedy going forward. However, it’s sheer chaos for all in the display industry as the regulatory body (our much beloved CAA) are neither communicating nor organising but simply in “head in the sand” mode.
At recent BADA conference, as an industry we all lobbied the CAA to rethink the painful hike in charges being proposed and that was a complete waste of time, as they went ahead anyway after a sham of a consultation period. All “in the name of safety”, I don’t agree as no part will benefit anything but the coffers of the regulator. For me, it’s just a way to squeeze cash out of this poor niche industry and it will hurt. You have a wedding; want a display , well CAA fees start at £224. Have a small local event for charity, with kids and stalls and ponies, want a display well that will be £374 in CAA fees to start off before we have even left the ground.
Mr CAA said “ call us we are here to help” LoL….I have recently sent 4 emails and made multiple calls to GA section at Gatwick on an urgent matter related to a display and no chance, no one will pick the phone up or reply. I tried the top man, no use, phone rings off, no VM. I hear that 3 blokes are now deciding on permissions and exemptions ( the process by which we seek permission to fly any displays, from Farnborough down to the local fete) and not one has any specific airshow experience, only one is a pilot!. I have mates at the CAA and many are good guys but hey…this is a crazy way to administer an industry that gives pleasure to millions and attracts crowds second only to football each year.
As display pilots, we have to hold a DA (display authority) and undertake regular checks in the form of flying a display every 12 months in the presence of a DAE ( display authority examiner) . No issues at all with that but with all the heightened focus on the industry, the limited number of DAEs are shrinking as some decide to hang up their boots in fear of increased personal liability. So when my DA expires in June, I may well struggle to find a DAE who has the ticket to examine my rarer category “C” aircraft.
I used to renew typically at an airshow, often with a CAA employee sitting on the FCC ( flight control committee) in a real airshow environment, what better. However, post Shoreham, these few highly experienced guys have now all been stripped of their DAE tickets as the CAA will not allow…..just bloody stupid
So we start the season as an industry in turmoil. As a pilot operator, I have a whole raft of additional paperwork, risk assessments and the necessity to interface with not only local police, coast guard and ATC but now local authority as well, doing separate risk assessments for that body, waiting for them to send you another pile of paperwork. All this for perhaps a flypast for a local show or a display at a wedding. Plus how will we display pilots really be feeling this year, in the sure knowledge that every FDD ( flight display director) will be a bundle of nerves and poised on the red button to call “stop, stop, stop” for the smallest apparent infringement ( before accepted or a gentle rebuke on the radio ) . Any stop call will mean an instant temporary withdrawal of the DA until the CAA have decided on the merits, who knows when. Say this is the first of a multiple display weekend, then the rest of your weekend is toast, you cannot display again, think about that ?
Maybe folks like me will be so deeply focussed on the ground and what we are flying close to, God, is that a caravan, does that constitute a built up area…that we forget to fly the planes. I think airshow audiences can expect “ vanilla” perhaps more sedate, high level displays, with less content as pilots protect their arses and family homes. What a bloody shambles mates
To be honest it’s rapidly coming to the point where folks like me can’t be bothered, just too hard and stressful. How do I tell clients that have booked a Hangar 11 Collection display, that their fees are doubled since 1st April, just a nightmare and with no idea if the regulator will allow the display anyway. Seems that if you are even close to a road, a railway, a house, a school, a factory and so on, you may well be pitching to get the work and the CAA will say NON !

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH an extra £ 224 is NOTHING on the total price of a modern wedding - they lay that out on the invitations..........................

[cessnapete]

Andrew Haines is a political animal appointed for that reason. He is not an aviator with any specialist knowledge of his position. He is there to cover the CAA politicians "we must be seen to do something" brigade.
The CAA oversight committee dealing with these matters are political appointees, and also have no aviation knowledge, only one being a practicing display pilot.(none with recent fast jet time) His views a minority with little weight.
They are all political appointees and that is the reason for the debacle we are now seeing.
The criticism of the Shoreham FDD is shameful. A more experienced pilot with thousands of hours Hunter time would be hard to find.

[Tinribs]

For many years we have had strict guidelines on how close we may fly to large groups of people those limits only to be broken for takeoff or landing. We have also had strict rules for air displays which seem to have worked well over many years since the Farnborough disaster. What then has changed?. We see large groups of people collecting where they may see the show free, as well as avoiding payment they fall outside the consideration of numbers and safety because they are not noted and expected.
The CAA finds themselves asked the question "why did you not prevent this accident and the unforeseen deaths" how shall they answer?
Risk assessment seems sensible because we use that technique in many other areas, who shall do the assessments why those suitable qualified and familiar with the activity. Who shall oversee the process why who else but the CAA and how will that be done why by using newly hired staff paid by the public attending via the organisers.
All this is painful and expensive but the approach is in line with other government activity, user pays etc. I am by no means a fan of the CAA after they lost my lifelong PPL, issued by the board of trade, but the only criticism available at the moment is why did they not set off down this path before the accident and thus reduce the dreadful outcome
There are other many other factors such as pilot qualifications and aircraft maintenance but they seem minor alongside the central issues. If we as aviators and display watchers want to survive this trauma intact we must not lose touch with the fact they we are a minority interest, no matter how large, and our masters in this have the whip hand

[Heathrow Harry]

cessnapete

the number of active display pilots is very small; the number with recent fast jet experience is even smaller

if the committee was filled by these people we'd have them essentially administering themelves (and their mates) - which is one of the reasons we are where we are right now

You can replace "political appointees" with civil servants but that won't change the outlook of the committee - in fact it will be even more risk adverse.

Tinribs is correct

[Pontius Navigator]

What then has changed?. We see large groups of people collecting where they may see the show free, as well as avoiding payment they fall outside the consideration of numbers and safety because they are not noted and expected.

Tinribs, only partly true. Organisers of a new show may make an educated guess where free spectators may gather but after the first show, or at a regular air show they will be well aware and it would be irresponsible to ignore them pita as it may be.

It is not unusual for such places to be restricted, laybys closed, traffic diverted etc. Traffic management for miles around may be controlled. It costs but it does address such problems.

In the Shoreham case a risk assessment might have concluded that road diversions would be too expensive and disruptive against the minimal risk of a disaster. Sadly minimal risk does not mean no risk.

[cessnapete]

I would much rather have an experienced pilot as a DAE, checking me out rather than a political appointee who knows nothing whatever about what he is regulating.
I dispute from my own experience that any DAE " mate" would pass a substandard/ unsafe display practice, as you appear to believe.

[Pontius Navigator]

Pete, correct otherwise in house IRE and Standards checkers wouldn't work. Only if A checked B and then B checked A would it fail.

[Martin the Martian]

From the display side:

Peter Teichman wrote:

Hi all, we are now a couple of months into the new display season and there are certainly some changes in our little airshow world. The tentacles of the Shoreham tragedy have spread into every facet of our working lives as display pilots. These changes have impacted at almost every regulatory level and leave deep impressions upon both the spectacle from an audience perspective, plus for display pilots such as myself, changes both actual and perceived.

The first show of the year was on the 1st May at Abingdon, where Neil and his team put on a super show year after year, raising funds for charity. This was the season opener but was run under the auspices of the MAA (Military) as Abingdon is an MOD property. Whilst the MAA rules mirror the CAA in most areas, there are some differences, too boring to discuss in these pages.

Display distances have moved out to 230 metres on the main “A” axis and there are new restrictions on the so called “B” axis, or vectors towards the crowd. In fact, at one show, any manoeuvres with a crowd vector were banned, here the FDD going even further than the new CAA mega rule changes, so that meant a wholesale alteration of my display that particular day.

The brief at Abingdon was the usual professional one from FDD John Davis, a really experienced operator who takes no crap on his watch. For the memory was that feeling in my stomach, that uneasy feeling that all eyes were on us display pilots waiting for us to trip over, to be 10 feet inside the display line, or straying just a few metres over the car park edge or God forbid, flying over a living thing, occupied dwelling, caravan, factory, tent, etc etc.
I had the feeling all that day, that the world was against us display boys and that the fun had gone out of this activity, this passion that I have so enjoyed over the last 16 seasons. What had been accepted in the past, before Andy pilled in at Shoreham, was now “verboten”. For instance, I always used to nibble the edge of the car park to produce those lovely arcing topsides that the snappers so enjoyed. If you were in an upward trajectory and did perchance fly over a house or small built up area, close to the display, then largely, being over 500 feet and angled away, even the CAA said “fair enough” but not anymore. You old son, are flying a Permit to Fly aircraft and though shalt not overfly any built up area…end of.

So that first day, I looked ever so carefully at the airfield map, at Google Earth and took in as much information as I could, in spite of the fact that I had displayed at Abingdon many, many times but this is the new world friends. I identified vast areas around the site that were not possible to fly over, Abingdon town the nearby A road, lots of hamlets and buildings and was left with very limited choice to get that display in the P40 done at all
The best solution was largely to stay within the airfield boundary, where I was protected by the rules, had no chance to upset anyone BUT that meant a very tight show in a 300 mph fighter and much increased G forces to get her around the patch. Yes we got it done and perhaps the public did not see too much difference but for me, it was very different and not a lot of fun to be honest.

Following week was the first CAA regulated show of the year and it was a biggie, the season opener at Old Warden. This show was the first occasion where the Red Arrows had been at Old Warden for 25 years was it and so the focus was on this one and who was the “sap” who was the first act, the show opener…me of course. I had not attended the brief that morning as it was my Granddaughter’s birthday that Sunday and nothing was more important than that, so I had flown up to Old Warden during the week and “Dodge Bailey” the Chief pilot had been kind enough to brief me personally. There have been a ‘lorra’ changes and some that have gone beyond the new CAA imposed changes but I fully respect Dodge and his standpoint and I was eager to fully comply.

Alterations to distances, radically altered display lines, additional avoids and a re-iteration of the rules in terms of overflying the local villages, that to be fair in the past had not been an issue. The boss asked me to be squeaky clean and as I ran into slot at 14.00 sharp to open their 2016 season, I felt a very heavy weight of responsibility as I surveyed the largest crowd I had ever seen at Old Warden, a sell-out 7000+ I hear.

The display was as briefed, I made it the best spectacle I could within the rules as laid down , I avoided every “avoid”, village, person vessel, hedge and all the rest and got it done . Did I enjoy the display like old times, no I can say I didn’t really and as I landed on with a strong southerly crosswind across the runway gusting 18 kts, there was a sigh of relief really that I had not heard a “STOP, STOP “ nor upset anyone. Not nice when you feel that way but I that is how I felt to be frank and why should I not be honest, no one keeps me and I am not a shy person!

After a flight up to Yorkshire the following weekend in the P40 for a lovely wedding display it was time for Dover Castle. Well, I could bore you for hours on bloody Dover, OMG what a drama the CAA gave me on these three displays over the May Bank holiday weekend. Same gig last year, I got my permission from the CAA no worries, I flew lovely safe set of displays along a perfectly safe display line, no one was killed, or otherwise maimed and thousands of folks at the Castle had a wonderful sight of Spitfire and Hurricane looping and swooping over the Kent hillside.

Now roll onto 2016, the new enlightened world and I find out barely a week prior to the show that the display line from last year was no longer acceptable, my permission rejected, displays all were toast!. I was offered an alternative display line but over the harbour and that was subject to the agreement of the Dover Harbour master. Having already undertaken a lengthy risk assessment, Police engagement, Local authority engagement and risk assessment and Coast guard contact, now I had to start again and enter into a dialog with a very reluctant and sceptical Dover harbour authority.

With a few days to go, I completed another paperwork exercise, asked my client English heritage to leverage their relationship with the DPA and that all fell over, as why would they want me flying over their port on the busiest weekend of the year with lots of ferries and cruise ships in harbour…who could blame them, they said “Non” of course, bound to really.

So back to the CAA and they finally offered me a display line that was at the closest 1200 metres from the Castle and at the furthest over 2000 metres away. I gave my client the chance to cancel but to their credit they agreed and finally, after yet another revised risk assessment I got the permission a day prior to the show, with to be fair every effort from the guys at CAA , who are doing their best to manage a “pigs ear” of a set of rules.

I got the displays done in a good old mates Spitfire MK IX as ours was off line, so thanks to Pete Monk at Heritage Biggin for lending me the Spirit of Kent, which I had last flown in 2006 ,so my log book tells me. The display line was faaaaar away, couple of bloody great aerials between me and the crowd plus the weather was less than brilliant on two of the three days but we got I done and the client was pleased but again, Shoreham is playing havoc with our lives
Next came our beloved Biggin Hill airshow, not the “Biggin Hill International Air fair” as we are used to but a scaled down version, whilst Colin, Bill, and Barry, carefully build up momentum again for this historic event. The issue of course is the site that has a road running along the end of the runway and several other challenges to meet the new CAA regs. The show was smaller than the old days but nevertheless had quality acts and was well supported. The CAA permission was restrictive and set a number of really tough challenges for the FDD and pilots alike.

Amongst these were no flight under 200 feet over the southern end of the display line and that had to be in “non aerobatic” flight (less than 89 degrees of bank) Then literally yards away from the main display line a whole area of buildings, that during previous shows, we all flew directly over, were now deemed to be “not below 1000 feet “. Then the valley and the village itself at just to the left of the main runway were no go at all at any height, necessitating a sharp turn to avoid. But the best one of all was the CAA (bless) banning all aerobatic manoeuvres outside the airfield boundary ….WHAT? The rules of the air allow you to fly over an open space, at minimum 500 feet above and undertake an aerobatic manoeuvre. That is enshrined in the rules of the air (rule 5) but that weekend the CAA said if you want permission to run this show then this is how it is.

So no Derry turns, steep turns, half Cuban or other recognised aerobatic method to turn back towards the display line, just a turn at less than 89 degrees of bank, which uses a lot of sky in a high speed warbird. The weather was a challenge and the display line hard but again we got it done and the show was a big success but for me personally fun, hmmm far less than in past years if I am honest. Is there a pattern building here, one of the fun being squeezed out of our weekends?
...

Fly safe
Peter

[Mogwi]

My dear Peter,

I think you have said it all! After 43 years of great satisfaction displaying many types of aircraft, from Wessex - through Sea Harriers and big pistons - to vintage bi-planes, I will not be renewing my DA at the end of the season. The new requirements and increased insurance burdens have made it uneconomic to provide aircraft for many air displays and very many small venues have, quite reasonably, decided against aerial participation.

I will continue to perform aerobatics above 500', outside controlled airspace, for my own pleasure - and that of my selected friends. I will continue to utilise the (free) NOTAM notification scheme to protect these activities but I will no longer be paying the CAA's exorbitant clearance fees.

It is a great shame that things have come to this pass.

Mog