No aerobatics by Red Arrows at Farnborough! [Archive]

NutLoose

14th Jun 2016, 11:41

Well safety comes first, though it will not exactly be an inspiring show without aircraft showing off to their capability to both the public and trade visitors.
As trade days are a way to show off your wares to potential customers and get them on the first rung of becoming a client, it must be an uphill struggle if you cannot show them what your combat aicraft can do in real life when shown against its competitors.

The last Airshow I can think of when straight and level runs wowed the crowds must have been Kittyhawk 1903. :O

.

MSOCS

14th Jun 2016, 12:24

May as well disband them. The end of airshows in this Country.

Well, let's just hold on there. To your second point, I disagree. This isn't the "end of airshows in this country." Perhaps it's an end to fully aerobatic, high-energy air displays at airfields in close proximity to built-up areas (i.e. Farnborough airshow) but there are other venues that are less risky to display at. It just needs some creative thought as to where or how these events could possibly be hosted to ameliorate the CAA's new regulations.

As for your first point, forgive me if I sense a tone of, "well that's it then, may as well just give up" in your post. The Reds give a heck of a lot more than just Farnborough every two years.

sandiego89

14th Jun 2016, 12:31

The last Airshow I can think of when straight and level runs wowed the crowds must have been Kittyhawk 1903. :O

I remember a straight and level run that left me, and the crowd, quite wowed...

SR-71 in full burner....:E

MSOCS

14th Jun 2016, 12:37

I think the last airshow NutLoose went to, actually was Kitty Hawk, in 1903! ;)

PDR1

14th Jun 2016, 12:41

I remember the straight run-in B2A display that left the farnborough crowd speechless...

...because it had been performed at blackbushe rather than farnborough...

:)

PDR

DaveW

14th Jun 2016, 12:59

That was a B-52. :)

PDR1

14th Jun 2016, 13:24

Was it? Hard to tell from that distance...

:)

PDR

DaveW

14th Jun 2016, 13:34

Well played. :D

PDR1

14th Jun 2016, 13:49

I could claim it was deliberate, but I'd be lying. But in those days I had an office in Hertford House, 2nd floor, overlooking the airfield...

PDR

NutLoose

14th Jun 2016, 14:05

MPN11

14th Jun 2016, 14:14

In which case, none of those events were flying displays at airshows ... they were just aircraft flying around somewhere else, which thereby absolves them from the Display restrictions. No?

PDR1

14th Jun 2016, 14:48

Perhaps, but they did of course infringe airfield circuits unannounced, and violate the VVSP rule...

PDR

sandiego89

14th Jun 2016, 15:10

So should we post the pre-emptive "boring, can't maneuver, unimpressive" F-35B debut at Farnborough posts here, or in the "other" thread ;)

Parson

14th Jun 2016, 15:17

Perhaps they should just do their routine on mountain bikes. Oh hang on, think the Synchro Pair might be a bit too close for that....

VX275

14th Jun 2016, 16:05

Similar to the Cambridgeshire F-111 that did a full reheat pass down the runway, except didn't go down well with the crowd that never saw it, nor the gliding fraternity that were up and about above their little airfield soaring.

The F111 force had a bit of reputation for that sort of thing. I remember being in the crowd at a RAFA Woodford airshow in the 70s desperately looking for the F111 that had called 'field in sight'. We were of course all looking in the wrong direction, if we'd turned around we would have seen the interesting manoeuvres being conducted by the airliners on approach to Manchester airport whilst avoiding the F111 carrying out his display at Ringway rather than Woodford.

langleybaston

14th Jun 2016, 16:25

May we take it that the restrictions will apply to ALL aircraft at Farnboro, not only RAF?

SPIT

14th Jun 2016, 16:27

VX 257
I remember that, that pilot was supposed to be one of the USAFs top reccy pilots ???. Further to that a friend of mine was sitting in an a/c going to Abu Dhabi and this so called TOP PILOT delayed all traffic at Manchester Airport. :ok::ok:

just another jocky

14th Jun 2016, 16:41

May we take it that the restrictions will apply to ALL aircraft at Farnboro, not only RAF?

The restrictions are on the airfield. It's up to each pilot/organisation to decide how they adhere to the restrictions.

KPax

14th Jun 2016, 16:42

I can think of a couple of airfields that have the space and have a decent runway length, Prestwick and Manston. I think Farnborough has changed for a long time to come.

Tiger_mate

14th Jun 2016, 17:37

I too waited at Woodford and saw distant F1-11 attacking Ringway :E
I also saw an F15 Eagle land at Wyton and ask Alconbury which way they wanted him to turn off the runway.

A bit of thread drift I know; but Farnborough is designed to showcase the UK Aviation Industry. ....and as we do not have a UK Aviation industry anymore I suggest that Dubai and Paris have it and Farnborough should retire with grace.

With Duxford under the CAA spotlight because of an adjacent motorway, I foresee a time when Fairford - Shuttleworth and Scampton are the only airshows of any significance.

MSOCS

14th Jun 2016, 19:00

I can think of a couple of airfields that have the space and have a decent runway length, Prestwick and Manston. I think Farnborough has changed for a long time to come.

I think you're spot on there KPax. Farnborough's atmosphere will change forever, should these requirements remain.

I can only see pressure mounting to host elsewhere; somewhere more open/rural compared to Camberley and its surrounds.

Perhaps Fairford could become a single, 2-week event with a week and a half devoted to Business/Commercial, then the usual long weekend for RIAT.

BEagle

14th Jun 2016, 19:10

Farnborough hasn't been the same since the RAF left....

Back in the '80s, you could turn up at RAF Farnborough and park at the Officers' Mess. Then have a coffee in the ante room before wandering down through the private RAF access to the showground. A quick gander around various stands in the trade area, then back up to the OM enclosure to watch the flying. Tea and stickies in the marquee, then back to the car and away whilst the genpub was battling it out to escape.

Last time I went it, it was so wet that I was advised not to drive as the car parks were like swamps. So a train to Reading, thence another to North Camp and finally a bus to the show. Treated like a potential terrorist by some arse-fondling failed wheelclamper to get in, but then some excellent hosting thanks to the company who'd invited me.

The weather was so awful that there wasn't much flying, so after taking my leave, I went for a quick look around the almost totally deserted trade area, then down to see a chum at the A400M. Very interesting look around the aircraft, but I had to leave to catch my train....

At the bus stop there was NO shelter AT ALL. It poured, so I got totally drenched. As I also did at North Camp. Reading station was chaotic as it was being rebuilt, the train from London was late and overcrowded. I was VERY glad to escape at Didcot to drive home.

Attending Farnborough even on a trade day as I did, is not for the faint-hearted these days. The flying displays are pretty so-so, you end up walking MILES and queuing for ages - as you do if you've come by car.

Unless you're being hosted, there are better ways to spend the day - such as watching DVDs of the 'old' SBAC days....:bored:

MPN11

14th Jun 2016, 19:53

My recollections of SBAC were entirely focussed on being hosted in Trade Tents and horrendous hangovers.

On our Staff College visit, one of our number was delivered back to the Officers Mess in some sort of wheelbarrow after excessive hospitality.

Speedywheels

14th Jun 2016, 21:18

This year, if you turn up on the day and buy your ticket at the gate, I believe it will cost you £48 on the Saturday or Sunday. Advance tickets are currently on sale for £40 per day. Since 2014 the trade halls are closed down at the weekend so the public now do not get access to the various exhibits on the stands. Admittedly, a lot of companies did abandon their posts at the weekend before 2014 but there was still sufficient to consume a couple of hours especially if there was inclement weather. Now with the probability of a reduced number of aircraft displaying and displays featuring restricted aerobatic manoeuvres within a smaller display area, I fear this will have a large impact on the income stream for the ADS Group. Farnborough International represents the majority of ADS Group's revenue that keeps the wheels turning until the next show in 2 years time. There has been significant investment in the trade halls and permanent chalets recently so there must be some very worried people at ADS. With Paris, Dubai, Singapore and Avalon there is plenty of competition for exhibitors' investment dollars to display their new products and develop current and new business relationships. Worrying times for Farnborough and it's continuation as the prime global aerospace show every 2 years. I don't think it's too dramatic to suggest that ADS need to decide to move it or risk losing it.

PDR1

14th Jun 2016, 21:38

Farnborough hasn't been the same since the RAF left....

Back in the '80s, you could turn up at RAF Farnborough and park at the Officers' Mess.

There never was an "RAF Farnborough" unless you're refering to the Royal Aircraft Factory (pre 1918). Farnborough was a Royal Aircraft Establishment airfield and was called "RAE Farnborough", because the RAE was an MoD (not RAF) organisation.

PDR

Wageslave

14th Jun 2016, 22:06

Why the surprise?

There is, after all, a ban on aerobatics by "vintage jets". Time for the Reds to get some new ones?

Perhaps the organisers could rescue our sorry nation's reputation from ignominy by putting on a display by a formation Spitfires, ie very much older and far less reliable aircraft with dodgy old piston engines that are apparently so much safer than jets that they can fly aerobatics at airshows willy-nilly entirely immune to third party damage.

Or perhaps someone could sack the witless imbeciles in the CAA who came up with this irrational "vintage jets" idiocy and also the spineless, brain-dead crustacea in the fuggen RAF that have followed the Campaign Against Aviation's craven lead.

Or, as suggested earlier, just cancel Farnborough and all other airshows and retreat into a cocoon of cotton wool and stay there until we all suffocate on the flatulence of the NIMBYS and the health and safety Nazis. It makes me want to puke.

Rant over...

FOR SHAME!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

pr00ne

14th Jun 2016, 22:17

Tiger Mate,

You spout drivel. Far from not having an aerospace industry in the UK any more we in fact have the largest in the world after the USA.

Watch the Airbus A380 at Farnborough, 60% of it UK built.

Watch an Airbus A320 at any airport you care to with it's UK designed and built wings, engines, undercarriage, hydraulic system, fuel system, cockpit transparencies and seats. And Airbus build more of them each and every month than the entire VC10 production run.

No uk industry my arse!

ICM

14th Jun 2016, 22:36

Despite the M11 outside, the Show at Duxford last month didn't seem overly restricted, other than by cloudbase for a while.

Wageslave

14th Jun 2016, 22:57

Watch an Airbus A320 at any airport you care to with it's UK designed and built wings, engines, undercarriage, hydraulic system, fuel system, cockpit transparencies and seats.

CFM56 engines British designed and built are they? Not many people know that...The US Govt might be interested though.
Messier Bugatti Dowty (undercarriage) British, are they? OK, they're big in Gloucester but by no means all British or anywhere close to it.

UK has a larger aerospace industry than France/Germany Airbus? Does it?

tartare

14th Jun 2016, 23:57

Really?
No Arrows aeros at Farnborough?
Surely this is a wind-up.
Yes - it's probably a response to safety concerns/Shoreham etc but how dreadfully sad.
What have we come to?
Memories of seeing the Reds there - also watching the Harrier bow to the crowd - and then being in the Eurofighter chalet with a few VSOs when the news of Concorde crashing in Paris came through.
Is the risk to the public posed by a team of highly trained professionals really that significant? :confused:

Stanwell

15th Jun 2016, 00:56

I know. Sad isn't it?
Don't worry too much, though - entertainment is still on the programme.
Y'see, Tracey Wotsaname is turning up.
Once the helicopters are well out of the way, you could see some spectacular acrobatics on the in-field grass.

octavian

15th Jun 2016, 01:06

Nice one wageslave. Just what most people are thinking, but aren't too inclined to put in writing.

kghjfg

15th Jun 2016, 01:46

Hang on a minute, people driving to Farnborough will endanger the lives of other people who are not going. Obviously it's just too risky and immoral to have them driving there and endangering people who have no interest in the airshow.

Cancel the whole thing, just to be on the safe side.

Now this may seem like a flippant post, but it is true that those driving there will be putting far more families and children at risk on the way than a Red Arrows display would. How many people died on the roads today through no fault of their own, killed by someone else making a journey to something that they had no interest in.

<edit>

I googled it, 5 a day, 5 people die every day on the roads in the UK. Why the **** are we not shutting the roads, 5 yesterday, 5 today, 5 tomorrow.. 35 in 1 week. Dead. Yet the roads stay open.

tartare

15th Jun 2016, 02:59

"...I'm sorry Chuck, you can't climb in that thing; you've got two broken ribs..."

"...Neil, it looks like a lash-up between a chemical processing plant and a light plane. We've decided not to launch, especially after that trick you pulled with the LLTV..."

"...10 knots above the stall Kelly? For most of the mission?!! No way!"

Great aviation health and safety conversations from the past that thankfully did not happen.

Sheesh...

JEM60

15th Jun 2016, 07:22

Just a correction. The aircraft that dusted up Cambridge instead of Duxford was NOT an F.111, but an F.4 Phantom. I know, 'cos I was there, as Max Boyce used to say. The report in the safety section of 'Pilot' magazine a couple of months later made interesting reading!.
I was also at Duxford one morning when a BAE 146 arrived on short finals for 240. then, at two miles, suddenly diverted to Cambridge, where he was supposed to be going in the first place!!!.

RedhillPhil

15th Jun 2016, 08:51

I'm told that R.A.F. and F.A.A. pilots were not immune to landing at each other's airfields at Ford and Tangmere.

Wageslave

15th Jun 2016, 08:53

"Wilbur, remember! Two feet and not an inch more! You haven't done Working at Heights part 2 yet!"

"Willy, those A Stoff and T Stoff pipes, did you check the fitters' Corgi certificates?"
"Ach! So!, I'll sign it off as safe then".

"No Leonardo, you cannotta testa you whaddyacallit? Parrachutta! You needa design something to stoppa you fall if ee notta worka!"

"Igor, it is not going to run until you comply with the rotating discs regulations Eu 2014 245/4.6-7. Oh! Get yourself a proper bonedome too"

"But Baron, red is such an inflammatory colour, it might bring out aggressive tendencies in some of them. Wouldn't a nice magnolia be more appropriate?"

"Ray, if its designed to drop things people are going to get hurt. You'll just have to fit some kind of catchment system to stop them reaching the ground and I don't care what bloody Harris says!"

"Oi! You the skipper of that funny looking thing? Oo-ooh! "The Sunderland", is it? I don't care wot it's bloody name is sonny, it don't move in my 'arbour 'til its fitted wiv proper lifeboats on proper davits"

"Monsieur Montgolfier, Non! Impossible! You cannot make a fire of straw under eet, thees ees a smoke free zone"

"Winkle, you don't have a type rating! You are not flying it!!"

"Airshow? Airshow! Are you mad??? That might involve some of those things actually flying, one might even pass over a nursery school or a market or a convent or - God! - a road!!! Out of the question. Send them all to Hendon. By barge, roads are too dangerous"

Supersonic transport was not a success as the bang sometimes made nervous people jump.
Oh...Oops! That actually happened, didn't it?

But that was the past. This could well be the future;

"I thought three months was a bit ambitious for your holiday in Ibiza. It takes six weeks just to reach Marseilles by ox cart."
"Nah, couldn't do that. Wife's afraid of ox carts. Had to go by foot."

NutLoose

15th Jun 2016, 09:04

Beags

Attending Farnborough even on a trade day as I did, is not for the faint-hearted these days. The flying displays are pretty so-so, you end up walking MILES and queuing for ages - as you do if you've come by car.
When I went as a guest of BMI, it was like feeding time at the zoo, I couldn't believe the fights that would take place amongst the trade guests when one stand or another would put some free pens or badges out on the counter.. To see grown men in suits fighting over a cheap pen was a sight to behold.

Tankertrashnav

15th Jun 2016, 09:13

Great aviation health and safety conversations from the past that unfortunately did not happen.
(as amended)

"I'm sorry Colonel Holland, but you are a disaster waiting to happen - you're grounded" :(

tartare

15th Jun 2016, 11:12

Bud was just a misunderstood fighter jock - in an 8 engined bomber...

Haraka

15th Jun 2016, 11:37

The RAF Officers' Mess at Farnborough was the No1 Mess of the Royal Air Force and copied from the Indian Army mess at Poona, hence the covered walkways and storm drains. I have many happy memories of living there , including helping hosting two "Farnboroughs" ( '70,'72) whilst doing project work at the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine. Very different organisations from the RAE, with which there would appear to be some confusion.
I subsequently had the joys and delights of manning trade stands at three "Farnboroughs" whilst in industry. No comparison.

Wander00

15th Jun 2016, 15:27

Always liked staying in the mess at BD as well, seemed to have an air of refinement

Archimedes

15th Jun 2016, 15:52

CFM56 engines British designed and built are they? Not many people know that...The US Govt might be interested though.
Messier Bugatti Dowty (undercarriage) British, are they? OK, they're big in Gloucester but by no means all British or anywhere close to it.

UK has a larger aerospace industry than France/Germany Airbus? Does it?

According to the ONS and other providers of stats (e.g. PWC) - either the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world (I forget who nips into second place if the UK is counted as being third). There are something 3000 British companies or multi-national companies which have factories/are based in the UK involved in aerospace, and the sector is responsible - directly or indirectly - for the employment of about 250,000 people within the UK.

RAFEngO74to09

15th Jun 2016, 16:23

In terms of aerospace exports, the UK was 4th in the world in 2015 - way behind Germany and France as one would expect from current programs.

International Trade Centre figures for 2015:

1. USA - 131.1 Billion USD
2. France - 54.0 Billion USD
3. Germany - 34.3 Billion USD
4. UK - 18.9 Billion USD
5. Canada - 12.3 Billion USD

Top Aircraft, Space Craft, And Aeronautics Parts Export Countries - WorldAtlas.com (http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-aircraft-space-craft-and-aeronautics-parts-export-countries.html)

Lyneham Lad

15th Jun 2016, 16:54

Getting back to the original purpose of this thread (fancy that!), shouldn't all the cries of doom & gloom be held in abeyance until the details are actually announced sometime this week?

NorthernKestrel

15th Jun 2016, 18:40

Its official....:(

Red Arrows at Farnborough International Airshow 2016 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/news/index.cfm?storyid=51477A62-5056-A318-A84E0875E5EF24C8)

The Red Arrows will be flying at the Farnborough International Airshow and engaging with both adults and young people on all three days that are open to the general public.

However, the high speed and dynamic nature of the traditional Red Arrows' display is no longer appropriate due to the large amounts of local housing, business areas and major transport links underneath the planned display area.

In addition to the Red Arrows flypast with the new F35 Lightning II aircraft on 11 July, further Red Arrows flypasts in different formations are now planned for 15, 16 and 17 July. These additional flypasts, together with more exciting opportunities for the public to engage with the Red Arrows team on the ground, and other RAF air and ground displays, will ensure the Airshow remains a truly exciting, inspirational and entertaining family event.

For the remainder of the display season the Red Arrows are looking forward to displaying as usual at multiple events all over the UK and abroad.

Stanwell

15th Jun 2016, 20:02

Thanks for that, NK.

Just love the second paragraph. Says it all, really.
And for clichéd copywriting .. "...other RAF air and ground displays, will ensure the Airshow remains a truly exciting, inspirational and entertaining family event."
Sorry ... FAIL.

dagenham

15th Jun 2016, 20:46

tartare - no Bud was a gigantic bell end who took people to their graves.

cornish-stormrider

15th Jun 2016, 21:08

Agreed
The only positive in Spokane was that it was only the crew killed, although that price was far too high.....

There has to be some sensible middle ground, and "but we have always done it this way" is not a good enough justification

Momoe

15th Jun 2016, 22:16

I would suggest that post Shoreham, operators have never been more conscious of safety, regulations and currency.

Given that the Red Arrows have displayed at Farnborough for decades and the safety reasons cited as regards built up areas, major infrastructure, etc have also been there for decades, this is more about the cost of insurance, maybe the insurers have declined to insure.

Clacton, Brighton,Bournemouth and all the other seaside shows hopefully will continue with full displays but even these aren't immune. Yacht 1 Reds 0!

tartare

15th Jun 2016, 22:30

eeerr... boys... ironic sarcasm alert... :rolleyes:

dagenham

16th Jun 2016, 09:00

NutLoose

16th Jun 2016, 11:04

You do wonder with all this you must contain and fly your display in a box xyz in size or face the consequences, whether those displaying will be distracted from what they are supposed to be doing.

BTW I enjoyed your post wageslave, made me laugh.

NutLoose

16th Jun 2016, 12:59

Red Arrows Farnborough aerobatic display scrapped - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-36546206)

An RAF spokesperson said the "high speed and dynamic nature of the traditional Red Arrows' display is no longer appropriate".

Is that the death bell I can here tolling?

1.3VStall

16th Jun 2016, 13:10

And, of course, La Patrouille de France will not be displaying at Le Bourget next year?????????

melmothtw

16th Jun 2016, 13:43

I don't think that Le Bourget is hemmed in on all sides by houses, etc? I could be wrong - have only ever experienced it from the train station side of town.

If not, perhaps they will have the space that is not available to the Reds at Farnborough? That, and the French make their own rules of course.

From Jane's - Red Arrows display at Farnborough to be curtailed because of safety fears | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/61476/red-arrows-display-at-farnborough-to-be-curtailed-because-of-safety-fears)

Tankertrashnav

16th Jun 2016, 13:45

VX275

16th Jun 2016, 13:47

sorry can't see the irony or sarcasm in a total failing of the system through blatant lack of spine in the chain of command or idiocy in the PIC.

Suggest you might need to get your sarcasm and / or irony alert tuned in the bay. for comments about { insert usaf type } mistakenly flying over { insert british airfield near the display airfield} highlighting how dumb my USAF brothers are - feel free to knock yourself out, it is an open goal.

Its not just the USAF that got the micky taken out of them at British airshows I well remember the laughter at the non appearance of RAF or FAA all-weather fighters due to "poor weather at their base".

melmothtw

16th Jun 2016, 13:49

I see the journalists are bang up to date with their terminology as usual. Today's Times is talking about the Red Arrows not performing "stunts" at this year's air show, because the Hunter failed to pull out of a "loop-the-loop" at Shoreham.

Seems that journalese is firmly stuck somewhere in the 1920s!

Because if the journalists referred instead to 'Cuban 8s' and 'conic vapour' etc, their readers would of course know what they were on about...

MSOCS

16th Jun 2016, 14:19

Nutloose, no. The RAF commentator meant, no longer appropriate at a location such as Farnborough. The built-up area and surrounding public areas, including roads and parks etc, make the CAA exclusion requirements post-Shoreham too restrictive for the Red Arrows. Other jets can and will display but the Reds are still always more risky due to their routine and sheer numbers.

Death knell for the Reds (and other big display teams) at Farnborough? Probably, but Farnborough is but one of a number of Airshows.

m.Berger

16th Jun 2016, 15:13

Old jets are the target of the new rules. The Reds fly old jets. I wasn't the only one to see this coming. Trouble is that there is no money to buy them some new ones, unlike the Blades, whose display has gone down the pan since they got big aerobatic raceplanes instead of the little nimble RVs in which they gave breathtaking displays.

MSOCS

16th Jun 2016, 15:33

I'm pretty sure the Blades never used RVs, just the Extras the whole time.

Standing by to be corrected.

Disagree this is about old jets too.

xtp

16th Jun 2016, 15:40

Maybe it's the sonic bangs. Torygraph p17 today says 15 feet apart at 800 knots.

MSOCS

16th Jun 2016, 15:49

Yeah, closing speed on the opposition passes but they are a LOT further apart than 15 ft!

xtp

16th Jun 2016, 16:05

We may know it's closing speed, but the quote is ""while travelling at 800mph".

MSOCS

16th Jun 2016, 16:16

Well that's because the average press has no idea about these things 9 times out of 10. Should we be surprised? Like the news broadcasters that wheel out the same old farts to talk their "expertise" each time and those often get it wrong. Some of the coverage in the immediate aftermath of Shoreham saw some classic examples of poorly informed "experts" spouting nonsense.

pax britanica

16th Jun 2016, 16:47

WellI think this is the thin end of the wedge given all the previous comments and quotes about the fate of the reds. Also i dont think the airfield owners especially love the show and its two weeks of disruption to transportation of the rich and the probably crooked in their personal airliners and biz jets. thse peopel are of course very influential.

Farnborough of course is literlaly in the middle of a town and while very built up to the east and north it is very open to the west. Much like neighbouring Camberley , where I live. also open to the West as thats Blackbushe of B 52 fame. Camberley isnt affected by the show except the singleton Reds do zip around over the town while reforming up.

Also with lots of Easterly ops this year perhaps those in control are afraid of the Reds doing some of their 'take off end' stunts over the town instead of over Laffans plain.

So some reasons that 'stand up in court' but equally not really that strong as to shut down an iconic bit of aviation. My fear is that it will be the excuse to simplify other displays except those over the see and leading on from that shut the team down as its 'no longer economic for the limit use it gets'

Sun Who

16th Jun 2016, 17:22

The Blades have only ever flown Extra 300s.
Their parent company, 2Excel Aviation, has something rather special planned for Farnborough this year.

Sun.

MSOCS

16th Jun 2016, 17:53

Do you do motivational speaking Pax Brittanica?

smujsmith

16th Jun 2016, 19:05

Just reading in the local (Swindon) rag that the Reds will not be displaying at RIAT this year, due to restrictions on their display after Shoreham. I'm never totally convinced by news articles, anyone else heard anything re RIAT and the Reds, or lack of them ?

melmothtw

16th Jun 2016, 19:31

The Reds will be at RIAT. The Farnborough limitation applies to Farnborough only.

m.Berger

16th Jun 2016, 20:45

In which case, I stand corrected, but who was flying the RVs at Bournemouth in 2011?

andrewn

16th Jun 2016, 20:47

jeez these posts are so predictable, full of the usual "when I was" rubbish.

This decision by RAFAT is a genuine watermark which encapsulates much of what is wrong with this country!

In our rush for economic growth we develop every available spot of land, without any thought for the wider consequences.

I fear for the younger generation who will have to live like with the consequences of our generations greed.

Momoe

16th Jun 2016, 21:19

In reply to Andrewn

Predictable yes, but your statement about economic growth and development is not relevant. Farnborough was as developed last year and for that matter the last decade as it is today.

Shoreham was the gamechanger, however rather than evolve and adapt, we've gone for the all too familiar H&S first approach and banned aerobatics, just like we banned handguns after Hungerford, which as we've been sadly reminded of today didn't work.

You can't or shouldn't legislate for aberrant behaviour, just as you cannot eliminate risk, you can manage it however.

Having said that, someone with influence needs to grow a pair and make some decisions based on what the majority want.
The public are aware of the risks at airshows and can vote with their feet, I believe that the Reds being restricted to flypasts will keep more people away than the perceived safety risks.

pax britanica

16th Jun 2016, 21:32

Hi MSOCS
Not relaly sure what you were gettign at -except that being a confirmed cynic motivational speaking wouldn't motivate me nor in my mind should it motivate anyone unless its to get them to think.

But I am Pax britanica and oddly the enough there is another regular poster who is pax Brittanica with the two Ts

For the avoidance of doubt i think it is desperately sad to lose the Reds at FNB because the Govt would love an excuse to dump them without a huge public outcry and this has the fingerprints of news management as a policy enabler all over it

And oddly enough I have done some motivational speaking for companies and told i am pretty good at it

spekesoftly

16th Jun 2016, 21:36

m.Berger

but who was flying the RVs at Bournemouth in 2011? Looks like it was the RV8tors

Flightline UK - UK Airshows 2011 - Bournemouth Air Festival 2011 - Review (http://www.airshows.org.uk/2011/airshows/uk-airshows-2011-bournemouth-air-festival-review.html)

airpolice

16th Jun 2016, 21:37

You can't or shouldn't legislate for aberrant behaviour, just as you cannot eliminate risk, you can manage it however.

Having said that, someone with influence needs to grow a pair and make some decisions based on what the majority want.

Momoe, this has been done to death in other topics.

The restrictions are about more than keeping the fans away.

People with no interest in aviation can be killed on the main road, like at Shoreham. So, just because a majority of visitors to the area want to see high energy displays, the RAF can't be seen to be risking the lives of the locals who are not so keen.

Nige321

16th Jun 2016, 22:08

instead of the little nimble RVs in which they gave breathtaking displays.

Ironically, the RV8tors were lead by the same pilot involved at Shoreham...:uhoh:

Momoe

16th Jun 2016, 23:13

Perceived risk again.

Red's have been doing high energy displays (Including Farnborough) without any risk to the public, well over 4500 displays iirc.
Those people who live in the vicinity of Farnborough (or any other active airfield) know that it is an active airfield and that it holds displays
and deemed the risk acceptable because it is a relatively low risk. In other words they don't expect it to happen whereas it appears that
post Shoreham everyone expects it to happen because these are 'jet fighters doing stunts".

Because the holes in the cheese lined up at Shoreham, the assumption is that it could happen again, so ban high energy displays?

There are risks but they are considerably less than Shoreham, there are some similarities but there are a lot of differences most of which are positives for the Reds.

I never meant to imply that the restrictions were in place to keep fans away, the fans will stay away because the Reds have been clipped imo.

I went to Le Bourget for the Paris airshow last year, it wasn't a patch on Duxford, North Weald or Farnborough, little did I know it was a portent of things to come.

Tankertrashnav

16th Jun 2016, 23:27

Because if the journalists referred instead to 'Cuban 8s' and 'conic vapour' etc, their readers would of course know what they were on about...

Did I suggest that? How about "aerobatics" for stunts and "loop" for loop-the-loop?

btw I have no idea what a Cuban 8 is !

Out Of Trim

17th Jun 2016, 00:53

So let me get this straight; it's OK to do aerobatic manuevers in Airliners not designed for such things, over Farnborough.

But, it's not OK for a premier military aerobatic team to do the same..

Good grief! In that case cancel Farnborough and take It to fairford instead.

Probably better access there anyway.

chevvron

17th Jun 2016, 03:33

I remember the straight run-in B2A display that left the farnborough crowd speechless...

...because it had been performed at blackbushe rather than farnborough...

:)

PDR
Wrong it was the B1A

chevvron

17th Jun 2016, 03:36

That was a B-52. :)
The B52 so called flyby at Blackbushe was the result of the aircraft overshooting its turn onto final for Farnborough, the crew did NOT get the wrong airfield!
I'm told it actually ended up well south of Blackbushe roughly along the M3 motorway.

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 07:06

Red's have been doing high energy displays (Including Farnborough) without any risk to the public, well over 4500 displays iirc.

Where would Jon Egging's aircraft have come down had he been displaying over Farnborough that day? Genuine question.

Those people who live in the vicinity of Farnborough (or any other active airfield) know that it is an active airfield and that it holds displays.

And those people who happen to be on a road that skirts the airfield? I have to admit that I don't plan my journeys to avoid the possible fallout zones of all active airfields. Do you?

Because the holes in the cheese lined up at Shoreham, the assumption is that it could happen again, so ban high energy displays?

No one is banning high energy displays. For the Red Arrows only, and this event only, they have decided that the risk just isn't worth it because the display can't be conducted within the airfield and in front of the crowd line. All other aircraft will still be flying high energy displays at Farnborough, and the Reds will be doing the same at all other shows.

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 10:20

melmothtw

Everything in life has risk.

Every person who goes in a car has a far larger chance of crashing into passing pedestrians, or even crashing off the road into a garden filled with children. Should we stop driving?

Every spacecraft has a chance of coming down on a school, should we stop rockets?

Every airliner has a chance of crashing into a city, should we stop all flight?

This is nothing short of pathetic. Possibly the most pathetic example of the current trend towards self negation of all things in the stupid quest for total safety.

There is far far more to life than just living as long as possible.

The people who argue that it is unfair to put people who have not paid at risk are morons who don't think that ludicrous point of view through to its logical conclusion.

Using electricity in the UK means that you are buying electricity from the French who have nuclear power stations that might just blow up one day.

Any drive or flight you ever make puts far more people at risk than every flying display ever made.
1 million per year die on the roads, and many are pedestrians or passers by.

1 crash off the airfield in 50 years.....

Every single action we ever make affects the safety of others. To think otherwise shows a lack of even the most shallow thought.

Whoever made this decision should be publicly vilified. I feel very sorry for the Reds, and that is not something I would never normally say.

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 10:28

PDR1

17th Jun 2016, 10:31

btw I have no idea what a Cuban 8 is !

Loop through to the 45degree down-line, 1/2 roll then repeat.

PDR

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 10:54

Hi Tourist,

Everything does indeed come with risk (thanks for the heads-up), but I guess it comes down to measuring that risk against the potential reward. In the case of the Red Arrows at Farnborough (and only in the case of the Red Arrows at Farnborough) the MoD has decided that those rewards are not worth the risk, in this instance.

If you are going to start banning things based upon a risk/reward equation, then it makes sense to start banning things that are actually most dangerous with the least reward for the majority first yes?

So before you get to air displays which entertain millions every year and kill a vanishingly small number of unconnected passersby, why not ban motorbikes and sportscars from the roads?

They are great fun, but most of the fun is enjoyed by the rider/driver and they kill untold numbers of pedestrians every year.

Why not ban speedboats? Jetskis? Kitesurfing? Model planes? Horse riding? Cycling?

Where do you stop?

It's about time we all just accepted that people die all the time. We are all gong to die. I would far rather add the miniscule risk to my life that all the fun things in life cause.

I let my kids swim, sail, ski, cycle etc etc etc. We all do despite the fact that all these activities increase their risk of an early death. We all subconsciously understand that some risks are worth it.

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 11:03

If you are going to start banning things based upon a risk/reward equation, then it makes sense to start banning things that are actually most dangerous with the least reward for the majority first yes?

So before you get to air displays which entertain millions every year and kill a vanishingly small number of unconnected passersby, why not ban motorbikes and sportscars from the roads?

They are great fun, but most of the fun is enjoyed by the rider/driver and they kill untold numbers of pedestrians every year.

Why not ban speedboats? Jetskis? Kitesurfing? Model planes? Horse riding? Cycling?

Where do you stop?

It's about time we all just accepted that people die all the time. We are all gong to die. I would far rather add the miniscule risk to my life that all the fun things in life cause.

I let my kids swim, sail, ski, cycle etc etc etc. We all do despite the fact that all these activities increase their risk of an early death. We all subconsciously understand that some risks are worth it.

I'm assuming that your many references to 'you' are aimed at society at large, rather than myself personally? Again, I haven't banned anything or even called for the banning of anything.

Again, yes there are many things in life that are a risk and that many people (not me) would perhaps like to see banned.

As I said, the issue usually comes down to balancing the risk and reward for those taking part. What Shoreham showed (and what perhaps Jon Egging's crash might have shown - I see you've ignored that question for a second time) is that airshows present a unique risk to those not taking part.

I would suggest that if it were you who could potentially end up in the dock should a Red plough into a proverbial school or hospital, your thinking on the subject might not be quite so cavalier.

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 11:18

I'm assuming that your many references to 'you' are aimed at society at large, rather than myself personally? Again, I haven't banned anything or even called for the banning of anything.

Yes, I am railing against pitiful modern society rather than yourself.

As I said, the issue usually comes down to balancing the risk and reward for those taking part. What Shoreham showed (and what perhaps Jon Egging's crash might have shown - I see you've ignored that question for a second time)

I ignored because it is irrelevant. His crash showed that most of the time there is nobody under a crash off the airfield. Airliners crash all the time into empty countryside or ocean. They occasionally hit people below too. So what?

What Shoreham showed (and what perhaps Jon Egging's crash might have shown - I see you've ignored that question for a second time) is that airshows present a unique risk to those not taking part.

Go on, justify that. What is the unique risk? As I have already pointed out, numerous activities put unrelated passersby at risk.

I would suggest that if it were you who could potentially end up in the dock should a Red plough into a proverbial school or hospital, your thinking on the subject might not be quite so cavalier.

Well, we will never know, but I would like to think that if I was In such a position I would resign in disgust rather than have the Reds, one of the worlds premier display teams, refuse to fly at one of the worlds biggest aviation trade shows where there will be airliners throwing themselves around because there just might be a crash.

Unbelievable.

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 11:26

1 crash off the airfield in 50 years.....

The Titanic only sank once, but thanks to safety measures that were put in place afterwards I am now guaranteed a spot in a lifeboat every time I travel on a ship.

I know, it's the nanny state gone mad!

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 11:29

...rather than have the Reds, one of the worlds premier display teams, refuse to fly at one of the worlds biggest aviation trade shows where there will be airliners throwing themselves around because there just might be a crash.

The Reds will be flying at Farnborough! They just wont be flying dynamic displays that they are unable to keep within the confines of the airfield and in front of the crowd line. The airliners, and others, will be able to do this hence there is no issue with them flying their displays.

Do keep up Tourist.

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 11:33

The Titanic only sank once, back thanks to safety measures that were put in place afterwards I am now guaranteed a spot in a lifeboat every time I travel on a ship.

I know, it's the nanny state gone mad!

If everybody wore a hard hat and carried a metal umbrella, eventually somebody would be saved from a meteorite strike.

Doesn't mean it's not a vastly moronic over-reaction to risk.

The Titannic was one of a vast number of ships that sank with enormous loss of life. There s nothing wrong with sane risk/reward evaluations. The problem is that we have moved from sanity to competitive lunacy.

Who can be the safest?

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 11:35

Ok Tourist. I don't think we're going to agree on this one so will leave it there.

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 11:35

The airliners, and others, will be able to do this hence there is no issue with them flying their displays.

You think an airliner can keep within the confines of an airfield whilst displaying?

No. They have just made a more sensible risk evaluation.

The Reds just flying is worse than not flying at all. They are neutered and embarrassing at that point.

Mil-26Man

17th Jun 2016, 11:45

Looking forward to watching those airliners cross at 800 kts, just metres apart. Oh no, they don't...

Ewan Whosearmy

17th Jun 2016, 11:58

Looking forward to watching those airliners cross at 800 kts, just metres apart. Oh no, they don't...

Nor do the synchro pair.

Mil-26Man

17th Jun 2016, 12:06

Originally Posted by Mil-26Man View Post
Looking forward to watching those airliners cross at 800 kts, just metres apart. Oh no, they don't...

Nor do the synchro pair.

My mistake, they've been known to get a lot closer than that...

Video: Video released of Red Arrows Crete crash - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7518746/Video-released-of-Red-Arrows-Crete-crash.html)

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 12:14

Looking forward to watching those airliners cross at 800 kts, just metres apart. Oh no, they don't...

Are you attempting to compare the relative riskiness of a professional display team doing their display with pilots flying airliners well outside of how they would normally be operated?

You are a better man than me if you can quantify that comparison..

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 12:16

As an aside, I have actually displayed airliners with a routine including an opposition cross.:ok:

Mil-26Man

17th Jun 2016, 12:20

Are you attempting to compare the relative riskiness of a professional display team doing their display with pilots flying airliners well outside of how they would normally be operated?

Are you suggesting that the airliner pilots flying at Farnborough are not professional or trained for display flying? Personally, I think it is disingenuous to try and compare the risks associated with the display flying of the Reds (no matter how professional they obviously are) to that of an airliner, and not for the reasons that you might suggest.

Mil-26Man

17th Jun 2016, 12:24

As an aside, I have actually displayed airliners with a routine including an opposition cross.

You've obviously won the argument then. The smiley face and thumbs-up seals it for me...

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 12:31

Are you suggesting that the airliner pilots flying at Farnborough are not professional or trained for display flying? Personally, I think it is disingenuous to try and compare the risks associated with the display flying of the Reds (no matter how professional they obviously are) to that of an airliner, and not for the reasons that you might suggest.

Nope, not suggesting anything of the sort.

You are the one disingenuously comparing, I merely wondered how you even begin to equate the risks between jets being flown in a manner which s inside the normal scope of their operation and airliners being flown wildly outside theirs.

Mil-26Man

17th Jun 2016, 12:36

I would suggest that the two can't be compared, which is precisely why the Reds won't be flying aerobatic manoeuvres and the airliners and everyone else will.

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 12:46

I would suggest that the two can't be compared, which is precisely why the Reds won't be flying aerobatic manoeuvres and the airliners and everyone else will.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

It only makes sense if you have compared and found the Reds to be more dangerous then ever other aircraft displaying. Is that what you are saying?

Mil-26Man

17th Jun 2016, 12:50

You seem to be saying that the Reds' display is comparable to that of an airliner, and so if the latter is allowed to fly then so should the former.

I am saying that you two are not comparable, and so the fact that airliners are allowed to display does not mean that the same should be true for the Reds also.

Does that make sense?

I suggest that you direct any further questions to the head of 22 Group and the Chief of the Air Staff who made this decision. Just as with melmothtw, you have now worn me down...

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 12:58

Excellent.

If only the idiots who made this decision were so easy to beat.

Momoe

17th Jun 2016, 13:30

Melmothw,

Assuming the ban on vintage jet aircraft displays doesn't exist post Shoreham and this display ban is for the Reds only for Farnborough only, Why?

As regards the risk angle. I could have phrased that better, I should have stated >4,500 displays without any accidents/incidents involving the public.
Jon Egging could have come down anywhere, agreed. However as the Reds routines are practiced and honed, it's unlikely that the standard routines would have caused GLOC (Assuming that this was a GLOC induced crash).

Again, risk management.

Again, I ask why are the Reds only being penalised?

melmothtw

17th Jun 2016, 13:35

Momoe,

Those are questions you will have to direct to AVM Turner, ACM Pulford, and Micahel Fallon, as it was they that made the decision.

AVM Turner's public explanation is: "We looked at the Reds' display - the shape, size, and manoeuvres being flown. There are usually no issues [with flying the display] in front of the crowd line [and within the confines of the event], but with the Red Arrows display being so wide and so fluid, [coupled with] the growth of the Farnborough area, meant that we could no longer take the risks. If there were to be an accident, there would surely be multiple third-party casualties, and after Shoreham we are no longer prepared to take that risk," Jane's Red Arrows display at Farnborough to be curtailed because of safety fears | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/61476/red-arrows-display-at-farnborough-to-be-curtailed-because-of-safety-fears)

There is nothing that I can add (or otherwise) to that, I'm afraid.

Widger

17th Jun 2016, 13:55

Ahhhh Tourist,

You remind me of a certain senior Scottish Officer who when he was on the Flight Safety Course was asked for his opinion on the causal factors for a number of crashes and his reply in each instance was 'He F**cked up'.

That was the extent of his intelligent analysis of Flight safety and I do wonder if he and you are one and the same?

Wander00

17th Jun 2016, 14:09

Would that be the "Scottish gp capt"?

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 14:10

Widger, it is obvious that nobody currently involved in flight safety has made any intelligent analysis of flight safety otherwise they would stop trying to make everything safer to the detriment of capability.

A simple glance at the graph of the annual accident rate would show the most obtuse observer that nothing we do now has any appreciable affect on safety but is catastrophic to capability and cost.

Law of diminishing returns.

That's my analysis.

What's yours?

Can you give a single example of anything that has been done since the 80's that has made a statistically valid effect on flight safety?

Bing

17th Jun 2016, 15:04

Can you give a single example of anything that has been done since the 80's that has made a statistically valid effect on flight safety?

Introduction of ACAS, aircraft with some form of TAS or TCAS fitted are significantly less likely to be involved in an Airprox or MAC.

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 15:16

This is the military forum.

Have you got figures that show that to be true for UK military aircraft?

"significantly less likely" will obviously show as a pronounced drop in accidents at the point where this was introduced on the graph you have looked at yes?

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 15:23

What I was really meaning was anything that flight safety departments have done, not what clever engineers have done anyway.

People who know me from other forums on the civvy side will know that I am a big supporter of new tech that helps the civvy world

All the costly restrictions placed upon us by risk averse higher ups.

Bing

17th Jun 2016, 15:23

Off the top of my head no, but someone at the MAA has and if I get really bored this weekend I'll recreate it using the UKAB website and excel. Because, and this may shock you, I'm aware this is the military forum hence the introduction of TAS being seen as some sort of modern initiative rather than an old technology soon to be supplanted by ADS-B.

Heathrow Harry

17th Jun 2016, 16:48

" nothing we do now has any appreciable affect on safety but is catastrophic to capability and cost."

but that is the whole point - whatever you think a Red Arrows display is nothing to do with military capability - it's purely entertainment............. and they obviously feel that they can't afford another accident killing passers-by outside the airshow area

Tourist

17th Jun 2016, 19:22

a Red Arrows display is nothing to do with military capability - it's purely entertainment.............

I think it is more than that.

I think it is about pride.
I think it is about a pursuit of excellence.
I think it is about demonstrating to the world that our pilots are "the best"

These things might not be direct capability, but as "soft" power they have their place.

Incidentally, the decision to stop them displaying at Farnborough tells the world the exact opposite.

It sends a message that we have no backbone. We are weak.

Heathrow Harry

18th Jun 2016, 08:00

maybe it also sends the message that we don't like to risk killing innocent bystanders????

personally I think the ban is OTT but then I'm not the guy who has to carry the can if it goes wrong.............................

Tourist

18th Jun 2016, 09:59

personally I think the ban is OTT

Yes, I think that the RAF being so constrained by pant-wetters that the nations premier display team, one of the countries most recognisable symbols of excellence, will not be displaying at one of the worlds premier aviation trade shows despite an enviable safety record purely because a civvy singleton jet crashed into some bystanders once in half a century could just about be described as "OTT"

Momoe

18th Jun 2016, 10:31

Seconded Tourist and well said!

@Heathrow
I think one of the problems is the lack of accountability, the ban is OTT because Shoreham got huge press coverage including some intrusive reporting on Andy Hill by some grubby reporter.

Who is going to stand up and make a totally rational decision based on proven facts? If we keep bowing to the H&S brigade, one day we'll be so far over we'll realise we've had pain in our posterior for a long time.

Pontius Navigator

18th Jun 2016, 14:46

cessnapete

18th Jun 2016, 17:59

1500ish mainly innocent people killed on the roads every year. By your argument why have we not banned cars?
What is to stop say a Red Arrow collision en route, dropping bits of aircraft on a main road, or at the end of their F boro flypast over built up areas? Surely they should only ever fly over open spaces or the sea if possible. Avoiding boats of course.
Or possibly disband, zero risk, bingo.

Tourist

18th Jun 2016, 18:43

Tourist, it is a fact of modern life that whenever a 'neglible risk' event or 'unforeseen risk' occurs then positive action has to be implemented to avoid any blame should if reoccur.

The corollary is that an obvious road safety measure is only implemented after avoidable deaths have occurred.

It is a fact, yes, but it shouldn't be!!

When a one in a million chance occurs, as they are wont to do about once in a million times, we should say "that's as expected. lets carry on as we are" not try to make it never in million times.

Flying cannot be done without risk.

Pontius Navigator

18th Jun 2016, 20:41

Cessna, when we flew with live 1000lb bombs we were required to route clear of towns. The bombs were in a bomb bay and could only drop had we selected jettison. Operationally that went out the window and we pretended to our friends that we were unarmed.

As you rightly point our, cars kill. Rather than ban cars, or air shows, or aircraft, we !mitigate the risk by eliminating 3-lane roads, building dual carriageways, imposing speed limits, speed cams, breathalyser s etc etvc.

Tourist

18th Jun 2016, 20:55

No, we have not even begun to do the obvious things that would save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

Helmets in cars. Irritating but easy.
5 point harnesses. Easy
Annual license test. Not easy but effective
Annual medical
Speed limiters
Average speed checks on all roads
Mandatory soft coverings on all cars.

He list is endless, but for some reason despite 1.25 million deaths per year we ignore it and focus on the futile endeavour of trying to make the safest things in life safer to the detriment of enjoyment.

Perhaps it is because some tasks just seem to big. Where to begin with cars?

MSOCS

18th Jun 2016, 21:23

Pontius, are you suggesting that there is a dedicated agency that regulates road safety (Highway Code), imposes safety defences (barriers, speed limits) and enforces it where necessary (Police), in order to protect all road users, because no activity is without some form of risk?? Would it be fair to say that such measures weren't all installed from day one, but instead EVOLVED over time or events on the basis of common sense and learned experiences, some of which may have been tragic? Perhaps an accident involving many deaths that gripped the public eye?

If that's the case I'd argue that the risk of the Red Arrows crashing into a built-up area ivo Farnborough - and the concomitant societal impact it would have - has just been reduced (in both severity and likelihood) by a regulator introducing an evolved measure. Or, to put it bluntly, doing its job.

The great John Derry's displays were also popular at Farnborough.....and regs were changed after his (and others') death.

Pontius Navigator

19th Jun 2016, 09:29

MSOCS, not one agency but a plethora of them. Locally it is county road safety partnerships. On the strategic road network it is the Highways Agency. On manufacturers it will be EU directives and regulations.

There is no single supra agency but yes, it evolves.

Some manufacturers take the lead: SAABs with day running lights, now an EU regulation.

melmothtw

19th Jun 2016, 09:51

B Fraser

19th Jun 2016, 10:01

Airshows over the sea are also affected. Minehead 2016 has been cancelled due to a massive hike in insurance costs.

Something must be done.

:*

Pontius Navigator

19th Jun 2016, 10:56

Mel, I have?

But what about the better authorities, higher speed limits and cheaper fuel?

Tourist

19th Jun 2016, 11:20

I'm slightly surprised that anybody on here is putting forward the example of road safety regulatory systems and their evolution as something that anybody would wish to emulate.

MSOCS

19th Jun 2016, 12:04

Tourist, it was used as an analogy, not the exemplar. 🤔

cessnapete

19th Jun 2016, 12:24

I hear consideration being given to the closure of Heathrow. It has been pointed out that many times a day, large high energy jet aircraft, some of them over 20yrs. old, carrying hundreds of people, pass over extremely busy roads. Is this an acceptable risk? Perhaps the roads under the flight paths should be closed during the operational hours.
If an accident occurred many innocent bystanders may be hurt.

Wageslave

19th Jun 2016, 13:15

innocent bystanders may be hurt

This expression always puzzles me. It raises the question of who or what are the guilty bystanders?

cessnapete

19th Jun 2016, 13:21

Me too, thats why I used it!
Emanates from the newspaper Shoreham reports I think.

MSOCS

19th Jun 2016, 15:37

Cessnapete. Please tell me that you're not seriously comparing the risk of a 4-engined airliner that rarely exceeds a Rate 1 turn, approaching LHR at c.150kts, with 9 single-engined jets, some of which fly to miss each other at closing speeds in excess of 700kts!

glad rag

19th Jun 2016, 15:52

Fair point, the airliner is in a far less riskier environment that a balbo of the best of the best.

B Fraser

19th Jun 2016, 16:41

It raises the question of who or what are the guilty bystanders?

The Darwin Award candidates who ignore the warning signs at the end of the runway at St Maarten. A rock or a bolt hitting you at speed can do a lot of harm.

Bing

19th Jun 2016, 17:20

Fair point, the airliner is in a far less riskier environment that a balbo of the best of the best.

At the current rate of display team crashes, it probably is.

LOMCEVAK

19th Jun 2016, 18:04

Perhaps the phrase 'innocent bystanders' should be interpreted as third parties who are not associated with the event. They could, perhaps, be considered in a separate category to third parties associated with the event e.g. spectators of the event. But please note that I am not calling spectators guilty!!!

Tourist

19th Jun 2016, 20:01

Fair point, the airliner is in a far less riskier environment that a balbo of the best of the best.

This is true, but risk assessments have to take into account various things.

The consequences of an airliner crashing into London are orders of magnitude worse than a hawk.
The chance of any single airliner crashing into London during approach is orders of magnitude smaller than the chance of a hawk crashing, however the number of airliners making approaches into Heathrow is orders of magnitude larger than Reds displays....

More airliners have crashed into citys during the last 50 years than military display jets crashing into of airport crowds.....

MSOCS

19th Jun 2016, 20:25

What many here seem to not realise, is that this whole topic pertains to MILITARY JET displays, so any comparison with airliners is, frankly, futile. A team jet display that cannot meet the CAA requirements, post-Shoreham, is not at fault. They just don't have the time or funding to work up a Farnborough-friendly display and get it authorised in time. That's assuming such a thing is possible - which I highly doubt, given their multiple choreographies. Likewise, the CAA is doing its duty to protect the public and to try their best to ensure a Shoreham accident doesn't happen again.

All the comparisons I've read here are flawed in some way and are not fair. Right now the CAA are being vilified by the spotter community. It's a resentful reaction, mostly. Therefore the CAA are damned if they impose and damned if they don't. The real question is do you need to reform certain practices? Given a quick Google Earth overhead of Farnborough, I'm surprised higher-risk displays (I.e. Large teams) weren cuffed before Shoreham forced some navel gazing.

Tourist

20th Jun 2016, 05:18

A passerby does not care whether they are killed by a military jet, an ex-military jet or an airliner.

The only thing that matters is sensible risk assessment, and it is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons with other users of the air to see if the military is imposing silly rules upon itself.

The Reds are not at fault, I don't think anybody is saying they are.

What is at fault is the current need to change something in aviation jst because some people die.

People are always going to die. That is a corollary of the idea that you set an acceptable risk level.

Any acceptable risk level accepts risk which accepts a death rate.
THAT MEANS YOU ACCEPT DEATHS.

If the death rate climbs above the set level, THEN change something.

Anything else is just a quest for perfect safety to detriment of all else. If that is really what we want then just cut out the faffing around and ground everything, because that is the only way to achieve perfect safety.

melmothtw

20th Jun 2016, 05:45

Tourist,

Did you feel that things needed to change after Ramstein, or was that an over reaction by 'pant-wetters' also?

Your comment about there having to be a sufficient body-count before any change is effected is the highest order of cynicism.

And while no one needs you to point out to them that death is a fact of life, not mitigating against it when a threat has been identified and the opportunity presents itself to do so is surely the very definition of stupidity.

No one is expecting or even striving for 'perfect safety' by limiting the Reds' display at Farnborough, they are just trying to reduce the risk of anyone dying pointlessly.

Tourist

20th Jun 2016, 08:03

Tourist,

Did you feel that things needed to change after Ramstein, or was that an over reaction by 'pant-wetters' also?

I think that after every crash, you should look at the circumstances, consequences, and look at the likelihood of it happening again.

You should then have a think as to whether there is a fix that will reduce the risk of it happening again.

This "fix" should then be balanced against the effect that the fix will have on accomplishing the task whatever that task may be.

If the cost/benefit analysis seems reasonable then implement the fix.

In the case of Rammstein, I personally think that the fix was worth it. It was linked to the causes of the accident and relevant.

The "fix" for the reds at Farnborough being "don't display" I think not. The crash was unrelated in so many ways.

Your comment about there having to be a sufficient body-count before any change is effected is the highest order of cynicism.

I will rephrase that for you:-

"your comment about using empirical evidence rather than emotion and supposition before change is effected is the highest order of cynicism."

I think that the perfect person to make such decisions would be utterly cynical and untroubled by emotion.

And while no one needs you to point out to them that death is a fact of life, not mitigating against it when a threat has been identified and the opportunity presents itself to do so is surely the very definition of stupidity.

There is only one conclusion if you truly believe that statement.
No matter how many incremental changes of ever reducing effectiveness we make, there will always be an opportunity to reduce it further.
Your statement can be shortened to "flying is the very definition of stupidity"

There must always be an acceptable level of risk, and WE MUST ACCEPT IT!

No one is expecting or even striving for 'perfect safety' by limiting the Reds' display at Farnborough, they are just trying to reduce the risk of anyone dying pointlessly.

What is happening at Farnborough is worse than doing nothing.

Every aircraft flying presents a small risk to the public.

At least when they were displaying, they entertained, brought joy, showed the flag, impressed foreigners with our prowess, helped foreign sales etc etc.

Now, they will be airborne achieving nothing but embarrassing themselves whilst still adding some risk to bystanders.

The last crash did not happen during a display, but during the break to land. They will still be doing that I think.

Nothing would be more "pointless" than dying in the crash of the world's best display team not displaying.

Cows getting bigger

20th Jun 2016, 08:09

Any acceptable risk level accepts risk which accepts a death rate.
THAT MEANS YOU ACCEPT DEATHS.

It's more complex than that. The key bit here is 'uninvolved third parties'. It is a recognised principle in aviation regulation and safety management that the acceptable risk associated with third parties is lower than that of involved individuals. If the Shoreham Hunter had ploughed into the crowd line causing a similar number of casualties we probably wouldn't be having much of this discussion. We would have tweaked crowd lines and carried on. Crashing on a public road, killing uninvolved members of the public, opened Pandora's Box.

I do agree that there needs to be an acceptable number and the appetite for no deaths is neither practical nor reasonable; deaths are inevitable. After Shoreham, the UK (in the shape of civil and military regulator) decided that the existing risk level was unacceptable.

MSOCS

20th Jun 2016, 08:39

Stanwell

20th Jun 2016, 08:44

Quite right, MSOCS.
But ... by the same token, nor were we privy to the media-driven political pressures, either.

Pontius Navigator

20th Jun 2016, 09:15

I side with Tourist about change only evolving after an event.

The road safety analogy is an example. Nearby there is a public footpath across a high speed bypass. Anyone crossing is assessing the risk of injury low and the council that the rate of risk is also low. Naturally there is no call for a footbridge.

Further up the road a child disembarking from a bus, where the speed limit was 60, was killed. There was a public outcry and a call for a 30 or 40 limit. The counculy imposed a 50 limit as only one fatal accident had occurred.

Action only results after empirical evidence of risk.

Well?

Tourist

20th Jun 2016, 09:40

Spot on cgb! I don't think any of the regulars on here even know what scientific assessment went into the creation of the new regulations either. Modelling etc. All well and good for someone to spout hoop that it's an over-reaction, when they weren't in the room when this was being changed. They weren't presented with the assessments and considerations.

So I should just accept that a bunch of people I don't know, that I didn't vote for, using data that they have not shown me, have made decisions that I don't agree with, under pressure from politicians and the media and that's ok?!

I can do simple cost/benefit calculations in my head. It is a major part of being a pilot.

One accident in 50 years that hit passersby involving a civvy, singleton, historic should not modify the entire display community.

It is acceptable for 1 in a million chances to happen occasionally without knee-jerk reacting.

The aviation world has diverged from the rest of reality to an amazing extent. No other industry has anything like the safety record or anything like such extreme reactions to events.

It is only because it makes good telly. If nobody had filmed it, It would have disappeared in the noise.

Wander00

20th Jun 2016, 10:32

Someone on the "Reds and Gay Pride" closed thread mentioned support of "Miss World". Until beauty contests became non-PC, we did - Cranwell, Sandhurst and Dartmouth in rotation provided the escorts for the contestants, other than the winner, at the celebration ball following the contest. And a good night was had by most............

cessnapete

20th Jun 2016, 12:46

Like Tourist I believe the reaction to Shoreham is over the top. There is as much risk of A380 bits falling into farnborough after an accident as the red Arrows doing a flypast.ie almost nil.
Also how do we know that debris will fall in the sterile area. There is no possibility of an airliner displaying at farnborough staying within the airfield boundary or avoiding built up areas.
The level of risk of a one off vintage jet accident, which randomly happened to fall onto a road rather than the many open areas around, does not pose such a risk as to decimate the UK display scene for ever.

Pontius Navigator

20th Jun 2016, 13:46

Cazalet33

20th Jun 2016, 14:26

Tracey Wotsaname is turning up.
Once the helicopters are well out of the way, you could see some spectacular acrobatics on the in-field grass.

Yes, and her acrobatics will no doubt be rewarded with a medal from the Worshipful Company of Dressers Diners and Stickwaggers for her services to CRM in GA.

Tourist

20th Jun 2016, 16:14

Remember the decision was taken by the risk owner, the MOD, and not SBAC. Regardless of insurance, MOD self-insuring, there is the potential for more adverse publicity from a fatal accident than from a display cancellation.
I think, unfortunately, that this is the thought process.

I fail, however, to see how this is not true of every display they ever do.

Maybe Farnborough would have them overfly more than other displays, but all displays involve them overflying houses and roads at some point, even if only when landing.

If this is the future, why not just bin them now and blame it on the Hawk going out of service rather than the truth which is lack of senior officer backbone to shoulder miniscule risk.

If you have not got the b@lls to shoulder this risk, how would you be in war FFS!

p.s. that was directed at the weak decision makers, not you Pontious

tucumseh

20th Jun 2016, 17:04

While I agree with Tourist that this seems an over the top reaction, I wonder if there might be a deeper concern within MoD. Lord alone knows how it avoided prosecution in the Flt Lt Cunningham case and it would be interesting to see if the organisational failures revealed there have been corrected. After all, the same failures have kept the ATC fleets grounded (or paused) for over two years. Could it be Shoreham is a convenient excuse?

Heathrow Harry

20th Jun 2016, 17:43

Today's Flight points out that there have been a number of accidents recently involving national display teams.........................

Momoe

20th Jun 2016, 18:12

Flight may have pointed out the incidents involving other display teams, however this is about the Reds and their very impressive safety record.

I could compare Greek and British driving standards, we're all part of the EU (presently) and we drive the same mix of cars, however would you ever suggest that Greek roads are safer?

My point is statistically, the Reds are less likely to have an accident wherever they perform, comparisons and most definitely conclusions drawn from Shoreham do not take into account all the metrics.

melmothtw

20th Jun 2016, 18:22

andytug

20th Jun 2016, 18:43

Be interesting to see what happens up this neck of the woods with Blackpool and Southport airshows, although both are over the sea in the main a lot of the turning is done over residential areas. I've been caught out more than once while trying to take pics from the extension roof by a bright red Hawk sneaking up behind me....and going directly over the house at low level!
Blackpool same, they seem to be on a level with the water tower at Warbreck as they turn.
Guess they'll have to amend the display to stay to seaward.

MSOCS

20th Jun 2016, 18:50

I think you'll be just fine!

Tourist

20th Jun 2016, 19:24

3 serious accidents in the last 5 years with 2 pilots and 2 aircraft lost isn't the best safety record.

And how many were during actual close formation in displays?

ie, has removing the display portion and just doing a flypast removed that risk in any way?

Tourist

20th Jun 2016, 19:25

MSOCS

20th Jun 2016, 19:48

No Tourist, it doesn't remove the risk but it does reduce it. That's the point!

Simplythebeast

20th Jun 2016, 20:46

Minehead and Whitby displays by Reds now also cancelled and they are both over water?

Pontius Navigator

20th Jun 2016, 20:53

Tourist, again i agree but suggest it is Media Ops with, as you say What a Way to run a War Machine.

Pontius Navigator

20th Jun 2016, 20:58

Minehead and Whitby displays by Reds now also cancelled and they are both over water?
But Cleethorpes is going ahead. Just hope they get the display line sorted. A couple of years ago we watched a great display (not Reds) but we were 2 miles south of the display centre :)

Finningley Boy

21st Jun 2016, 08:44

I've just seen this thread and haven't had the time to read through to see if the point has already been made, but here goes. It struck me back in August last year that the remedy for Shoreham was to ensure that all future airshows, where possible,take place over big enough airfields; i.e. Waddington, Scampton, Fairford, Leuchars, Yeovilton, Culdrose, all these places have the airfield space with sufficiently low infrastructure in the area around the airfields/display areas themselves. I've often wondered but had an idea why the Red Arrows have never given a full display at Shoreham, just looking around the area tells you all you need to know. I've also wondered when the organisers of Farnborough will eventually accept the situation today and plan to move the event somewhere else; i.e. Boscombe Down?

Of course it comes as no surprise to read that the official remedy to the incident at Shoreham is the Bottom Line as always. Pay more money to those who's permission is required and all problems solved. Result, further restrictions, higher gate prices, more faffing about i.e. tickets (including carpark tickets, charged separately in some cases now) in advance only, fewer events, some have already been lost due to the heftier levies imposed, and, of course, much reduced quality, and eroded interest. God help us from Bureaucrats.

FB:)

airpolice

21st Jun 2016, 08:51

FB, I'm not aware of any UK airfield big enough for the Red Arrows to do a full display over.

The dynamic nature of the display involves moves with a large turn radius and high speed passes. That's never going to be contained inside the footprint of an airfield.

Tourist

21st Jun 2016, 08:57

Certainly Culdrose, Yeovs, and Fairford unavoidably involve flying over plenty of houses even in the rather less zippy things I have displayed at them.

Thomas coupling

21st Jun 2016, 17:36

It's not the size of the area it's what's in it. Airfields or display venues are now required to present a catchment area within which the display item will be required to strut its stuff. If the participating item cannot comply due to difficulties circumnavigating obstructions etc within that arena then that participant will probably decline the offer to attend. Or the organiser will refuse entry.
It's a direct fallout from Shoreham. It's all about lawyers wanting their pound of flesh when the wheel comes off. Forget the CAA and the AAIB - think lawyers, law suits, writs, compensation, reputation. Write your risk assessment but make sure it really has reduced it to ALARP when the crunch comes buddy!

Finningley Boy

21st Jun 2016, 20:18

Thanks Thomas, that was the point I was actually making, the airfields themselves are much larger than Shoreham to start with, but the local environs aren't as built up. No likely venue is free of surrounding infrastructure, but there is less likelihood of the Shoreham incident having the same tragic impact at any one of the places I've mentioned. If the same incident occurred at any of them, in relation to the centre of the runway, the most likely outcome would be a gouge in the grass on the field.

FB:)

Pontius Navigator

22nd Jun 2016, 06:46

FB or air show goers departing early on the roads
I think often the Reds are a signal to leave and watch from the car.

Chugalug2

22nd Jun 2016, 07:59

tuc:-
After all, the same failures have kept the ATC fleets grounded (or paused) for over two years. Could it be Shoreham is a convenient excuse?
Like Tourist, I think that tuc has a valid point. A broken UK airworthiness system causes the entire Air Cadets fleet of gliders and powered gliders to be grounded for over two years and counting, yet the same broken system leads to the Reds' Hawk MB Mk 10 seat killing its pilot, and investigation reveals that it had no Safety Case and was thus by definition unairworthy. Unlike the Air Cadets, the Reds go on flying although in a more restricted way. Both fleets are non-operational and PR orientated, but when found to be unairworthy they are treated in different ways. Could it be that there is much crossing of fingers going on here?

NutLoose

22nd Jun 2016, 12:21

Their flat display at Cosford due to weather wasn't half bad , I take it that is what they would intend to be doing at Farnborough.

https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7445/27792347526_800710d56f_c.jpg

https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7427/27548485090_c04b7491ca_c.jpg

https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7613/27214566254_ff1c25a084_c.jpg

Martin the Martian

22nd Jun 2016, 12:36

melmothtw, on the contrary; one aircraft loss in 4,700 public displays is excellent and possibly the best safety record of any of the national teams.

And with regard to Culdrose, there is a cottage hospital almost directly below the display line, so I do wonder how much longer the air show there wil continue now.

melmothtw

22nd Jun 2016, 12:41

Their flat display at Cosford due to weather wasn't half bad , I take it that is what they would intend to be doing at Farnborough.

No display of any sort at Farnborough, Nutloose - flypasts with other aircraft types only.

melmothtw, on the contrary; one aircraft loss in 4,700 public displays is excellent and possibly the best safety record of any of the national teams.

Au contraire yourself Martin, 3 serious accidents in the last 5 years with 2 pilots and 2 aircraft lost. Name me a national aerobatic display team with a worse record.

Megaton

22nd Jun 2016, 12:42

Not to mention the Synchro midair in Greece or the air test aircraft that was parked up by ATC at the end of an air test.

Martin the Martian

22nd Jun 2016, 12:46

Try looking up the Thunderbirds' accident record, while the Blue Angels have a 10% fatality rate.

Tourist

22nd Jun 2016, 12:51

My god, this is pathetic.

You are talking yourselves into believing that the loss of the Red arrows is a good idea for health and safety reasons!!

For at least the last decade there have been threads about losing the reds due to cost etc etc and the get defended to the hilt.

Suddenly, people have decided that they are a serious risk to life and limb and must be stopped......

PhilipG

22nd Jun 2016, 13:03

All this talk about displays being cancelled etc, brings up the other question, how many displays, or indeed flypasts a year are necessary for the continued investment in the Red Arrows to be considered worth it?

melmothtw

22nd Jun 2016, 13:09

Suddenly, people have decided that they are a serious risk to life and limb and must be stopped......

Not me Tourist. The only reason I brought up the loss rate was to counter an earlier claim (can't remember who made it) that suggested that the Reds were so safe as to negate any risk.

Personally I love watching the Reds, and the 'danger' (real or perceived) certainly adds to the excitement. The only difference between our two standpoints appears to be that I can see why the MoD no longer thinks it is a good idea to performing such routines above populated towns, while you do not.

Thomas coupling

23rd Jun 2016, 18:12

the reds are definitely on short finals. The pressure is mounting about running costs and public image and CAA resterictions and where we are in society. They are a magnificent testimony to our patriotic bias ....but......can we afford it any longer.

I'll give them another 2 or 3 years and "boom" they're gone.

airpolice

23rd Jun 2016, 18:46

I don't think it's going to take three years.

NutLoose

23rd Jun 2016, 19:00

Sadly I tend to agree, it's sort of another nail in their coffin, we do not really build many Hawks for oversees sales these days, so they really are no longer a sales ambassadors for that product.
Coupled with the changes in the Airshow circuit with more and more shows being cancelled and the front line force being decimated on cost grounds, one does wonder how long they can justify their existence on a diminishing budget.
One does wonder if the political fallout of disbanding them is one reason they still exist, if a choice came down to the Reds or the BBMF, one thinks the BBMF would be the survivor, though the RNHF has shown that they can operate as an independent team, free from the military purse strings, so possibly the BBMF could do the same.

Bob Viking

23rd Jun 2016, 19:01

Amazing then that the powers that be have lifed the Hawk T1 for a considerable time to come in order to keep the Reds flying.

If they weren't chopped after the awful spell in 2011 then I'd suggest they're safe for a while yet.

BV

NutLoose

23rd Jun 2016, 19:52

I wonder if they used the initial showing at Cosford to practice for their flypast at Farnborough, I must admit it was pretty much a none event and took no notice of it after it arrived.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7505/27786725211_346b5202d7_c.jpg

Finningley Boy

23rd Jun 2016, 20:38

And with regard to Culdrose, there is a cottage hospital almost directly below the display line, so I do wonder how much longer the air show there wil continue now.

No airfield or possible venue is free of surrounding infrastructure Martin, my point is that there are limits. Shoreham is very small and surrounded by things such as a dual carriageway and a tall church with a spire then houses either side, the problem is just how much there is to avoid and at what proximity to the runway, I'm no display pilot but would have thought that all rest with the amount of roads and buildings versus the amount of open field and airfield over which there is room to manoeuvre. I've thought for a long time that Farnborough and Biggin Hill were events that could be staged elsewhere, if only to avoid the air traffic overhead. Culdrose, I would have thought, was safe enough, within reason.

FB:)