Gnat down at CarFest
I find it odd that after the Gnat accident there was no outcry form the CAA or the Press. No great imposition of display restrictions, or massive increase in CAA fees. Presumably because only the pilot was killed, no civilians involved.
It seems both accidents may have had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry. Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no vessels of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No spectators to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, Elizabeth Castle must be clear of all persons. All these positions normally places of observation for this great show.
And of course the massive increase in fees
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Presumably. with this criteria, if the Farnborough Air Show is to go ahead the whole urban area under the flight path of any display item must be clear of potential spectators or persons.
Health and safety gone mad!!
It seems both accidents may have had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry. Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no vessels of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No spectators to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, Elizabeth Castle must be clear of all persons. All these positions normally places of observation for this great show.
And of course the massive increase in fees
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Presumably. with this criteria, if the Farnborough Air Show is to go ahead the whole urban area under the flight path of any display item must be clear of potential spectators or persons.
Health and safety gone mad!!
Last edited by cessnapete; 15th May 2016 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it odd that after the Gnat accident there was no outcry form the CAA or the Press. No great imposition of display restrictions, or massive increase in CAA fees. Presumably because only the pilot was killed, no civilians involved.
It seems both accidents had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry. Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no boats of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No persons to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, and of course the massive increase in fees.
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Health and safety gone mad!!
It seems both accidents had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry. Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no boats of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No persons to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, and of course the massive increase in fees.
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Health and safety gone mad!!
All of that said though, your post suggests that at some point in your life you must have been declared clinically stupid.
S-D
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,617
Received 293 Likes
on
161 Posts
the ex RAF fast jet pilot mafia shout any discussion down
All of that said though, your post suggests that at some point in your life you must have been declared clinically stupid.
I too am appalled that Shoreham happened the way it did but I would prefer to understand from the experts why it went wrong, rather than some form of digital kangaroo court by the inexpert and uninformed - which would include me.
Last edited by treadigraph; 14th May 2016 at 23:47.
Originally Posted by salad-dodger
We just can't really discuss them on here openly because the ex RAF fast jet pilot mafia shout any discussion down.
As one of the main opponents to unfounded speculation in that area, I have offered my opinion here on the facts in the report now that it is available. All any of us were ever asking for was don't attribute blame without knowing the facts and be a little sensitive about the conclusions you draw.
SD. Were you having a bad day when you posted your midnight blah, or just upset we didn't win Eurovision?
I think you need to re-read cessnapete's post. It makes perfect sense to me, or am I missing something?
I think you need to re-read cessnapete's post. It makes perfect sense to me, or am I missing something?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Jersey Display, 1970.
One could have said, even back then, "Is this wise?"
http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/20...are-air-shows/
Photo credited to Jersey Evening Post
One could have said, even back then, "Is this wise?"
http://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/20...are-air-shows/
Photo credited to Jersey Evening Post
Last edited by MPN11; 15th May 2016 at 14:06.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems both accidents had the same issues of recency etc. yet the reaction to the Hunter event was huge, to the detriment of the display industry.
Presumably,because purely through chance, the aircraft unfortunately landed on a busy road rather than an empty field.
The excessive, in my opinion, knee jerk, must be seen to do something, reaction of the CAA continues.
Health and safety gone mad!!
S-D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
Salad Dodger
I will try and explain my clinical stupidity.
"By chance," if you believe that the pilot was fully in control of his aircraft and chose to impact a busy road rather then an adjacent empty field, then we will have to disagree.
On a general theme I believe in my stupid opinion, however harsh you may think,, life can never be 100% safe. Whether by technical or human error accidents will always happen. You can improve procedures, charge huge amounts of money in the process, but unless you ban the activity you cannot eliminate risk.
And as a former display pilot, if I ever thought, that unless I was reckless or grossly negligent I would be routinely prosecuted for making a mistake, I would never have been involved.
I will try and explain my clinical stupidity.
"By chance," if you believe that the pilot was fully in control of his aircraft and chose to impact a busy road rather then an adjacent empty field, then we will have to disagree.
On a general theme I believe in my stupid opinion, however harsh you may think,, life can never be 100% safe. Whether by technical or human error accidents will always happen. You can improve procedures, charge huge amounts of money in the process, but unless you ban the activity you cannot eliminate risk.
And as a former display pilot, if I ever thought, that unless I was reckless or grossly negligent I would be routinely prosecuted for making a mistake, I would never have been involved.
Ghengis, CessnaPete was talking about the Jersey show I think, not CarFest...
From the Jersey website:
The hugely popular Jersey Air Show apparently in the balance this year. The organisers being told that although the displays take place over the sea, that they must ensure no vessels of any sort must be moored in St Aubins bay. Any incursion of this rule means immediate cessation of flying. No spectators to be allowed at all on the whole of the bay beach, with severe vehicle restrictions in the vicinity, Elizabeth Castle must be clear of all persons. All these positions normally places of observation for this great show.
And of course the massive increase in fees
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
And of course the massive increase in fees
This event normally brings in a large amount of funds to Charitable organisations.
The annual air display is organised by the Jersey International Air Display a.r.l. a not-for-profit company, which strives to raise monies for British Service Charities and to support the Island’s tourism industry.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just asking for transparency.
I'd like to see how much money Carfest gave to Children in Need.
Look at RIAT, a very small amount of the money taken in actually ends up with the charity.
So, in round numbers, for every £8 at the gate, 58 pence ended up with the charity.
What the charity did with that 58 pence is another story. As usual, it's the lawyers and accountants who are doing well.
As for Jersey....
My bold. That was lifted from their website today. No mention of what they spent last year's money on. Interestingly, they say "any profits" so perhaps experience tells them that there may not be any profit, after all the bills have been paid.
The whole Airshow Circus should come clean about what really happens. The people who operate old aircraft, get paid to display them. I don't think that any of them are making money at it, they are probably just covering their costs. It would be more honest to point out that it is a show, which is expensive to produce, but enjoyed by many. To overly rely on the suggestion that it benefits the charities, is less than accurate.
There may well be some truth that charitable donations will suffer if airshows have to stop, but the impact will be more keenly felt by those who display at them, than by the charities.
Look at RIAT, a very small amount of the money taken in actually ends up with the charity.
INCOMING RESOURCES 2014-15
Commercial Trading Operations
Royal International Air Tattoo £7,346,762
Other income £694,157
Total Incoming Resources £8,040,919
RESOURCES EXPENDED
Cost of Generating Funds:
Promotional Costs (£236,884)
Commercial Trading Operation: (£4,766,241)
Other expenses (£2,381,767)
Governance Costs: (£75,806)
Donation to Royal Air Force Charitable Trust (£580,221)
Total Resources Expended (£8,040,919)
Commercial Trading Operations
Royal International Air Tattoo £7,346,762
Other income £694,157
Total Incoming Resources £8,040,919
RESOURCES EXPENDED
Cost of Generating Funds:
Promotional Costs (£236,884)
Commercial Trading Operation: (£4,766,241)
Other expenses (£2,381,767)
Governance Costs: (£75,806)
Donation to Royal Air Force Charitable Trust (£580,221)
Total Resources Expended (£8,040,919)
What the charity did with that 58 pence is another story. As usual, it's the lawyers and accountants who are doing well.
As for Jersey....
The annual air display is organised by the Jersey International Air Display a.r.l. a not-for-profit company, which strives to raise monies for British Service Charities and to support the Island’s tourism industry. As a result, organisers receive a grant from Jersey’s Economic Development Department, the government department responsible for tourism in Jersey and relay upon the generous support, financial and otherwise, of many leading businesses and individuals.
Costs for staging an event of this size are increasing each year and as well as the expected costs for fuel and ground power, accommodation for aircraft crew and ground support also needs to be sourced. Organisers are always grateful for the generous donations, however small, it also receives from members of the public in acknowledgement of their enjoyment of this ‘free’ event.
Any profits from the 2014 Air Display will be donated to this year’s nominated charity, Help for Heroes.
2016
Sorry for the lack of any official information. I expect the first news release will be some time in April.
Costs for staging an event of this size are increasing each year and as well as the expected costs for fuel and ground power, accommodation for aircraft crew and ground support also needs to be sourced. Organisers are always grateful for the generous donations, however small, it also receives from members of the public in acknowledgement of their enjoyment of this ‘free’ event.
Any profits from the 2014 Air Display will be donated to this year’s nominated charity, Help for Heroes.
2016
Sorry for the lack of any official information. I expect the first news release will be some time in April.
The whole Airshow Circus should come clean about what really happens. The people who operate old aircraft, get paid to display them. I don't think that any of them are making money at it, they are probably just covering their costs. It would be more honest to point out that it is a show, which is expensive to produce, but enjoyed by many. To overly rely on the suggestion that it benefits the charities, is less than accurate.
There may well be some truth that charitable donations will suffer if airshows have to stop, but the impact will be more keenly felt by those who display at them, than by the charities.