Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
" Roads get closed for cycle events, running events, why not airshows"
I live in the Shoreham area. I travel along this stretch of the A27 frequently. For many years I've either attended the RAAFA show or watched from local vantage points. I saw the Hurricane accident which occurred barely a couple of hundred yards from the Hunter crash. Whilst hoping that the possibility of similar tragedies is minimised I abhor the likelihood of this historically important commemoration being abolished or neutered.
But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?
I live in the Shoreham area. I travel along this stretch of the A27 frequently. For many years I've either attended the RAAFA show or watched from local vantage points. I saw the Hurricane accident which occurred barely a couple of hundred yards from the Hunter crash. Whilst hoping that the possibility of similar tragedies is minimised I abhor the likelihood of this historically important commemoration being abolished or neutered.
But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?
Why not? Do the same for airshows, to mitigate the risk to passing traffic on a road close to the planned flight path.
Last edited by Out Of Trim; 12th Mar 2016 at 16:42.
At the trials - for there will be trials, the questions will be, What would a 'reasonably minded' air-show organiser be expected to do to protect the safety of paying attendees, displayers, staff and people around the perimeter of the airfield? The same questions will be asked of the display pilot eg, How would a reasonable display pilot be expected to behave when performing his/her routine. The only people able to give evidence on those subjects will be air-show organisers and display pilots. The process will give a steer on how air-shows will take place in the UK in future. However, that will pale into insignificance when compared to the emotional pain the bereaved are going to feel. My thoughts are with them.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What -Get Real!
" Roads get closed for cycle events, running events, why not airshows"
"I live in the Shoreham area. I travel along this stretch of the A27 frequently. For many years I've either attended the RAAFA show or watched from local vantage points. I saw the Hurricane accident which occurred barely a couple of hundred yards from the Hunter crash. Whilst hoping that the possibility of similar tragedies is minimised I abhor the likelihood of this historically important commemoration being abolished or neutered."
"But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?"
My view - don't have airshows that endanger the public. It's really quite a simple concept. Aerobatic manoeuvres are over the airfield. The MSD requirements allow for crashes. Someone may screw up - it happens. But due diligence should militate against this. Maybe it's down to the quality of the Display Director and the FCC!
"I live in the Shoreham area. I travel along this stretch of the A27 frequently. For many years I've either attended the RAAFA show or watched from local vantage points. I saw the Hurricane accident which occurred barely a couple of hundred yards from the Hunter crash. Whilst hoping that the possibility of similar tragedies is minimised I abhor the likelihood of this historically important commemoration being abolished or neutered."
"But "close the A27" for the greater part of two days? Does anyone making this preposterous suggestion actually realise what this would do to traffic in this area?"
My view - don't have airshows that endanger the public. It's really quite a simple concept. Aerobatic manoeuvres are over the airfield. The MSD requirements allow for crashes. Someone may screw up - it happens. But due diligence should militate against this. Maybe it's down to the quality of the Display Director and the FCC!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and it took just three days before the first fatality was recorded on the A27 divert route post the accident/road closure.
20-year-old driver killed in head-on collision on A27 diversion (From )
20-year-old driver killed in head-on collision on A27 diversion (From )
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
An insight to the CAA's mindset was given at a recent meeting relevant to this type of activity. The very senior CAA representative was asked a question about how he should manage risk effectively at his airshow. His concern was that some risks were not always under his control - and he cited the situation where during the display days a host of local public residents set-up shop and opened their land to spectators and for the purposes of car parking, food stalls, etc.
Could the CAA give him some guidance? A reasonable question and one might think a sensible one to ask given recent events. You know what the response was?
The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....
A grin and a flippant remark to allow him to move on and dodge any personal insight, activity or heaven forbid responsibility. That is the reality of the people who are the custodians of what we love and do.
Could the CAA give him some guidance? A reasonable question and one might think a sensible one to ask given recent events. You know what the response was?
The CAA guy laughed and said "you'd better speak to your lawyers".....
A grin and a flippant remark to allow him to move on and dodge any personal insight, activity or heaven forbid responsibility. That is the reality of the people who are the custodians of what we love and do.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...and it took just three days before the first fatality was recorded on the A27 divert route post the accident/road closure. 20-year-old driver killed in head-on collision on A27 diversion."
Please explain your point.
Please explain your point.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I imagine he is suggesting that the death would not have occurred had the diversion not been in effect. In other words the death was an (in)direct result of the air show crash.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I mean is that trying to protect others from the consequences of your actions becomes unworkable if you think about it for a little while.
For example:-
1. Shall I take my car for a nice drive today?
If we subject that idea to the same inspection that you want to do to an aerobatic display, we would have to ask.
a. Am I adding risk to "uninvolved people on a public highway" who have not volunteered to accept that risk? Demonstrably yes for any car journey.
b. Will the emissions from my car adversely affect others who have not given their permission? Yes, both in the short term with pollution and long term global warming. You might argue that this is not the same as killing some spectators, but I would argue that you are adding to a cumulative effect that has the potential to wipe out civilisation.
Added to this is the fact that using fuel supports medieval regimes who rely on the wests greed for oil thus perpetuating the horror their people suffer.
2. Shall I go on holiday?
a. Am I adding risk to others by adding to the number of flights over their head? Obviously yes.
b. Am I polluting thus affecting the health of others? Yes, Obviously.
My point is that everything we do has a greater or lessor effect on others. I am never quite sure why we hold aviation to completely different standards to any other industry.
Cars on roads kill 1 million people per year.
Shoreham was a spectacular one-off, equal to winning the lottery 3 weeks in a row.
My own personal belief is that the only reason we hold flight to different rules is that for some reason flight has glamour and excitement and fear attached to it.
Last edited by Tourist; 14th Mar 2016 at 07:03.
Tourist, that's easy to answer:
1.
a. Most people use mechanical transport whether private or public.
b. Everyone uses energy derived from burning fuel for heating, cooling, lighting or food & goods transport.
2. Almost everyone in the developed World flies at some time in their life or consumes food or goods delivered by air.
So, we are ALL involved.
In the case of an air display only those who are interested in aviation or, at least, an entertaining day out are involved. Those driving past are not and may never have been.
I do think we're getting close to angels on the point of a pin here.
1.
a. Most people use mechanical transport whether private or public.
b. Everyone uses energy derived from burning fuel for heating, cooling, lighting or food & goods transport.
2. Almost everyone in the developed World flies at some time in their life or consumes food or goods delivered by air.
So, we are ALL involved.
In the case of an air display only those who are interested in aviation or, at least, an entertaining day out are involved. Those driving past are not and may never have been.
I do think we're getting close to angels on the point of a pin here.
Tourist:
Because we have a God-(or Dawkins)-given fear of heights and know that flying is intrinsically an extremely dangerous occupation for a heavy creature that doesn't have wings. The fact that flying is so comparatively safe and accidents are so comparatively rare, is due to the entirely laudable safety culture that has grown up around aviation.
Way back, when I served as a humble badger (of sorts) in the real Ark Royal, I was impressed and strongly influenced by the fact that throughout the entire ship, from deck 9 upwards, one would find "Flight Safety is everyone's business" posters - a vital message that is, I feel, unique to the aviation business.
This state of affairs is undermined by the obvious amateurishness and ineptitude of those responsible for the Shoreham display as shown in the AAIB Special Bulletin. Those (some of them on this forum) who are blasé about Shoreham, who say "let's move on, lesson have been learned, etc", are contributing to the decline in professional and safety standards that the Shoreham disaster exemplifies. The only reaction a professional should feel is outrage that his profession has been so badly let down.
My point is that everything we do has a greater or lessor effect on others. I am never quite sure why we hold aviation to completely different standards to any other industry.
Way back, when I served as a humble badger (of sorts) in the real Ark Royal, I was impressed and strongly influenced by the fact that throughout the entire ship, from deck 9 upwards, one would find "Flight Safety is everyone's business" posters - a vital message that is, I feel, unique to the aviation business.
This state of affairs is undermined by the obvious amateurishness and ineptitude of those responsible for the Shoreham display as shown in the AAIB Special Bulletin. Those (some of them on this forum) who are blasé about Shoreham, who say "let's move on, lesson have been learned, etc", are contributing to the decline in professional and safety standards that the Shoreham disaster exemplifies. The only reaction a professional should feel is outrage that his profession has been so badly let down.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: london
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone wanting to properly understand this would do well to study the Challenger accident and in particular the comments made by Professor Feynman, one of the few people involved in the investigation to have a sufficiently rigorous scientific background to understand the risk analysis failures which led to that event. I've included this link to the relevant appendix from the Rogers report into the Shuttle disaster.
Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA had stated the probability of a catastrophic Shuttle event was less than 1 in 100,000; Feynman's post-crash analysis showed this to be closer to 1 in 100.
Idle:
I don't read the SB in the same way you do, nor do I think you can criticise the organisers as being amateur or inept in this way. The FDD had every reason to believe that the arrangements were compliant with CAP 403, and it is instructive that all the AAIB recommendations are addressed to the CAA.
As Sillert notes in his comments about the Challenger accident, the risk assessments were shown after the event to be flawed (and it is always easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight); like Shoreham, Challenger resulted from a process problem rather than amateurism or ineptitude. Tragic though the outcome was, I don't agree that Shoreham 'exemplifies a decline' in professionalism or safety standards, but it does show clearly that the regulations and guidance being applied were not adequate for the task in light of today's understanding of risk.
This state of affairs is undermined by the obvious amateurishness and ineptitude of those responsible for the Shoreham display as shown in the AAIB Special Bulletin.
As Sillert notes in his comments about the Challenger accident, the risk assessments were shown after the event to be flawed (and it is always easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight); like Shoreham, Challenger resulted from a process problem rather than amateurism or ineptitude. Tragic though the outcome was, I don't agree that Shoreham 'exemplifies a decline' in professionalism or safety standards, but it does show clearly that the regulations and guidance being applied were not adequate for the task in light of today's understanding of risk.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
As others are stating the issue here isn't that there is risk in flying displays, everyone knows that and a level of risk applies to many things we do on a daily basis.
The point that I personally am uncomfortable with is that, from the outside looking in, it was becoming increasingly obvious that a Shoreham type event was ever more likely. The regulator should have adapted to the changing nature of air displays over the last 20-30yrs, be they the types of planes being displayed, the people displaying them, the people overseeing them, the venues themselves, etc, etc. You only need take a cursory look at the various reports/bulletins released post-Shoreham to understand that the CAA (& AAIB) also acknowledge this.
The tragedy for the industry is that, instead of gently shifting with the times, proactively tightening things up where required, etc it is now faced with a magnitude of change that could kill it off entirely
As others are stating the issue here isn't that there is risk in flying displays, everyone knows that and a level of risk applies to many things we do on a daily basis.
The point that I personally am uncomfortable with is that, from the outside looking in, it was becoming increasingly obvious that a Shoreham type event was ever more likely. The regulator should have adapted to the changing nature of air displays over the last 20-30yrs, be they the types of planes being displayed, the people displaying them, the people overseeing them, the venues themselves, etc, etc. You only need take a cursory look at the various reports/bulletins released post-Shoreham to understand that the CAA (& AAIB) also acknowledge this.
The tragedy for the industry is that, instead of gently shifting with the times, proactively tightening things up where required, etc it is now faced with a magnitude of change that could kill it off entirely