Hawker Hunter Crash at Shoreham Airshow
Why can't we accept accidents have and always will happen. You can't eradicate risk with paperwork and massive fees increase, as CAA appears to believe.
Same scenario as public killed in Glasgow street by errant Bin Lorry
Same scenario as public killed in Glasgow street by errant Bin Lorry
Major causal factor with the 'bin lorry' incident was that the driver was not fit to carry out his job. It was wholly avoidable.
Whether the CAA review the currency issues regarding Airline Pilots displaying Fast Jets once a month with little or no other recent time on type remains to be seen.
Whether the CAA review the currency issues regarding Airline Pilots displaying Fast Jets once a month with little or no other recent time on type remains to be seen.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
And in the case of the Hunter, the longer the grounding, the increased lack of currency on type.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Too close to EASA
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Errrr no, I don't think so, I think you might find that incident has happened since.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Thanks for clarifying that as I wasn't sure. I have taken the post down.
So who was it who was saying that seaside displays are safer? Maybe someone wants to tell the MAA.
Cornwall Red Arrows show cancelled over safety fears - BBC News
Cornwall Red Arrows show cancelled over safety fears - BBC News
Tourist wrote:
Is that an attitude you maintain when flying?
I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to choose their own risk levels in life rather than have them mandated by a nanny state.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my attitude at all times.
It goes along with my attitude that I always obey rules but try to change the ones I disagree with.
I have never been considered a risk taker, but I do crave the right to make my own decisions about risk in life.
It goes along with my attitude that I always obey rules but try to change the ones I disagree with.
I have never been considered a risk taker, but I do crave the right to make my own decisions about risk in life.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, I wonder whether the cyclists or the chauffeur were of the same thinking just before a few tonnes of Hunter smashed into them.
I'm all for personal risk but when it directly affects another individual......
Aviation killed 11 people that day; it is exceptionally glib of aviation professionals to just call the event an accident.
I'm all for personal risk but when it directly affects another individual......
Aviation killed 11 people that day; it is exceptionally glib of aviation professionals to just call the event an accident.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet you drive a car every day without worrying about killing others or being killed, despite the fact that the chances of either are vastly higher than your chances of being killed by a passing aviation professional.
Once you are dead you are dead.
It matters not how you die.
If you are actually serious about risk, you need to deal with actual risks, rather than perceived ones.
There are 1000 causes of death more likely than being hit by a display aircraft, yet are people stressing about every one of them?
No.
People stress about this because humans are truly awful about risk assessment.
Truly.
Awful.
Once you are dead you are dead.
It matters not how you die.
If you are actually serious about risk, you need to deal with actual risks, rather than perceived ones.
There are 1000 causes of death more likely than being hit by a display aircraft, yet are people stressing about every one of them?
No.
People stress about this because humans are truly awful about risk assessment.
Truly.
Awful.
Originally Posted by Tourist
Life is far safer in the UK than it used to be, and far duller.
As one who came very close to death in industry and the Merchant Navy I prefer things to be safer.
As a skier, yachtsman and scuba diver I do not feel that I have led a dull life at all.
Oh, now I remember, also nearly drowned as a child and almost had 5cwt of chain dumped on top of me when diving on a mooring.
Yet you drive a car every day without worrying about killing others or being killed
Those killed at Shoreham were not involved.
I recollect, just as I joined my first RAF OCU, one of our aircraft crashed in Lybia killing all on board. The embarrassing part was that we, the RAF, had also killed some Army personnel who were on board and they WERE professionally involved.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If spectators were allowed to stand along the edge of the runway during displays in the UK over the last decade, how many would have been hurt?
Conversely, how many have been killed skiing, yachting or scuba diving?
We apply totally different standards to aviation for no good statistical reason.
You say "most others" killed by cars also drive.
What about all the kids run down? Pedestrians? Cyclists?
1 million people die on roads every year.
1 aircraft has crashed into a crowd outside an airfield since how many decades?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, a number of the 'crowd' weren't crowd. They were going about their own business, living their lives. Two cyclists on a club ride, a wedding chauffeur....... We (aviation) had absolutely no right to increase the risk of dying on their behalf. We failed them.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really are not listening to what I'm saying Cows.
Everything we do affects others.
When we drive a car we add risk to others who have not volunteered for the extra risk like pedestrians.
When I go on holiday and fly over London I am adding to the risk of those below.
When I buy anything at all, the aircraft that flew it in, the truck that drove it to my house. All these things are adding risk to the lives of others.
It is quite simply a part of life.
The actual added risk to drivers passing the airshow was infinitesimally low. Every now and then (once in 6 decades) very low probabilities happen. This is sad but absolutely no reason to ban something.
The whole point of making something a "one in a million" chance is to accept that risk. It will occasionally happen. You should not then say that it is unacceptable. You should turn round and say "well, we always knew it would happen occasionally" and continue. If it happens more often than expected then review. Once in 60 years is absolutely fine to me, and is an absolutely exemplary record.
If we start subjecting everything in life to the requirements already in place upon aviation we end up with the end of all literature, art, fun, civilisation and fun.
We all subconsciously accept that in life in almost everything but for some reason aviation is treated differently.
Everything we do affects others.
When we drive a car we add risk to others who have not volunteered for the extra risk like pedestrians.
When I go on holiday and fly over London I am adding to the risk of those below.
When I buy anything at all, the aircraft that flew it in, the truck that drove it to my house. All these things are adding risk to the lives of others.
It is quite simply a part of life.
The actual added risk to drivers passing the airshow was infinitesimally low. Every now and then (once in 6 decades) very low probabilities happen. This is sad but absolutely no reason to ban something.
The whole point of making something a "one in a million" chance is to accept that risk. It will occasionally happen. You should not then say that it is unacceptable. You should turn round and say "well, we always knew it would happen occasionally" and continue. If it happens more often than expected then review. Once in 60 years is absolutely fine to me, and is an absolutely exemplary record.
If we start subjecting everything in life to the requirements already in place upon aviation we end up with the end of all literature, art, fun, civilisation and fun.
We all subconsciously accept that in life in almost everything but for some reason aviation is treated differently.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think people are listening to you Tourist and probably agree with some of the points you make, but many I'm sure, like me, find you argument about risk intellectually incoherent (that's a posh way of saying facile).
However, who wants to mount a lengthy philosophical debate about the theory and morals of risk on an internet forum.
So why don't we all just agree to disagree and move on...as none of it has anything to do with what caused the accident and, more significantly, no amount of outrage is going to moderate the fallout from this event. That genie, as we all well know, has already uncorked the bottle, taken flight and is passing through FL240.
However, who wants to mount a lengthy philosophical debate about the theory and morals of risk on an internet forum.
So why don't we all just agree to disagree and move on...as none of it has anything to do with what caused the accident and, more significantly, no amount of outrage is going to moderate the fallout from this event. That genie, as we all well know, has already uncorked the bottle, taken flight and is passing through FL240.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm probably not making my point well.
One final try.
Imagine you are the minister for transport, and your bonus has been directly linked to a reduction in accidents deaths. £1 per life saved.
All options across the whole of transport are open to you, but you can only make 10 changes to the law.
Do you go anywhere near aviation?
Personally it would be last on the list.
One final try.
Imagine you are the minister for transport, and your bonus has been directly linked to a reduction in accidents deaths. £1 per life saved.
All options across the whole of transport are open to you, but you can only make 10 changes to the law.
Do you go anywhere near aviation?
Personally it would be last on the list.
Accepting the risk or banning the activity are rarely the only options. In most areas, the answer is to control the risk.
To use the driving analogy, we have various rules and speed limits; speed limits are lowered where pedestrians are likely to be around, road layouts adjusted, and so on. This doesn't remove the risk completely, but does reduce it to a level that people find acceptable.
In this instance, it seems reasonable that someone could perform a risk assessment that overlayed the proposed display sequence over the terrain and identified potential areas of higher risk (such as a high-energy manoeuvre performed directly above a major road). Having made that assessment (or studied it if performed by someone else such as the pilot), the FDD is then in a position to assess whether or not the risk is acceptable, and if necessary what can be done to mitigate that risk. The point made by the AAIB is that there appears to be no evidence that such a risk assessment was performed by anyone, in which case no-one would have been in a position to determine whether or not any risks were acceptable, or to consider what steps could be taken to mitigate them.
To use the driving analogy, we have various rules and speed limits; speed limits are lowered where pedestrians are likely to be around, road layouts adjusted, and so on. This doesn't remove the risk completely, but does reduce it to a level that people find acceptable.
In this instance, it seems reasonable that someone could perform a risk assessment that overlayed the proposed display sequence over the terrain and identified potential areas of higher risk (such as a high-energy manoeuvre performed directly above a major road). Having made that assessment (or studied it if performed by someone else such as the pilot), the FDD is then in a position to assess whether or not the risk is acceptable, and if necessary what can be done to mitigate that risk. The point made by the AAIB is that there appears to be no evidence that such a risk assessment was performed by anyone, in which case no-one would have been in a position to determine whether or not any risks were acceptable, or to consider what steps could be taken to mitigate them.