No aerobatics by Red Arrows at Farnborough!
Tabs please !
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.
Fair point, the airliner is in a far less riskier environment that a balbo of the best of the best.
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!!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by melmothtw; 20th Jun 2016 at 05:59.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
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!
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any acceptable risk level accepts risk which accepts a death rate.
THAT MEANS YOU ACCEPT DEATHS.
THAT MEANS YOU ACCEPT DEATHS.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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............
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Once the helicopters are well out of the way, you could see some spectacular acrobatics on the in-field grass.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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?