Hindsight: Perhaps the future of air displays will lie in the name, 'Shoreham by Sea'.

Springing to mind, Bournemouth, Dawlish, Plymouth, W-S-M, Clacton, Southend on Sea, in fact any of the coastal resorts around the country could be future locations.
As an aside, I would have thought that access would be generally be better for 'resorts' than that of the normal airfield sites, usually accessed by country roads.



RIP, a sad day :(

Excellent airshow at Bournemouth seafront yesterday.
Great action, many good viewpoints on the cliffs or the beach, great for kids, spirited displays, instant air-sea rescue on hand if necessary without having to negotiate roads/obstacles. Vast crowd, good trade. high degree of safety for spectators. RN presence adds interest.

What is not to like about this kind of airshow where the option is available?

Since the coast is never more than 70 miles away from anywhere in the UK, it would make sense to have airshows with aerobatic displays over the sea. Definitive flight-line along the beach, would limit any future fatalities to the display pilots.

orca, thanks a lot for your PM with a succinct explanation of pulling to the buffet, max alpha etc in reponse to my request. Much appreciated!

As a complete layman can I ask if any of you who are fast jet display pilots can tell me if your sequences are flown with frequent references to the altimeter or is it more a matter of timing and Mark One Eyeball. Would you expect to use airfield QFE or regional QNH? Would a fairly rapid drop in pressure be of any relevance?

Any vertical manoeuvre is flown with reference to the altimeter on QFE. If you don't make the height over the top that you need, you abort the manoeuvre.

Each manoeuvre will have a minimum entry height and speed. Some manoeuvres will have critical no go below heights , for example loops and Cubans will have a minimum height to complete the manoeuvre at the top. If you don't have the height, you abort the manoeuvre. Height awareness is critical and a major point when expecting to receive display clearance.

A significant pressure drop would have to be very significant, to the extent it is not a credible explaination imho.

Air shows over the sea.
 

I have been particularly disappointed to hear comments from many regarding this tragedy, particularly from those who profess to know better. At present, very few facts are known and best we wait until all the facts are known and not make knee-jerk comments. However, those who suggest that all manoeuvres should be over the sea (BBC Today programme suggested this today) should ponder on these facts.

1. If the Shoreham disaster was the only one in over 60 years where members of the public were injured, then this is not a high risk.
2. Many airshows raise huge amounts of money for charity, as well as providing much pleasure to millions.
3. Most airshows, including the biggest (RIAT) are not near the sea.
4. Yes, there is always a risk, but should we ban all risks? If so, we must ban all flying over built-up areas, so close most airports, incl LHR, Gatwick, Manchester etc. A step further would be to ban all transport including horse riding. Electricity can also be dangerous, so let's ban that too. Patently, those suggestions are ridiculous.

Trouble is, the Media appears to control every action the authorities take, so uninformed people get to make uninformed decisions.

Sharpend - I suggest you read Satellite Driver's excellent post 121.

He points out very succinctly (and reiterated by others on this thread) that this accident was different in that people have been killed who had no connection with the airshow and who were therefore not deriving any benefit or pleasure from it.

I have difficulty getting my head around the legalistic differentiation being expressed between the spectators and the passers by. If some of those killed were actually air show spectators instead of passers by, is their loss less tragic, worthy of sympathy, consideration or of compensation? Deaths are deaths.

I agree with most of what Satellite Driver has written. Yes, the spectators are at an airshow by choice; the general public going about there normal day-to-day business are not. But my point was that there is risk in everything, but do we ban everything? I take the point about innocents being killed, but the average motorway pile-up normally takes out many innocent drivers. Incidently, motorway pile-ups are far more frequent than airshow disasters. We just have to weigh up the risks; the benefits versus the danger. Flying itself is dangerous, but less dangerous that driving a motorcar, so I personally take that risk and fly my aeroplane. However, my flying might result in an innocent being injured or worse. That applies to all forms of transport, so do we ban everything?

When you fly your aeroplane, the risk to passers by is mitigated somewhat by the 500 foot and land clear rules.

CG (no bans please, just common sense)

Genstabler - of course they aren't any less tragic but those taking part and attending a show know the potential risks. Those driving along a public road going about their business have other risks but being injured or killed by a display aircraft being flown for fun/sport/hobby etc should not be one of them. One can't just say 'Oh well, anything in life is a risk, so there you are, very sad.' There has to be responsibility for what would appear to be anything up to twenty deaths of people completely uninvolved. And that viewpoint doesn't mean I think airshows should be banned.

Yes, I agree. But the risk to bystanders at airshows is mitigated by the air display rules. If my engine fails I have little choice in where I land. Personally I do not fly over large populated areas and always try to have a suitable field in view, but that is not always possible. Moreover, when flying formation, a wingman might take off my wing, thus my aeroplane crashes where luck takes it. That might be on an isolated farmhouse.

This tragic incident will be analysed by the CAA and the rules will be reviewed. But not until all the facts are known. Yes, let us hope for common sense.

In the meantime, let's just have a thought for those killed and injured.

1. It is not the number of casualties in 60 years that is the concern but the increasing numbers of airshow near-misses recently which could have resulted in a major disaster. Therefore it is right to look at what could be improved.
2. Seaside airshows also raise money for charity as well as lifting the whole local economy, and provide the space for a greater number of spectators. The whole of Bournemouth massively benefits from its four-day Air Festival.
3. I don't believe RIAT etc to be threatened. Quite the reverse. As more airshows move to the sea front there is a greater need for the remainder to provide good static displays. The point is Shoreham is a difficult airfield which has the option of moving its airshow to the adjacent sea front.
4. No-one wants to ban, only to eliminate unnecessary risk while still providing a good show.

Has anyone looked at the maps etc and considered this?

The aerobatic bit was carried out over the open land to the north of the airfield (low risk).
On exiting the move there is obviously a problem and he is trying to make it across the A27 to the clear ground to the West of the airfield.

Whatever went wrong though, due to the kink in the A27 at the point of impact, meant he was over the top of the road for a short period of time rather than crossing it at 90 degrees.

Unfortunately cars were queuing at the traffic lights at that time. The Vauxhall helicopter incident two years ago could have been so similar to this had the traffic lights been green instead of red.
RIP to those who were caught up.

Seaside airshows have one major snag for the organisers. Revenue.
You can have a paid enclosure on the beach, but other specators can get a fairly good show for free. There is always a public road close by.
I have cheated at Shoreham in the past. You can get a pretty good view from the hill opposite if you have reasonable eyesight.

Speaking as a non-flyer, I have to agree with Albert's comment about Shoreham, the airfield is small, I may be correct in my understanding that the Red Arrows don't display at Shoreham due to the proximity of various close by land marks, there is a large church on high ground not too far from the airfield boundary and the dual carriage-way flyover also within the confines of space which if transferred to somewhere like Waddington or Fairford, would fit well within the airfield boundary. Indeed, the A27 at Shoreham is probably no further from the runway than the primeter at most large airfields, such as the afore mentioned.

FB:)

More likely to have been preoccupied with the vertical dimension.

Strake
I'm sorry but your argument does not hold water. You, and Satelite Driver, are trying to define something which in undefinable. And what is the point? All deaths resulting from air shows are regrettable. There has to be responsibility for all such deaths, whether of spectators or of passers by. How would you define a spectator? Clearly those who paid to go in. How about those watching from their own properties or from surrounding land, like Exnomad? How about passers by who pulled over into a lay-by to watch the display?
Deaths are deaths. There is no useful purpose in trying to define their quality. Indeed it is rather obscene to try and do so.