|
Deaths are deaths. There is no useful purpose in trying to define their quality. But some posters are making the point that display-goers have ACCEPTED the risk, however small, associated with the ticket purchase; commuters and cyclists HAVE NOT. Posters who do not want blanket bans are suggesting that the latter groups' risks are mitigated by some means. Nothing obscene in that. CG |
The Reds last displayed at Shoreham in 2013. What has changed since then I don't know. But there may well be administrative issues rather than safety concerns.
|
The way in which this thread has drifted and the untimely and poorly thought out arguments posted reminds me of why I now rarely use this forum. There seems to be a number of posters here who object to any risk however miniscule of tragedy befalling anyone unconnected with the activity that led to the event. All I want to say to them is stay as far away from other people as you can because humans engage in all sorts of activities that could possibly be hazardous to your health like breathing in a crowded tube train when carrying a virus, like driving on the same road as you, like flying in a big passenger jet that might crash on you. The list is endless and the hazards obvious however great care is usually taken to avoid harming you and I am sure the recent tragedy was no exception but if there are any lessons to improve your safety I am sure they will be applied.
If you have missed it, I suggest you read post #189. |
Courtney Mil I've resisted posting on this thread for as long as I can. Once again there has been a disaster, a crash, people have died. And once again dozens of experts who have been members here for many years and that have found the need to contribute, maybe, a handful of posts over those years, suddenly pitch up with a whole wealth of knowledge and opinion. You are, of course, very welcome. I have just spent the last hour catching up on this afternoon's posts here and, as usual in these circumstances, too many people have crawled out of the woodwork to draw conclusions (and, worse, express them in public) and translate those opinions into table-thumping demands to ban displays, question the quals, currency and capability of display pilots, cite legal precedent, conduct their own risk assessment of the site and its suitability. Well done, no argument with your reason. But before you all sound off, why not wait a few days to consider the facts of this particular case, show some respect for those involved (and that does mean just adding a statement of respect to those affected) and wait a short while for, at very least, a preliminary statement from the AAIB and the other services involved. At the moment, this is about a disastrous air accident. If you really want to start discussing the future of air shows, displays and the manoeuvres authorised, the safety regulations, suitability of sites, the litigation aspects and the quals and supervision of the pilots, why don't you pipe up with your views and start threads about these issues? Why do you need to wait until such a tragic moment to jump on your high horses and drag the thread away from this, one accident to your (in some cases, clearly, long-held) personal soap-boxes about air displays - or have you simply suddenly come to these conclusion? Last point. Whoever's comment it was about display pilots regularly missing or ignoring gates, if you know that for a fact, you should have acted on it years ago. If you don't know it for a fact, don't state it in public as if it is. Out. |
Above the Clouds - So what?
This is a public forum for discussion not some sort of hallowed hall where contributors have to comment in whispers. There are people, very angry people out there today who have lost relatives, who were going to work or play, as a result of this incident. Who cares whether it was pilot error? Who cares if the aircraft developed a fault? All that matters to them is that they have lost loved ones who had nothing to do with this display and if people on here think that will be ignored as just 'one of those risks in life' or it can't be talked about, critisised or otherwise discussed, then they have another think coming as the next few days will show. |
Darren Sharp, described as "expert ppl pilot" interviewed on BBC news, unbelievable comments :eek:
|
Perhaps somebody can remember the year at Edgehill when we celebrated 50 years of military operation, Wellington bombers, and of course the secret testing of the Whittle jet.
We also installed a memorial stone at the entrance....which has probably been moved. And because I was the pilot with the most power hours, qualifications and contacts, the gliding club asked me to organise a small air display. A lot of people turned up, far more than we ever expected, including a lot of RAF brass, all with white hair and years of experience. I did indeed organise a very small airshow, which included a spot on time flypast of early jets by the RAF, various interesting visitors, a very good announcer, and a group calling itself the British Confederate Air Force which behaved eccentrically to say the least. There was a rogue pilot who did a display of very very slow aerobatics right over the crowd. The old RAF officers were harrumphing in disapproval. How we got through that day without disaster, I will never know, only luck, really. I am very happy to read that the British Air Display Association was formed in 2011, only wish they had been there for me that long time ago to give expert advice and oversight. EXNOMAD in his post says the beach is a very good place for an airshow, only trouble is it doesn't make money because you can't charge for tickets. |
09.11 - Red Arrows 'refused to perform at Shoreham' Reports from this morning suggest the RAF’s famous Red Arrows display team ruled the danger level was too high to perform their full stunt programme at Shoreham. A former airshow promoter who has worked with the Red Arrows and helped organise airshows around Britain told the Mirror: Quote I have friends involved in the organisation of Shoreham Air Show and have been there several times. "The Red Arrows refuse to display there as they say the surrounding area is far too dangerous and could lead to a major accident. "All they will do at Shoreham is a straight fly-past with red, white and blue smoke coming out the back of the jets. "They have refused point blank to do an acrobatic display. They say there is no fall-out zone and any accident would be a disaster there. "There is nowhere for them to put a plane down without killing someone. "Every year the organisers apply for a Red Arrows display but they turn them down." FB |
Yes, that is a copy and paste from the Daily Mirror.
Which in turn was collated from the other thread on these forums and an airshow and photography/spotters forum. Now if Red 10 was to be quoted as such or perhaps a previous incumbent of the post, I'd take it as gen. But certainly not from the rumour-mongering of a redtop paper and armchair experts forum. Clareprop. These forums are seen as a "source" of "expert" advice for the press. You only have to look back a year or so to the papers to find a directly copied and pasted article from PPrune's trolly dolly section about who were their best and worst celeb clientelle. So naturally many here prescribe caution, when expressing their views. |
Take it easy there ...
At times like this it is often more important for people to be able to say something - rather than to be listened to. A lot of anger can be dissipated just by typing a few words. Don't read too much into it ...
|
I have to say, Fluffy Bunny is entirely correct. I know for a fact that I have been quoted verbatim in the press for what I've had to say here on PPRuNe. Fortunately what I said on that occasion was accurate...can you all say the same?
|
It is very naive to imagine that an issue of this gravity would not be discussed, or that the topic would not expand to embrace allied aspects, such as general considerations of risk.
And (IMHO) is it ridiculous to dismiss this tragedy on the basis that it hasn't happened for a long time, or that there are other risks in the world - it HAS happened and I cannot imagine that government or public will accept anything less that an assessment to see if the risk of it happening again cannot be sensibly reduced further. The other risks in this world are completely irrelevant - our world is generally safe because we bear down upon what are deemed to be unacceptable risks one at a time, not ignore them because we might have a car crash. As for waiting for the facts. A complete video of the accident sequence is available as well as a plethora of images - many an accident enquiry has been conducted in its entirety without any such material to draw upon. Yes, there will be other details to consider, but the basic physics of why this ac came into contact with the ground can be deduced by those with adequate experience. And no, it didn't 'fall out of the sky because it wasn't going fast enough to pull out of a loop' as I keep reading in the media. Contributory and causal factors will take longer to establish, as will a detailed assessment of the risk to third parties. The AAIB report will typically take 6 months to a year. Should everyone keep silent until then, and NOT discuss an incident that is very likely to have profound consequences for air activities that we all have an interest in?! |
Sid
I too saw that unbelievable BBC interview. It just goes to show the media are chasing their own tails in a bid to gather comments from all and sundry. Utter bulls**t |
@Exnomad
There are also a lot more people at the Bournemouth air show, around 1.4m over the 3/4 days. From what the announcer said it was around 500k on Saturday. They were talking about cutting Vulcan one day to try to keep crowd levels down. In terms of revenue Shoreham won't be getting any revenue if it's forced to close! The risks are much higher too though. Those people are all lined up in parallel with the display line, and densely packed. Were that Hunter to have done that pancake landing and explosion on Bournemouth beach it would have made a huge mess. It's also fairly slow getting ambulances along the seafront due to the crowds. @charliegolf They did accept the higher risk of using the road, and of travelling past an airport. @Fluffy Bunny The Red were flying from Exeter and doing 2 displays so it might have been too far. |
Clareprop. These forums are seen as a "source" of "expert" advice for the press.... .....So naturally many here prescribe caution, when expressing their views. |
Former British Airways pilot Terry Tozer has suggested that if the Hawker Hunter fighter jet was just 500ft higher, it would have had more room to recover in time. Mr Tozer said: "From what I can see, it looks like the pilot ran out of height. |
It is always good to see double standards at work, one minute you are promoting low flying.
clareprop Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Liverpool Age: 40 Posts: 141 In the garden at Mickfield and hear another Apache approaching - hark, sounds slightly different but there it is at about 1000ft. Definitely sounds different and louder. At that moment, Merlin passes behind the village/trees 100 metres from me at nothing'ish feet. Excellent example of my tax pounds at work :ok: clareprop Living in a village almost bang-on 10 miles NE of the extended centreline for 05/23 at Wattisham, I and my neighbours have been quite disappointed with the excessive altitude flown by Apaches based there. Fortunately, there have been two encouraging instances recently. A late evening high-speed, low track down 23 (by the poplar trees which border the western edge of the village - just so you know) by an AH-1 and a very low, pass at speed by what appeared to be a CH-47 (rare visitor here) heading west across the village (by the Church). Do carry on... |
Tragic event and shock will sometimes overrule thought processes. Even now the BBC are suggesting off shore displays. But as the Hunter came down on a road you really only have to look at Biggin, Duxford, Farnborough, Fairford and probably others where a roadway is close to the boundary fence. It's going to be a difficult call for display directors but as already said perhaps some calming of aerobatic manoeuvres, maybe a "Hard deck" to set a minimum level at which loops may be commenced with an added safety factor. Additionally, I wonder how much, if any, impact this will have on The Red Arrows.
Good new is that Clacton will go ahead, though this is mainly over the sea. Pilot is hanging in there so hoping for a good recovery. :cool: |
Given that air displays at airfields are usually based on the main runway (easier to adjust your sequence and for a fast reference), I suggest that it is largely out the pilot's control where the aircraft ends up following a failure (technical or manoeuvre). It is the Display Authority who should decide the direction, safety areas or even if the venue is suitable at all. For example, I was involved in the BOI into the Mig29 midair at Fairford a few years ago. As an academic exercise, I overlaid the crash positions on an airfield map of Farnborough, using the runway as a common reference. The casualty result would have been entirely different.
|
CAA restrictions
Taken from the CAA website;
- Our thoughts remain with all of those affected by this tragedy - CAA review of air shows already commenced - New restrictions now in place for future air shows - Temporary measures introduced to give authorities time for thorough review The thoughts of everyone at the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) remain with all of those affected by the tragic accident at the Shoreham Air Show on Saturday 22 August. Following the accident we immediately began an urgent review and have, today, announced a series of immediate restrictions and changes to UK civil air displays. The CAA has announced the following: • As a precaution, on Saturday 22 August we took steps to ensure no further flights were made by Hawker Hunter aircraft - this temporary restriction remains in place. • Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted. • The CAA will conduct additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced. • We commenced a full review of civil air display safety yesterday and held an initial meeting this morning. The safety standards that must be met by all major civil air displays in the UK are among the very highest in the world and are regularly reviewed. All air display arrangements, including the pilots and aircraft, must meet rigorous safety requirements. Individual display pilots are only granted approval following a thorough test of their abilities. The CAA will continue to offer every assistance to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch as it seeks to establish the cause of the accident. The CAA will also act promptly in response to any emerging indications from the AAIB’s investigation. Further details will be provided in the coming days and we will continue to work with the industry to ensure the most appropriate action is taken as a result of this review. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.