If we are talking about elephants.....
 

......isn't DISPLAY currency on type a huge issue moving forward?

Rgds
111

Treble One, that certainly helps mitigate one of the risks, but on its own, may not be sufficient to allow an event such as Shoreham to take place within acceptable overall risk parameters.

IIRC the Reds (surely amongst the most current display pilots in the world) had already decided from their own risk assessment that their participation at Shoreham would be limited to flypasts only.

Sillert.....
 

I agree with respect to the Risk assessment and the Red's interpretation of the venue (high ground in close proximity), but I was referring to time on type and display currency on type per se in this case, and moving forward. :ok:

I agree with the theory behind an SMS or risk assessment, but ultimately there is the danger that the risk assessment will eventually be used to ground aircraft and put an end to air displays.

I have tried to refrain myself many times from posting here, but now has come the time where I can't stay tight lipped any longer. I am absolutely disgusted with what I'm reading here and a few posters should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

I just pray that Andy or any of the deceased families are not reading this thread. It's totally shocking beyond comprehension! Here we have a very much respected airline and display pilot whom went out of his way to entertain the masses at a air show. He went out to do just that! 'entertain' He did not set out to kill anyone or even himself. Hindsight is a beautiful thing, if only, if only. **** happens no matter how hard you prepare for it and no matter how many rules you want to put into place. Does it really matter if it was pilot error or a malfunction. It's happened and that is that, so two hundred pages here can't change that, can it, and if anyone genuinely believes that a 1000 page AAIB report and the intervention of the police will make much difference, you're deluded.

Spectators get killed at many events all over the world. It's obviously not nice but unfortunately it's a fact of life, **** happens no matter how much regulation is in place. Personally, I would like to see the AAIB rap this up now and for all the regulative authorities involved to collectively put the envisaged monies that would have been spent on this to better use. Perhaps the Hillsborough shenanigans or even towards further investigation towards the BLiar war criminal whom really did set out to kill the innocent, even our own.

AH needs our total support and loyalty. If brethren here cannot offer that emotional support it's probably best to say nothing at all.

What a lovely concept.

I think that this point has been touched on before in this thread but what is the business model of an Air show?

As I understand it ones such as Shoreham are there to entertain the fee paying public, whilst ones such as Eastbourne Airbourne are free to view events held over a wider area thus implicitly safer displays as thus there is far more room to manoeuvre.

The likes of Shoreham rely on fee paying customers to come to a specified area, buy tickets, tea etc from your contracted suppliers and in the end it is hoped that a surplus will be made to support a charity or whatever. Members of the public who stop to watch the show from near public roads are lost income.

The likes of Eastbourne rely on sponsorship from National, Regional and Local Businesses to cover their overheads when running the event, thus every member of the public who attends the show will most likely contribute something to the local economy.

Will all civilian Air Shows in the future, except for specialist ones such as Duxford in the main now all rely on sponsorship?

Jetblu,

Exactly what I and a handful of others have been trying to say to certain posters here for months. You should have seen what was up here late last night before it was removed!

Also very few airports (and airfields) that don't have a major road pretty close to the threshold as well

Struggling to see how an intelligent man such as yourself cannot see the somewhat glaringly obvious logical contradiction in Jetblu's post.

here let me lend a hand

.

Sorry, TOFU, I should have been more specific. I was referring to his sentiments concerning the condemnation of the pilot when the full facts are not yet known.

Mea culpa.

Yep, and that makes it OK? A minor point, many of those killed weren't spectators, they were going about their own business on a public highway.

Anyway, it's almost irrelevant whether AH cocked-up or the aircraft suffered a technical failure. The bit that really needs ironing-out is why uninvolved third parties got caught-up in the accident. This gets down to risk assessments/management etc and I think is why the CAA have reacted so positively. My instinct tells me that they feel there may have been a failure in air display oversight, right up to the Regulator.

Atomkraft,

Point 1. I am afraid that I am unfamiliar with the verb 'to banjo' when used in the context of flying. Where did you learn this?

Point 2. The former military registration of the aircraft that crashed at Shoreham was WV372; get your facts right.

Point 3. Homo sapiens make errors. Inevitably there are reasons why these errors are made and most can be attributed to the biology of the species or envirnomental influences; they are rarely random, inexplicable events. Pilots are homo sapiens. Ergo, pilots make errors and inevitably for one or more reasons. If you really are a pilot, next time you make a mistake I suggest that, assuming it is not fatal, you sit down and think about why you made it and this may then help you to avoid making the same mistake again.

You have said that "Every so often, I drop a bollock ..". Your unintelligent and ill-informed rant on this thread was probably your latest. Think about why you made it and hopefully it will not happen again - for the good of us all.

For those of you wanting some techie stuff:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ProposedMPD1601.pdf

Any valid points you made are immediately negated by the puerile political rant:


What has any of that to do with the Shoreham disaster ??

Having been the owner of several elderly road vehicles, I have experienced similar problems with rubberised components of the fuel system, so the findings do not surprise me.

As to deciding at what stage the system should be thoroughly checked, it seems to be (as stated) dependent on type of fuel, length of inactivity, possible 'dryness', temperature and humidity of storage etc etc etc.

Mandator, thanks for bringing that up. I own a very old British aircraft, which although not a turbine by any means {a DH 87B Hornet Moth} does have diaphragm fuel pumps, which are now in the UK being replaced as I felt it was time for this as I couldn't get an accurate life expectancy on these parts, I suspect that they were long overdue although the were functioning OK. When we get the old parts returned I will send them away for some NDT so as to find out just what shape they are in, I suspect they will be found to be way beyond their "best before" date!

Mandator, your link has me wondering if this could have been a factor in the Gnat accident at North Weald in 2004 (G-BVPP) which, IIRC, was thought most likely the result of an unexplained fuel starvation.

SVI

I don't know enough about the Gnat to comment. However, it is interesting that the Orpheus is not in the list of engines affected by the MPD.

Interesting how reading and talking about accidents whether on chat forums or in crewrooms triggers associated memories. Following on from the talk of rubber diaphrams reminded me of this accident befalling a Vickers Varsity which may have been caused by degraded rubber diaphragms. https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...986_G-BDFT.pdf

Not implying a cause for Shoreham accident.