You can also add the tragic loss of John Day in his Fokker Eindecker whilst practising for his display with the Great War Display Team in 2014.

I'm not trying to be controversial or belittle the seriousness of yesterday's accident, just trying to show that life is risky. I get really fed up with the inevitable knee-jerk reaction that has been espoused on here. The stats (before yesterday) would suggest that the only danger from air shows is to those doing the display flying. Maybe we have been lucky; or maybe the rules work pretty well. I for one would not wish to see air shows banned, but would support well intentioned and well thought through regulation.

Why do people keep critisising or spouting statistics for airshows and displaying vintage aircraft? They are there and they should be flown and watched by people who want to do so. What is unacceptable is people not associated with the activity being killed.

Expert commentary at its best
Shoreham Airshow Crash 'Horrifically Unlikely'


Jon

Leon was right, his committee did the right thing, paid a little extra and had a side road and footpath close. More difficult in this case - so the airshow should have been planned so that the main road was not overflown at all. Surely good planning isn't too much to ask. Then if there's a disaster, its only the pilot (usually) who suffers. One can imagine new regulations that ban overflight of any road that can't be closed as well of course as civilian houses.

I suspect that CAP 403 will need to strengthen this paragraph for roads and public rights of way closure:

"At many events, particularly at airfield sites, the congregation of spectators, outside the airfield boundary, on the live-side, may give organisers cause for concern. Neither the Police nor the Local Authority has the power to remove these people, especially if they have the permission of the landowner upon whose land they are congregating. It is recommended that the Event Organiser anticipates this during the planning process and takes necessary steps to reduce it by, where possible, blocking the view from obvious vantage points. Consideration should also be given to notifying landowners (or over water, pleasure boat owners) of the risks of allowing spectators to watch the display/event from their land/vessel. Landowners/owners should be advised that they have a liability to protect the public from obvious and anticipated risks at public events, and, in the event of an accident, they could be held liable for injuries to spectators on the property. It is advised that professional legal advice on such notification is taken prior to action."

I was looking for something similar in the MAA's Display Flying Handbook but it appears to be being rewritten. I seem to recall there being a line about considering gatherings of the local populace outside the spectators enclosures and how they must be cosnidered in the display planning.

LJ

Just out of idle curiosity, can anyone who has displayed at this venue previously confirm that this is the case i.e the public road is within the "display permitted area". Never been to, or flown into Shoreham.

Ta.

I am sure none of us want to see airshows banned. I for one thought after the loss of Hoof Proudfoot and the Lightning,then the Barton Mosquito crash that possibly less 'agressive' flying be undertaken. We all love to see old aircraft flying, but not necessarily to their service limits. I know the Hunter is more than capable , but just to see and hear it is enough, without it being pushed too far? My condolences to all who lost their lives.

Yup, A27 goes through the display area and also Lancing College is pretty close by as well. At either end you have the towns of Shoreham and Lancing with loads of houses. It's all a bit tight in my humble opinion when 1/2 mile away is the open sea.

This BBC picture shows the site. The runway is normally the display axis that parallels the crowd line and then for fast jets you are at least 230m from the crowd that would put you over the A27. The spectator's areas are roughly where the mown square is on the bottom right hand edge of the picture.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps...p_shoreham.jpg

LJ

Romeo Oscar Golf
 

no, ROG, I mean Altitude. I'll simplify it if you like: If you are close to the ground and you point deliberately at the ground, the margins for error are reduced. That is obvious, even if you are a bit thick, and I don't need to back this up with stats.

Your point about all these guys being highly trained ignores one important point, that too many of them ignore gate heights and end up screwing it. I've supervised a few displays as it happens, and know what I'm talking about. You're wrong. :mad:

Satellite Driver,
With Sussex Police now suggesting 11 dead, can you please explain, as a barrister, the likely current police investigation and its potential implications for online speculation?
Thank you.

@XV490: Sorry, but no. It would be very premature and quite professionally inappropriate of me to do so.

The most I can do is echo what others have said about the police's responsibility to secure evidence of what is at the very least a serious fatal accident.

Thank you. I hadn't meant to suggest you say any more than that.
This will indeed be a very complex combination of investigations.

S Driver, thanks for your post re risk, spot on. It is the point that the casualties had no "stake" in the event and were going about their private lives that will/could be a "game changer" re the perception of risk at future shows. With the exception of seaside shows, many bigger shows need transport infrastructure to get the punters in and out of the location. Its going to be a balancing act re the acceptable risk to those who are using the roads etc to get from A to B. The balance may come in altering the nature of flying whilst over such areas?

There is always something at a show site, Duxford has the M11 at the end of the runway and on the display line... Where do you stop?
East Midlands has the M3 motorway at the end of the runway and has had a 737 end up on it, do you stop traffic on there during normal airport operations? Heathrows approach is even worse over built up areas, do you move everyone out?
It's all about risk, and every time an aircraft flies a risk is there.

Surely, the risks are far higher re an aircraft flying aerobatics compared to straight and level? Reducing the risk by changing the nature of the display whilst over such areas would seem and obvious avenue?

So if two of the eleven killed were actually air show spectators, because they were in a different risk category is their loss less tragic, worthy of sympathy, consideration or of compensation than the others who were just passing by? Is this an insurance consideration? What is the significance of a risk category?

Yep, I was waiting for someone else to say it as I understand my utterances may be verboten to some..

Sometimes it's far better just to walk away and start afresh...

And there are what by consensus are likely to be judged acceptable and unacceptable risks

Public transport, airfreight, defence, SAR, training, emergency service ops are, IMO, likely to be considered "essential" by most.

Display flying rather less so.

Probable insurance hikes could be a wet blanket on a lot of shows......