Shoreham was inevitable. As others have said, oversight, complacency, apathy etc all led to 11 people being killed.

FDD "reason to believe"? One presumes he is one of the experts identified by BADA in their statement of a few weeks back?

So, did the FDD use his expertise or did he just ensure that the CAA box was ticked?

As someone who displayed military aircraft occasionally and in a fairly haphazard way over a period of over a decade, nothing could be further from the truth, no matter how it might be seen from the outside.

I have seen/displayed aircraft that did not have a routine planned, let alone a display auth or anything like it.

Nowadays is much much stricter.

The reason that a Shoreham has not happened before is because it is incredibly unlikely to happen, not because of a dropping in display standards.

There is no decline.
Displays have never been safer, but the current hysteria about safety is accelerating faster than safety can keep up.

Tourist, Shoreham was always unsafe, just look at the geography. The casualties were on the display axis about 150m from the end of the runway. Meanwhile paying spectators were at least 230m laterally displaced from the display axis. It doesn't take a masters degree in geometry (or indeed air display expertise) to figure the least unlikely location of a crash.

Cows, with respect that is utter tosh.

Even a cursory google will show that the location of airshow crashes is scattered all over the place.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any other crash that was off the extended threshold of a runway.
This was a very strange crash in that the manoeuvre was a mild positioning event rather than anything tricky.


The simple fact is that it is not possible to fly a display without overflying houses, cars, people, town etc.

Go and have a look at what is under Fairfords display area. Or Culdrose/Helston. Or Yeovilton/Ilchester.

You cannot display without overflying the public.

Tourist, I guess we will just have to disagree.

Cows getting bigger.
Using your opinion. Without closing down most air shows. How do you propose avoiding flying over the public? At Farnborough most fast jets and airline displays fly over Aldershot, Farnborough town etc. Unless you are in a light aircraft or F16 etc you cannot restrict aircraft to within the airfield boundary.
Accidents happen, luckily very infrequently.
How about closing Heathrow too? I frequently flew 400t aircraft at low level over the surrounding roads.

cessnaplate, I presume your 400t aircraft hadn't approached Heathrow having been inverted some seconds earlier.

Look, I don't particularly have an opinion. But surely there is a degree of nonsense in having a system whereby paying spectators must be at least 230m laterally displaced from a display line whilst others, non-paying or not involved, can be right underneath the display axis within 150m of the threshold? Are we really saying that this risk has always been adequately mitigated by ignorant regulator or display expert?

CGB/Tourist, my recollection (which may be wrong) is that RAFAT stopped displaying at Shoreham a number of years ago as the venue was considered unsuitable.

As has been noted you'd struggle to find any venue in UK that doesn't involve overflying some minor roads or non-participant members of public. The difference with Shoreham is that the tight confines of the airfield plus built up areas plus A27 made sure that "safe" options to put down (planned or otherwise) were particularly limited.

Exactly. One fatal incident in 60 odd years. For some perspective that's over half the entire history of powered flight.

Sunderland (International) Airshow has an ideal venue, with the (non-paying) spectators (who contribute generously via collections and associated purchases) arranged on the shore (and, also, well inland) with the aircraft arriving along the coast (with the occasional approach from inland).

Over the years the display line has been moved further and further out (it is no longer possible to get soaked by a Harrier hovering - even if they were still around), but this means that you see the aircraft for longer as they spread along the skyline.

Shame that we are no longer treated to supersonic bangs from Lightnings (as we were at Acklington back in the 1950s).

Ditto Southport and Blackpool, although the Red Arrows do overfly bits of both, most aircraft fly up and down the beach, arriving and departing from either end.

Easy to say. You are alive!

Cows getting bigger.
You still haven't answered, how, in your opinion, other than the cancellation of many air displays. You prevent display aircraft while displaying, flying over the local public adjacent to the venue.
The inverted manoeuvre of the Hunter prior to display is a control, and loose article check, quite normal, and not as you appear to insinuate a reckless act.

There we are in absolute agreement.
I personally believe that ticket buyers should sign an agreement accepting risk and be allowed much closer and crowd line rules should be relaxed.

I flew to a French show once where they had the crowd line aced. If viewed from above you had the crowd line, display aircraft parking, a small earth berm, the display line and then the runway. The dl seemed to be variable with jets at 100 meters or so from the crowd and Pistons a little closer, enough to get a good view and enjoy the sound! With the parking in front of the crowd there was always something going on for the punters to watch.

Tourist,

Are you serious?

Stitch,

The same applies in the UK. Your speed dictates the display line distance (not jet or prop, although props are generally slower of course).

Yes.
I am a firm believer that people should be allowed to choose their own risk levels in life rather than have them mandated by a nanny state. People should be allowed to chose whether to sit really close to the crowdline, or not. Choose whether to dangerous things or not.
Life is far safer in the UK than it used to be, and far duller.
The modern world seems to have come to the conclusion that the purpose of life is to exist for as long as possible rather than experience as much as possible.

I disagree.

Not necessarily: a jet crashing into a crowd could have caused orders of magnitude more casualties than a jet crashing into a field with a farmer and a few non-paying spectators.

abgd

If you are dead, you are still dead. Why is dying in a crowd any different?