Is this actually serious? Perhaps engage your brain a minute and think about this, because your whole argument is losing validity when you post such obvious nonsense.

It's now been explained to you why the Hunter is not in service so perhaps you can be a bit more level headed. The enquiry hasn't been concluded and your attitude seems to be 'I don't care what happened, I like planes, give me what I want, waaaahh'.

You say because these things happen very rarely, we should just accept it and move on. Which seems slightly bizarre, aviation didn't get as safe as it is with an attitude like that. It is because of this robust reaction to accidents that incidents are as rare as they are, long may that continue. Even incidents that don't kill people are investigated thoroughly, sometimes planes grounded, and lessons learned implemented.

If very bad decisions were made that day, it is very important that they are learned from. If the risk can be reduced it should be, I'm not sure why you're against that. You made a bizarre point about financial implications, it's not a conspiracy you know. Some things are vital to society functioning, some things are not. Society will make the judgement in the end, not you or some conspiracy of bankers out to spoil your fun, and I think society decided air displays are a long way down the list of things it's willing to accept the risk of being killed for.

That is not what I was inferring, what I was trying to get across is when it is a major item that effects us all and is a necessity, there is often not the same reaction. Far from it, my job entails ensuring safety is paramount, sadly as I mentioned earlier, in some respect, there is a relaxation of the rules, which personally i think is wrong. if you want an example of safety verses economics, read

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publi..._aviation.html

Thanks BVCU, first sensible reply I have had.

Erm, obviously? :confused:

Consider the downside to removing all the garbage trucks from the roads? Public health is the most obvious. Now compare with the downside of cancelling an airshow/restricting it. The latter, we can all get on with our lives without issue, the former would cause some fairly serious issues for the basic functioning of society. And probably a number of deaths from health impacts.

It's basic cost benefit analysis.

Which is exactly what I posted, the Hunter was immediately grounded because no one knew if the jet was the cause, no one knew either if the lorry was at fault either, but it wasn't.

NL, fact or assumption? Maybe all their trucks were recalled and checked. Obviously nothing found. Maybe they contacted the manufacturer.

AIUI the basic cause of the Glasgow bin lorry incident was established very early to be driver incapacitation. This was confirmed by a number of witnesses both within and outside the cab of the lorry. The lorry itself was also the subject of an engineering inspection. ITYF a number of public sector HGV/PSV operators have reviewed their procedures in terms of checking driver licenses and medicals.

Go forth and partronise elsewhere.

You misunderstand gr. I wasn't patronising or attempting to patronise you. Just helping by clearing up a small error in your abysmal nomenclature.

...but if you're too arrogant or ignorant to accept such help, then fine. I suggest you go and read AP3456.

I took my lads to Sunderland airshow today.
The Norwegian Vampires were so far out to sea it was fairly pointless having them there.

Not really. What you wrote was a request for someone to explain:

...thereby suggesting that the different response to vintage jet crash and bin lorry crash is unfair, and that the financial loss to Hunter owners provides an argument to keep the Hunters flying until an aircraft fault is proven to have caused the crash. This is obviously daft.

All this verbiage about a bin lorry is just a load of garbage. It has no basis of comparison in this instance, except perhaps the prospect of vintage aircraft being binned from future air shows.

Come on Nutloose, how many people do you need to tell you that your comparison was fatuous? Bone headed was my choice of words and your subsequent posts have only reinforced that view.

You then said:
Which worries me, as you clearly do not have a clue what it means. Please let us know what operator you work for, as I for one would like to keep well away from anything you have safety responsibility for.

S-D

Will you two please get a room....!!

:rolleyes:

Oh dear gr, I seem to have touched a nerve old timer.

Someone take their handbags away!

What does vv stand for? I assumed velocity vector, but velocity is a vector, so I must be wrong again.

The term "velocity vector" (vv) refers to a symbol on a display, usually a head-up display, that indicates where the aeroplane is going as opposed to where it's pointing. You can consider it to be the end of an arrow which is aligned with the velocity of the airplane where that velocity hits whatever is in front of it.

If the vv is "painted" on the ground it doesn't matter that your nose is 25 degrees above the horizon - you're going to hit the ground unless you add some energy from somewhere(!). Equally if the VV is holding stable just beyond the piano keys, and t horizontal and vertical velocities are at the preferred values, then you're approach is probably good and you just need to remember to flare [or not, depending on type - consult you owners' handbook].

PDR

Thanks, I understand that now, but why the tautology? Velocity is a vector in and of itself (speed in a direction.) Airbus call what you describe the flight path vector (FPV) speed is shown elsewhere.

Not seen this article linked on this thread:

Report on Shoreham Airshow disaster delayed for two months (From The Argus)

It's a usage thing. velocity is certainly a vector quantity, but when people use the term "velocity" they commonly mean "speed" anyway.

Velocity (being as you say a vector) has two elements - a magnitude and a direction. When people use the expression "velocity vector" the parameter they're usually talking about is just the "direction" element and the magnitude is not of interest. Whoever the first person was who coined the phrase to name a symbol on a display decided that "Velocity Vector" was a good name for the parameter "the direction the speed is travelling in". Aviation, like so many other fields, has terms evolved through usage which no longer make literal sense.

Life's like that. In fact ironically the term "tautology" itself is another example, but that's for another thread.

PDR