The way it's going, the air show enthusiast community are being railroaded in to becoming "crochet enthusiasts", the sad accident last weekend was not a continuation of a trend, but just another incident that might occur when living human beings take an interest in the beauty of flight. Now we are to see the rabid hand of the senior civil servant all over the piece, ending many years of traditional enjoyment of open days and flying events. Like all posters, I abhor the loss of life in the recent accident, the imposition of regulations that might make air displays a thing of the past though, should not be the result of the tragedy.

Smudge

I think there are many peoe who will disagree with the part of your post that I have highlighted smudger. It was not just another incident, and some of those who died were not taking an interest in the beauty of flight, they were just passers by. Those rabid civil servants that you refer to will be seeking to ensure that risks are assessed, eliminated, managed and where sensible, accepted. They will also be seeking to ensure that the risks that the different groups of people are exposed to are proportionate. Innocent passers by who have no interest in air displays will not be accepting of the same level of risk as the pilot enjoying his passion of fast jet aerobatics.

You might want to amend your post.

S-D

Sadly - and I puposely make no comment on the accident or the CAA's reaction - this strengthens my belief that the RAF's 100th Birthday in 2018 will see the last ever Reds display........:(:(:(

I don't undestand the logic of what you appear to be alluding to? I sense you're suggesting that in light of recent crashes at airshows, not least at Shoreham, that the relevent authorities will deem the Red Arrows, indeed all fast jet aerobatics displays, to be too dangerous, therefore, they will no longer be allowed. But why do you think it will take until after 2018 to arrive at that decision? Surely, if the day that this happens is now in sight as you seem to suggest, then such displays are far more likely to face such restrictions/bans before the 2016 airshow season is upon us, while the emotional and political ramifications are very much alive. Or do you imagine that the form will be to wait until after the RAF's 100th birthday before we stamp on everything, we'll risk all until then!:confused:

FB

[QUOTE=Finningley Boy;9098223]I don't undestand the logic of what you appear to be alluding to? I sense you're suggesting that in light of recent crashes at airshows, not least at Shoreham, that the relevent authorities will deem the Red Arrows, indeed all fast jet aerobatics displays, to be too dangerous, therefore, they will no longer be allowed. But why do you think it will take until after 2018 to arrive at that decision? Surely, if the day that this happens is now in sight as you seem to suggest, then such displays are far more likely to face such restrictions/bans before the 2016 airshow season is upon us, while the emotional and political ramifications are very much alive. Or do you imagine that the form will be to wait until after the RAF's 100th birthday before we stamp on everything, we'll risk all until then!:confused:

FB[/QtUOTE]

Assuming the Royal Air Force makes it to April 2018!

SD
[QUOTE]You might want to amend your post. /QUOTE]
Why would he want to do that?
I find your fixation with different levels of risks of people on the ground in this tragic accident baffling, nay incomprehensible. Do you differentiate between the paying spectator, the non paying spectator in the layby and the passing motorist? If so, why? To what purpose?

The Vintage Jets and Hunter restrictions have come about due to two fatal crashes while display aerobatic manoeuvres were being performed. The CAA have good reason to suspect that the time has come to prevent any more before the results of the AAIB investigations. They have likely spoken to the AAIB already. The common denominator is two privately owned aircraft did not complete aerobatic displays, ao the CAA restrict operations until proof from the AAIB and review of the procedures. I don't think the CAA have much concern with the Military displays. The guys flying them practice multiple times daily for weeks before the PDA authorisation, currency is not an issue, maintenance of the frames is carried out exactly as the schedules of the OEM dictate, maintenance personnel are all professional and fully trained and there is effective authorisation. I have heard certain vintage jet operators say their frames are better maintained than normal aircraft.. If Normal aircraft are military or type certified civil aircraft, the CAA allow more dispensations for an intermediate complexity PtF jet. Its all written in the CAP. Of course airworthiness is not compromised at all, just not as restrictive as if the OEMs still existed. Personally, if maintenance issues are found by the AAIB as major causes, I will be surprised, but nothing can be ruled out.

I agree with you Alber. You cannot expect part timers to be as current/proficient/supervised as the boys in blue are. Maintenance is fine. I accept that the airframes are unlikely to be at fault but I do think there is a world of difference between operating a BA jet with pax on board and displaying a T7 Hunter on your day off. This is not to pre-empt the enquiry but I can see the way the CAA are thinking.

Airfields do exist which are still in the middle of the countryside and easily accessible by public transport.....
Sufficiently far enough South of the A64 and East of the A1M not to pose a risk to travellers going about their business.......
Adjacent minor roads managed by local Traffic plan and a helpful District Council to further reduce risk.....
Unfortunately airfield purchased too late to meet the mil participation deadlines so heavily reliant on vintage jets and less noisier props but envisage a healthy mil attendance in lieu of Waddo next year.
Vulcan 'display' not yet affected and graceful 'displays' by Venoms, Vampires, Spits and Mustangs should still satisfy the most discerning viewer - with the odd world champion aerobatic display from our civilian colleagues.......plus the Dakota, Sea Fury blah blah.
Suffice to say air shows still have a great future in UK - it just might mean that they will not be held within suburbia!

CMouse

[quote]SD
Because many of those killed were not there to enjoy the beauty of flight. Too describe it as just another incident seems particularly insensitive.

Others on this thread have suggested that those attending the display are accepting of a greater level of risk than those in no way connected, eg the passers by or neighbours. I think someone likened it to the risks accepted by those attending motor racing events. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that and it may be a difficult position to defend should anything go wrong.

But there is a world of difference between what the public (attending or not) should be exposed to and what the display flyer is prepared to take.

Doesn't seem a particularly difficult concept to me.

S-D

[QUOTE]Doesn't seem a particularly difficult concept to me./QUOTE]

That is because you are not paying attention. The question was about the level of risk allocated to those ON THE GROUND, inside and outside the display venue. No one is disputing the greater risk accepted by those actually doing the flying.

Paying attention fella. I mentioned the different groups of people in my post. Try reading it again.

If the question you are asking is related to whether the people choosing to watch the display be accepting of a greater level of risk than the passers by or neighbours, then I don't have the answer. And when I say choosing to watch the display, I mean both inside and outside the fence.

S-D