Ironically, the RV8tors were lead by the same pilot involved at Shoreham...:uhoh:

Perceived risk again.

Red's have been doing high energy displays (Including Farnborough) without any risk to the public, well over 4500 displays iirc.
Those people who live in the vicinity of Farnborough (or any other active airfield) know that it is an active airfield and that it holds displays
and deemed the risk acceptable because it is a relatively low risk. In other words they don't expect it to happen whereas it appears that
post Shoreham everyone expects it to happen because these are 'jet fighters doing stunts".

Because the holes in the cheese lined up at Shoreham, the assumption is that it could happen again, so ban high energy displays?

There are risks but they are considerably less than Shoreham, there are some similarities but there are a lot of differences most of which are positives for the Reds.

I never meant to imply that the restrictions were in place to keep fans away, the fans will stay away because the Reds have been clipped imo.

I went to Le Bourget for the Paris airshow last year, it wasn't a patch on Duxford, North Weald or Farnborough, little did I know it was a portent of things to come.

Did I suggest that? How about "aerobatics" for stunts and "loop" for loop-the-loop?

btw I have no idea what a Cuban 8 is !

So let me get this straight; it's OK to do aerobatic manuevers in Airliners not designed for such things, over Farnborough.

But, it's not OK for a premier military aerobatic team to do the same..

Good grief! In that case cancel Farnborough and take It to fairford instead.

Probably better access there anyway.

Wrong it was the B1A

The B52 so called flyby at Blackbushe was the result of the aircraft overshooting its turn onto final for Farnborough, the crew did NOT get the wrong airfield!
I'm told it actually ended up well south of Blackbushe roughly along the M3 motorway.

Where would Jon Egging's aircraft have come down had he been displaying over Farnborough that day? Genuine question.


And those people who happen to be on a road that skirts the airfield? I have to admit that I don't plan my journeys to avoid the possible fallout zones of all active airfields. Do you?

No one is banning high energy displays. For the Red Arrows only, and this event only, they have decided that the risk just isn't worth it because the display can't be conducted within the airfield and in front of the crowd line. All other aircraft will still be flying high energy displays at Farnborough, and the Reds will be doing the same at all other shows.

melmothtw

Everything in life has risk.

Every person who goes in a car has a far larger chance of crashing into passing pedestrians, or even crashing off the road into a garden filled with children. Should we stop driving?

Every spacecraft has a chance of coming down on a school, should we stop rockets?

Every airliner has a chance of crashing into a city, should we stop all flight?

This is nothing short of pathetic. Possibly the most pathetic example of the current trend towards self negation of all things in the stupid quest for total safety.

There is far far more to life than just living as long as possible.

The people who argue that it is unfair to put people who have not paid at risk are morons who don't think that ludicrous point of view through to its logical conclusion.

Using electricity in the UK means that you are buying electricity from the French who have nuclear power stations that might just blow up one day.

Any drive or flight you ever make puts far more people at risk than every flying display ever made.
1 million per year die on the roads, and many are pedestrians or passers by.

1 crash off the airfield in 50 years.....

Every single action we ever make affects the safety of others. To think otherwise shows a lack of even the most shallow thought.

Whoever made this decision should be publicly vilified. I feel very sorry for the Reds, and that is not something I would never normally say.

Hi Tourist,

Everything does indeed come with risk (thanks for the heads-up), but I guess it comes down to measuring that risk against the potential reward. In the case of the Red Arrows at Farnborough (and only in the case of the Red Arrows at Farnborough) the MoD has decided that those rewards are not worth the risk, in this instance.

Well, that ignores the Jon Egging crash that I referred to in my post. Again, had it been at Farnborough where would his jet have come down? Again, a genuine question.

I'm a fan of airshows as much as the next guy. It wasn't my idea for the Reds to curtail their performance at Farnborough, but I can kind of see why they have.

Loop through to the 45degree down-line, 1/2 roll then repeat.

PDR

If you are going to start banning things based upon a risk/reward equation, then it makes sense to start banning things that are actually most dangerous with the least reward for the majority first yes?

So before you get to air displays which entertain millions every year and kill a vanishingly small number of unconnected passersby, why not ban motorbikes and sportscars from the roads?

They are great fun, but most of the fun is enjoyed by the rider/driver and they kill untold numbers of pedestrians every year.

Why not ban speedboats? Jetskis? Kitesurfing? Model planes? Horse riding? Cycling?

Where do you stop?

It's about time we all just accepted that people die all the time. We are all gong to die. I would far rather add the miniscule risk to my life that all the fun things in life cause.

I let my kids swim, sail, ski, cycle etc etc etc. We all do despite the fact that all these activities increase their risk of an early death. We all subconsciously understand that some risks are worth it.

I'm assuming that your many references to 'you' are aimed at society at large, rather than myself personally? Again, I haven't banned anything or even called for the banning of anything.

Again, yes there are many things in life that are a risk and that many people (not me) would perhaps like to see banned.

As I said, the issue usually comes down to balancing the risk and reward for those taking part. What Shoreham showed (and what perhaps Jon Egging's crash might have shown - I see you've ignored that question for a second time) is that airshows present a unique risk to those not taking part.

I would suggest that if it were you who could potentially end up in the dock should a Red plough into a proverbial school or hospital, your thinking on the subject might not be quite so cavalier.

Yes, I am railing against pitiful modern society rather than yourself.


I ignored because it is irrelevant. His crash showed that most of the time there is nobody under a crash off the airfield. Airliners crash all the time into empty countryside or ocean. They occasionally hit people below too. So what?



Go on, justify that. What is the unique risk? As I have already pointed out, numerous activities put unrelated passersby at risk.

Well, we will never know, but I would like to think that if I was In such a position I would resign in disgust rather than have the Reds, one of the worlds premier display teams, refuse to fly at one of the worlds biggest aviation trade shows where there will be airliners throwing themselves around because there just might be a crash.

Unbelievable.

The Titanic only sank once, but thanks to safety measures that were put in place afterwards I am now guaranteed a spot in a lifeboat every time I travel on a ship.

I know, it's the nanny state gone mad!

The Reds will be flying at Farnborough! They just wont be flying dynamic displays that they are unable to keep within the confines of the airfield and in front of the crowd line. The airliners, and others, will be able to do this hence there is no issue with them flying their displays.

Do keep up Tourist.

If everybody wore a hard hat and carried a metal umbrella, eventually somebody would be saved from a meteorite strike.

Doesn't mean it's not a vastly moronic over-reaction to risk.

The Titannic was one of a vast number of ships that sank with enormous loss of life. There s nothing wrong with sane risk/reward evaluations. The problem is that we have moved from sanity to competitive lunacy.

Who can be the safest?

Ok Tourist. I don't think we're going to agree on this one so will leave it there.

You think an airliner can keep within the confines of an airfield whilst displaying?

No. They have just made a more sensible risk evaluation.



The Reds just flying is worse than not flying at all. They are neutered and embarrassing at that point.

Looking forward to watching those airliners cross at 800 kts, just metres apart. Oh no, they don't...

Nor do the synchro pair.

My mistake, they've been known to get a lot closer than that...

Video: Video released of Red Arrows Crete crash - Telegraph

Are you attempting to compare the relative riskiness of a professional display team doing their display with pilots flying airliners well outside of how they would normally be operated?

You are a better man than me if you can quantify that comparison..

As an aside, I have actually displayed airliners with a routine including an opposition cross.:ok:

Are you suggesting that the airliner pilots flying at Farnborough are not professional or trained for display flying? Personally, I think it is disingenuous to try and compare the risks associated with the display flying of the Reds (no matter how professional they obviously are) to that of an airliner, and not for the reasons that you might suggest.

You've obviously won the argument then. The smiley face and thumbs-up seals it for me...

Nope, not suggesting anything of the sort.

You are the one disingenuously comparing, I merely wondered how you even begin to equate the risks between jets being flown in a manner which s inside the normal scope of their operation and airliners being flown wildly outside theirs.

I would suggest that the two can't be compared, which is precisely why the Reds won't be flying aerobatic manoeuvres and the airliners and everyone else will.

That statement makes no sense whatsoever.

It only makes sense if you have compared and found the Reds to be more dangerous then ever other aircraft displaying. Is that what you are saying?

You seem to be saying that the Reds' display is comparable to that of an airliner, and so if the latter is allowed to fly then so should the former.

I am saying that you two are not comparable, and so the fact that airliners are allowed to display does not mean that the same should be true for the Reds also.

Does that make sense?

I suggest that you direct any further questions to the head of 22 Group and the Chief of the Air Staff who made this decision. Just as with melmothtw, you have now worn me down...

Excellent.

If only the idiots who made this decision were so easy to beat.

Melmothw,

Assuming the ban on vintage jet aircraft displays doesn't exist post Shoreham and this display ban is for the Reds only for Farnborough only, Why?

As regards the risk angle. I could have phrased that better, I should have stated >4,500 displays without any accidents/incidents involving the public.
Jon Egging could have come down anywhere, agreed. However as the Reds routines are practiced and honed, it's unlikely that the standard routines would have caused GLOC (Assuming that this was a GLOC induced crash).

Again, risk management.

Again, I ask why are the Reds only being penalised?

Momoe,

Those are questions you will have to direct to AVM Turner, ACM Pulford, and Micahel Fallon, as it was they that made the decision.

AVM Turner's public explanation is: "We looked at the Reds' display - the shape, size, and manoeuvres being flown. There are usually no issues [with flying the display] in front of the crowd line [and within the confines of the event], but with the Red Arrows display being so wide and so fluid, [coupled with] the growth of the Farnborough area, meant that we could no longer take the risks. If there were to be an accident, there would surely be multiple third-party casualties, and after Shoreham we are no longer prepared to take that risk," Jane's Red Arrows display at Farnborough to be curtailed because of safety fears | IHS Jane's 360

There is nothing that I can add (or otherwise) to that, I'm afraid.

Ahhhh Tourist,

You remind me of a certain senior Scottish Officer who when he was on the Flight Safety Course was asked for his opinion on the causal factors for a number of crashes and his reply in each instance was 'He F**cked up'.


That was the extent of his intelligent analysis of Flight safety and I do wonder if he and you are one and the same?

Would that be the "Scottish gp capt"?

Widger, it is obvious that nobody currently involved in flight safety has made any intelligent analysis of flight safety otherwise they would stop trying to make everything safer to the detriment of capability.

A simple glance at the graph of the annual accident rate would show the most obtuse observer that nothing we do now has any appreciable affect on safety but is catastrophic to capability and cost.

Law of diminishing returns.

That's my analysis.

What's yours?

Can you give a single example of anything that has been done since the 80's that has made a statistically valid effect on flight safety?

Introduction of ACAS, aircraft with some form of TAS or TCAS fitted are significantly less likely to be involved in an Airprox or MAC.

This is the military forum.

Have you got figures that show that to be true for UK military aircraft?

"significantly less likely" will obviously show as a pronounced drop in accidents at the point where this was introduced on the graph you have looked at yes?

What I was really meaning was anything that flight safety departments have done, not what clever engineers have done anyway.

People who know me from other forums on the civvy side will know that I am a big supporter of new tech that helps the civvy world

All the costly restrictions placed upon us by risk averse higher ups.

Off the top of my head no, but someone at the MAA has and if I get really bored this weekend I'll recreate it using the UKAB website and excel. Because, and this may shock you, I'm aware this is the military forum hence the introduction of TAS being seen as some sort of modern initiative rather than an old technology soon to be supplanted by ADS-B.

" nothing we do now has any appreciable affect on safety but is catastrophic to capability and cost."

but that is the whole point - whatever you think a Red Arrows display is nothing to do with military capability - it's purely entertainment............. and they obviously feel that they can't afford another accident killing passers-by outside the airshow area