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.