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