I think it is more than that.

I think it is about pride.
I think it is about a pursuit of excellence.
I think it is about demonstrating to the world that our pilots are "the best"

These things might not be direct capability, but as "soft" power they have their place.


Incidentally, the decision to stop them displaying at Farnborough tells the world the exact opposite.

It sends a message that we have no backbone. We are weak.

maybe it also sends the message that we don't like to risk killing innocent bystanders????

personally I think the ban is OTT but then I'm not the guy who has to carry the can if it goes wrong.............................

Yes, I think that the RAF being so constrained by pant-wetters that the nations premier display team, one of the countries most recognisable symbols of excellence, will not be displaying at one of the worlds premier aviation trade shows despite an enviable safety record purely because a civvy singleton jet crashed into some bystanders once in half a century could just about be described as "OTT"

Seconded Tourist and well said!

@Heathrow
I think one of the problems is the lack of accountability, the ban is OTT because Shoreham got huge press coverage including some intrusive reporting on Andy Hill by some grubby reporter.

Who is going to stand up and make a totally rational decision based on proven facts? If we keep bowing to the H&S brigade, one day we'll be so far over we'll realise we've had pain in our posterior for a long time.

Tourist, it is a fact of modern life that whenever a 'neglible risk' event or 'unforeseen risk' occurs then positive action has to be implemented to avoid any blame should if reoccur.

The corollary is that an obvious road safety measure is only implemented after avoidable deaths have occurred.

Pontius Navigator
 

1500ish mainly innocent people killed on the roads every year. By your argument why have we not banned cars?
What is to stop say a Red Arrow collision en route, dropping bits of aircraft on a main road, or at the end of their F boro flypast over built up areas? Surely they should only ever fly over open spaces or the sea if possible. Avoiding boats of course.
Or possibly disband, zero risk, bingo.

It is a fact, yes, but it shouldn't be!!

When a one in a million chance occurs, as they are wont to do about once in a million times, we should say "that's as expected. lets carry on as we are" not try to make it never in million times.

Flying cannot be done without risk.

Cessna, when we flew with live 1000lb bombs we were required to route clear of towns. The bombs were in a bomb bay and could only drop had we selected jettison. Operationally that went out the window and we pretended to our friends that we were unarmed.

As you rightly point our, cars kill. Rather than ban cars, or air shows, or aircraft, we !mitigate the risk by eliminating 3-lane roads, building dual carriageways, imposing speed limits, speed cams, breathalyser s etc etvc.

No, we have not even begun to do the obvious things that would save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.

Helmets in cars. Irritating but easy.
5 point harnesses. Easy
Annual license test. Not easy but effective
Annual medical
Speed limiters
Average speed checks on all roads
Mandatory soft coverings on all cars.


He list is endless, but for some reason despite 1.25 million deaths per year we ignore it and focus on the futile endeavour of trying to make the safest things in life safer to the detriment of enjoyment.

Perhaps it is because some tasks just seem to big. Where to begin with cars?

Pontius, are you suggesting that there is a dedicated agency that regulates road safety (Highway Code), imposes safety defences (barriers, speed limits) and enforces it where necessary (Police), in order to protect all road users, because no activity is without some form of risk?? Would it be fair to say that such measures weren't all installed from day one, but instead EVOLVED over time or events on the basis of common sense and learned experiences, some of which may have been tragic? Perhaps an accident involving many deaths that gripped the public eye?

If that's the case I'd argue that the risk of the Red Arrows crashing into a built-up area ivo Farnborough - and the concomitant societal impact it would have - has just been reduced (in both severity and likelihood) by a regulator introducing an evolved measure. Or, to put it bluntly, doing its job.

The great John Derry's displays were also popular at Farnborough.....and regs were changed after his (and others') death.

MSOCS, not one agency but a plethora of them. Locally it is county road safety partnerships. On the strategic road network it is the Highways Agency. On manufacturers it will be EU directives and regulations.

There is no single supra agency but yes, it evolves.

Some manufacturers take the lead: SAABs with day running lights, now an EU regulation.

Pontius, you just brought the EU into it - you've really done it now!

Airshows over the sea are also affected. Minehead 2016 has been cancelled due to a massive hike in insurance costs.

Something must be done.

:*

Mel, I have?

But what about the better authorities, higher speed limits and cheaper fuel?

I'm slightly surprised that anybody on here is putting forward the example of road safety regulatory systems and their evolution as something that anybody would wish to emulate.

Tourist, it was used as an analogy, not the exemplar. 🤔

I hear consideration being given to the closure of Heathrow. It has been pointed out that many times a day, large high energy jet aircraft, some of them over 20yrs. old, carrying hundreds of people, pass over extremely busy roads. Is this an acceptable risk? Perhaps the roads under the flight paths should be closed during the operational hours.
If an accident occurred many innocent bystanders may be hurt.

This expression always puzzles me. It raises the question of who or what are the guilty bystanders?

Me too, thats why I used it!
Emanates from the newspaper Shoreham reports I think.

Cessnapete. Please tell me that you're not seriously comparing the risk of a 4-engined airliner that rarely exceeds a Rate 1 turn, approaching LHR at c.150kts, with 9 single-engined jets, some of which fly to miss each other at closing speeds in excess of 700kts!