Edit:
Perhaps I ought to qualify that statement. I believe it is innapropriate to suggest that there could be such a ratio at such a traumatic time for so many people time. My opinion for what it is worth, I am sure others will disagree.

I think the point slimjim is making is that those that feel a bit of unfortunate death is a reasonable price to pay for an edgy ‘worthwhile’ life for society at large also need to face up to is if this much death of folk going about their daily lives is acceptable. Apparently it would be knee jerk to want to see ‘draconian’ measures brought in to try and prevent it happening again. Which I suppose means they reckon the new ratio is acceptable – these folk died for the greater good.

I think the point slimjim is making is that those that feel a bit of unfortunate death is a reasonable price to pay for an edgy ‘worthwhile’ life for society at large also need to face up to is if this much death of folk going about their daily lives is acceptable.

Sorry think you’re totally missing the point. You seem to be implying that death in this way (because its the result of a non essential, fun or edgy activity) is somehow unacceptable, yet death by an activity that’s considered normal – e.g. driving the kids to school, is somehow okay, regardless to the fact that driving is probably the single most deadly activity known to man – certainly far more dangerous than attending an airshow.

No one said that this much death was acceptable. What we’re saying is that death for ALL of us in inevitable at some point and in order to live life to it’s full then we all need a certain amount of risk to be present. If we legislate all risk out of life then life becomes worthless anyway. Accepting that risk is present we must also accept that an unusual (or freak if you want to call it that) tragic accident can happen.

This accident will be looked into and no doubt new rules or restrictions will be put in place, but the reality is we could put in all the legislation we want to make life as safe (and as dull) as humanely possible yet still unforeseen accidents will always continue to happen. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to make things safer, but all we’re asking for is a balanced approach, not a knee jerk reaction influenced by the media or all those easily outraged and shouty ‘do good’ people who seem to jump on any bandwagon that appears to be trendy at the time.

agent007, what I think where you and I differ, as highlighted yet again by the use of driving as a comparator is that risk in itself is a meaningless statistic. It only has meaning when linked with reward. The debate therefore is if life in general is enhanced sufficiently to justify this risk. I’m not enough of a plane nerd (despite a brief career as a military pilot) to feel the risk/reward balance here justifies continuation of the present airshows without reform – knee jerk or otherwise. You obviously feel different. But do you feel differently enough about it to swap a member of your own family with one of the victims, you know, for the greater good? Or does it only feel like that if it’s someone else taking one for the team?

Accepting that risk is present we must also accept that an unusual (or freak if you want to call it that) tragic accident can happen.

Whilst thankfully this accident is freak in terms of it being incredibly rare I challenge you to take a look at an OS map of Shoreham, pencil in the display line for the show then play a game of ‘pin the tail on the donkey’, or if you will ‘crash the failed Hunter loop on the land’. I would be astonished if you didn’t put an X on the A27 within your first half a dozen attempts. I would suggest the risk was always there – the freak bit is the aircraft crashed but not where it landed. As I’ve said previously I’m not sure why that risk was worthwhile when a perfectly good over the sea option was available at Shoreham (akin to the Prestwick airshow model) that would have had just as much of your precious life affirming joie de vivre with a bit less risk to Joe Public.

I agree that risk can’t be ironed out of life and we probably shouldn’t be trying to eliminate it for exactly the reasons you describe. I just don’t see the point in not eliminating it when you can when having it there provides very little extra reward.

Rather less than 420 a year I reckon (for innocent bystanders going about their daily business)

Which is another pretty crass and rather ridiculous comment. The correct question is, would you feel different if one of the people who’d lost their life was a member of your family – to which the answer is no, because I know that it is still an extremely unlikely occurrence. Because those people are dead anyway, and the chances are it will be another 60 years before somebody on the ground dies whether or not we jerk our knees.

Regarding displaying over the sea – well if it’s a viable option then it seems a sensible thing to consider, and I can see that might be the future for Shoreham – but all the benefits and disadvantages need to be considered properly rather than emotively. Does that then mean you can’t have a display anywhere inland?

Anyway, back to the roads thing. If we assume current worst case estimate of 20 deaths from this, that’s one every 3 years on average. I wonder what benefits there are to not doing things which would likely decrease pedestrian deaths on our roads by 0.1% – and how do those benefits compare to the benefits of running airshows in their current form (which attract huge numbers of people every year).

which attract huge numbers of people every year

🙂 statics not your strong point.

Have you even vaguely stopped to consider the stupidity of comparing the number of participants and minutes of travel in the entire national road network daily (tens of millions daily) with the ‘huge numbers of people ‘ attending airshows (a few hundred thousand annually)? The numbers are so mind numbingly different that comparing one with the other in some sort of top trumps death off is numerically infantile.

But the crashingly obvious comment to make is – it’s ok to do both. Knock yourself out and campaign yourself silly trying to improve road death statistics, many people are. But it’s still ok to look at other, smaller, causes of death and try and improve them too.

driving is probably the single most deadly activity known to man – certainly far more dangerous than attending an airshow.

I’m quickly tiring of these meaningless comparisons. The correlation of risk comparing the sheer massive volume of car journeys taken daily by UK citizens alone (millions and millions)- against the couple dozen(?) air shows in the UK – blows the infamous car journey/hit by a bus statement clear out of the water ,particularly now that up to 20 people, sorry, non-pilots, have died since 1960something.

But do you feel differently enough about it to swap a member of your own family with one of the victims, you know, for the greater good?

This x 100
I could actually smell the fuel and debris burning from where I was standing on Saturday. I was also due to take my 5yo son with me to spectate but fortunately other plans conspired. I can tell you though, In hindsight and taking into account the above – I feel so horribly bad for the families of those that died.
As an aviation enthusiast, I for one am willing to accept potential changes to current rules if it helps to further reduce anyone else witnnessing a similar crash – let alone prevent more deaths.
I’ve tried hard to refrain from making knee-jerk statements but it seems that none of you thrill seekers actually properly read the opinions being presented – I love adrenaline fuelled sports and activities but I too now think that close proximity of general public to the crash site – this particular crash site, at this particular show – (and potential others) needs to be re-evaluated and not simply brushed under the carpet in a sweeping ‘shit happens’ dismissal.

I don’t get the ‘it hasn’t happened for 60 years so it’s cool’ argument. It has just happened. Apparently there have been a around half a dozen incidents at air shows in Europe this year alone (according to other reports), and several very near misses with public at UK events. Lets not rule out that fatalities have been avoided in recent times by lady luck alone?

Stop for 1 minute to think about one of your loved ones dying so horridly on Saturday, then say again that you think this is an acceptable risk in the name of exciting a minority.

Well I prefer dynamics, but statistics is also one of my favourite subjects, and there is nothing at all inaccurate about my comment. I wasn’t comparing the numbers using roads and attending airshows, merely pointing out that there are significant benefits to airshows which can’t be ignored – both to those attending and in economic terms.

Of course the rate of people killed on the ground by airshows is also mind numbingly different to the rate at which pedestrians are killed by cars.

But it’s still ok to look at other, smaller, causes of death and try and improve them too.

Sure, and look at the benefits in the context of the risks. Because there certainly are plenty of things we could change on the roads where the benefits of not doing so appear to be too high. Plenty of things which would result in saving more than one death every 3 years. I’m certainly not suggesting we shouldn’t look at changing things with airshows, but lets not apply far, far higher standards than we do for something which kills a lot more people.

Who is suggesting it should be brushed under the carpet? Personally I am happy for the AAIB and CAA to follow usual procedures, which seems far more sensible than jerking our knees. You do realise there is another alternative to knee jerking and sweeping it under the carpet? Yes that does include looking at the flight line here and other operating procedures here and elsewhere.

I don’t get the ‘it hasn’t happened for 60 years so it’s cool’ argument.

Well nobody is saying that either, simply that decisions about the way things should happen in the future are better made in a logical detached way, looking at the actual risk rather than based on emotive arguments. I’m afraid that introducing arguments about the smell of the crash and sacrificing one of your loved ones is emotional, considering the lack of any non-participant deaths in 60 years is logical.

But do you feel differently enough about it to swap a member of your own family with one of the victims, you know, for the greater good? Or does it only feel like that if it’s someone else taking one for the team?

That’s a pretty daft argument to be honest and you probably knew it when you typed this. Regardless, I shall rise somewhat to your bait. The answer to your question is no, of course I wouldn’t swap – would anyone of same mind?

The question you should have asked, is knowing the risks presented by an airshow, would you still allow a member of your family to drive past an active airshow en route somewhere else, or to attend, standing close to the flightpath?

Yes 100%, in fact we’ve done it at a couple of shows, in a field close to the end of the runway with the kids too. Plenty of other families and kids in the same field. Would we do it again since this accident? Yes we probably would – the benefits to the kids far outweigh the very small amount of risk present in our opinion. Personally though if you feel it’s too risky then feel free to keep your kids at home watching TV – it’s your choice at the end of the day.

The question you should have asked

But it wasn’t the one I asked, or meant to ask. Yes the answer was obvious for any one of sound mind but still feel there is an element of NIMBYism in your take on this. You are a protagonist of the pro risk culture and as such you shouldn’t get to judge your feelings towards it as one of the vast majority that it does not effect but need to be able to fully empathise with those that do suffer as a consequence.

An acquaintance who has flown aerobatics said for planes like that when at the top of the loop, the power should be reduced to prevent the g-forces ripping the engine off and to provide more time to make the turn. If this didnt happen for whatever reason then it might explain why he didnt have enough room to complete or didnt complete the top part of the loop as planned. The speed/forces when coming down might have been just to much to handle. Again its just speculation regarding an truly awful event.

Watching the CAA representative on the news this morning, it’s amazing (but not unexpected) that they are taking the stance that this is a tragic accident… an act of God if you like…and they will do all they can to improve matters.

The CAA are responsible for air display safety, they were responsible for the regulation and licensing of the shoreham airshow and as such they are ultimately responsible for this accident occurring.

Interesting that there is no acknowledgement or recognition from the CAA that the CAA got it wrong in some way and that their old-boy culture needs to change to being more proactive than reactive.

They’ve now some chap on BBC news claiming the pilot was trying to land on A27…. Here

I’ve just contacted the BBC and they are going to interview me for the lunchtime news segment, on my unique ability to turn water into wine…

but still feel there is an element of NIMBYism in your take on this.

No not at all – not sure if you get my point. I appreciate we need to do what we can where we can, and if there’s big improvements in safety that can be made without compromising peoples lives to much then great – lets do it.

Unfortunately though the balance (fueled by sensationalist media reporting and a ‘sue everyone’ culture) seems to have swung too far into the camp of those who now shout the loudest about safety over everything else (like them having a safe life is far more important than anyone else being able to lead a free or fulfilling life).

Many people these days seem to expect a completely risk free life – one where accident’s can’t just happen, and if it does all go wrong then there’s always someone else to blame or litigate the hell out of.

To have a fair life for all then we need to balance risk v safety, unfortunately the balance lately seems to be swinging firmly towards the latter, but I’m guessing that’s because these days an increasing number of people are not so exposed to risk, spending more time in front of a computer or TV than they do getting outdoors and appreciating just how liberating an element of risk, or taking personal responsibility for ones own safety can be.

One point to make out of this, location. Had the Pilot hit the ground 200mtrs further East he’d have hit the raised concrete bridge that runs over the river into Shoreham Port.
For sure the bridge would have come down.

Here we are but amateurs on the crass comment front. I give you a refund request

Words fail me.

^^ Like, Wow.

Only in Worthing eh 🙄

To have a fair life for all then we need to balance risk v safety, unfortunately the balance lately seems to be swinging firmly towards the latter, but I’m guessing that’s because these days an increasing number of people are not so exposed to risk, spending more time in front of a computer or TV than they do getting outdoors and appreciating just how liberating an element of risk, or taking personal responsibility for ones own safety can be.

There’s a big difference between risks you choose to take, and risks you don’t choose. Probably rightly there is a very low tolerance of things like this because lots of people died who were in no way willing participants in the air show.

Perhaps this is a risk you take when you drive a car. Obviously a very low risk, but clearly you shouldn’t discount it when you decide to drive.

an increasing number of people are not so exposed to risk, spending more time in front of a computer or TV than they do getting outdoors

The insipid hazards to health take years to appear of these behaviours – but are no less dramatic than the immediate hazards one sees and takes getting outdoors and experiencing every day life.

Well if you want to persist with this, then lets go back to our favourite analogy – would you swap one of your loved ones with the pedestrian who is killed on the roads today (on an average day) in order to continue with the convenience of using the roads the way we do at the moment, or would you accept a severe curtailment of car use in order to save them? Oh, but actually in order to compare correctly with the number of deaths which would be saved by completely banning airshows I’ll want another 1259 of your relatives to sacrifice.

Well if you want to persist with this, then lets go back to our favourite analogy – would you swap one of your loved ones with the pedestrian who is killed on the roads today (on an average day) in order to continue with the convenience of using the roads the way we do at the moment, or would you accept a severe curtailment of car use in order to save them? Oh, but actually in order to compare correctly with the number of deaths which would be saved by completely banning airshows I’ll want another 1259 of your relatives to sacrifice

Sorry, could you quickly point me to the place where I said I was in favour of not looking to reduce road deaths? I don’t think that thought has ever crossed my mind. The poster I posed the question to has basically said that the risk caused by this airshow to non participants was ok in the bigger scheme of things. That’s not my stance so I don’t have to answer the question 😉

Oh, but actually in order to compare correctly with the number of deaths which would be saved by completely banning airshows I’ll want another 1259 of your relatives to sacrifice.

For someone who says they like statics you really are not very good at it! If you want to scale it up I would have about 2 millions relatives so I suspect I could happily let some go.

And here it is the bottom of the barrel,proud of all of you.

And here it is the bottom of the barrel,proud of all of you.

Yes, you are quite correct. Disappointed with myself tbh. Going to stop there.

The poster I posed the question to has basically said that the risk caused by this airshow to non participants was ok in the bigger scheme of things. That’s not my stance so I don’t have to answer the question

No I said that the risk of being killed at or near an airshow is historically so small that it’s almost negligable. This was an unusual accident which probably won’t occur again in the foreseeable future. That doesen’t make this accident any less tragic for all involved and they have my deepest sympathies.

The point I’m making is that who ever is making the decisions behind whether these sort of activities go ahead in the future (or not) will need to look at the bigger picture rather than being swayed by the highly vocal knee-jerk brigade, many of whom are understandably upset at the moment. They need to consider the benefits such an event can give to the community and public as a whole (not all of which is measurable in the statistics you so love to quote).

Apart from inspiring kids, being a great day out etc, many of these events raise a considerable amount of money for local charities for example which may help save lives or improve things for vulnerable people and if they get watered down too much, there’s too much red tape involved to host them, or they get moved to a location where no one lives, then they will probably just become not worth attending/hosting and as a result will not be financially viable any more.

At the end of the day, who’s going to waste their time traveling several hours to a remote location, far from where they live where local infrastructure is poor (i.e. not near a main road) to view something they can hardly see (because they are being kept at an ultra safe distance) where aircraft are only allowed to fly straight and level?

I never realised how difficult it was to nail a good analogy until this thread.

I have learned that we lack reasoned statisticians though.

From the previous page:

Have you even vaguely stopped to consider the stupidity of comparing the number of participants and minutes of travel in the entire national road network daily (tens of millions daily) with the ‘huge numbers of people ‘ attending airshows (a few hundred thousand annually)?

and

The correlation of risk comparing the sheer massive volume of car journeys taken daily by UK citizens alone (millions and millions)- against the couple dozen(?) air shows in the UK – blows the infamous car journey/hit by a bus statement clear out of the water ,particularly now that up to 20 people, sorry, non-pilots, have died since 1960something.

Airshows are up there with football as one of the biggest spectator events in the UK. 200,000 people can be at the big ones (RIAT, Farnborough) and 50,000 is not uncommon elsewhere. I went to Leuchars a few years ago and they reckoned 70,000 at that.
I think they reckoned 35,000 people went to see the two Lancasters doing a flypast through the Derwent Valley.
Rhyl this coming Bank Holiday weekend are expecting 180,000 over the three days although they may get fewer now based on the Shoreham incident.

Depending on how you define “airshow” there are approximately 400-500 a year across the UK. (That’s counting a weekend as two separate shows). Plus you can add in flypasts on top of that where the aircraft doesn’t do a full arerobatic display.

So the risk figures are out by a fair bit since annually you’ve got several million people (or the same 500,000 people going multiple times) to many hundreds of events.

That said, the other comment about “it’s not happened in 60 years” is referring to UK only – in 2011 there was a crash at an airshow in the US which killed 10 spectators.

Cardiff Airshow not going ahead this w/e I just read on the BBC News..

pprune thread

Some more informed speculation here for those interested.

what keeps preying on my mind, and it may be a little morbid to do so, is the reason(s) that all the victims haven’t been identified and that people are still regarded as missing.
would the fire or impact have been so ferocious as to have obliterated people that much?

Not sure I really should answer this…..

My father was a dentist in the Royal Navy, based at a naval air station in the late 60s, early 70s. His skills were used more than once to identify aircrew. Fairly sobering when you have been in the wardroom with them the night before. Aviation fuel burns hot and aircraft carry a lot of inertia.

Aviation fuel burns hot and aircraft carry a lot of inertia.

The Hunter wasn’t going this fast (or at least I don’t believe it was) but this is the best example I’ve seen of the forces involved (this was at 480mph)

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8uvQk1H9I[/video]

Twixhunter

An acquaintance who has flown aerobatics said for planes like that when at the top of the loop, the power should be reduced to prevent the g-forces ripping the engine off and to provide more time to make the turn.

I think your mate might be on some seriously powerful meds. The G-Forces over the top are pretty low (some people talk of G-Loc at that point which is unlikely) and the thrust would be at a fairly constant level throughout the loop in normal circumstances. High thrust equates to high pitching ability but obviously you don’t want the speed shooting up out of control on the way down from the loop. Selecting idle thrust in this case would reduce your acceleration but would compromise pitching ability too on the way down.

The engine will be stressed to the same limits that the airframe would be and a loop should be well within those limits (nominally 4g for a loop).

Can’t comment on what thrust was set here as I have poor internet access so haven’t seen the video for a few days and it’d be hard to tell I’d have thought.

The jet looked like it is doing what is asked of it up until the crash so it doesn’t appear to be overloaded in structural terms.
I’m sure the AAIB will get to the bottom of this tragedy, not STW!!!.

Two cyclists heading for a SDW ride have also been named as fatalities now 🙁

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-34101625

I knew Richard when he worked at Velocity in Cosham too. Only a nipper.

I’m pleased and surprised to see he’s recovered to the point where he can be interviewed.

http://m.theargus.co.uk/news/13711134.Shoreham_airshow_pilot_to_be_interviewed_by_police/