Forum menu
It is used as a pejorative term in papers such as the Daily Fail, implying recklessness. In the Collins dictionary its is " an acrobatic, Dangerous or spectactular action" it is the middle definition that I was referring to
Very tragic and sad situation, condolences to all involved, but for those of you calling to ban airshows, acrobatics etc, really? Total over-reaction!
Perhaps we should also ban every other activity where there is a slight risk of death to the participant or others? Ironic thing would be that without these many activities that pose a risk, life wouldn't be worth living for most of us anyway. In societies pursuit to take the risk out of absolutely everything, perhaps we'd all end up so bored we'd have to take up smoking and drinking instead.
[quote=agent007 ]Very tragic and sad situation, condolences to all involved, but for those of you calling to ban airshows, acrobatics etc, really? Total over-reaction!
This. If you're serious about public safety then there are a huge number of things above airshows on the list to be banned.
I live practically under the airport. I hate the air show each year purely as somebody seems to get hurt and idiots park over my driveway.
I've spent some time arguing with the caa this year regarding flight paths etc to no avail.
im just fed up with people being hurt. The cynical side of me thinks that money is more important than people. I don't understand why these beautiful planes can't just fly a circuit and be admired and the have to push them so much.
And before anyone starts on me for my views I've just seen something pretty horrific.
Total over reaction..... Do it over the sea. Surely that's a sensible option...... Or does it mean that they can't charge as much considering financially they are failing?
I'm absolutely fuming.
A horrible incident - I also wonder about the wisdom of doing such things in populated areas, especially with vintage aircraft.
Words do not describe how angry and riled it makes me to have helicopters and bi planes come down low over my property to the extent I actually wonder if they are going to land.
Here in Glasgow, the police helicopters always fly pretty low - much lower than they seem to do in other cities. I'm not sure why. It's always been annoying, but after the Clutha crash where the aircraft was flying far below the safe autorotate altitude, I now find myself keeping an eye on the thing to see if it's going to fall out of the sky again.
That was a nearly new, well-maintained aircraft too, and the cause is still unknown.
Very sad times, thoughts are with those who lost their lives and and the STWers who witnessed it.
I am another big fan of aircraft and of flying displays. From what I saw on the video the Hunter veered off the display line the roll was twisted and as ST says the plane spent far too long going straight down.
Just come through the crash site on my bike, was up in Henfield and that's where the downs link route back to Worthing passes, riding on the closed A27 is spooky,the scene is pretty jaw dropping. 100m North and it would have hit the school, 50m west, Ricardo engineering, it does seem unnecessarily risky.
I turned up at the top end of Bostal Hill north of the air field just as the plume went up. Very eerie experience to even half witness. I cannot imagine the horror for those on the A27.
I'm aware that knee jerk reactions are inevitable, but the proximity of public routes and conurbation coupled with frequency of tragic events at shows like these does make me think that something isn't quite right.
However, the Vulcan fly-by was still majestic, I'd hate to think that we are denied similar experiences in the future.
Perhaps we should also ban every other activity where there is a slight risk of death to the participant or others? Ironic thing would be that without these many activities that pose a risk, life wouldn't be worth living for most of us anyway.
But unlike activities such as, say, motor racing on a closed circuit, aerobatic displays pose risk not only to those participating and those who have chosen to spectate, but also to those simply going about their daily lives.
I like going to airshows too, and I'm aware of the risks, and I'm not making an argument one way or the other, but if I'd lost someone close to me on the A27 today I somehow don't think the "let us risk our lives or they're not worth living" attitude would wash.
[quote=Bez ]But unlike activities such as, say, motor racing on a closed circuit, aerobatic displays pose risk not only to those participating and those who have chosen to spectate, but also to those simply going about their daily lives.
In the next week, if it's an average week, more pedestrians going about their daily lives will be killed than people going about their daily lives have been killed by airshow crashes in the last 60 years.
Doing a loop is no more dangerous than a split s maneuver, where do you draw the line with aerobatics or even define what aerobatics is in a legal sense?
Also as others have said, many of these aircraft have lower airframe hours than the RAF jets.
@jimw - I feel it's unacceptable to allow displays where there is a high chance of the pilots killing themselves. That's my personal view and I appreciate and respect yours may be different.
Why does it matter if the pilots get killed? Motor racers, skiers, climbers die all the time. The only issue is with risk to the general public.
That's not to mention the whole issue surrounding perceived an actual risk, we as a society are continually trying to mitigate perceived risks such as terrorism, we are a risk averse society obsessed with living forever. As Aracer points out, why do 7 people warrant such outrage when thousands are killed on the roads?
I had a tree collapse on me once, middle of august on a calm day, cycled past it and the next second I'm in a head under some branches....if I'd been a millisecond later I'd have been crushed....wrong place wrong time...prefer not to think about it and not dwell on it.
if I'd lost someone close to me on the A27 today I somehow don't think the "let us risk our lives or they're not worth living" attitude would wash.
Mate as tragic as this is, we can't eliminate risk from our lives entirely. Any one of us could be killed tomorrow for whatever reason through no fault of our own. If you can't accept that then I don't know what else to say really.
The very act of living is risky whether you choose to push the boundary's in aviation, climbing, MTB or whether you decide that getting outdoors is too risky and spend your life avoiding risk by staying in sat on your sofa eating pizza (oh wait, there's still risk there isn't there - the risk of an early death from obesity).
Getting to and from work everyday poses far more risk to you and others than any airshow ever did so calling for this sort of thing to be banned is a total over-reaction. If all risk is to be eliminated from society then besides making life a pretty dull affair, there are many thousands of other things to be looked that would have a much greater impact on risk before banning aerobatics at airshows anywhere near anyone who might possibly be anywhere nearby.
For those people saying "hold airshows over the sea". Well many of the people who attend airshows don't live near the sea, most airfields needed to hold such events are not near the sea. For example, Duxford airshow is held at the war museum in Duxford? If it wasn't at Duxford then there wouldn't be a Duxford airshow full stop. Most of the residents in Duxford village (at the end of the runway) love the air shows. Yes there always the odd whinger, but from what I've seen on airshow days many of the residents get out side, watching from their own back gardens with BBQ or from a nearby field with a picnic. The kids in particular love it.
I don't know if airshows should be stopped. Just know that after what I saw yesterday I won't be attending another any time soon.
You can't compare the risk from climbing or mtb to this. You fall off a mountain or your bike then you knew the risks before you started. Those people who died on the A27 just happened to be passing and were in the wrong place at the worst time. I've always been proud to have the airshow in my home town. Right now if they said they'd never do another I would be fine with that.
In the next week, if it's an average week, more pedestrians going about their daily lives will be killed than people going about their daily lives have been killed by airshow crashes in the last 60 years.
Tomorrow, if it's an average day, twice as many people will die of a heart attack than are killed when cycling in a whole year.
Should we stop worrying about cyclist deaths?
Tragedy and all to sadly avoidable.. if any other leisure activity resulted in the deaths of half a dozen non participants how long would it be able to continue in the same format..
i dont think its unreasonable to restrict such aerobatics to craft specifically designed to do them nor to restrict them to craft less than x years/ hours old
youd still be able to oh and ah at the old stuff and oh and ah at trick flying and hopefully folks would go home safely.. certainly all this year dreadful fatalities would have been avoided.
RIP to all lost in this tragic accident and thoughts with all the families.
Display flying does carry an inherent risk; this is why the pilots have to have display authorisation. Mistakes happen and sadly the ground is an unforgiving medium. This aircraft was designed to be able to college such manoeuvres; indeed I saw a new Typhoon nearly smack into the ground in similar circumstances a few years back.
I think there has been some classic knee-jerk reaction though. This is a sad accident but should we ban driving because that's pretty dangerous! Or deep sea fishing? Cycling and horse riding? Because after all they're leisure pursuits like an air show.
No, let's learn from this and move forward. So let's stop the standard knee-jerk rubbish as it doesn't help.
Sad for all involved.
Some of the pictures coming out are quite incredible showing the pilot trying to pull out metres above the ground. He stuck with it rather than ejecting, very brave man. I hope he pulls through. Feel sorry for him, and the long term psychological effect it will have on him 🙁
I went to numerous air shows as a lad and enjoyed them emmensly. I would also not think of myself as a health and safety nazi. But even so I find Mikertroid's comment above daft.
I can't remember too many times when groups of folk totally unconnected with deep sea fishing or horse riding instantly lost their lives because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm all up for sports/activities that put the participates in mortal danger provided they are fully aware of the risks but that is what happened here. The value of most things in life are judged by a balance between risk and benefit - I feel yesterday air shows in their present form tipped away from a worthwhile activity. It will be interesting to see if the pilot was flying in accordance with the display's licence to manage to crash where he did or not. I'm not sure which will be worse - sensible guidance in place and it still resulted in death because of a 'rogue' pilot or the arthorities lack of imagination when granting the licence. Even so I don't think it would be 'knee jerk' to 'move forward' (god I loath that term) by enforcing all shows to be located so the planes can carry out their manoeuvres over sea or unoccupied land.
>Display flying does carry an inherent risk<
Aye, so do it well away from busy main roads. Simple as that really.
theblackmount - Member
>Display flying does carry an inherent risk<Aye, so do it well away from busy main roads. Simple as that really.
Really? Most airfields I know of that are capable of hosting a show have at least one major, busy main road near them. The two are intrinsically linked for very good reason.
Why do air shows have to be at an air field? Sure, you would not have the static display element but that's not really what it's about. This show for example could easily put the display over the water a few miles away.
Edit - in fact looked at Shoreham airfield on OS maps. You could easily use the airfield for parking and static display then walk less than a Km to the coast for the show.
Whilst I understand the emotion surrounding yesterday's horrible events I think calling for airshows over land to be banned is somewhat knee jerk.
The last time anyone on the ground was killed in Britain at an airshow was in 1958.
Clearly investigations should be carried out and any lessons learnt, but to ban an activity which causes innocent deaths every 60 years seems a bit extreme.
Hopeychodriact do you live by an airfield then ?
It's a tricky one, post war jets are quite big and heavy and if they are visiting they will be carry a lot of fuel and speeds are relatively high. If a tiger moth comes down on a road it's not going to be such a big deal.
Convert beat me to it.
Just rewatched the video and the exit (or rather non exit) from that loop was basically directly over the road.
Trying to get hold of my mate..who was apparently first medic on scene.
He's an experienced Paramedic and has seen a LOT in his career.
My heart goes out to all those involved.
But also to those who attended and have to deal with the horrors of what they have seen.
I'm not sure that the reaction of trying to ban something because of one incident is a particularly sophisticated form of risk management
Tragic accident. But it is a freak accident and I really hope they don't ban airshows or vintage aircraft on the strength of this one accident. There is absolutely no reason to on the basis of risk. Changes introduced into air displays like having the display line parallel to the spectator line have been totally successful for the safety of spectators at these events, and there is no reason why they can't introduce something similar with regards to surrounding roads, conurbations and other areas of high population density.
it's not really practical to say all air display's happen over the sea. Apart from the fact that most air displays don't happen at airfields close to the coast, it would increase the danger for the pilot in the event of an accident and complicate the whole process of rescue.
The risks in these air displays really are very low. The manoeuvres are well within the aircraft's flight envelope and it will be foolish to make any decisions until the accident has been investigated and conclusions drawn.
When I used to attend airshows, any loops like that would have been performed over the airfield. I don't know Shoreham, but as the pilot came down on the a27, maybe there was a control problem or disorientation problem for the pilot
it would increase the danger for the pilot in the event of an accident and complicate the whole process of rescue.
If and when this pilot comes around you put the question to him if he would rather have crashed into the sea and definitely died or crashed where he did and killed 7 others I would bet my house on him answering the former. Pilots tend to be pretty good like that!
When I used to attend airshows, any loops like that would have been performed over the airfield. I don't know Shoreham, but as the pilot came down on the a27, maybe there was a control problem or disorientation problem for the pilot
The a27 is effectively running perpendicular to the end of the runway. The perimeter of the air field is directly on the a27. If the show was run along the runway parallel to the crowd as is the norm the pilot would be forced to fly over the a27 on the northern end of a run and over a few hundred metres of land and houses then sea at the southern end.
why do 7 people warrant such outrage when thousands are killed on the roads
Tomorrow, if it's an average day, twice as many people will die of a heart attack than are killed when cycling in a whole year.
Should we stop worrying about cyclist deaths?
Id suggest that the difference is that we understand and account for the inherent risks involved in our daily commutes.
The jet that went down yesterday was effectively a huge flying bomb, pulling 'safe mitigated' manoueveres. Tell that to the occupants of the cars involved.
I expect your responses would be different had you lived in the nearby housing developments, or if your child was at the school located 50m from the crash point.
Mitigated risks or not, either a faulty jet or faulty pilot killed 7 people yesterday in the name of entertainment, people who were just going about their daily life.
I don't call for knee jerk banning but having seen the fireball myself yesterday, I think the whole air show scene needs re evaluating at least.
slimjim78
Id suggest that the difference is that we understand and account for the inherent risks involved in our daily commutes.
Do we/you? I'm going to suggest that the average car driver, and especially the average car occupant (non driver) simply has no idea of the risks what so ever! If you did, the first thing you would do before stepping into a car is research the drivers credentials! The fact is, that driving (like air displays) are so safe, on average, that we don't even need to consider the risks!
slimjim78
The jet that went down yesterday was effectively a huge flying bomb, pulling 'safe mitigated' manoueveres.
Words like "huge flying bomb" just reek of sensationalism! You car is also a "large high speed bomb packed full of highly explosive fuel just waiting to immolate innocent bystanders" but i bet you don't think that when you get in it to 'nip down the shops'...........
To those that lost their lives RIP, but the most critical objective is to understand the chain of events that lead to the crash, and to attempt to ensure they don't happen again (in reality, even if we prevent this exact accident from occurring, a different one will. This is the way of the world.) Luckily, the AAIB is one of the most rigorous and considered organisations we have in the UK, and their report, will i'm sure contain a suitably thorough set of recommendations for future Airshows.
The jet that went down yesterday was effectively a huge flying bomb, pulling 'safe mitigated' manoueveres. Tell that to the occupants of the cars involved.
Are you for real ???
Do you know what a bomb is ??
Let's ban lorries from going down steep hills.
Let's chop all roadside trees so they don't fall down on unsuspecting drivers in the winter.
Let's fence every roadside so animals can't run out and kill innocent people.
If we sanitised everything as a knee jerk reaction then life would be dull.
This was a tragic accident. They happen each and every day. Let's learn and move forward not backward!!
[url= http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/spectator-killed-llangollen-mountain-bike-7738685 ]Lets ban bike riding.[/url]
Miketroid - you seem rather fixated by other people wishing to see them banned. Not sure I read the thread that way. Mitigate the risks to non participants yes, but not banned per se. This has been done countless times for airshows already, so I'm not sure why you think it would be 'elf and safety gone mad' to do it again. Let's learn means change - can't mean anything else. Let's learn does not mean 'accidents happen' and a gaelic shrug. Change might mean limiting further where they can happen and 'banning' the ones in more iffy locations - but that is not banning air shows. It's not a biggy - it's been done before.
Also - it's only an air show - comparing banning airshows which are just a needless bit of fun to banning lorries (which you would if you could only go uphill!) which are the lifeline of the nation's food supply and industry is just daft. As I said previously it's about weighing up risk and benefit.
The last time anyone on the ground was killed in Britain at an airshow was in 1958.Clearly investigations should be carried out and any lessons learnt, but to ban an activity which causes innocent deaths every 60 years seems a bit extreme.
+1
I might add that looking at the airfield in question and it's position in relation to the A27, then a good compromise would be the CAA looking closely at allowing airshows at airfields with safer flight lines...eg Duxford.
I'm not sure that air shows would or should ever be banned and I'm not sure that now is the time for having that discussion as to me anyway it all still feels so raw. I cannot get that image out of my head of the plane as it was clearly in trouble with the tail down and so low and then the massive fireball streaking along the road.
it seems almost certain that the death toll will rise as the police are hinting that they expect to find more bodies so right now who gives a toss if you think they should be banned or not.
Also - it's only an air show - comparing banning airshows which are just a needless bit of fun to banning lorries (which you would if you could only go uphill!) which are the lifeline of the nation's food supply and industry is just daft. As I said previously it's about weighing up risk and benefit.
Wasn't a spectator killed in a DH race recently? If you want to talk about risk, think of the numbers going to downhill races vs airshows, the frequency of downhill races vs airshows, the years airshows have been running for without loss of life to spectators vs downhill races etc etc.....all versus the number of deaths.
You will probably find that going to a DH race is riskier than you thought. Most people are utterly ignorant of risk, how it is calculated and the relative risk of certain activities vs others.
Let's ban all DH races.
Let's ban all DH races.
Could you quickly point me to where I suggested we should ban all air shows. I must have missed the bit where I typed that.
If you don't think DH races have not rethought where it's ok for spectators to be able to stand you are deluded.
Bickering.
Stay classy, STW.
I don't see why threads like these should remain bicker free RIP fests. To be honest I find those quite tasteless. A forum like this should react to events like this with robust debate. That's the point of a forum and I don't think it disrespectful in any way. If I die in a very public and contentious way I hope the public feel free to debate it. Percieved risk in society is a fascinating and very real issue.
There's a time and a place for everything and fighter jets need a lot of space. I've sat in with a couple of stunt champs during their display over Brands Hatch (the stunt pilots took the stunt drivers up for their routine). We had exclusive use of a bit of air space defined by main roads on the ground and altitude.
So, took off and followed air traffic control requirements to the designated area where the pilots were let off the leash for the routine. They then got back in touch with air traffic control for the flight back to the airport.
Compared with the flurry of activity in a rally car in full flight everything was very calm. The planes never got that close to each other or the ground. Two things made it impressive: the g-forces and the disorientation during the vertical stall and then falling backwards with the smoke billowing forwards.
A fighter needs so much space for a loop the chances of staying within a designated area seem low.