[Closed] Hawker Hunter down at Shoreham airshow

[i]The loop isn't the most dangerous manoeuvre. It's very straightforward...[/i]

Depends really, at 5000ft with clear skies and plenty of space...yep, at 1000ft or lower with confined airspace in a fast jet...something else entirely.

Condolences to all.

Some have suggested that they should look at aircraft of a certain age being restricted to certain maneuvers, but that's very different from banning airshows.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.lbc.co.uk/the-shoreham-plane-almost-hit-my-car-115068 ]from LBC/Davod Cook[/url]

Some have suggested that they should look at aircraft of a certain age being restricted to certain maneuvers, but that's very different from banning airshows.

Can't find it right now but some "expert" somewhere has already stated that the age of the aircraft was not a factor (or won't have been a factor, something like that). Quite how he knows that is beyond me, it could quite easily be more wild speculation that the news media are desperate to quote.

"Age" in years is largely irrelevant, flying hours is what aircraft are measured in.

I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?

You don't know that the pulot was flying at the autherised altitude, do you?

Can't find it right now but some "expert" somewhere has already stated that the age of the aircraft was not a factor (or won't have been a factor, something like that). Quite how he knows that is beyond me, it could quite easily be more wild speculation that the news media are desperate to quote

Because only static vinatge aircraft are originals, flying examples are almost always basically new builds. The Spitfires you see flying probably have 1-5 percent original parts and none of those will be structural.

some "expert"

David Learmount "A former pilot and RAF flying instructor" (quote from Grauniad website/story)

Writes safety stuff for FlightGlobal

Quite how he knows that is beyond me,

Probably some sort of specialist subject knowledge about aircraft airworthiness and maintenance.

Probably some sort of specialist subject knowledge about aircraft airworthiness and maintenance.

Yes I just couldn't find the original quote and that, combined with the current speculation elsewhere about age of aircraft, ban/restrict older aircraft did bring me to question how someone could state categorically that the age won't have been a factor in the crash.
Thank you for finding the source of that and clarifying.

The reporting methods used by the BBC have, IMO, been slightly sketchy. Typically reactionary and late into the speculation they've seemed to have ramped up that to quite a high level now. A lot of focus on the pilots ability and experience coming out...

The initial interviews from folks on the ground was interesting too.. Typically locals who all look the same 😯

Absolutely tragic.. If the pilot survives I expect he'll be tortured for the rest of his life..

Very sad.

Probably some sort of specialist subject knowledge about aircraft airworthiness and maintenance.

Yeah probably flies RC and plays simulators.

I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?

You don't know that the pulot was flying at the autherised altitude, do you?

Of course I don't. Please re-read what I've posted and think a bit harder, specifically "so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened"

Yeah probably flies RC and plays simulators.

Or they've grown up around the industry, are engineers or pilots themselves.

Also, actual pilots are often not much more qualified to comment on vintage flying than the general public. One of the greatet things I've witnessed was a Tornado pilot stalling and crashing a simulation of a piston aircraft because he thought he wouldn't be able to stall it with full power applied.

Was there as well, I wish i hadn't seen it, but it was hard to look away. It looked pretty obvious he wasn't going to make it long before impact, and everything went into slow motion, then it looked like he might actually pull it back...... then a giant ball of flames.

It was a very surreal experience, and quite weird watching all the photographers checking their cameras straight away to see if they caught it. Considering some of the pictures people must have, there has been a reasonable amount of restraint.

Its currently chucking it down, just to make the clear up operation even grimmer. Emergency services did a fantastic job, must have been horrible for all involved.

I'm feeling lucky to have not been more involved, but I doubt I'm alone in having a deep feeling of unease, until knowing who all the fatalities are, especially knowing there were allegedly 2 cyclists involved. They wouldn't have stood a chance crossing at that junction, which is well used by all the local cyclists.

There are extremely stringent maintenance inspections in place for all civil (and military) aircraft, which is why the XH558 Vulcan is to be grounded after this year. As has been said elsewhere, a WW2 Spitfire was designed with a lifespan of 200 flying hours, a preserved example today can clock up 150 flying hours in a year of displays so a huge amount of expense and effort is put into maintaining these aircraft to a standard well beyond the expectations of the engineers who designed and built them. Civil operators of military aircraft are subject to very tight regulation, one cannot simply buy an ex-RAF Lightning or Phantom on eBay, fill it with fuel and takeoff.

I'll wait for the findings of the official inquiry before I start arguing in favour of banning something I know very little about.

I agree with the sentiment of your comments, but don't you think it's unacceptable to have a situation where the display authorisation limits are set so that pilot error, or an aircraft failure can result in what has happened?

But we can't legislate for every eventuality can we, or we'd all be able to do absolutely nothing. There has to be a balance struck, and currently, despite the media and some on here drumming up a knee-jerk frenzy, the stats for airshow safety (when you consider that the last non-participants to be killed at an airshow in the UK were in 1952) are pretty exceptional.

If you look at almost any airfield capable of holding a large airshow such as this then you'll see that there's roads, buildings and all other sorts around the majority of them. We're a busy island so that's normal. It's the same for commercial airports, you only have to look at the built up areas directly beneath the approach to Heathrow, Manchester and other areas (East Midlands has the busy M1 crossing right at the end of the runway). Yet no one bats an eyelid despite a near miss with a 777 at Heathrow a few years back.

If you held an airshow far out to sea, or somewhere remote then not enough people would be able to get there to make it viable in the first place. If you banned aerobatics, old aircraft, demonstrations of flying skill etc, or kept the aircraft performing such menouvers so far away from the public that they'd have to use binoculars to see them then again no one would be interested enough to come. That's not even touching on the fact that many incidents at airshows where pilots or a plane have had issues have been saved due to close proximity of a runway. If planes had ended up in the sea then the outcome for many of these would probably have been fatal.

Yeah probably flies RC and plays simulators.

WFT? Seeing as he is a

former pilot and RAF flying instructor

he might well fly RC and play simulators... maybe when he's too busy with his day job of

Writes safety stuff for FlightGlobal

Psss! I may not have been serious.

sorry - sense of humour fail on my part...

@agent007 - Agreed that you can't cater for every eventuality. I accept there also has to be a balance struck and I for one don't want to live in some super-sanitised world, but my personal opinion is that the current CAA regulations are just not adequate.

Where and how to hold airshows in UK? Perhaps Shoreham is a good example of where not to hold an airshow involving fast jets? The airfield is surrounded by densely populated areas and major roads. Landing aircraft routinely over a busy major road is accepted as part of everyday life and the risks that it poses. I'm suggesting that carrying out airshow display manoeuvres over the same busy road is not acceptable.

Without trying to claim to be some ar$hole expert, I've flown into Shoreham a few times (as a pilot) and have also attended the airshow there (as a spectator), so I have a fair appreciation of the layout and local area. Shoreham is a fairly large airfield and is probably large enough for many aircraft types to safely conduct the display elements of their routines over the airfield and on the non-crowd side of the runway 02/20. Perhaps airfields like Shoreham should have displays which focus on slower flying aircraft and leave fast jet displays to military airfields?

I'm hopeful the CAA will react positively to public pressure and changes will be made to benefit all.

[quote=Drac ]Psss! I may not have been serious.

Well I 😆

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383 ]BBC just now[/url]

Significant restrictions on vintage jets in air displays have been imposed after the Shoreham Airshow crash, the UK's aviation regulator has announced.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said vintage jets would be "limited to flypasts" and "high-energy aerobatics" would not be permitted.

No detail as to if this is just a temporary thing in the first instance. Someone is clearly differentiating between vintage and current in service jets....

Also, [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34039747 ]looking at this airshow[/url] it does seems to be a rather good model as to how a place like Shoreham should have/could have/ could be with the event itself over the sea and the static display on the the air field. It would be interesting to know how one set of organisers have come to one conclusion and the other an entirely different one with very similar geographical constraints. Although Prestwick is a significantly more busy airport and could just have been a commercial decision in Scotland.

Seems like a step in the right direction, but unsure why they would restrict this only to 'vintage jets'. If the shoreham crash proves to be pilot error (totally unknown at this stage however) it may well not have mattered what era the aircraft was from.

The following comment on BBC website seems sensible and leaves the door open to further measures;

The regulator added that it would be conducting "additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays".

Seems like a step in the right direction, but unsure why they would restrict this only to 'vintage jets'. If the shoreham crash proves to be pilot error (totally unknown at this stage however) it may well not have mattered what era the aircraft was from

It seems entirely appropriate in the current circumstances. Make a sensible restriction whilst investigating then take a more measured view after the circumstances have been explored fully. If this restricts all aircraft at airshows in the future, ( in my view unlikely) at least they have made a decision based on careful risk assessment rather than pressed by ( perhaps ill informed)public opinion

A jet like the Hunter or the Gnat has considerably more energy in it's manouvering than an aircraft which is lighter and slower. I guess they have decided more modern fast jet aircraft have a higher safety factor in systems and controllability and so can continue to practice aerobatics at shows, and lighter propellor driven aerobatic aircraft can work within a much tighter envelope.
As far as 'era' is concerned, as has been posted elswhere, if the crash had been by a Tiger Moth, it would have been a very different outcome simply because of the speed/energy/fuel differences.
I bet all high performance propellor driven aerobatic aircraft are flown with more consideration over the next few months/years. As will vintage propellor driven aircraft.

Pilot error. Much too early to say of course, but it is a potential cause as is mechanical failure

As far as 'era' is concerned, as has been posted elswhere, if the crash had been by a Tiger Moth, it would have been a very different outcome simply because of the speed/energy/fuel differences.

Based on the announcement, I wonder if the CAA already have an inkling on what caused the accident.

FWIW

Watching the film he is clearly in trouble well before the dive.

My guess. He lost power in the climb, used the last of his momentum to get it over and nose down. Held the dive till he got airspeed back and was trying for a belly landing in the field. Just came up short on the height and may well have made it on a cooler day.

I expect he was on the radio all the way in, so CAA have a pretty good idea, what went wrong

prepare to be chastised for daring to have that unappologetic opinion.

samunkim, you say FWIW - I'd say it's worth nothing.

Well the CAA have, IMO, come to the only solution given the state, the terrible state the airshow industry is in currently.
Not a bad thing at all. Never convinced a ban suitable, but I would like to see "displays" over the sea but more than happy to see flybys done over land.

Fingers crossed that the investigation brings some small relief to those that lost their lives by going about their normal daily business.

😐

This is one of the issues I have with civilian pilots, former military or not, conducting aerobatics. Who governs the training, who flight checks them to ensure they're competent? Where is the record of training, how often had he flown in the last 6 months, was he fatigued? As a result of some high profile and fatal accidents the MAA and relevant branch authorities have tightened procedures to ensure that MoD aircrew are suitably qualified, experienced and practiced to mitigate the risk to life. So many AAIB reports show a great deal of discrepancies with pilots.

I truly hope for everyones sake it was an issue not attribute to human factors. But sadly, I have a feeling it probably won't be.

EDIT: I just read the CAP for DA and it's fairly loose compared to the checks I'm used to. Seems a great deal rests on the integrity of the individual.

If anyone is interested: [url= http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20403%20Flying%20displays%20and%20special%20events.pdf ]CAA Flying Display CAP[/url]

My guess. He lost power in the climb

Hope nobody at the CAA has skimmed their shins as they kick home the stable door.

[quote=moose ]EDIT: I just read the CAP for DA and it's fairly loose compared to the checks I'm used to. Seems a great deal rests on the integrity of the individual.

Like driving a bin lorry?

@aracer. Very much so, the checks to to gain your display auth are stringent, but once you have it, is a very different story.

All of this is irrelevant to a degree, lots of people have died, and I'm sure there will be blame attributed on a few factors.

I believe there have been eight crashes at UK air shows in the last five years. If correct that is disappointing.

I'd say that the precautions in place have been perfectly adequate

So out of interest, what is the correct ratio for timescale per participant/member of public death?

So out of interest, what is the correct ratio for timescale per participant/member of public death?

And the crass comment of the day award goes to..........
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.

The heat haze coming out of the exhaust is a poor indication of whether the engine was running or not. Even if the engine had shut down the engine would still be very hot and air would still be passing through the engine - they are designed to windmill if shut down, i.e. continue to be driven by the air flowing through the engine, so they can still drive the electrical generators and hydraulic pumps so all the systems on board the aircraft can still run in the event of an engine shut down - and even engine restarts attempted, therefore any airflow passing through the enigne will be heated as it passes through the hot engine and create a heat haze. it will also make the typical jet engine noise as most of the noise actually comes from the turbomachinery and the airflow through the engine rather than the combustion process of the engine, most of which will still be generated when windmilling, though obviously it wouldn't be creating any thrust.

One observation i've made from the graphics on the BBC it does look odd that the aircraft started the manoeuvre parallel to the display line and as the manoeuvre progressed the loop seemed to twist 90 degrees such that it lined up with the road. Even if the pilot completed this manoeuvre safely I would have thought he would have been reprimanded as he would have come out of the loop flying in the direction of the spectators wouldn't he? Even though he probably wouldn't have flown directly over the spectators heads, but would have been pretty close, too close for comfort, and therefore in contravention of current rules.

jimw - I think there is a degree of sarcasm in that post you may have overlooked.

what jam bo said

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.

[quote=slimjim78 ]So out of interest, what is the correct ratio for timescale per participant/member of public death?

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

[quote=convert ]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?

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?

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.

[quote=convert ]statics not your strong point.

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.

[quote=slimjim78 ]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.

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.... [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34046795 ]Here[/url]

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 [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shoreham-plane-crash-spectator-apologises-after-asking-for-refund-claiming-tragedy-ruined-his-birthday-treat-10470508.html ]a refund request[/url]

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

[quote=convert ]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.

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..

[url= http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/566533-hawker-hunter-loss-shoreham-airshow-16.html ]pprune thread[/url]

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)

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/