Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Say that again 
You're suggesting they "had it coming" (to them)........
More than half were simply making their way to a football match, a wedding or whatever and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unless I've misread your post I suggest you think about what you've said.
HoHoHo said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Say that again You're suggesting they "had it coming" (to them)........
More than half were simply making their way to a football match, a wedding or whatever and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unless I've misread your post I suggest you think about what you've said.
That's the trouble with being a bit sneery and rude, some people already following the thread misinterpret your posts and others who might be able to add to the thread, think you're insulting them and get put off posting.
HoHoHo said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Say that again You're suggesting they "had it coming" (to them)........
More than half were simply making their way to a football match, a wedding or whatever and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unless I've misread your post I suggest you think about what you've said.
HoHoHo said:
Say that again
You're suggesting they "had it coming" (to them)........
More than half were simply making their way to a football match, a wedding or whatever and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unless I've misread your post I suggest you think about what you've said.
It's sarcastic......You're suggesting they "had it coming" (to them)........
More than half were simply making their way to a football match, a wedding or whatever and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Unless I've misread your post I suggest you think about what you've said.
el stovey said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't know about you but I really enjoy learning about the possible causes of the crash or the aircraft or the topic generally, from people that actually know stuff. You have to admit, most of the posters on here clearly don't and are just arguing about stuff they don't know much about, for the sake of it. I certainly don't know why the aircraft crashed, so I'm interested in hearing from people that do know about the topic, not shouty people just spouting rubbish.
The great thing about PHs is that we have people from all kinds of backgrounds freely offering expertise and experience about almost any topic imaginable. Why do some people start arguing and adopting entrenched positions about topics they clearly have little knowledge of? It just puts of people who might be able to offer some interesting insight from joining in.
JuniorD said:
RoverP6B said:
Furthermore, nobody has yet officially identified the pilot involved.
Oh FFS. RoverP6B said:
If anyone is to blame, I'd say it's the display director for not cancelling the show. I'm really not sure putting a show on in such atrocious visibility is wise.
And we all know that the not-yet-officially-identified pilot had no say on whether he should fly or not. Indeed, by not cancelling the show display director was practically forcing the not-yet-officially-identified pilot to fly 
ked up too many times. Of course a pilot can refuse to fly, but there is some pressure, if the show is going ahead, to get out and fly. If the display director cancels, you're not financially liable for the cancellation.Richie Slow said:
Firstly, it's not always about rules being broken. In the second part of the aileron roll (as it passes the inverted) do you find the sudden loss of height and 'capture' acceptable from an experienced display pilot? It looks like a save, and a lucky one at that. Youtube is full of videos of those kinds of rolls that didn't get saved. Like this perhaps- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG4mCvUfpsk . Turning towards the crowd line and busting the display line to save your own backside is a totally unacceptable risk to take. That's a rule broken, if you needed one.
Neither is it acceptable to point a finger at the display director, he didn't fk up on the day. It's the pilot's responsibility and he accepts that when he straps himself into the aircraft. Criminal responsibility is another argument entirely but the moral weight of responsibility for the safety of self and others rests with the pilot. The planning of the routine, establishing the preparation and condition of the aircraft, the weather, traffic, any local restrictions- all of these (and more) rest with the pilot. If it turns out that he was indeed the JP pilot at Southport then the writing was well and truly on the wall.
I remember the planning of shows in the aftermath of Ramstein. The rules and restrictions were realistic. No, I don't think the CAA's latest restrictions address any particular risk but, as the formerly ineffective regulator, they need to be seen to be doing something now.
And you also need to move on from the idea that the Shoreham victims were somehow complicit in their fate. That's utter tosh.
In the video I saw, I did not see a sudden loss of height, everything looked like it was flowing reasonably. The aircraft did not appear to cross the crowdline. It is very common to fly towards the crowdline and turn away before you reach it, and that's what that video looked like it showed. The Duxford P-38 crash happened because of a mechanical failure in the aircraft causing asymmetric flap deployment, not pilot error. Hoof Proudfoot knew what he was doing, and so too does his son Lee now. In my subjective opinion, it was foolhardy in the extreme for anything to be flying at Southport that day in 2014, in such atrocious conditions. The display director should have called the whole thing off. The CAA's proposed changes do nothing for safety and jeopardise the future of the entire airshow scene. Yes, eleven people died, some of them just commuters going about their lawful occasion. A few of them, however, were in a spot which had previously been the subject of safety warnings. They should not have been there to start with. It's a rubbish vantage point, anyway. Had they either paid to view the show from within the airfield, or found a more suitable vantage point elsewhere (e.g. up on the downs to the east of Lancing College), they would not have died. Furthermore, the fact remains that this is the only case in which anyone has been killed by an aircraft displaying in the UK since Farnborough in 1952. We have still not had paying punters killed since Farnborough. If you compare it to football or music festivals, many more people have been killed in fires, crushes and stampedes since then, but very little changed and the show went on - nobody ever called for any kind of ban, or a vast increase in bureaucracy and organising fees. Airshows are only being subjected to this because they are not seen as a sport so much as rich men playing with big boys' toys, and burning large quantities of fossil fuels too... personally, I hope that BADA tells the CAA to get fNeither is it acceptable to point a finger at the display director, he didn't f
k up on the day. It's the pilot's responsibility and he accepts that when he straps himself into the aircraft. Criminal responsibility is another argument entirely but the moral weight of responsibility for the safety of self and others rests with the pilot. The planning of the routine, establishing the preparation and condition of the aircraft, the weather, traffic, any local restrictions- all of these (and more) rest with the pilot. If it turns out that he was indeed the JP pilot at Southport then the writing was well and truly on the wall.I remember the planning of shows in the aftermath of Ramstein. The rules and restrictions were realistic. No, I don't think the CAA's latest restrictions address any particular risk but, as the formerly ineffective regulator, they need to be seen to be doing something now.
And you also need to move on from the idea that the Shoreham victims were somehow complicit in their fate. That's utter tosh.
ked and, if necessary, take it to court. It's high time this unaccountable, unelected quango was pulled down a peg or ten.RoverP6B said:
Yes, eleven people died, some of them just commuters going about their lawful occasion. A few of them, however, were in a spot which had previously been the subject of safety warnings. They should not have been there to start with. It's a rubbish vantage point, anyway. Had they either paid to view the show from within the airfield, or found a more suitable vantage point elsewhere (e.g. up on the downs to the east of Lancing College), they would not have died.
I'm sure people will be along who can be bothered to pull apart the rest of your post, but this shows you to a callous, pathetic little man. fking idiotic thing to think, let alone actually say.RoverP6B said:
It's not callous. They knew that the organisers, police and college had warned people off being there. They should not have been there. Nobody could have envisaged an aircraft crash causing their demise, but an RTC could easily have done so.
So the local footballers on their way to a match and the chauffeur about to take a bride to her wedding, all just driving past on the A27, 'shouldn't have been there' ???RoverP6B said:
Yes, eleven people died, some of them just commuters going about their lawful occasion. A few of them, however, were in a spot which had previously been the subject of safety warnings. They should not have been there to start with. It's a rubbish vantage point, anyway. Had they either paid to view the show from within the airfield, or found a more suitable vantage point elsewhere (e.g. up on the downs to the east of Lancing College), they would not have died.
Is the answer then to close the A27? Because if your answer is yes, there will never be another airshow at Shoreham ever again. Perhaps only those people with enough money to get into the airshow should be allowed to watch. Not everyone has the money to get in, especially if they are on a low income and have children to pay for. Should we deny their children the opportunity to view a spectacle that just may inspire them to join the RAF or get involved in a career in aerospace technology as a result of their parents taking them to view planes doing what they should be doing, rather than sat in a museum? How do you prevent the public from occupying a public place? that is what those unfortunate people were doing on that fateful afternoon.
But you're right, if only they had your knowledge that it was a rubbish view point or had not been too tight to pay to get in, they may have been alive today.
I have read some really, really crass things on here over the years, but this takes the biscuit, your arrogance is astounding.
RoverP6B said:
If you compare it to football or music festivals, many more people have been killed in fires, crushes and stampedes since then, but very little changed and the show went on -
You seem to have overlooked the compulsory introduction of all seater stadia for clubs in the top divisions.Also you are missing the fundamental point that this tragedy was a plane crashing. The events you describe whether they be football or music festivals have tended to be due to the gathering of a large number of people at a venue, they weren't caused by a football flying out of a stadium or a band throwing a guitar into the crowd.
If for some reason there had been a sudden panic at an airshow and people had been tragically crushed in a stampede then you wouldn't have seen the current spotlight on airshows. The fact that people going about their own business on the day as well as others quite innocently watching were killed has quite rightly put the safety of airshows into serious consideration.
Edited by Bluedot on Thursday 4th February 21:24
BrabusMog said:
Just wow!
It's insensitive at best but, given your agenda, I'll stick with my original judgement.
He is a bit odd, don't worry. The reality is that they were totally in their right to have been standing where they were, despite any potential "warnings" or "unauthorised" status. The Police were on site and preventing people from standing were it was illegal to stand so they didn't. I should know, my place of work at the airport was 500 meters from there at the time.It's insensitive at best but, given your agenda, I'll stick with my original judgement.
Totally irrelevant and damn right disrespectful of Rover Meldrew to say that, at best.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff