The CAA have officially killed UK airshows

[NJK44]

Does anyone know how far away planes had to be prior to this new rule

[Boatbuoy]

230m rings a bell.

[SMB]

psgcarey said:

Here is an airshow accident, from last weekend, where there could easily have been fatalities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-364...

Edited by psgcarey on Wednesday 8th June 13:03

But it wasn't an airshow!, just an event on an active airfield with aircraft flying in and out.

[NJK44]

Boatbuoy said:

230m rings a bell.

Well it's 150m in the new rule, so I'm not sure that's correct. Im not sure though.

[SMB]

NJK44 said:

Does anyone know how far away planes had to be prior to this new rule

it all depended on aircraft speed and angle of approach, some were allowed at 75m iirc, the faster they aircraft was the further away the line was drawn

[Robertj21a]

Dr Jekyll said:

Are you suggesting this rule would have prevented what happened at Shoreham? Bear in mind the relevant manoeuvre was legally required to be completed above 500 feet anyway.

No, but I'm very pleased to see that it's generated an in-depth investigation which should ensure that the safety of the public in general will be an improvement on what existed before. People seem to overlook the fact that this is just a hobby.

[psgcarey]

SMB said:

But it wasn't an airshow!, just an event on an active airfield with aircraft flying in and out.

I stand corrected, although an aircraft still crashed in to a crowd on an airfield, no matter the reason for either being there.

To keep airshows they need to be safe, or they will not exist.

[NJK44]

SMB said:

it all depended on aircraft speed and angle of approach, some were allowed at 75m iirc, the faster they aircraft was the further away the line was drawn

Fair enough. What I meant was, how far did the crowd line have to be away from runway

[SMB]

psgcarey said:

I stand corrected, although an aircraft still crashed in to a crowd on an airfield, no matter the reason for either being there.

To keep airshows they need to be safe, or they will not exist.

so where do you draw the line on safety?, rallying for example or TT racing on the isle of man? If you wanted the lowest possible risk, you definitely wouldn't drive.....

[aeropilot]

Robertj21a said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Are you suggesting this rule would have prevented what happened at Shoreham? Bear in mind the relevant manoeuvre was legally required to be completed above 500 feet anyway.

No, but I'm very pleased to see that it's generated an in-depth investigation which should ensure that the safety of the public in general will be an improvement on what existed before. People seem to overlook the fact that this is just a hobby.

You really don't have a clue do you.

Hobby......are you serious. There's a significant amount of people that are trying to earn a living from it FFS.

And as for investigation, read the AAIB report on the Gnat crash and see where the very organisation that are making that 'investigation' you put so much 'faith' sit in events.

[NJK44]

Robertj21a said:

No, but I'm very pleased to see that it's generated an in-depth investigation which should ensure that the safety of the public in general will be an improvement on what existed before. People seem to overlook the fact that this is just a hobby.

It won't make bugger all difference to safety.

[kurt535]

So aircraft being forced to fly higher, just means they will have more kinetic energy on impact when something goes wrong.

I luckily missed, by 1/2 a day, the Mustang that crashed at Reno. Very sad and quite upsetting but, the races and FAA reviewed the situation and continued with them the following year.

Aircraft will always crash in some capacity or another. Am unsure how you will ever stop this other than a blanket ban.

I recently sold my aeroplane as I feel increasingly boxed in by the CAA and, to an extent, the LAA (probably due to the roles they are taking over from the CAA) and can't see this changing any time soon.

General Aviation in our country is in continual serious decline and the new airshow regs further damage a fragile industry.....

[zsdom]

Throckmorton airshow cancelled, 4 days before the show due to the Campaign Against Airshows incompetence

http://throckmortonairshow.co.uk/2016/06/08/throck...

[NJK44]

zsdom said:

Throckmorton airshow cancelled, 4 days before the show due to the Campaign Against Airshows incompetence

http://throckmortonairshow.co.uk/2016/06/08/throck...

[clarkey]

I remember going to White Waltham in the late 70s, things have changed quite a lot

[HoHoHo]

clarkey said:

I remember going to White Waltham in the late 70s, things have changed quite a lot

Seen that photo a few times now, wish I'd actually been there!

[ecsrobin]

It is a shame about throckmorton however it has always puzzled me that an airshow ever got off the ground there, during the week it's a HIRTA site which aircraft would normally be avoiding (it's turned off for the show) but the large aerials are still in place. Also there's a tip at the end of the runway which after a pass all the guls would get airport ready for you to hit them on your second pass.

[wisbech]

Aviation just has a different safety culture to most industries though. Read the Haddon-Cave report on the Nimrod crash - the airline I work for were so impressed that they brought him in to do a 'no holds barred' review of ourselves. There's a reason why flying gets safer and safer - because when things happen, we try and learn from them rather than shrug our shoulders. Does it mean that some of the romance and 'fun' has gone out of flying? Of course.

Historic aircraft regulations are a lot more lax - because there is the assumption that it is a hobby, and the people doing it are aware of the risks of flying around in things that are 60 years old, and certified under obsolete rules. But if this hobby turns out to kill other people - well, then CAA has to react.

[NJK44]

Written by someone on Facebook. I think this is pretty much everything in a nut shell.

Woken up to the news that another airshow has been cancelled this year - two days before the event. For those of you on my friends list who don't fully understand, the cancellations are mainly due - in a nutshell - to increased cost in insurance and new regulations and restrictions from the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) including,but not exclusively, crowd line distance and minimum display heights, making it almost pointless and sometimes impossible for displays to happen in a way that makes it enjoyable for the spectators. These changes came about after the sad events at Shoreham last year and have seen a decline in attendance numbers at the early shows.

Whilst my heart goes out to the friends and family of the 11 lives lost last year at an event I was only miles away from, I can't help but wonder what the impact of this decline in air shows will be, beyond the personal enjoyment of aviation enthusiast, photographers and the thousands of families, who experience quality together time creating life long memories.

I'm left today wandering about the traders, particularly the more niche aviation specialist who rely in these shows to sell and promote their goods.

Today I'm wondering about the hotels (big or small), campsites, B&B's, restaurants, cafes and mobile traders who all sell out or are booked up months before an event.

Today, I'm wondering about the young people, who become inspired by the displays and explore future careers in aviation.

And I'm thinking about the charities. This weekend, money should have been donated from the profits to two charities, in addition to any on site bucket collecting style donations. Many thousands of pounds each year is raised at the events for charities such as Air Ambulance, RAF benevolent fund, Macmillan, Cancer Uk (often in partnership with small local charities).

Shoreham was a tragedy but it was not a regular occurrence. I can understand a review was required but I'm still a little lost as to why after the first fatal incident since 1952, the need for change has become so extreme that organiser are now struggling to justify running these well supported, successful and popular events.

I've not really up to now aired a public opinion on this topic, mainly because my knowledge was not up to a level where I felt I could comment, but I can see now the impact and it concerns me. I will continue to support the air show circuit out of principle.

Yes, it may mean I will have to crop a few pictures at 400mm to be able to see the kind of detail I once enjoyed capturing at 400mm uncropped and yes I may have to pay £6 for my morning bacon bap (The extreme price hike at Duxford did not go unnoticed!) All in the hope that one day in the future, someone somewhere will see sense and agree a happy balance between safety and enjoyment.

For those of you reading this who are fans of the airshow but are of the view "there's no point anymore" - please reconsider. Apathy and non attendance will only justify the organisers decisions to cancel more shows. Ok, so we may not get super close topsides of a typhoon with spluff this year but we have a fighting chance of maybe one day enjoying airshows in a manner we have been accustom too.....

1. SaveOurAirshows

[mph1977]

NJK44 said:

Yes, what happened at shoreham was BAD!

BUT, this is a HUGE knee jerk reaction. There's been no deaths in what? 50-60 years. This was a one off, isolated incident and I think it's ridiculous.


However, I'm hearing rumour that the CAA have worded it wrong and they will be releasing it again soon. I've also been told by someone that the head of RIAT operations has said its not true. How much credibility he has? No idea.

My fingers are crossed but it is not looking good for airshows in the uk.

Other than 2011 Reno air races, 2010 Lauf-lillinghauf , Rammstein etc ... it's somewhat selective to suggest that it;s a 1:50 year ( and no doubt caliming a 1 :thousands figure in terms of events and 1:10s of thousands per individual displays) based solely on the UK figure .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_acc...