Crash at Shoreham Air show
Discussion
This isn't the first accident in 62 years as I keep reading here, there have been many including our beloved red arrows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_acc...
Unfortunately air show accidents appear to be a common occurrence none of which has dramatically changed nor altered the popularity of the shows, I myself work near Cosford and couldn't get tickets. What I don't understand is why people would complain about temporary restrictions being put in place while the investigations are carried out and bodies recovered, I didn't realise we were such a callous cold hearted animal. I really do think we should let the investigation take its course and those in authority make those tough decisions they are paid for at least until the dead are buried before we moan, I think the families that are grieving deserve at least that much respect. I dread to think if any have read this thread and what they would think if they did after all many will want answers and will undoubtedly turn to google to find them and could easily find this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_acc...
Unfortunately air show accidents appear to be a common occurrence none of which has dramatically changed nor altered the popularity of the shows, I myself work near Cosford and couldn't get tickets. What I don't understand is why people would complain about temporary restrictions being put in place while the investigations are carried out and bodies recovered, I didn't realise we were such a callous cold hearted animal. I really do think we should let the investigation take its course and those in authority make those tough decisions they are paid for at least until the dead are buried before we moan, I think the families that are grieving deserve at least that much respect. I dread to think if any have read this thread and what they would think if they did after all many will want answers and will undoubtedly turn to google to find them and could easily find this thread.
yellowjack said:
Jonny_ said:
FFS, get things in perspective. Those criticising the additional temporary restrictions, doesn't that strike you as a bit callous given that they haven't even finished searching for bodies?
After an incident of this magnitude I think it's entirely reasonable to ground the remaining Hunters, limit the manoeuvres permitted by similar aircraft, and reassess the risks of all upcoming air displays, until the cause has been identified and appropriate countermeasures put in place. They could have temporarily banned private displays, or any type of flying of vintage jets. They haven't, instead the CAA have imposed a fairly minimal and well thought out set of restrictions in light of the unforeseen and tragic events on Saturday, and in doing so have reduced the risk to the public whilst still permitting further events to take place.
Until the investigation has been carried out and the root cause(s) established, it's possible - not necessarily likely, but possible - that this could happen again. Worth taking that chance? Worth a gamble that an as yet unknown problem won't rear its ugly head again and kill more people?
After an incident of this magnitude I think it's entirely reasonable to ground the remaining Hunters, limit the manoeuvres permitted by similar aircraft, and reassess the risks of all upcoming air displays, until the cause has been identified and appropriate countermeasures put in place. They could have temporarily banned private displays, or any type of flying of vintage jets. They haven't, instead the CAA have imposed a fairly minimal and well thought out set of restrictions in light of the unforeseen and tragic events on Saturday, and in doing so have reduced the risk to the public whilst still permitting further events to take place.
Until the investigation has been carried out and the root cause(s) established, it's possible - not necessarily likely, but possible - that this could happen again. Worth taking that chance? Worth a gamble that an as yet unknown problem won't rear its ugly head again and kill more people?
EskimoArapaho said:
Max_Torque said:
If you understand this, then the "reaction" to any incident should be based not on the outcome of a single incident but on the probability of an incident actually occurring in the first place and the "average" severity of the incident. Since we have no way of determining where a crashing airplane might end up, taking a single incident (the first in over 60 years) as a "yardstick" on which to change regulations is frankly ridiculous. It is a measure of the high speed, knee jerk, cotton wool environment in which we now live that officials are apparently pressurised to make decisions BEFORE the facts are known.
The facts necessary to make the CAA's latest decision ARE known. It's air-show season, and any number of vintage jets were planning to do other high-energy shows close to crowds of people and busy roads. The notion that we should just hose away the blood, mark it down as "one of those things that goes with having an exciting life" and get on with the next show - even before the dead bystanders have been buried - is pretty shoddy.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHj0FOkcE94British Pathe News said:
..."now the split second disaster in slow motion." Then images, not dissimilar to the video of the Hunter's impact, and wreckage hitting the floor close to spectators. "Far better not to show the harrowing scenes that followed. The heavy death toll is mute testimony of the dreadful tragedy. Almost at once, Derry's friend, Neville Duke, flew a Hawker Hunter through the sound barrier again. Flying, like progress, must not stop"...
Plus, contrary to many comments about it being different "in the olden days" and that everyone would have rushed to help? Actually, most spectators stood where they were, stunned into silence, shocked by what they had seen. The cameras continued to roll, there were fewer of them, and mostly in the hands of professionals, but not a vastly different reaction to that of witnesses at the Shoreham incident.
But the "show must go on" attitude? Callous? Times were different then. The flying programme continued, at least in the immediate aftermath.
As others have said, the actual risks won't have changed overnight, and I doubt there's actually any need to restrict the activities of other aircraft types carrying out similar display manoeuvres.
When we heard of the crash, we were at Bournemouth, and, having watched the Sea Vixen display minutes earlier, I remarked "please God, no. Not the Sea Vixen." Which made no sense, other than that I had no idea what other jets were displaying at Shoreham, and that the Sea Vixen is a massive aeroplane. But it made no sense really, it was just 'something to say' in response to the bad news. And at that moment we had no idea of the extent of the damage on the ground.
I'm also a Farnborough resident. In response to this...
jamieduff1981 said:
...one change I would support might be to actively clear out freeloaders who watch airshows for free by standing around the perimeters of the display airfield. The Farnborough rules were intended to direct energy away from the crowds. The cheapskates at Fairford in '94 had a near miss when an abandoned MiG 29 landed beside them in an area intended to be clear. They stand on the south side of the airfield at Duxford as well as cling to the fence and edges of roads to the west. They did it at Leuchars and they do it everywhere else too. Given that most vertical energy is aligned with the A axis, that turns are away from the crowd line and should a pilot get in to difficulty the airfield itself and it's A axis and live side perimeters are most at risk of a plane coming down, I think there may be a case for ensuring people aren't standing there.
...I'd like to say "f
k right off with the 'freeloader' comments. I regularly pay to go in to watch the displays at Farnborough. Or used to, when a ticket was decent value for what you got in return. Then the display quality fell off a cliff, prices shot up, and the 'haves' at TAG decided to build a wall of earth and grass to keep the 'have nots' from getting even a peak of the action through the fence. The majority of Farnborough residents are massively inconvenienced by the air show. And it isn't for a couple of days. It's weeks. Three weeks of frenetic activity, two weeks of almost continuous fast jet operations, around seven full Red Arrows displays, during ALL of which I'm treated to the spectacle of half of the 'Synchro Pair' appearing to head straight for my bedroom window. Add the build-up, and the break-down phases, and in past years the 'Limo Lanes' for VIPs, and I'd suggest there's a reasonable expectation among local residents that there ought to be a number of locations where we can watch for free, whether it be inside, or outside the bounds of the airfield. Hell, during lessons at the Engineer Resources Wing of the Defence College of Logistics at Deepcut, it was regularly necessary to hold a long pause during lessons as yet another 'Biz-Jet' mad a low approach to Farnborough directly over the classroom. What's being said here? That risk to the public due to the "absolute necessity for some celebrity ponce to fly privately into a discreet luxury terminal" is acceptable, despite said public having no real opt-out of the situation, but for said public to choose to stand at the 'live' end of a display runway whilst fully aware and accepting of the risks is somehow not acceptable? Bonkers, I'm afraid.I've watched the videos from Shoreham. I've seen many of the stills. I can't get emotional about any of it, I'm afraid. My life,and more pertinently, my career, have numbed me to the point where my reaction is simply one of "s
t happens. Move on". Callous? Maybe to you, but I've been involved in situations where explosions, bodies, and body parts were accepted as being a part of daily life. Yet even I can't say, a few years down the line from my last operational deployment, how I might react to such a situation unfolding around me. So do NOT criticise those who appear to "do nothing" in these aftermath videos, for until you have stood in their shoes you cannot possibly fathom what YOUR reaction might have been. My sympathies are with those affected by the crash. The deceased, their families, the injured, the witnesses, the emergency crews who attended, and those responsible for recovering the remains and investigating the cause. No speculation from me, but no flowers on a nearby bridge neither. As a cyclist myself, the most disturbing image I've seen on this subject is the single cycling shoe lying amongst the wreckage. Why? Because I've lost count of the number of times I've halted at the roadside to watch an impromptu flying display, or even a 'routine aircraft movement' at somewhere like Farnborough, Blackbushe, Odiham, Lasham or White Waltham. If I was local to Shoreham, I'd probably have taken a ride out myself, to watch from a roadside somewhere, and been caught up in, or near, Saturday's carnage. Air display accidents account for what? A few hundred casualties in sixty years or more? And the "something ought to be done" and "one death is a death too many" handwringers are out in force. Whereas three thousand plus people are killed on Britain's roads every year, and this risk is somehow accepted. Talk about a set of skewed priorities...
http://www.littlegransdenshow.co.uk/location.php
I'm naturally cynical but I do not believe this is financially driven.
Re: smoke/vapour ?
http://youtu.be/dROPAFmZuy8
If you forward this vid to 1.00 and listen to the commentary, he mentions cloud coming off the wings.
Edit : I have just noticed the following screen shot on Bobsurgranny's channel
http://youtu.be/XN_0qi3R8Tc
http://youtu.be/dROPAFmZuy8
If you forward this vid to 1.00 and listen to the commentary, he mentions cloud coming off the wings.
Edit : I have just noticed the following screen shot on Bobsurgranny's channel
http://youtu.be/XN_0qi3R8Tc
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 25th August 07:47
NoNeed said:
I'm just going through that wiki page and shoreham has appeared in it twice already and I only got to 2007.
A human death is a human death, none civilian does not make it less tragic.
Were the 7 passengers at biggin hill in 1980 not civilians? Or the 5 passengers in 1977?
It depends on your definition of civilians. The better term in this case might be spectators or bystanders. The accidents you mention, particularly the 1980 one, lead to the banning of carrying passengers or nor essential crew. A human death is a human death, none civilian does not make it less tragic.
Were the 7 passengers at biggin hill in 1980 not civilians? Or the 5 passengers in 1977?
Edited by NoNeed on Tuesday 25th August 07:16
As regards the las Shoreham accident that was caused by the pilot doing an unplanned barrel roll. It's to prevent accidents like that that the displays are rehearsed and approved. However that accident could be repeated as the aircraft type involved is not subject to the temporary new rules announced.
I think one question that I would be interested to know the answer to is did the pilot carry out this manoeuvre where he was supposed to or should it have been in a slightly different location?
The media is full of reports that the Red Arrows refused to perform at Shoreham as it is too dangerous. Even if true isn't this irrelevant? Their display involves 9 jets doing aerobatics and therefore by definition they are going to need a lot more space than one. They also need to consider the chances of 2 of their aircraft coming down at once, both potentially going in opposite directions.
A single aircraft doing a display can presumably display where a multi formation can't because less options are needed if it goes wrong.
A single aircraft doing a display can presumably display where a multi formation can't because less options are needed if it goes wrong.
NoNeed said:
he way you are all trying to spin a death inside a boundary, outside a boundary, civillian, none vivilian, on board and off board as being different and somehow more acceptable is just crass.
The CAA called the biggin hill passengers "civilian passengers" and as a result banned civilian passengers.
A death is a death and will bring heartbreak and sadness to loved ones.
I believe that you originally asked about a statistic relating to deaths since 1952, this is what is being referred to, a statistic. People are not trivialising death, but answering your query.The CAA called the biggin hill passengers "civilian passengers" and as a result banned civilian passengers.
A death is a death and will bring heartbreak and sadness to loved ones.
To be honest after having attended a few air-shows in my youth I find them a bit pointless. Especially after three have gone wrong this year alone.
If people want to look at the planes, what's wrong with the car show concept of having them stationary?
I'm all for preserving historic planes but not flying them at the cost of human life unnecessarily.
If people want to look at the planes, what's wrong with the car show concept of having them stationary?
I'm all for preserving historic planes but not flying them at the cost of human life unnecessarily.
As others have said,in the past when an airshow crash happens we always say it was "lucky" it missed the road/house nearby. Lucky there were no more casualties. Because in the uk, something unconnected to the airshow is always nearby.
On the weekend that luck ran out. In a most terrible way.
I do think its time airshows were looked at. Some genuine questions:
Why do we want to see warbirds, of whatever vintage doing aerobatics when modern aircraft can do the same aerobatics. And in many cases, perform "better" aerobatics
Isnt a variety of flypasts enough? You see them fly, you can hear them and take pictures. Or is the aspect of a crash- the danger of it part of the appeal?
I remember when he b24 came over in the early 90s. A great spectacle flying alongside the B17, yet no dangerous aerobatics. Ditto the two lancasters last year. A great, memorable event. Yet all we saw was stable, sensible flying.
On the weekend that luck ran out. In a most terrible way.
I do think its time airshows were looked at. Some genuine questions:
Why do we want to see warbirds, of whatever vintage doing aerobatics when modern aircraft can do the same aerobatics. And in many cases, perform "better" aerobatics
Isnt a variety of flypasts enough? You see them fly, you can hear them and take pictures. Or is the aspect of a crash- the danger of it part of the appeal?
I remember when he b24 came over in the early 90s. A great spectacle flying alongside the B17, yet no dangerous aerobatics. Ditto the two lancasters last year. A great, memorable event. Yet all we saw was stable, sensible flying.
RaeB said:
NoNeed said:
he way you are all trying to spin a death inside a boundary, outside a boundary, civilian, none civilian, on board and off board as being different and somehow more acceptable is just crass.
The CAA called the biggin hill passengers "civilian passengers" and, as a result, banned civilian passengers.
A death is a death and will bring heartbreak and sadness to loved ones.
I believe that you originally asked about a statistic relating to deaths since 1952, this is what is being referred to, a statistic. People are not trivialising death, but answering your query.The CAA called the biggin hill passengers "civilian passengers" and, as a result, banned civilian passengers.
A death is a death and will bring heartbreak and sadness to loved ones.
aeropilot said:
The term 'civilian' is misleading, and being used incorrectly.
Shoreham is the first time since 1952 that fatalities have occurred on the ground as a result of an airshow accident, and the first time, in fact, that any fatalities resulted of anyone not officially within the airshow perimeter. Farnborough fatalities were all spectators within the airfield boundary.
Not altogether true. In 1968 a Breguet Atlantique crashed at Farnborough. As well as killing all on board, an RAE worker (who was not attending the airshow and was just doing his daily work at the RAE) was killed by the impact. The accident happened just inside what was then the airfield boundary right behind the Swan Pub. If a crash happened at that particular location today, it would actually be outside the airfield boundary.Shoreham is the first time since 1952 that fatalities have occurred on the ground as a result of an airshow accident, and the first time, in fact, that any fatalities resulted of anyone not officially within the airshow perimeter. Farnborough fatalities were all spectators within the airfield boundary.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff