Crash at Shoreham Air show

[Smollet]

Jet has just crashed there.

[Smollet]

SydneyBridge said:

Saying on bbc that several vehicles hit

They also posted a picture of a burning plane that wasn't a Hunter initially but have now removed it.

[Smollet]

wobert said:

I fear this will be the end of the Shoreham show, a pity as its a main RAFA fundraiser.....

Edited by wobert on Saturday 22 August 19:14

You think so? As tragic as today has been I'm sure it'll continue albeit with some restrictions

[Smollet]

Tomorrow's display has been cancelled.

[Smollet]

jagracer said:

Excellent post Wildcat

Agreed.
The BBC initially showed a picture of a burning aircraft with RAF markings that bore no resemblance to a Hunter and Sky kept calling the Hunter a WW2 aircraft. Minor points I know but the standard of journalism by the so called pros beggars belief at times so I do think these amateur videos do have a place in the grand scheme of things.

Edited by Smollet on Sunday 23 August 10:18

[Smollet]

ecsrobin said:

markwm said:

?. 7 lives lost for the sake of a silly air show stunt.

Sadly accidents happen, take a look at the Motorsport archives numerous people have died in accidents yet Motorsport still happens. Le Mans 1955 83 people died, 120 injured yet Le Mans still draws huge crowds.

Football has suffered massive loss of life at Bradford and Hillsborough but that still continues.

[Smollet]

This makes for interesting reading
http://vintageaeroplanewriter.blogspot.com.au/2015...
Not sure if this has already been posted so apologies if it has.

[Smollet]

NoNeed said:

Why is this not in NP&E? the dead were in cars not boats planes or trains.

When I started the thread I had no idea to the extent of the situation and it did involve an aircraft.

[Smollet]

Vaud said:

marksx said:

The statement isn't wrong, and doesn't hide anything or gloss over anything.

It fails to acknowledge that many pilots have died, so yes, I also think it portrays a false statement of the safety history that the shows have.

Many motorsport drivers have died over the years in this country but how many members of the public have done so as a result of there actions? Very few I'd suggest. This statement was relating to public safety and not the safety of the participants.

[Smollet]

SydneyBridge said:

does that include the red arrows then?
I see that Clacton Airshow is going ahead (over sea) and Wheels and Wings is this weekend, as well as Carfest (both over land)- wonder how these will be affected.

The Red Arrows don't use vintage jets so they'll be exempt I guess

[Smollet]

dr_gn said:

Luke Warm said:

Here we go, knee-jerk reaction time. CAA announces:

• Immediate restrictions on vintage jet displays over land
• Limit to fly-pasts
• No high-energy aerobatic displays until further notice
• Additional risk assessments for all air shows
• Hunter Hawker jets grounded

Perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

Agreed. Could've been a lot more severe. Tbh I'm happy just to see old aircraft flying and not overly concerned about aerobatics anyway as enjoyable as they are

[Smollet]

mrloudly said:

Well said Eric! The important thing is to see and hear them fly, let's not risk loosing them forever!

Totally agree.

[Smollet]

jamieduff1981 said:

Normally interspersed with high energy displays to keep things moving. A bit of variety. 3 hours of different planes doing the same thing (i.e. nothing) will not hold attention very long.

Tbf that's your PoV so let's see how things pan out before writing off inland air shows as being boring fly pasts.

[Smollet]

ali_kat said:

Erm, I know I'm female & blonde and so quite likely to have got this wrong BUT isn't it only Vintage jets that will not be allowed to perform "high-energy aerobatics" over land? I thought it was just vintage jets "limited to flypasts"?

So, in my understanding, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancasters and others can still perform, as can the Helicopters and Red Arrows?

So it won't be 3 hours of planes doing the same thing, surely?

Indeed that is my take on it. I guess like you I'm happy just to see things flying even if all of them aren't involved in aerobatics. 80% of something is better than 100% of SFA.

[Smollet]

Riley Blue said:

It's my point of view too. At this year's RIAT, the dullest fast jet display was the Tornado fly past. Fighters, whether historic or contemporary, were designed for 'dog fighting' so spectators want to see some of that - or a close approximation of it which means aerbatics. Every plane can fly straight and level, watching them do that is akin to going to a VSCC race meeting to see drivers in line astern behind a pace car i.e. not what you'd pay money for.

Fine. Having different PoVs keeps the world going round. It's only vintage jets that aren't going to be permitted to do high energy manoeuvres over land. Plenty of other stuff that can.

[Smollet]

Riley Blue said:

Absolutely right however I grew up on various RAF bases during the '50s and '60s and as a nine year old was at Farnborough in 1958 so cold war jets are my particular interest.

My dear departed Dad was a RAF pilot and took me there for the first time at about the same time as you. Why didn't you come up and introduce yourself
I love Cold War jets but am realistic enough to understand ignorant public opinion has far more sway than reasoned logic so if it means they can only fly limited procedures over land in the foreseeable future as opposed to a total ban then so be it.

ETA http://www.airshows.co.uk/blogs/editors/

Edited by Smollet on Tuesday 25th August 14:06

[Smollet]

onyx39 said:

I heard yesterday that he was transferred to another "undisclosed" hospital? Not for his protection surely?

Probaly to stop the media harassing his family when they visit or the hospital specialises in his current condition

[Smollet]

bhstewie said:

Tbh I didn't read anything into "by the Police" - I simply assumed that would happen automatically a bit like I'd assume it would if you had a car accident.

Except it's not a car accident so why would they get involved? They have expertise in dealing with road accidents. I doubt very much they'd know where to start with an accident involving a plane

Edited by Smollet on Saturday 26th September 19:33

[Smollet]

andy97 said:

TopTrump said:

Is the pilot in prison then?

No, he was found not guilty in a criminal TRIAL where the burden of proof is a higher bar to reach, being “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Coroner’s INQUEST came to their conclusions on the “balance of probabilities”.

You can’t be tried more than once for the same “offence” but it will be up to the families of the victims now to determine whether they want to proceed with a civil prosecution for damages.

I thought the double jeopardy process didn’t exist here.

[Smollet]

Documentary on Discovery+ about the crash.