Plane crashes onto A27 at Shoreham Air Show

[mauvais]

Apparently, according to an aviation expert on BBC News this morning, ejector seats are not allowed on privately owned ex military aircraft due to the complex nature of maintaining them, they do after all contain explosives.

Which makes sense.

Pretty sure that's balls

(I assume the 'makes sense' was tongue in cheek!)

Edit: IIRC there is a sort of indirect truth to it in the sense that Martin Baker recently said they wouldn't support & maintain historic seats any more, not sure what the impact of that is

 

[8ball]

Pretty sure that's balls

(I assume the 'makes sense' was tongue in cheek!)

Edit: IIRC there is a sort of indirect truth to it in the sense that Martin Baker recently said they wouldn't support & maintain historic seats any more, not sure what the impact of that is

Lots of these things make sense to me, but then I work in pharmaceuticals...

 

[Citizen66]

Fireworks contain explosives.

 

[Bungle73]

Fireworks contain explosives.

Not as much, I'm guessing, as that required to lift a chair and its occupant several hundred feet into the air. And they don't need maintaining either.

 

[alfajobrob]

Not as much, I'm guessing, as that required to lift a chair and its occupant several hundred feet into the air. And they don't need maintaining either.

Rockets, explosives, semantics.

 

[likesfish]

Martin Baker want nothing to do with trying to maintain a 40 year old bang seat which they have no spares for or anyone who remembers how they work.
Shoving a modern ejector seat in an ancient aircraft is probably not doable under any reasonable budget they also need to be looked after every flight never meant to be civilian friendly.

 

[8ball]

Martin Baker want nothing to do with trying to maintain a 40 year old bang seat which they have no spares for or anyone who remembers how they work.
Shoving a modern ejector seat in an ancient aircraft is probably not doable under any reasonable budget they also need to be looked after every flight never meant to be civilian friendly.

I've no idea about who's right on these questions tbf, but something odd happened to make that crash survivable by the pilot.

 

[Bungle73]

I've no idea about who's right on these questions tbf, but something odd happened to make that crash survivable by the pilot.

I don't think it's odd, it's just luck. It's not entirely certain that he will survive yet.

Apparently the cockpit separated from the rest of the aircraft, which probably helped.

 

[8ball]

I don't think it's odd, it's just luck. It's not entirely certain that he will survive yet.

Apparently the cockpit separated from the rest of the aircraft, which probably helped.

Oh yeah, I agree it's luck, but aside from cases chosen specifically for their oddness I've never seen something like this. Judging from the angle of the plane coming down and the resultant fireball it's astonishing.

I'm hoping they can get him talking and he remembers enough to be able to say what happened.

To me it looks like a possible blackout, maybe a G-suit failure, but who knows?

 

[Citizen66]

I'll be surprised if he does actually survive it tbh. Fingers crossed.

 

[8ball]

I'll be surprised if he does actually survive it tbh. Fingers crossed.

Me too. But it will be a lot better for the families affected to have some coherent account of what happened imo.

 

[Citizen66]

Me too. But it will be a lot better for the families affected to have some coherent account of what happened imo.

Air accident report will drag on for a few months but should give an accurate picture.

 

[Citizen66]

Oh yeah, sorry, would be better with his input.

 

[Orang Utan]

I don't think it's odd, it's just luck. It's not entirely certain that he will survive yet.

Apparently the cockpit separated from the rest of the aircraft, which probably helped.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, he may have been better protected than the civilians because he would have had a fire resistant flight suit on

 

[8ball]

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, he may have been better protected than the civilians because he would have had a fire resistant flight suit on

The civilians weren't being fired at the ground at 300mph so it's a case of swings and roundabouts.

 

[DownwardDog]

Martin Baker want nothing to do with trying to maintain a 40 year old bang seat which they have no spares for or anyone who remembers how they work.

This is the back of the last person to bang out of a civ. reg. Hunter on a Mk2 MB. I can understand the reluctance to reach for the loops under any circumstance...

 

[Indeliblelink]

The death toll of the fatal jet crash at the Shoreham Airshow could reach 20, assistant chief constable Steve Barry of Sussex Police has told the BBC.

Speaking on BBC Radio Sussex, Mr Barry said: "It is too early to tell but I'd be surprised if it doesn't go above 11 but if it were below 20 then that would probably be the best estimate I could give you at this stage."

He added: "There are victims that we have in the cars, on motorbikes, pedal cycles and in the seated areas. It makes it very complicated to establish who was where and who we can actually confirm has been a victim of this crash."

 

[Orang Utan]

Got a mate on Facebook claiming the pilot should be held personally responsible for being reckless. Is he right?
I think performing aerial stunts over crowds of people (and roads) is reckless, but I don't think it's the pilot's fault, unless he spontaneously decides to buzz the road.

 

[Geri]

The seated areas? Of what?

 

[Citizen66]

It was an accident. Although performing such stunts raises that risk.

 

[weltweit]

Apparently the death toll is likely to rise again as they today start to remove the wreckage.

 

[bi0boy]

The seated areas? Of what?

The airshow? Maybe he means people who were thought to have been in the seated areas are reported missing.

 

[Orang Utan]

It was an accident. Although performing such stunts raises that risk.

Yeah, the pilot is to blame in the sense that it is a reckless job in the first place, but this guy wants to throw the book at him, even though he may have done everything he was supposed to

 

[spitfire]

They may mean the seated areas of the cars. You can make an educated guess as to a drivers identity with reg plates etc. but you have no way of knowing who was in the passenger seats, it's an odd way to put it but it is a quote from a press conference so sometimes people say things in a strange way when they are in a high pressure situation.

None of the images I saw were near the seated areas of the show.

 

[Indeliblelink]

I think some people were watching the air show from the side of the road or maybe there was a seated part of the airfield near the road that the explosion hit.

 

[mauvais]

Yeah, the pilot is to blame in the sense that it is a reckless job in the first place, but this guy wants to throw the book at him, even though he may have done everything he was supposed to

Well, for one thing, there's some very good reasons that the AAIB & the like don't pursue an agenda of blame and attribution of personal responsibility.

Almost all pilots operate, to some extent, in a system. When things go wrong, it's better to examine and fault find within those systems than it is point at the individuals, not least because you can't revive the dead, but you can prevent future accidents.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

The seated areas? Of what?

Apparently people were sat on the side of the road.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Guardian report says death toll may be up to 20 but 'no more than that'.

 

[brogdale]

Apparently people were sat on the side of the road.

Yes. I'm aware that fore-shortening can deceive, but the right hand side of this image is very troubling.

 

[gosub]

Got a mate on Facebook claiming the pilot should be held personally responsible for being reckless. Is he right?
I think performing aerial stunts over crowds of people (and roads) is reckless, but I don't think it's the pilot's fault, unless he spontaneously decides to buzz the road.

display minima is 500ft.....