Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I beg your pardon?
Plane crashes onto A27 at Shoreham Air Show
- Thread starter Indeliblelink
- Start date
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
From the Telegraph:
A former airshow promoter who has worked with the Red Arrows and helped organise airshows around Britain told the Mirror:
I have friends involved in the organisation of Shoreham Air Show and have been there several times.
"The Red Arrows refuse to display there as they say the surrounding area is far too dangerous and could lead to a major accident.
"All they will do at Shoreham is a straight fly-past with red, white and blue smoke coming out the back of the jets.
"They have refused point blank to do an acrobatic display. They say there is no fall-out zone and any accident would be a disaster there.
"There is nowhere for them to put a plane down without killing someone.
"Every year the organisers apply for a Red Arrows display but they turn them down."
The case for legislation to force all future airshows to only display over oceans is compelling.
A former airshow promoter who has worked with the Red Arrows and helped organise airshows around Britain told the Mirror:
"The Red Arrows refuse to display there as they say the surrounding area is far too dangerous and could lead to a major accident.
"All they will do at Shoreham is a straight fly-past with red, white and blue smoke coming out the back of the jets.
"They have refused point blank to do an acrobatic display. They say there is no fall-out zone and any accident would be a disaster there.
"There is nowhere for them to put a plane down without killing someone.
"Every year the organisers apply for a Red Arrows display but they turn them down."
The case for legislation to force all future airshows to only display over oceans is compelling.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I have worked at a number of airshows in the past, not on the aviation side, but closely enough involved to have some idea of what's going on.
All airshows have what are called "height and flight" rules, which prescribe very specifically what manoeuvres a demonstration may perform, with specific restrictions on direction, height, abort routes, and so on. Any demonstration is strictly scripted, and has to be approved in advance, and any deviation from the plan will result in serious questions being asked. Those height and flight rules are constantly updated in the light of local circumstances, experience, and so on, and will have additional rules specific to particular aircraft and demonstrations.
Although it looks - indeed, is probably designed to look, as it's part of the thrill for the spectators - like it's a bunch of lunatics hot-dogging around in the sky, all of the people I ever encountered who flew in these things were very serious, mature individuals who took what they did extremely seriously, and for whom safety was very much their highest stated priority. I think, with the combination of the professionalism of the flyers and the restrictions and rules around the demonstrations, the likelihood that this was down to recklessness is extremely tiny. Interestingly - though perhaps not surprisingly - none of the flyers I ever encountered was the kind of young "fighter pilot" mentality one might expect to be doing this stuff: most of them were middle-aged, had been flying for years, and usually had day jobs that involved flying, generally in civil aviation. These were not people given to suddenly deciding to do something a bit bonkers: some of the Russian aviators could be a bit inclined to push against the rules, but when it came to it, they all followed them pretty strictly.
Knowing all that, I think I know enough to realise that any speculation we might make about what happened is futile, and almost certainly likely to be wrong, whether it's reckless flying, or some kind of callous disregard for safety on the ground, let alone for the pilot themselves.
You could eliminate any kind of risk by eliminating airshows, and I can understand the argument against the kind of military grandstanding that they are sometimes seen as being (especially in the States). But I think we also need to remember that even the most peaceable nation needs some way of maintaining that peaceability against other nations who might not operate on such noble premises, and that means we need people who are prepared to fight if necessary, and machines for them to fight in and with. Somebody has to design and build those machines, not to mention operating them, and part of ensuring that happens is to encourage an interest in it. Even if we'd rather not have them, we have to have people who are sufficiently excited by power and speed that they'll want to invest time and money in developing the skills necessary to build them.
And it's not just military stuff - a huge amount of our civil technological development exists as spinoffs from military technology - the first seriously viable commercial airliners were civilianised versions of long-range bombers, after all, and we wouldn't all be zooming off to Ibitha for the weekend if we hadn't had those in the first place.
We could always go completely risk-free and go back to 15th century technologies for getting around, defending ourselves, and so on, but it wouldn't get us very far, and anyway, human nature being what it is, we'd probably just find some compensatory activity to replace the element of danger.
Not that we should be complacent about what happened on Saturday, and I am absolutely sure that there won't be any complacency about that in the aviation business. I imagine that the plane will be painstakingly examined, along with all of the footage, and (hopefully) interviews will take place with the pilot when he recovers in an attempt to find out what went wrong. It may be that the site is deemed to be unsafe for that kind of flying, or that some further restrictions on the age and type of aircraft flying are brought in, and there will undoubtedly be changes to height and flight rules, but sitting around wishing we didn't have military aircraft, or that people didn't find airshows fascinating, or that we must somehow find an easy place to point the finger isn't going to be a realistic solution.
The fact remains that quite a few people who had nothing to do with the airshow, weren't remotely interested in it, and just happened to be in that small patch of geography where the plane came down, have lost their lives or been seriously injured is horrific and awful, and nothing I've said is intended to minimise that. But I think we need to be realistic when we try to create some kind of entirely danger-free environment, because in practice it can't happen. All we can do is to continue to work towards minimising and containing the dangers.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
No it isn't. The case for Shoreham to have a review as to its suitability definitely is though.
gosub
~#
when i was at Farnborough, there used to be a legal minimum display height. Just checked, is not part of current CAA guidance.
So almost certainly death for the pilot if he has to attempt an emergency landing on water.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
be good for ireland i suppose, as much of the island abuts an ocean and most of britain doesn't.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It would have been a local restriction, on the basis of a pretty thorough review of the specific circumstances around that particular location.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
(most of the shows I worked on were in Dubai, where they did, admittedly, have the rather significant advantage of lots of empty desert, although I also worked at Farnborough for a couple of years)
mauvais
on reddit or something
This seems like the sort of thing that should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt.
If you go looking for articles dated from before this weekend, you can find that the Red Arrows do indeed not do a full display at Shoreham because of the proximity of Lancing, Worthing and other airspace (Gatwick I imagine) with respect to their specific display requirements. To turn that into 'unsafe for any display!' is very much a stretch. It's still an airfield FFS.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Quite possibly.
But isn't the issue about 'over the sea' vrs 'over the airfield' really an argument about the business model of the commercial entertainment on offer. Very difficult for the organisers to monetise the event, and reduce 'free-riders' if over the sea.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It'd still present the same problem. A forced landing on land which can be conducted safely and at minimal risk, with the pilot and airframe being fairly easily recovered/protected, would be a much more dangerous prospect on water.
And I am not sure that we can necessarily assume that a display over water which went wrong would be any less potentially dangerous to bystanders - I imagine that quite a few over-water demonstrations end up having people watching from boats, and are a lot more difficult to police.
It would be tragic if a pilot were to lose their life in such circumstances.
But the likelihood of the aircraft then ploughing into untold numbers of spectators or other members of the public or their homes would be significantly reduced wouldn't it?
mauvais
on reddit or something
Difficult to do this anywhere, I'd have thought. Airfields are by their nature open spaces and if you want to go and see an airshow without paying for entry, you can. Climb a hill or stand by the perimeter fence. It just won't be the best seats in the house. Bournemouth seem to get by with this model.
There are challenges associated with it though. An airfield is a flexible environment, good for many things beyond display attributes, including organisation of the crowd and indeed very quick and specialist emergency response, so a beach show is not a magic cure-all, without even getting into the issue of it not removing all the risk to those on land.
Indeliblelink
\......👁&👁......./
I remember the Red Arrows doing a display in Brighton for the White Air festival in 2009, most of it was over the sea but they were practicing the day before and and they were doing some flying over the city, I remember watching out of a school office window which looked inland. If one of them had malfunctioned it would of ploughed into a school.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Yes. it would...obviously. But as I said above, more difficult for the promoters to charge people to look at the planes when you can sit on the beach and watch for free.
mauvais
on reddit or something
A school full of surprisingly powerful magnets?
Well yes. But when stunts go wrong it is the pilot who is most at risk. Having it over the sea increases that risk.
Indeliblelink
\......👁&👁......./
I knew that wasn't quite right, crashed then
If we start from the position of enabling air displays, but only if they are conducted as safely as possible, 'over water' (ie large areas like the English Channel, not a local pond or puddle) must be the front runner.
If onn the other hand we have to take commercial interests into account (why?), then lets continue looping the loop above residences and huge assembled crowds. Who gives a fuck if there are a few fatalities en route, there are profits to be made and military expertise to display after all.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Just in the interests of accuracy, it is probably worth pointing out that this display took place neither over residences nor huge assembled crowds.
ETA: nor did it hit residences or huge assembled crowds.
So its the life of one pilot v the lives of maybe twenty members of the public?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Think about it; if that were the case there'd be no profitable/break-even events anywhere.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Are you familiar with the geography?
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
But it hit a busy main road.
It isn't one pilot is it? How many pilots die vs members of the public over all?
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
By which there were groups of people watching/filming.
Similar threads
