Plane crashes onto A27 at Shoreham Air Show

[Favelado]

That's 30 seconds of my life wasted!

I'm off work today. I can probably ruin the next 7 hours.

 

[1927]

I'm off work today. I can probably ruin the next 7 hours.

Ruin your own day, by you won't ruin mine.

 

[Favelado]

Ruin your own day, by you won't ruin mine.

I take that as a challenge.

I'll upset you so much you'll drop your Airfix kit you've been working on all month.

 

[Orang Utan]

If you really believe that XH588 is being maintained by a load of old men akin to a railway preservation society you are misguided.

As for banning it and calling it folly have you seen how many people turn up to see her fly everywhere she goes? It is a plane that is loved in the same way Concorde was and its a great shame that she won't fly after this year.

Bunch of knobs wanking over flying death machines. Sickos.

 

[Citizen66]

Oh do fuck off with your idea that everyone can risk whatever they like as long as it's an event you approve of shit!

I could easily say all drugs should be banned as they lead to a pointless waste of life and misery , but I don't!

They already are mostly banned.

 

[Favelado]

Bunch of knobs wanking over flying death machines. Sickos.

You know. There's risk in everything, so it's fine to have something flying in fucking circles at 700mph over thousands of people's heads. It's the same as going for a drink in a pub. You might fall over and kill yourself. Same thing so if you want to ban it you're a killjoy and also obviously Hitler.

 

[existentialist]

Bunch of knobs wanking over flying death machines. Sickos.

There's a lot of assumptions there in that statement

 

[gosub]

You know. There's risk in everything, so it's fine to have something flying in fucking circles at 700mph over thousands of people's heads. It's the same as going for a drink in a pub. You might fall over and kill yourself. Same thing so if you want to ban it you're a killjoy and also obviously Hitler.

I thought Hitler was quite keen on having planes fly over England.


You might want to start having a go at the Sealed Knot as "sinister" though. And never ever go to to see a trebuchet in action.

 

[Indeliblelink]

The Civil Aviation Authority have announced a series of immediate restrictions and changes to UK civil air displays.

• Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.

• The CAA will conduct additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced.

 

[Favelado]

There's a lot of assumptions there in that statement

People sticking up for airshows are basically guilty of murder.

 

[existentialist]

People sticking up for airshows are basically guilty of murder.

Well, it's a viewpoint, I suppose.

Though it is one which I think rather devalues the concept of murder.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Has anyone stuck this up yet? Sam Leith writing in the Evening Standard on 3rd August...

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...igh-risk-activity-we-pay-to-see-10434691.html

How high a risk of premature death in any given activity — weighed against the good — is acceptable to a society? It strikes me more and more that public innumeracy — in which the media is complicit, “Statistically Insignificant Workplace Accident Claims Life” being less grabby than “Staplers: The Lurking Menace” — is perhaps the greatest distorting factor in our discourse. In economics, as much is obvious. But it applies in the way we think about risk, too.

Tom Chivers of BuzzFeed recently ridiculed scare stories about “deadly” nitrous oxide — now known in the press as “hippy crack” — by looking at the stats and used them to argue that Raheem Sterling, the Manchester City player recently photographed appearing to inhale the drug, was six times more likely to be killed by playing football than by taking nitrous oxide. This is an elegant contemporary knock-off of the provocation once offered by the neuropsychopharmacologist Professor David Nutt, who published a paper demonstrating that horse-riding is statistically much riskier than taking ecstasy.

Given the terrible news of the young pilot Kevin Whyman’s death when he lost control of his jet at the CarFest festival I wonder — no more than that — where air shows come on the scale? It’s widely known — in fact, it’s a positive staple of dinner-party bores of the preening-rationalist type — that though it scares the willies out of people, air travel is by a long chalk safer than other forms of transport. Motorcycling is 3,000 times more deadly, car travel 100 times more deadly, and taking the train twice as deadly, mile for mile, as jumping on a jumbo jet.

But the sort of air travel involved in displays at air shows loads the dice a little the other way. Commercial liners set out only to get in the air, stay in the air and plonk down at the other end with the minimum of excitement. Air shows like to get planes doing loops and twists at low altitude and in close proximity, and if those planes are Second World War-era crocks, so much the better.

It’s a favourite of the above-mentioned dinner-party bore that “the plural of anecdote is not data” — which is wrong in the way that only a smart-sounding aphorism can be. A couple of anecdotes don’t make a persuasive dataset: but a persuasive dataset is, in the end, exactly a collection of anecdotes.

And with air shows, we do have —again, I say no more than that — some anecdotes available. Only a few hours after news of Kevin Whyman’s death broke we heard of a fatal helicopter crash at a Russian air show. Wikipedia has a huge (and incomplete) year-by-year list of air-show disasters, and as long as I’ve been paying attention to the news, the air-show disaster has been a regular at the bar.

What counts as a “needless death”? Nobody “needs” to get buzzed on drugs. But nobody “needs” to get buzzed by the Red Arrows, either — not really. I don’t offer this as a smartarse argument for drug legalisation. Rather, to say: given how we respond to the (lowish) risk of death by drug or death by terrorist, might not a moratorium on air shows be an equally rational way of honouring the memories of Mr Whyman and those like him?

 

[Favelado]

The Civil Aviation Authority have announced a series of immediate restrictions and changes to UK civil air displays.

• Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.

The entirely sensible measures that posters on the thread were putting forward. Obvious even to Joe Bloggs. And the "Ministry of Favelado"

 

[ddraig]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

The Civil Aviation Authority said they would be "limited to flypasts", which meant "high-energy aerobatics" would not be permitted in displays over land.

 

[Bungle73]

The entirely sensible measures that posters on the thread were putting forward. Obvious even to Joe Bloggs. And the "Ministry of Favelado"

Except that these may only be temporary measures, until the cause of the crash can be ascertained, and then appropriate action taken based on that.

 

[Favelado]

Except that these may only be temporary measures, until the cause of the crash can be ascertained, and then appropriate action taken based on that.

Let's just go on what we know for now.

 

[agricola]

Has anyone stuck this up yet? Sam Leith writing in the Evening Standard on 3rd August...

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...igh-risk-activity-we-pay-to-see-10434691.html

Not sure he is right about rail travel, but the rest of that article is spot on.

 

[Bungle73]

Let's just go on what we know for now.

Go on what we know? What?

Not sure he is right about rail travel, but the rest of that article is spot on.

Rail travel?

And tbh it's a stupid argument. Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them and have no redeeming features for society at all. With 99% if airshows, people go, the planes fly around, people have a jolly good then then they go home, and nothing bad happens at all. If we're to have a "moratorium" on airshows then why not on what be a long list of other activities that involve an element of risk?

 

[Plumdaff]

And tbh it's a stupid argument. Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them and have no redeeming features for society at all. With 99% if airshows, people go, the planes fly around, people have a jolly good then then they go home, and nothing bad happens at all. If we're to have a "moratorium" on airshows then why not on what be a long list of other activities that involve an element of risk?

Obviously it depends on what drug, but let's pick a really destructive one, say, alcohol - 99% of people go drink, have a nice time, sober up and nothing bad happens. Hence the point of that article.

 

[Favelado]

People choose to take drugs and drink alcohol. They don't choose to get incinerated by jet fuel when they're driving their car home.

Don't know why this is hard to understand. The CAA are now taking this line.

 

[redcogs]

The entirely sensible measures that posters on the thread were putting forward. Obvious even to Joe Bloggs. And the "Ministry of Favelado"

Allow me to congratulate the Minister of Favelado. Prescience is a word that springs to mind.

As for the members of the opposition.. Well.

 

[Ax^]

this thread just keeps on giving

 

[agricola]

And tbh it's a stupid argument. Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them and have no redeeming features for society at all. With 99% if airshows, people go, the planes fly around, people have a jolly good then then they go home, and nothing bad happens at all. If we're to have a "moratorium" on airshows then why not on what be a long list of other activities that involve an element of risk?

What Plumdaff said, and if you are using that drugs argument then surely you accept the rationale why there should be a moratorium?

 

[__steve__]

Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them and have no redeeming features for society at all.

Not true.

If we're to have a "moratorium" on airshows then why not on what be a long list of other activities that involve an element of risk?

Presumably because this particular incident killed a bunch of folks who weren't "invested" in the event. Don't you think a plane crashing into a busy road warrants a moratorium?

 

[Favelado]

Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them. The stupidest opinion on drugs I've ever read on here. Straight from a 1950s US government Reefer Madness video.

Did the Zammo storyline in Grange Hill scare you that much?

 

[Bungle73]

Obviously it depends on what drug, but let's pick a really destructive one, say, alcohol - 99% of people go drink, have a nice time, sober up and nothing bad happens. Hence the point of that article.

Except that he's not talking about alcohol, he's talking about proper drugs. And alcohol isn't banned anyway. It's as legal as airshows are.

People choose to take drugs and drink alcohol. They don't choose to get incinerated by jet fuel when they're driving their car home.

Don't know why this is hard to understand. The CAA are now taking this line.

Not really. They've simply implemented a series of precautionary measures until the cause of the crash is known. Which ix exactly what I said before.

Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them. The stupidest opinion on drugs I've ever read on here. Straight from a 1950s US government Reefer Madness video.

Did the Zammo storyline in Grange Hill scare you that much?

Anyone with a brain knows that drugs cause nothing but misery, but then I wouldn't expect a sensible view on drugs from anyone on this forum.

 

[Orang Utan]

Drugs destroy the lives of anyone who goes near them and have no redeeming features for society at all. With 99% if airshows, people go, the planes fly around, people have a jolly good then then they go home, and nothing bad happens at all. If we're to have a "moratorium" on airshows then why not on what be a long list of other activities that involve an element of risk?

Bullshit. Drugs are great. 99% of the time people have a jolly good time, then they go home and nothing bad happens at all.

 

[Spymaster]

Bunch of knobs wanking over flying death machines. Sickos.

Oh shut up, you twonk.

 

[Orang Utan]

Except that he's not talking about alcohol, he's talking about proper drugs. And alcohol isn't banned anyway. It's as legal as airshows are.


Not really. They've simply implemented a series of precautionary measures until the cause of the crash is known. Which ix exactly what I said before.


Anyone with a brain knows that drugs cause nothing but misery, but then I wouldn't expect a sensible view on drugs from anyone on this forum.

Alcohol is a proper drug and does more harm than all the other drugs put together.

 

[Orang Utan]

Oh shut up, you twonk.

Just doing what you do.

BTW did you have a hangover this morning?