# Plane crashes onto A27 at Shoreham Air Show



## Indeliblelink (Aug 22, 2015)

This looks very nasty although no confirmed fatalities yet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/22/hawker-hunter-plane-crash-shoreham-air-show-reports


----------



## gosub (Aug 22, 2015)

From the Guardian piece " a second world war Hawker Hunter single-seat fighter jet."

Hope every one OK, especially the pilot, one of the few who also flies the Sea Vixen


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 22, 2015)




----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2015)

Utterly awful scenes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2015)

Can't believe the pilot survived that!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2015)

Feel for the innocent motorists who got caught up in that.
Hope there aren't too many casualties.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

That's my ancestral grounds  Crash right here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8413931,-0.2966573,19z

It's on Sky News after this ad break.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2015)

A friend of mine will have been at that air show, hope they are ok.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 22, 2015)

Seven dead apparently.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2015)

> South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust has confirmed that there has been seven fatalities declared at the scene, one patient with serious life-threatening injuries has been transported to Royal Sussex County Hospital and further 14 patients treated for minor injuries.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-34028331


----------



## Quartz (Aug 22, 2015)




----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Seven dead apparently.


My bro saw it happen  No confirmation of the location of our mother, who may well have been buzzing along thr Top Road in her cabriolet 

edit: sorry sorry, she is fine


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

Airshows strike me as having a terrible safety record in recent years.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 22, 2015)

Kinell Stella, hope she's OK. Keep us posted


----------



## trashpony (Aug 22, 2015)

Oh shit


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 22, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> My bro saw it happen  No confirmation of the location of our mother, who may well have been buzzing along thr Top Road in her cabriolet


Yes, I thought about you when I read the location. I'm sure your mum's ok.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> My bro saw it happen  No confirmation of the location of our mother, who may well have been buzzing along thr Top Road in her cabriolet



Mother located. Bro says it was only the 3 or 4th plane in the show. He says it didn't exactly sound like it was going wrong (but they were stood next to a running helicopter) but looked like the pilot was clearly trying to pull up.

edit: nothing new ^  but eyewitness report.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

Quartz said:


>



Emojis when deaths happen are really tasteless. Sorry to pick on you as it's almost everyone but it's shit that it's become okay to respond to a tragedy with a cartoon face.

Can't people type out five words to express their feelings?


----------



## Ax^ (Aug 22, 2015)

glad she is ok stella

pictures of the crash look pretty bad


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Emojis when deaths happen are really tasteless. Sorry to pick on you as it's almost everyone but it's shit that it's become okay to respond to a tragedy with a cartoon face.
> 
> Can't people type out five words to express their feelings?



This is harsh, IMO. 'Really tasteless', come on now.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 22, 2015)

Glad yer ma's OK BTW Stella


----------



## likesfish (Aug 22, 2015)

Jesus fuck just driving past and killed by a 50 year old jet fighter.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 22, 2015)

That's what smileys are for: for expressing emotion, which is practically impossible to do with a line of text. That's why they were invented.


Favelado said:


> Airshows strike me as having a terrible safety record in recent years.


Are you sure about that?  But this does look like the sort of accident that will have serious ramifications for airshows at that location, and probably for the whole of the UK as well. I wonder what they'll be.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Emojis when deaths happen are really tasteless. Sorry to pick on you as it's almost everyone but it's shit that it's become okay to respond to a tragedy with a cartoon face.
> 
> Can't people type out five words to express their feelings?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

S☼I said:


> This is harsh, IMO. 'Really tasteless', come on now.



I think it is. I have to accept I'm in an apparently tiny majority but I honestly feel that way. Death merits more than a shit little cartoon face. Type ten words or don't bother.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> That's what smileys are for: for expressing emotion, *which is practically impossible to do with a line of text*.
> .



Sorry, but that's bullshit.


----------



## Ax^ (Aug 22, 2015)

bunfight about smiley's

well done people


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

I'll stop. I don't want a fight. I think it's worth thinking about though. No-one ever agrees with me on it so it's me I suppose.


----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Are you sure about that?  But this does look like the sort of accident that will have serious ramifications for airshows at that location, and probably for the whole of the UK as well. I wonder what they'll be.



Hard to see what can be done, though not having the display over the crowd anymore has stopped those disasters happening (at least here).  Perhaps only allowing displays to be over completely empty (of people) areas?


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 22, 2015)

Horrible, scary thing is I've sat at the junction in traffic jams when there's been air shows on in Shoreham a few times in past years. I was hoping the pilot had managed to miss the road or at least overshoot the traffic lights if they were red.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I think it is. I have to accept I'm in an apparently tiny majority but I honestly feel that way. Death merits more than a shit little cartoon face. Type ten words or don't bother.


Dunno, mate. We're all pretty shit at reacting. Look at me with my "Oh my god I used to live there! It could ahve been me!!2" bullshit. What you gonna do, you know?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> Horrible, scary thing is I've sat at the junction in traffic jams when there's been air shows on in Shoreham a few times in past years. I was hoping the pilot had managed to miss the road or at least overshoot the traffic lights if they were red.


From what I can gather from the TV vids etc, it looks like it was juuuust about on the south side of the road, in the tree line, so not _directly _on top of cars but I suppose the explosion flung loads of flames and wreckage over a fair distance.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 22, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Feel for the innocent motorists who got caught up in that.
> Hope there aren't too many casualties.


_Innocent_ motorists?  you have a strange way with words sometimes.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 22, 2015)

Shirl said:


> _Innocent_ motorists?  you have a strange way with words sometimes.


Strange way with words? Yours is a very odd post.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 22, 2015)

Seven dead I think according to the BBC


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 22, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Strange way with words? Yours is a very odd post.


Surely _everyone_ was innocent not just the motorists


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 22, 2015)

Shirl said:


> _Innocent_ motorists?  you have a strange way with words sometimes.



Innocent as in unwitting maybe. The road users not signing up to the increased risk that those attending the airshow would have accepted.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 22, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Strange way with words? Yours is a very odd post.


What QOG said


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 22, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Innocent as in unwitting maybe. The road users not signing up to the increased risk that those attending the airshow would have accepted.


This ^.

One of the definitions of "innocent" is someone caught up in the consequences of an incident, but not directly involved or responsible for it. It's like you've never seen the word used in this way before.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 22, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Innocent as in unwitting maybe. The road users not signing up to the increased risk that those attending the airshow would have accepted.


I think unfortunate would have been a better word. 
It's bloody awful though for everyone affected


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 22, 2015)

Were there fighter jets in the Second World War? Must have been the very first to roll off the production lines if there was.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2015)

Shirl said:


> _Innocent_ motorists?  you have a strange way with words sometimes.


Yeah, it implies that others are guilty.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 22, 2015)

Shirl said:


> _Innocent_ motorists?  you have a strange way with words sometimes.


Often attendants at a motor race or air show will have bits of paper thrust at them with their tickets saying something like Air Shows are dangerous you accept all risks associated with your attendance. Certainly I can remember the last time I went to Goodwood there was one and I think also at Duxford also. So people attending the show have somehow accepted the risk. Passing motorists however have not. That was my intention with the word innocent, but I accept it was less than ideal.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Were there fighter jets in the Second World War? Must have been the very first to roll off the production lines if there was.



Not this one - developed in the 1950's.


----------



## gosub (Aug 22, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Were there fighter jets in the Second World War? Must have been the very first to roll off the production lines if there was.


m262 and Glouster Meteor . Hunter first flew in 1953


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Yeah, it implies that others are guilty.


Um, no it doesn't.  I already gave you the definition for this context.


weltweit said:


> but I accept it was less than ideal.


It wasn't. It was exactly the correct word to use.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, no it doesn't.  I already gave you the definition for this context.
> 
> It wasn't. It was exactly the correct word to use.


Unwitting would have been better.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 22, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Were there fighter jets in the Second World War? Must have been the very first to roll off the production lines if there was.



At the end, the ME 262 and a handful of Gloucester Meteors.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I'll stop. I don't want a fight. I think it's worth thinking about though. No-one ever agrees with me on it so it's me I suppose.



No-one wants a bunfight, not on this thread, now THAT would be tasteless.

Not everyone can find words to express the inexpressible, I will say that much, and I know I don't much like to see honest but clichéd responses to tragedy, BUT wouldn't have a go at someone for it. Like sitting round in my nanna's front room waiting for the hearse with about 10 old dears all saying "it's a sad day", "yes, very sad, a sad day" for half an hour was so bad I had to go out for a quick short at the boozer, but it was just the way it is, not everyone's F. Scott Fitzgerald (thank fuck).

last year on twitter someone posted a photo of a man somewhere, I forget where, just about to be hanged in front of a large crowd including his young daughter who was forced to attend, and the photo was him smiling at her encouragingly with literally seconds of his life left. You could write a novel about that photo, that one moment, and what went round in my head for days and days afterwards like a mantra so it ending up stripped of all meaning was "He _smiled_ at her." An emoticon will do when it's impossible to say anything as meaningful as you want.

It was written about the boxer Sonny Liston that despite accusations of him being inarticulate, he was in fact merely "inarticulate in the way we all are when more has happened to us than we know how to express" (James Baldwin). An emoticon can get around that, and register at least something to show we're affected.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 22, 2015)

gosub said:


> m262 and Glouster Meteor . Hunter first flew in 1953



Journo is probably confusing the Hunter with the Hawker Hurricane which did serve in WWII bit isn't a jet.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 22, 2015)

Only on urban can a thread about seven people killed in a fireball turn into nitpicking about choice of language and emoticons.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 22, 2015)

I bet trying to own a flyable  surplus jet fighter/trainer becomes harder as this is the 2nd to crash in the last few weeks.
they are currently allowed as relatively simple to repair maintain anything supersonic is banned but they are still way more complex than a spitfire.

off my lists of things to do when I win the lottery killing myself doing something stupid fair one wiping out some poor sods on the ground when my luck runs out not so much


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Only on urban can a thread about seven people killed in a fireball turn into nitpicking about choice of language and emoticons.



You haven't seen the rest of the internet then. This forum is much like any other.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> You haven't seen the rest of the internet then. This forum is much like any other.


You're right I haven't. I've still got about 137 million pages to go


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Unwitting would have been better.



They unwittingly drove along the motorway?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> You're right I haven't. I've still got about 137 million pages to go



YouTube's the best. Start with the comments there.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> They unwittingly drove along the motorway?


See earlier mention of the word


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2015)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Only on urban can a thread about seven people killed in a fireball turn into nitpicking about choice of language and emoticons.


Well tbh, what else is there to talk about?


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 22, 2015)

Should antique jet fighters be doing stunt flying over the public? Probably not. Airshows over the sea are a better idea imo


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Aug 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Well tbh, what else is there to talk about?


Yeah I do wonder about threads like this sometimes because where do you go from the title apart from variations of 'oh, that's really shit?' Although someone did have a stab at discussing safety at these events.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

If we go back to safety, my memory tells me that there's been a few serious accidents at UK airshows recently. Would that be correct? The proportion of accidents to events seems high to me.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 22, 2015)

I'm quite surprised by the number of airshows there must be, bearing in mind the only ones I hear about are where accidents happen.  

I'm surprised they're still allowed or can get insurance. 

RIP those dead.  

 to the family Stels for being alive, if a bit rattled.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

Regarding safety - the TV news have mentioned not having them over residential areas. And tbf at Shore... Brighton City Airport there is the airport, a road, then miles and miles and miles of South Downs. It's pretty unlucky that out of all that green and countryside (and Adur river and Lancing College) it hit the pretty small road :emoticon:

edit: actuall, thinking about it - it cold be considered inreesponsible and bad planning to let something loop the loop over the airport as it isn't huge, and if something goes wrong 1. the pilot has no leeway to point themselves in a safe direction as it's a tight vertical space (happened today), and B. if they do point themselves anywhere - it's going to be the ground, the road, houses or the buildings of the airport. Perhaps BCA is too small to have airshows?


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> If we go back to safety, my memory tells me that there's been a few serious accidents at UK airshows recently. Would that be correct? The proportion of accidents to events seems high to me.



There do seem to be crashes at these things every year but I'm sure statistics would tell us you're at more danger of being in a traffic accident (with another vehicle) driving to the event than being caught in an air crash while there. The Daily Mail is saying it's the first "spectators" killed at an air show since 1952 (Farnborough). (?)


----------



## agricola (Aug 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> There do seem to be crashes at these things every year but I'm sure statistics would tell us you're at more danger of being in a traffic accident (with another vehicle) driving to the event than being caught in an air crash while there. The Daily Mail is saying it's the first "spectators" killed at an air show since 1952. (?)



Ironically the Hawker Hunter made its public debut at that air show.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 22, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Often attendants at a motor race or air show will have bits of paper thrust at them with their tickets saying something like Air Shows are dangerous you accept all risks associated with your attendance. Certainly I can remember the last time I went to Goodwood there was one and I think also at Duxford also. So people attending the show have somehow accepted the risk. Passing motorists however have not. That was my intention with the word innocent, but I accept it was less than ideal.


At motor sport events it's written on the back of the ticket -"Motor sport is dangerous" along with a disclaimer - in a big warning triangle. This warning is also posted at places around the circuit.

I haven't been to an airshow for years.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> There do seem to be crashes at these things every year but I'm sure statistics would tell us you're at more danger of being in a traffic accident (with another vehicle) driving to the event than being caught in an air crash while there. The Daily Mail is saying it's the first "spectators" killed at an air show since 1952 (Farnborough). (?)


Wasn't there a huge one in Germany in the 80s that killed loads? I remember seeing it on the telly.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)




----------



## Spymaster (Aug 22, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> There do seem to be crashes at these things every year but I'm sure statistics would tell us you're at more danger of being in a traffic accident (with another vehicle) driving to the event than being caught in an air crash while there. The Daily Mail is saying it's the first "spectators" killed at an air show since 1952 (Farnborough). (?)



The Ramstein one killed about 60 people on the ground in 1988.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 22, 2015)

Ugh. Right, that's it, I'm going to a party.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 22, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Wasn't there a huge one in Germany in the 80s that killed loads? I remember seeing it on the telly.



Well yes, I mean in the UK


----------



## elbows (Aug 22, 2015)

I might use this thread if I ever try to build evidence that humidity is bad for online harmony.

Anyway, grim scene, only just heard about it so not sure what else to say yet.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Aug 22, 2015)

I've seen the film a few times on the BBC and here, and am really shocked and saddened. Never mind the emoticons, I doubt anyone could watch it and not be deeply moved by what happened.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2015)

A sombre mood out in Brighton this evening. Fucking tragic


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 22, 2015)

Poor folks out and about minding their own business, enjoying themselves and bang, truly horrible.


----------



## doddles (Aug 22, 2015)

This is absolutely horrible.

It's natural to wonder about the details of the planned loop. How low was it meant to be at its lowest point? Was it intended to be partially or fully over the road? 

Of course pondering the question doesn't mean we should speculate in the almost complete lack of expertise or knowledge. No doubt there will be a thorough inquiry. 

In the mean time we can only be very sorry for the victims and their loved ones.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2015)

Police press conference in 5 mins.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 22, 2015)

Latest update is Sussex police saying there could still be casualties/fatalities in crash area.



> Seven people are now known to have died after a jet crashed on to a busy main road in Sussex on Saturday (August 22) and police fear that more bodies may be found as the scene is cleared.
> 
> The Hawker Hunter jet had just started its display at the RAFA Shoreham Airshow around 1.20pm when it failed to pull out of a dive and crashed into the A27 just north of the airport between Brighton and Worthing.
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Airshows strike me as having a terrible safety record in recent years.



TBF they actually have excellent safety records. It's just that when things go tits-up, the results have more potential to be catastrophic, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Surely _everyone_ was innocent not just the motorists



No-one is innocent. Bungle doubly so.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Were there fighter jets in the Second World War? Must have been the very first to roll off the production lines if there was.



Gloster Meteor was the only *operational* British fighter jet in WW2(praise be unto Frank Whittle for persistence). Hawker Hunter wasn't around until the '50s.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> At the end, the ME 262 and a handful of Gloucester Meteors.



Meteors were in operational service from mid-'43-onward. Used for recon as well as a standard fighter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Should antique jet fighters be doing stunt flying over the public? Probably not. Airshows over the sea are a better idea imo



Could say the same about prop planes and copters, though. They're just as likely to cause chaos and misery if/when something goes wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 22, 2015)

Favelado said:


> If we go back to safety, my memory tells me that there's been a few serious accidents at UK airshows recently. Would that be correct? The proportion of accidents to events seems high to me.



Every year, in several states around the world, there are serious accidents at airshows. What makes it seem like there are more accidents, is that (from what I can make out) airshows are a bit of a growth industry, and vintage planes are a big crowd-pleaser.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 22, 2015)

I remember that Airbus crashing into trees in France about 15 years ago. That was horrible. I think it was a demo of a new model. The screaming of the engines before the fireball. Horrid.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I remember that Airbus crashing into trees in France about 15 years ago. That was horrible. I think it was a demo of a new model. The screaming of the engines before the fireball. Horrid.


15 years ago? You mean the Air France Airbus airshow crash in 1988? This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 ?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 15 years ago? You mean the Air France Airbus airshow crash in 1988? This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296 ?



That one.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> m262 and Glouster Meteor . Hunter first flew in 1953



Also the P-80 and He-162.

I know the pilot in this incident. He was a creamie and one of my Jet Provost instructors a million years ago.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2015)

Poor people, poor relatives, poor emergency rescue services who have to prise dead people from their mangled and burnt  cars because of a lack of basic common sense.


----------



## LDC (Aug 23, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> ...because of a lack of basic common sense.



I might be missing something obvious, so please explain this comment?


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I might be missing something obvious, so please explain this comment?



You have to wonder what their risk assessment had to say about conducting the most risky part of a loop manoeuvre outwith the airfield. I am sure the AAIB report will give us all the details when it's released.


----------



## LDC (Aug 23, 2015)

Yes, and until then maybe saying it's down to a lack of common sense is in slightly ill-informed and bad taste.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Don't planes have a shelf life? I guess they must have given it a complete over haul, at least twice.


----------



## Geri (Aug 23, 2015)

I can't believe the pilot isn't dead!


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Don't planes have a shelf life? I guess they must have given it a complete over haul, at least twice.



Airframes have a fatigue life, some components are time limited and others are cycle limited. The Hunter, in common with many other aircraft of its era, was probably massively over-engineered as the computational techniques to make it 'just strong enough' didn't exist at the time of its design.


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 23, 2015)

What's the difference between "time limited" and "cycle limited" then, DownwardDog ?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yes, and until then maybe saying it's down to a lack of common sense is in slightly ill-informed and bad taste.



We don't need a report to know that the manoeuvre took place over an area where a crash would most likely lead to fatalities - because it clearly did. Either the pilot did the manoeuvre where he shouldn't, or he had been given the all clear to do so. Either way it was a tragic decision.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 23, 2015)

Geri said:


> I can't believe the pilot isn't dead!



He will have a few lawsuits against him if he recovers. Not to mention a rather guilty conscience.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> He will have a few lawsuits against him if he recovers. Not to mention a rather guilty conscience.



So you've concluded it was pilot error?


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> We don't need a report to know that the manoeuvre took place over an area where a crash would most likely lead to fatalities - because it clearly did. Either the pilot did the manoeuvre where he shouldn't, or he had been given the all clear to do so. Either way it was a tragic decision.





goldenecitrone said:


> He will have a few lawsuits against him if he recovers. Not to mention a rather guilty conscience.



Really? So you know for sure it wasn't entirely due to a fault with the plane with the pilot doing the best he could in the circumstances?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Or the pilot may have suffered some kind of seizure causing him to lose control of the aircraft. Still, urban likes to speculate.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

The popular fascination that people have with military aircraft which have only been designed to kill and maim and destroy leaves me cold.   Where does it come from?

This tragic 'accident' - 'incident'  is very sad indeed for all concerned, but it really is the moment for the organisers to reconsider the locations of any future events - it cant be too difficult to find seaside locations where the flying bombs can play their games over the oceans rather than above people's residences and traffic routes.


----------



## aqua (Aug 23, 2015)

Geri said:


> I can't believe the pilot isn't dead!


He will have had his flying suit on though won't he? So some protection from fire. Belted into a flying seat gives a lot of protection and then able to get out.

Unlike the people sat in their cars who got (from looking at the footage) consumed by a massive ball of fire with no notice at all.


----------



## aqua (Aug 23, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> We don't need a report to know that the manoeuvre took place over an area where a crash would most likely lead to fatalities - because it clearly did. Either the pilot did the manoeuvre where he shouldn't, or he had been given the all clear to do so. Either way it was a tragic decision.


Or there was an error which meant the manoeuvre took place where it should away from the road but either pilot or plane error meant it drifted. 

Let's not speculate until we know more. There was a very terrible accident. And as we are not the pilot, nor the event organisers, we don't know what was or wasn't the case.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 23, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Really? So you know for sure it wasn't entirely due to a fault with the plane with the pilot doing the best he could in the circumstances?



I'm sure he was doing all he could, and the fact the plane belly flopped onto the road just before it impacted *suggests* that he was trying desperately to get the nose up. He is ex RAF and flies commercial airliners, so I'm pretty sure he was well capable. 

But a fault with the plane should surely be taken into account when assessing risk? 

"If it has an mechanical failure and can't complete the manoeuvre, what risks are there to those on the ground?" 

So yes, I'm speculating and perhaps I shouldn't, but that's a question I'd be asking at some point if my relative had been out for a drive on a Saturday afternoon and had been killed by that jet.


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 23, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> He will have a few lawsuits against him if he recovers. Not to mention a rather guilty conscience.



So we've no idea whether it was pilot error or mechanical failure yet, but you've come to this conclusion?

I'm sure there must be plenty of risk assessment to be able to put on such a show. 

Anyway, horrific to see. Thoughts to all involved


----------



## Looby (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> The popular fascination that people have with military aircraft which have only been designed to kill and maim and destroy leaves me cold.   Where does it come from?
> 
> This tragic 'accident' - 'incident'  is very sad indeed for all concerned, but it really is the moment for the organisers to reconsider the locations of any future events - it cant be too difficult to find seaside locations where the flying bombs can play their games over the oceans rather than above people's residences and traffic routes.



I agree, I hate it. Ooh look a massive bomber! [emoji20] People love it though, the town centre will have been heaving here all weekend, the traffic is horrendous. It's pissing down today so it'll be a quieter afternoon with a limited air bastards timetable. 

I live in Bournemouth and we used to have an airshow at the airport. Although there are busy roads around there, it's also lots of farmland and fields so seemed less risky. 
Now we have the fucking Air Festival in the town centre. This is where the red arrows crash happened a few years ago. He managed to crash into fields but he was very close to a busy dual carriageway. 
Tricky manoeuvres are done over the sea but I worked in an office block near the clifftop until last year and the planes were so low in a very built up, busy area that if something went wrong it would be catastrophic.

So so sad for all involved and really fucking scary for those poor people on that road. [emoji20]


----------



## Geri (Aug 23, 2015)

aqua said:


> He will have had his flying suit on though won't he? So some protection from fire. Belted into a flying seat gives a lot of protection and then able to get out.
> 
> Unlike the people sat in their cars who got (from looking at the footage) consumed by a massive ball of fire with no notice at all.


 
Two were cyclists apparently.


----------



## aqua (Aug 23, 2015)

Geri said:


> Two were cyclists apparently.


*shudder*


----------



## Looby (Aug 23, 2015)

Geri said:


> Two were cyclists apparently.


Christ. [emoji20]


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 23, 2015)

Geri said:


> Two were cyclists apparently.


I've been across that road at exactly that point on my bike (but a few years ago), on my way from Shoreham-by-Sea station to a route on the South Downs. I should imagine quite a few use that way for that as it is the access from the bridge.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2015)

Looby said:


> It's pissing down today so it'll be a quieter afternoon with a limited air bastards timetable.



Organisers decided to cancel today's show, yesterday.


----------



## smmudge (Aug 23, 2015)

My brother is always saying how those display plans are basically falling apart.


----------



## Looby (Aug 23, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Organisers decided to cancel today's show, yesterday.


Sorry, I meant the Bournemouth one. That's on this weekend too.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

The plane was 50 plus years old but how old was the pilot to withstand those G forces? Why wasn't the loop done over the sea anyway like at Eastbourne, to attempt that near the crowd was misjudged to say the least. If the plane had come done a couple of hundred metres further along the casualties in the crowd would have been massive.

Too many accidents, there have been needless deaths at various shows, ban the militaristic wankfest.


----------



## susie12 (Aug 23, 2015)

There do seem to have been a lot of accidents at shows lately.  Maybe these rickety old planes just aren't fit for purpose.  Poor people though.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

Is it realy militaristic? Surely it just that the aircraft most capable of doing interesting things happen to have originally been designed for military use.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> The plane was 50 plus years old but how old was the pilot to withstand those G forces? Why wasn't the loop done over the sea anyway like at Eastbourne, to attempt that near the crowd was misjudged to say the least. If the plane had come done a couple of hundred metres further along the casualties in the crowd would have been massive.
> 
> Too many accidents, there have been needless deaths at various shows, ban the militaristic wankfest.



If there are no ex-military planes, it'll be civvie planes falling out of the sky and killing people at airshows. You might assume that'd be "safer", having mostly prop-driven planes crashing into people, but exploding fuel tanks from either a jet or a prop plane will burn you just as dead.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Is it realy militaristic? Surely it just that the aircraft most capable of doing interesting things happen to have originally been designed for military use.



That's pretty much a function of technical innovation ramping up in times of (hot or cold) conflict.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 23, 2015)

Geri said:


> Two were cyclists apparently.


And one of the cars was a wedding limo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2015)

Have we had any lunatic conspiracy theories yet?

I looked up the Ramstein disaster yesterday and there were some idiots claiming alien activity.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> What's the difference between "time limited" and "cycle limited" then, DownwardDog ?


Think about cars. Some stuff will fail after a period of time (e.g. rust, rubber perishing, etc) and some will fail with usage and distance (e.g. brake pads wearing out).

In aviation, distance isn't a valuable metric as if you take a passenger flight from A to B then although the distance may be large, the aircraft spends most of that time under low stress. Stress is encountered when doing things like going to full engine power for takeoff, when landing, or pulling manoeuvres. Think about flexing a bit of stiff metal back and forth and eventually it'll snap - well that's one example of fatigue. That's why it's more valuable to measure these occurrences which is what constitutes a cycle. The engineers estimate how many cycles something will be safe for.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> I'm sure he was doing all he could, and the fact the plane belly flopped onto the road just before it impacted *suggests* that he was trying desperately to get the nose up. He is ex RAF and flies commercial airliners, so I'm pretty sure he was well capable.


The point of no return would have been very early on, probably near the start of the loop. Past that, there was nothing to be done, good intentions or not. It's just physics, and if you don't have enough energy or enough height to sacrifice in order to open some more choices, it's going where it's going like throwing a rock. All you could do is stay put and hope your trajectory is kind to you.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Lastly, also all this talk about it being militaristic is just political projection; people like military jet displays because they're fast, loud, apparently dangerous, physics-defying spectacles, like motorsport on speed. For most it has little to do with history or a particular affection for the military.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

Air Shows:

7 dead in Slovakia 3 days ago: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-slovakia-crash-idUSKCN0QP0ZY20150820

Another seven dead (at least) at Shoreham yesterday.

And still more today in Switzerland:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/23/us-swiss-airplane-crash-idUSKCN0QS0DQ20150823

That's a minimum of 15 dead in three days for nothing. Ban this bread and circuses farce immediately.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 23, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> What's the difference between "time limited" and "cycle limited" then, DownwardDog ?



Time limited components are replaced after a stipulated amount of time. Cycle limited components are replaced after a stipulated number of take offs and landings (cycles).


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> The point of no return would have been very early on, probably near the start of the loop. Past that, there was nothing to be done, good intentions or not. It's just physics, and if you don't have enough energy or enough height to sacrifice in order to open some more choices, it's going where it's going like throwing a rock. All you could do is stay put and hope your trajectory is kind to you.


I'm slightly _upset _that the pilot didn't steer 20 metres to the left and land in the field. I am aware this is unreasonable, but it was _extremely_ close to it.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> I'm slightly _upset _that the pilot didn't steer 20 metres to the left and land in the field. I am aware this is unreasonable, but it was _extremely_ close to it.


Find something resembling a flight simulator with half decent physics - hell, even Grand Theft Auto's probably good enough these days - and try a loop for yourself. You might as well ask why a train driver didn't swerve; only a few yards would have done it.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Air Shows:
> 
> 7 dead in Slovakia 3 days ago: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/20/us-slovakia-crash-idUSKCN0QP0ZY20150820
> 
> ...



Its a sad list of unintentional deaths..  but there are responses other than the outright banning of an interest that some find attractive.  Reaching for the ban on the basis that some are killed in accidents is a bit of an over reaction.  Cars kill and maim many more people day in and day out, but few would regard a ban on cars as an appropriate response.

No question that decent regulation on where aviation shows operate is required though.  There seems to be a laissez faire approach at the moment.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> No question that decent regulation on where aviation shows operate is required though.  There seems to be a laissez faire approach at the moment.


It's really not - but almost all airfields are surrounded by roads, if not residential areas or worse. The regulations have adapted to where they are, successfully, to prevent huge casualties from aircraft crashing into the crowds, but you can't avoid all associated risk. As others point out, the chances of crashing onto the A27 and not the largely empty South Downs were, by the geographic nature of it, very, very small, so you don't get much better than that without either cancelling it or having it barely visible to the audience.

However someone will have to decide if even this small chance represents a fair balance of risk/reward to carry forward.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> No question that decent regulation on where aviation shows operate is required though.  There seems to be a laissez faire approach at the moment.



They could and should make things safer by simply stipulating no ex-mil types on the civil reg. That stupid fucking Vulcan business is a massive accident waiting to happen and should be stopped immediately.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> It's really not - but almost all airfields are surrounded by roads, if not residential areas or worse. The regulations have adapted to where they are, successfully, to prevent huge casualties from aircraft crashing into the crowds, but you can't avoid all associated risk. As others point out, the chances of crashing onto the A27 and not the largely empty South Downs were, by the geographic nature of it, very, very small, so you don't get much better than that without either cancelling it or having it barely visible to the audience.
> 
> However someone will have to decide if even this small chance represents a fair balance of risk/reward to carry forward.



i don't accept this.  Air displays can take place away from airfields and roads, over the sea where risk to the public is absolutely minimal.  Its not rocket science.

Legislation can deal with it easily.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> It's really not - but almost all airfields are surrounded by roads, if not residential areas or worse. The regulations have adapted to where they are, successfully, to prevent huge casualties from aircraft crashing into the crowds, but you can't avoid all associated risk. As others point out, the chances of crashing onto the A27 and not the largely empty South Downs were, by the geographic nature of it, very, very small, so you don't get much better than that without either cancelling it or having it barely visible to the audience.
> 
> However someone will have to decide if even this small chance represents a fair balance of risk/reward to carry forward.


 
It's not a simple question of whether this air show should have taken place at all. You talk about the large empty South Downs - then why was a maneuever such as this planned so that if it went wrong, it would end up on the A27?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> They could and should make things safer by simply stipulating no ex-mil types on the civil reg. That stupid fucking Vulcan business is a massive accident waiting to happen and should be stopped immediately.


XH558 is a ridiculous folly but at least it is/was backed up by proper technical authorities. They're pulling their support and it will come to an end as a result.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> It's not a simple question of whether this air show should have taken place at all. You talk about the large empty South Downs - then why was a maneuever such as this planned so that if it went wrong, it would end up on the A27?


Noone ever "planned" for it to end up on the A27. I imagine it was supposed to come out of the loop and do a low pass over the airfield for display purposes, the lowest point being over the airfield. There is therefore a risk to a wide area, firstly the entire radius of the flight plan, but still a large area even if focusing on the bottom of the loop. You could now argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that the risk to traffic from this plan was unacceptably high. You could do the same, however, regarding the presence of any airfield perimeter road, and such accidents have happened, including on British motorways.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> XH558 is a ridiculous folly but at least it is/was backed up by proper technical authorities. They're pulling their support and it will come to an end as a result.



It should never have been allowed in the first place. You've got the cast of The Last of the Summer Wine maintaining and operating a 55 year old nuclear bomber. A massively complex platform that the RAF struggled with in an era when the RAF was actually good at that sort of thing.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> That stupid fucking Vulcan business is a massive accident waiting to happen and should be stopped immediately.



Apparently the Vulcan did a flyby at 1000ft as a mark of respect yesterday. We were out for the day at West Wittering & it was flying around near us followed by a Spitfire, the noise from it was incredible!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i don't accept this.  Air displays can take place away from airfields and roads, over the sea where risk to the public is absolutely minimal.  Its not rocket science.
> 
> Legislation can deal with it easily.


Nope. Bournemouth Airshow largely takes place over the sea, but a Red Arrows aircraft still crashed on approach to the airport, which under only slightly different circumstances could have been the same. They still have to operate these vintage hunks of junk from somewhere, and you can't escape the fact that if it's high in the sky, it can still fall on a lot of places. You can't make it safe, you can only make it safer or kill it entirely. And if you kill it, on a risk calculation, you'll be left to muse over what will be next.



DownwardDog said:


> It should never have been allowed in the first place. You've got the cast of The Last of the Summer Wine maintaining and operating a 55 year old nuclear bomber. A massively complex platform that the RAF struggled with in an era when the RAF was actually good at that sort of thing.


I agree to a certain extent, and I think the civil risk balanced against its purely entertainment-based reward creates a very dubious proposition, but it was at least professionally supported (legally warranted?) by Marshalls and I think BAES, RR, etcetera. It's not entirely frivolous. I don't know what the state of affairs with Hunters and so on is.


----------



## Falcon (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> The point of no return would have been very early on, probably near the start of the loop. Past that, there was nothing to be done, good intentions or not.


Actually, the point of no return is at some point past the top of loop. Rolling out at that point converts a loop into a half Cuban Eight, from which there is plenty of height to recover.



5t3IIa said:


> I'm slightly _upset _that the pilot didn't steer 20 metres to the left and land in the field. I am aware this is unreasonable, but it was _extremely_ close to it.


He may have had no control. The stall speed (the speed below which the wings have no lift) increases with the square root of wing loading. At the bottom of the loop, he may have been aware he was too close to the ground, and pulled hard. Pulling hard increased wing loading. Increasing wing loading increased stall speed. If his stall speed increased above his airspeed, he wouldn't be able to steer.

Then again, it might have been control failure (electrical, mechanical, or hydraulic). Or engine failure. Or a bird strike. Or he might have blacked out at high 'G' force. Speculation is at best uninformed at this point.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i don't accept this.  Air displays can take place away from airfields and roads, over the sea where risk to the public is absolutely minimal.  Its not rocket science.
> 
> Legislation can deal with it easily.



Even at Eastbourne where the *display should be over the sea and visible to all the idiots still insist on flying over the town*. The Typhoon in particular does this causing massive noise disturbance that shakes the ground terrifying kids and animals.

Eastbourne too had a fatal crash a few years back with the pilot and plane crashing into the sea, neither were ever found.

Is this really what people want?:


----------



## spitfire (Aug 23, 2015)

Side on view of the bottom of the loop. Obviously contains distressing images.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-air-show-footage-fighter-jet-crash-a27-video


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Falcon said:


> Actually, the point of no return is at some point past the top of loop. Rolling out at that point converts a loop into a half Cuban Eight, from which there is plenty of height to recover.
> 
> 
> He may have had no control. The stall speed (the speed below which the wings have no lift) increases with the square root of wing loading. At the bottom of the loop, he may have been aware he was too close to the ground, and pulled hard. Pulling hard increased wing loading. Increasing wing loading increased stall speed. If his stall speed increased above his airspeed, he wouldn't be able to steer.
> ...


True, if you do realise that you need to abort. Otherwise, if you do persist, the outcome is baked in from early on.


----------



## Looby (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i don't accept this.  Air displays can take place away from airfields and roads, over the sea where risk to the public is absolutely minimal.  Its not rocket science.
> 
> Legislation can deal with it easily.


But our air displays are over the sea and a red arrow crashed on the way back to the air field. I still think it's too risky. I'd rather see our air show go back to the airport than have planes pissing around over a busy seaside town which is what happens here.

Actually I'd rather it didn't happen at all but it's not up to me.

ETA-I see I should have read to the end as these points have already been made. [emoji1]


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 23, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> I'm slightly _upset _that the pilot didn't steer 20 metres to the left and land in the field. I am aware this is unreasonable, but it was _extremely_ close to it.


I did wonder if he was trying to land it on the westbound section of the A27 after the lights. if they were red, which from the pictures it looks like they were, the road would of been quite empty, maybe some cars coming from the airport. If that was the case unfortunately it didn't work.


----------



## MrSki (Aug 23, 2015)

Death toll feared to be eleven.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 23, 2015)

Police now saying they think death total may go up to 11
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34034430


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Even at Eastbourne where the *display should be over the sea and visible to all the idiots still insist on flying over the town*. The Typhoon in particular does this causing massive noise disturbance that shakes the ground terrifying kids and animals.
> 
> Eastbourne too had a fatal crash a few years back with the pilot and plane crashing into the sea, neither were ever found.
> 
> Is this really what people want?:




In a future redcogs world the public desire to spend time watching military aircraft performing ludicrous dances in the sky will have withered away, replaced by other far more interesting and less polluting and less dangerous activities - folk music festivals and morris dancing probably..

That utube exerpt is terrifying, confirming my feelings about all things military.

Take the toys from the boys.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> In a future redcogs world the public desire to spend time watching military aircraft performing ludicrous dances in the sky will have withered away, replaced by other far more interesting and less polluting and less dangerous activities - folk music festivals and morris dancing probably..



Urrrgh, fucking hippies...

When's the next airshow? I haven't been to one for years but all this sanctimonious anti-militarism makes me want to attend just to spite the beardy types...


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

I'm sure more people have died through misadventure at music festivals than air shows in the UK over the past 20 years.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

Yeah but airshows are a somewhat superfluous event. Music festivals  more key to national culture. We could manage without airshows, but not music festivals.


----------



## starfish (Aug 23, 2015)

This is just horrendous. That stretch of road is busy at the best of times & is usually nose to tail traffic during the Air Show weekend.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

Music festivals can be dangerous.  i once attended a massive REM stadium concert (i know), and on the row behind us were two people openly having sexual relations.  i think they were a bit tanked.  A mini brawl broke out in the ensuing dispute about the wisdom of sexual cavorting in a public place.

i've never seen such behaviour at folk festivals, which are characterised by people who always behave responsibly, being kind and gentle towards one another, often holding hands and dancing around in circles whilst wearing very tasteful and flowing garments made of calico fabrics of the finest quality.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> In a future redcogs world the public desire to spend time watching military aircraft performing ludicrous dances in the sky will have withered away, replaced by other far more interesting and less polluting and less dangerous activities - folk music festivals and morris dancing probably..
> 
> That utube exerpt is terrifying, confirming my feelings about all things military.
> 
> Take the toys from the boys.





NoXion said:


> Urrrgh, fucking hippies...
> 
> When's the next airshow? I haven't been to one for years but all this sanctimonious anti-militarism makes me want to attend just to spite the beardy types...



I was going to say something about not understanding why people go to air shows. I don't like the military and I can't imagine ever wanting to watch anything involving the military. I wouldn't go to an air show if you paid me.

At the same time, we often get RAF jets flying over here and when they do I always get a feeling of being in some way uplifted. I also was once stood outside my house when two HUGE planes that I assumed were bombers from their size and appearance flew over. They were so low and they seemed to fly overhead in slow motion just above the trees and our roof. I  can still remember the feeling of something magnificent happening before my eyes.
Weird or what.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

Hopefully the insurance costs after this disaster will finally put an end to any more air shows over land.

Who is legally responsible for the damages here, the pilot, the organisers, the council or the county council?


----------



## NoXion (Aug 23, 2015)

Shirl said:


> I was going to say something about not understanding why people go to air shows. I don't like the military and I can't imagine ever wanting to watch anything involving the military. I wouldn't go to an air show if you paid me.
> 
> At the same time, we often get RAF jets flying over here and when they do I always get a feeling of being in some way uplifted. I also was once stood outside my house when two HUGE planes that I assumed were bombers from their size and appearance flew over. They were so low and they seemed to fly overhead in slow motion just above the trees and our roof. I  can still remember the feeling of something magnificent happening before my eyes.
> Weird or what.



I can appreciate a good piece of engineering, even if it's a weapon of war. There's a certain kind of beauty to human artifice that one doesn't find anywhere else in nature, as pretty as it can be.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

NoXion said:


> I can appreciate a good piece of engineering, even if it's a weapon of war. There's a certain kind of beauty to human artifice that one doesn't find anywhere else in nature, as pretty as it can be.



Each to their own but for some of us living beings including humans far surpass any "human artifice" even if it may be a good piece of engineering.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

NoXion said:


> I can appreciate a good piece of engineering, even if it's a weapon of war. There's a certain kind of beauty to human artifice that one doesn't find anywhere else in nature, as pretty as it can be.



As a kid i had an air pistol made by Webley.  It was a fantastic piece of engineering, with a pivoting barrel atop another spring containing cylinder which provided the energy to propelled the pellet in a forward direction once the trigger mechanism had been actuated.  Happiness is a warm gun as they used to say (until the hippies took over the world).


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

I hardly think its a stretch to call an airshow of military aircraft militaristic. Of course it bloody is. If you like going to look at big shiny death machines performing though it doesn't mean you support the bombing of dresden or want to join the SAS. All the fucking tax money wasted on the bastard things, well seeing them prat about at silverstone or some airfield is all the value you'll ever get back from them.


----------



## Ax^ (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i've never seen such behaviour at folk festivals, which are characterised by people who always behave responsibly, being kind and gentle towards one another, often holding hands and dancing around in circles whilst wearing very tasteful and flowing garments made of calico fabrics of the finest quality.













when the next air show at Farnborough


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

"All together with the floral dance" - the antidote to the military industrial complex.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Yeah but airshows are a somewhat superfluous event. Music festivals  more key to national culture. We could manage without airshows, but not music festivals.


In your opinion. I've been at even small festivals where people have OD'd and died, so clearly festivals equal drug abuse which society can do without, so let's get rid of those. Of course this is Mary Whitehouse grade nonsense but so are the numpties calling for total bans of airshows before the dust even settles.

Conversely airshows used to be significant in showcasing engineering and inspiring young people to get involved in the aeronautical industry, the British success of which produced a load of jobs, technical skills and a significant contribution to the economy. Nowadays it's greatly diminished in favour of the service industry and are we any better for it? Mmmhmm.

I think it's a dubious arrangement any time there's a significant risk to non-participants, but you have to define what significant risk means. Is it one incident in 50 years, and is the detail of one arrangement enough to damn them all? Probably not on either count.

There's a risk to non-participants from all aviation, but it's generally accepted in the name of convenience and utility. Even that's not simple though. If a commercial aircraft crashes into someone's car then does the fact it was such a venture of utility make it better than one that was put on purely for entertainment? What about the fact it was for profit?

No simple answers here, but the people calling for immediate bans without any domain knowledge strike me as the kind of people that shouldn't ever be taken seriously.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 23, 2015)

Apparently the death toll may well be 11 now rather than the 7 they thought earlier.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> In your opinion. I've been at even small festivals where people have OD'd and died, so clearly festivals equal drug abuse which society can do without, so let's get rid of those. Of course this is Mary Whitehouse grade nonsense but so are the numpties calling for total bans of airshows before the dust even settles.
> 
> Conversely airshows used to be significant in showcasing engineering and inspiring young people to get involved in the aeronautical industry, the British success of which produced a load of jobs, technical skills and a significant contribution to the economy. Nowadays it's greatly diminished in favour of the service industry and are we any better for it? Mmmhmm.
> 
> ...




These deaths were completely avoidable and the event in itself plays a non-crucial role in people's lives. Clubs, pubs, music concerts and festivals are intrinsic parts of British life. People taking risks with their own lives with drugs and alcohol not the same as being randomly burnt to death in your car when driving home.  Who gives a shit if people aren't allowed to fly loop-the-loops over towns and villages anymore though? Utterly pointless deaths caused yesterday. Have airshows where planes do fly-bys and do low risk things by any means, but what the fuck is a plane doing pulling that kind of dodgy manoeuvre anywhere near where people are?


----------



## Ax^ (Aug 23, 2015)

ban rallying whilst we are at it


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 23, 2015)

Ax^ said:


> ban rallying whilst we are at it


84 people died at Le Mans in 1955, maybe the whole of motor sport should be banned according to some people here.......


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 23, 2015)

S☼I said:


> This is harsh, IMO. 'Really tasteless', come on now.



A smiley face for news of a poster's mum not being dead is fine with me tbh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 23, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


>




I'm not a fighter pilot but I know you always lose height between the start and finish point of a loop like that, so you have to start the manuevure at a decent altitude or something like this happens.


----------



## Looby (Aug 23, 2015)

Someone on fb has just shared a post from my local paper celebrating the 'beautiful' Vulcan. All the comments are 'oh you will be missed' and 'can't believe it's the last time we'll see you' What the fuck, I really don't get it. [emoji53]


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 84 people died at Le Mans in 1955, maybe the whole of motor sport should be banned according to some people here.......





Ax^ said:


> ban rallying whilst we are at it



Attendees to these event are aware of the risks.

No one attending this air show died.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 84 people died at Le Mans in 1955, maybe the whole of motor sport should be banned according to some people here.......


And people continue to buy Mercedes Benz vehicles


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> These deaths were completely avoidable and the event in itself plays a non-crucial role in people's lives. Clubs, pubs, music concerts and festivals are intrinsic parts of British life. People taking risks with their own lives with drugs and alcohol not the same as being randomly burnt to death in your car when driving home.  Who gives a shit if people aren't allowed to fly loop-the-loops over towns and villages anymore though? Utterly pointless deaths caused yesterday. Have airshows where planes do fly-bys and do low risk things by any means, but what the fuck is a plane doing pulling that kind of dodgy manoeuvre anywhere near where people are?


Oh? What else will the Ministry of Favelado deem pointless and non-crucial?

Driving a car, for instance, is avoidable and non-crucial. And in doing so, no matter how hard you try, you might well kill someone who has no say in the matter and hasn't even opted in to the same activity themselves. The only remedy is Luddism but even that won't protect you.

And so it is with everything. Someone might get crushed to death at a festival, and is that more acceptable because they were a participant? Shall we ban fireworks, for instance? What's your equation for this?

As much as you might want them, there are no clear black and white delineations when considering risk, utility, social value, opt-in and all the rest.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

Millions of people would not miss air shows if they were banned completely, and i'd be amongst them.  But it is obvious that simple legislative intervention could be designed to make airshows far safer than they currently appear to be, and that is probably the preferred option, simply because significant numbers of petrol heads exist and i suppose they have to be catered for, even if their forms of 'entertainment' are dubious.

Generally speaking, the military have too much influence over these matters.  In addition to these ridiculous cockwaving airshows, they continue to (controversially) practice low level flying in some areas of population, which, if we occupied a sane world, should also become subject to legislative control.

The problem is that the sane world remains some way off, and we continue to live in a complete asylum, one which is at least partly controlled by militaristic gits, many of whom know little of the value of human well being and decency, and much about the ability to blow us all to atoms when their economic interests are threatened.

It is surely correct that the main guiding principle in all these issues should be 'taking the toys from the boys'.


----------



## pesh (Aug 23, 2015)

NoXion said:


> Urrrgh, fucking hippies...
> 
> When's the next airshow? I haven't been to one for years but all this sanctimonious anti-militarism makes me want to attend just to spite the beardy types...


i'm not bothered about seeing them banned, but if they are going to continue i'd rather they planned them so if the pilot does fuck up his loop the loop the flaming wreckage lands on the spectators rather than a bunch of locals on their way to the shops.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> It is surely correct that the main guiding principle in all these issues should be 'taking the toys from the boys'.


No, that's your personal, irrelevant contempt for the military dressed up as a public safety issue.


----------



## mather (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> No, that's your personal, irrelevant contempt for the military dressed up as a public safety issue.



What is wrong with having contempt for the military? 

A healthy attitude if there ever was one and it certainly beats US style hero worship for the military (which seems to be on the increase in Britain) or geeky drooling over machines of war as the "beauty to human artifice". Try telling the victims of these technological terrors that they are beautiful.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

The military often play a contemptuous role mauvais.  How sad that you fail to recognise the self evident.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Oh? What else will the Ministry of Favelado deem pointless and non-crucial?
> 
> Driving a car, for instance, is avoidable and non-crucial. And in doing so, no matter how hard you try, you might well kill someone who has no say in the matter and hasn't even opted in to the same activity themselves. The only remedy is Luddism but even that won't protect you.
> 
> ...



You don't need to be a ministry to have basic common sense.

Driving cars is an intrisic part of life for the majority of the adult population. So it gets to stay.
Music festivals need to be safe and regulated, but again music is so ingrained in cultural life that we collectively accept the risks they may present. Kids aren't allowed to buy fireworks but adults are, so they choose the risk.

Loop-the-loops over populated areas - utterly pointless so get rid. What the FUCK was a plane doing pulling this kind of stunt anywhere near people?
You can have airshows, but do your daft stunts over the Channel. Near towns, do normal flights. It's not a radical proposal is it? Airshows are of virtually zero cultural value and zero usefulness and of interest to a minority of the population, unlike cars and music.

Complicate the argument all you like but these deaths were utterly unnecessary and have nothing to do with everyday activities that most people participate in.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 23, 2015)

mather said:


> What is wrong with having contempt for the military?
> 
> A healthy attitude if there ever was one and it certainly beats US style hero worship for the military (which seems to be on the increase in Britain) or geeky drooling over machines of war as the "beauty to human artifice". Try telling the victims of these technological terrors that they are beautiful.



Sure, just as soon as I've asked the trainspotters to do the same thing for the victims of the Hatfield rail crash.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 23, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sh-age-of-plane-not-be-to-blame-expert-claims

Expert bloke said: “Airshows are the biggest spectator sport in this country – more people go live to airshows than go to football." 

So not exactly a minority interest as some would make out.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> The military often play a contemptuous role mauvais.  How sad that you fail to recognise the self evident.


What I recognise is your preexisting political rhetoric dressed up as concern for the public, which is more a little cheap given the circumstances. It's also apparently clueless; for instance your implication that low level military flying (no apparent UK public safety issue) is somehow unaddressed by legislation.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

Airshows are popular.  Safer airshows, only over the oceans to minimise the risks to the public, wouldn't make them less popular.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 23, 2015)

spitfire said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sh-age-of-plane-not-be-to-blame-expert-claims
> 
> Expert bloke said: “Airshows are the biggest spectator sport in this country – more people go live to airshows than go to football."
> 
> So not exactly a minority interest as some would make out.


Is that true? There must be far more footy matches than air shows


----------



## spitfire (Aug 23, 2015)

Expert said it so it must be true.

Serious answer, an awful lot of people can fit in a field/seafront. I just googled it and found this: 

http://www.sunderlandlive.co.uk/news/record-numbers-attend-sunderland-international-airshow-

The company, who organise the event on behalf of Sunderland City Council, have announced the Airshow’s highest attendance figure to date with an estimated 950,000 people visiting the Sunderland seafront to witness the 26th year of the landmark event.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

I did read somewhere that it's the second most popular UK event after football, which seemed unlikely at first, but nationally there are a lot each year.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 23, 2015)

One of the biggest airshows, Farnborough (which is no where near the sea btw), attracted 109,000 visitors for the first five days, and 100,000 for the weekend in 2012. These events are VERY popular.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 23, 2015)

mather said:


> What is wrong with having contempt for the military?
> 
> A healthy attitude if there ever was one and it certainly beats US style hero worship for the military (which seems to be on the increase in Britain) or geeky drooling over machines of war as the "beauty to human artifice". Try telling the victims of these technological terrors that they are beautiful.


I agree with you regarding the military. I don't drool over machines of war but I am none the less overwhelmed sometimes by military planes flying overhead. I can't explain that but it is a fact.
I also feel the same when I see ships. Even shitty cruise liners


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

spitfire said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sh-age-of-plane-not-be-to-blame-expert-claims
> 
> Expert bloke said: “Airshows are the biggest spectator sport in this country – more people go live to airshows than go to football."
> 
> So not exactly a minority interest as some would make out.



Oh get serious. The "biggest spectator sport in the country".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 23, 2015)

spitfire said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sh-age-of-plane-not-be-to-blame-expert-claims
> 
> Expert bloke said: “Airshows are the biggest spectator sport in this country – more people go live to airshows than go to football."
> 
> So not exactly a minority interest as some would make out.



Not a sport though is it?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> One of the biggest airshows, Farnborough (which is no where near the sea btw), attracted 109,000 visitors for the first five days, and 100,000 for the weekend in 2012. These events are VERY popular.




So what. Old Trafford gets 76,000 every fortnight and it's just one stadium. The idea that airshows are a big deal is bollocks. Add up total visits to airshows and compare them with total visits to football games over a year and let's see if the ratio is about 1-100 or 1-1000.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

football attendance has been in decline since the middle classes ruined it with artisan pies, craft beers and galling ticket prices. Plus the police who go to the football are the psychotic ones who'll break your arm for no reason.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

It is perfectly possible to hold more than one idea in ones mind simultaneously mauvais (although you may have some difficulty in this area).

For example, my contempt for the military hierarches is as genuine as my concern for public safety.

It is entirely legitimate and reasonable to expect that public airshows are effectively and safely organised.  If the military get in the way of this basic requirement (because of their gung ho attitudes), then they should be subject to legislative intervention.  Basic stuff really.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> So what. Old Trafford gets 76,000 every fortnight and it's just one stadium. The idea that airshows are a big deal is bollocks. Add up total visits to airshows and compare them with total visits to football games over a year and let's see if the ratio is about 1-100 or 1-1000.


Google "airshow" and "most popular". In the US it's apparently third after horses and baseball, before motorsport and American football.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> It is perfectly possible to hold more than one idea in ones mind simultaneously mauvais (although you may have some difficulty in this area).


I'm sure it is. Just don't expect to link your two thoughts into a narrative with no basis in fact and not be called on it.

Personally I have no great love for the military, or the defence industry. If I had less than contempt for the latter, I would very likely be working in it, which in my life I've deliberately avoided several times at personal expense. I think a total contempt for the military is simplistic and  politically naive, but whatever. Regardless I don't try and apply my opinion on the matter to somewhere it doesn't really belong. Plus it would help if you had some domain knowledge on the issue.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

i think i'll reserve the right to comment on any matter of public concern without either reference to you, or having any expertise in any particular "domain" mauvais.  

If that's OK?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i think i'll reserve the right to comment on any matter of public concern without either reference to you, or having any expertise in any particular "domain" mauvais.
> 
> If that's OK?


Of course. And I'll reserve the right - is there any paperwork? - to call you an idiot any time you spout out idiocy.


----------



## pesh (Aug 23, 2015)

spitfire said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...sh-age-of-plane-not-be-to-blame-expert-claims
> 
> Expert bloke said: “Airshows are the biggest spectator sport in this country – more people go live to airshows than go to football."
> 
> So not exactly a minority interest as some would make out.


He goes on to say


> “Those people died in an event which is equivalent to being struck by lightning. The pilot wasn’t aiming at the road and there’s a lot of territory where the road isn’t.”


He doesn't sound very experty


----------



## spitfire (Aug 23, 2015)

pesh said:


> He goes on to say
> 
> He doesn't sound very experty



They probably found him in the pub.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 23, 2015)

Or maybe not.

http://www.theguardian.com/profile/davidlearmount


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

spitfire said:


> Side on view of the bottom of the loop. Obviously contains distressing images.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-air-show-footage-fighter-jet-crash-a27-video



From that footage he finishes the loop way too close to the ground then the plane stalls with no room to corect it.


----------



## mather (Aug 23, 2015)

Shirl said:


> I agree with you regarding the military. I don't drool over machines of war but I am none the less overwhelmed sometimes by military planes flying overhead. I can't explain that but it is a fact.
> I also feel the same when I see ships. Even shitty cruise liners



I'm just not into being into the military, it is as simple as that. I like feats of non-military engineering be it the ISS, the Hoover dam or the huge oil tankers and cruise liners that I use to see as a kid going across the Straights of Gibraltar. But the whole 'cool' factor around military hardware is promoted heavily to keep public opinion behind the military and the wars it wages and that alone is enough to put me off.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2015)

Favelado said:


> So what. Old Trafford gets 76,000 every fortnight and it's just one stadium. The idea that airshows are a big deal is bollocks. Add up total visits to airshows and compare them with total visits to football games over a year and let's see if the ratio is about 1-100 or 1-1000.



Yeah, but it's largely the same 76,000 every fortnight. Airshows might be in with a chance if the count is of discrete individuals, maybe.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> From that footage he finishes the loop way too close to the ground then the plane stalls with no room to corect it.



I agree.


----------



## pesh (Aug 23, 2015)

Sky News rentagob... Pub sounds like a safe bet.


----------



## Shirl (Aug 23, 2015)

mather said:


> I'm just not into being into the military, it is as simple as that. I like feats of non-military engineering be it the ISS, the Hoover dam or the huge oil tankers and cruise liners that I use to see as a kid going across the Straights of Gibraltar. But the whole 'cool' factor around military hardware is promoted heavily to keep public opinion behind the military and the wars it wages and that alone is enough to put me off.


I totally get that. I have no idea why I get so moved by planes and ships. I cried when I saw Concord so it's not really military that gets me. Just something about big powerful machines and even if they are built for the military, that's not enough to put me off.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Aug 23, 2015)

Shirl said:


> I totally get that. I have no idea why I get so moved by planes and ships. I cried when I saw Concord so it's not really military that gets me. Just something about big powerful machines and even if they are built for the military, that's not enough to put me off.



I'm exactly the same way, and like you struggle to articulate exactly _"why?"_


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Learmount is a mixed bag; he's the regular go to guy for the media, I think because he's the editor of Flight mag, but if you look up opinion on PPRuNe and the like then he gets a lot of flack for his commentary. The trouble is you don't know what is his own doing and what is the result of manglement by poor journalism. From that alone you get a load of low grade shit about how trained pilots typically would have wanted to remain above the ground and not on fire.

The key part of that article was an apparently informed comment that the pilot began the loop too low.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

The problem with being too low is the natural (only?) reaction is to pull back on the yoke to create lift. Unfortunately that's the exact opposite of what to do when a plane stalls. You really don't want to stall just above ground level. It's a foregone conclusion.

Edit: you can also try to increase air speed as well as decrease lift.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> From that footage he finishes the loop way too close to the ground then the plane stalls with no room to corect it.



BBC South East have just shown another video clip, which clearly shows the plane dipping. It certainly looks like he'd have carried out the loop successfully if it hadn't be for this last minute dip. Another photo shows a vapour coming from the right engine, like a fuel leak.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 23, 2015)

As an inexpert viewer it seemed to me he began the loop too low and then on the downward section just ran out of sky, but for all we know it could have been within performance limits and perhaps there was some fault with the aircraft.

Anyhow, I expect the AAIB will have something to say and perhaps air-show practice will be re investigated to see if the flight complied, and if regulations need tightening up.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> The problem with being too low is the natural (only?) reaction is to pull back on the yoke to create lift. Unfortunately that's the exact opposite of what to do when a plane stalls. You really don't want to stall just above ground level. It's a foregone conclusion.


I haven't seen any evidence that it was a stall, which has a specific definition. Lack of sufficient speed to generate sufficient lift for the circumstances isn't inherently a stall any more than a controlled descent and landing is.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> BBC South East have just shown another video clip, which clearly shows the plane dipping. It certainly looks like he'd have carried out the loop successfully if it hadn't be for this last minute dip. Another photo shows a vapour coming from the right engine, like a fuel leak.



It's just the last few seconds where he levels out but then the plane continues going downwards (defying it's aerodynamics) that makes me think it has stalled. Of course he may have lost air speed because of mechanical failure which would help create stall conditions.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that it was a stall, which has a specific definition. Lack of sufficient speed to generate sufficient lift for the circumstances isn't inherently a stall any more than a controlled descent and landing is.



When a plane stops flying is a stall. As in it can't produce lift so the laws of gravity get to work.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2015)

I'm no expert, but watching that latest video, you can clearly see the plane behave oddly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

I'm no expert either.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> When a plane stops flying is a stall.


No, on multiple counts.

A stall is a specific aerodynamic condition.

What you've just described in the previous post is the same as experienced in a safe descent and go-around.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> No, on multiple counts.
> 
> A stall is a specific aerodynamic condition.
> 
> What you've just described in the previous post is the same as experienced in a safe descent and go-around.



I edited my post to add a bit more info.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 23, 2015)




----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Two ways out of a stall is to decrease the angle of attack or increase air speed. I know what a fucking stall is mauvais


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

He'll point out that it depends on the type of stall....


----------



## redcogs (Aug 23, 2015)

That's the trouble with this thread (apparently)  - too full of people commenting about a matter of public concern when they have little or no "domain" experience..

If only the matter had been left to those with the appropriate "domain " knowledge these foolish and inaccurate blunders wouldn't have arisen.

 Of course, it would result in a short, tiresome, and utterly elitist thread, but hey ho.  Some people enjoy short tiresome and elitist


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I edited my post to add a bit more info.


Indeed, but it's still not a stall.

There's no stall involved in a successful loop. This would apparently have been a successful loop with another N feet of vertical space to play with, and until it was interrupted by colliding with the ground, was following the pattern of one (on the evidence I've seen anyway). This as opposed to say being in an aerodynamic spin which might not be recoverable even with a large amount of time and space.

Obvious stuff, but sufficient forward speed makes a certain amount of lift available, and that lift can be used to counter descent. If you don't have (and can't generate) enough speed to produce enough lift to counter your rate of descent in the physical space available, you crash. No stall is required.


----------



## NoXion (Aug 23, 2015)

Deleted upon request.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Indeed, but it's still not a stall.
> 
> There's no stall involved in a successful loop. This would apparently have been a successful loop with another N feet of vertical space to play with, and until it was interrupted by colliding with the ground, was following the pattern of one (on the evidence I've seen anyway). This as opposed to say being in an aerodynamic spin which might not be recoverable even with a large amount of time and space.
> 
> Obvious stuff, but sufficient forward speed makes a certain amount of lift available, and that lift can be used to counter descent. If you don't have (and can't generate) enough speed to produce enough lift to counter your rate of descent in the physical space available, you crash. No stall is required.



Okay fair point.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

But the stall could still occur after completing the loop when he realises he's too close to the ground and doesn't have the speed available when he increased his angle of attack was my point. If he had a bird strike or engine failure he could have been in that predicament.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> But the stall could still occur after completing the loop when he realises he's too close to the ground and doesn't have the speed available when he increased his angle of attack was my point. If he had a bird strike he could have been in that predicament.


It's possible, but it wouldn't really matter; the point I've been making for a while is that the impact was baked-in a long way back; as Falcon pointed out, with knowledge of the available envelope being wrong, it could be have been aborted at the top of the loop, but beyond that point, in the absence of more power becoming available, you're committed to where you're going.

FWIW there's a few videos of the Eurofighter experiencing a near miss (and not in the carefully planned sense) at Fairford in 2005:





I didn't want to use that as an example because the EF aerodynamics are deeply complex and it has manoeuvrability beyond traditional flight dynamics, often involving or very close to stall itself. Nonetheless it doesn't require detailed physics to tell you that if you haven't got the means to escape your trajectory in the space available then you're going to hit, just like if you can't brake hard and fast enough in a car.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

The only reason I mentioned a stall is that in the Guardian video he completes the loop and appears to remain level for a second and then the plane drops. The crash doesn't look like part of the trajectory of the loop, apart from him clearly completing the manoeuvre too close to the ground.


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 23, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> BBC South East have just shown another video clip, which clearly shows the plane dipping. It certainly looks like he'd have carried out the loop successfully if it hadn't be for this last minute dip. Another photo shows a vapour coming from the right engine, like a fuel leak.


  It only has the one engine.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

It looks normal to me but you would have to know how much thrust was expected to be available. An old prop plane doing it with hardly any power on tap would look a bit different to a modern jet that could power out more easily with more of a flared flourish (the extreme example being the EF videos). I don't expect the pilot's actual input would have changed very much - all he could do was hang on and hope for a near miss.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Yeah fair point on jets having easily enough power available.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 23, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> It only has the one engine.



Local News ain't what it used to be.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

What could have changed to mean he ended up too close to the ground? I assume he's performed this manoeuvre previously beginning from the same altitude with the same air speed using the same angle of attack.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 23, 2015)

Maybe he blacked out. There can't be many 50+ year olds who pilot fighter jets in high-g manoeuvers.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Are these manoeuvres done manually rather than button presses?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

I know it's a 50+ yr old plane, but their avionics can be modernised.


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I know it's a 50+ yr old plane, but their avionics can be modernised.


varying a type is massively expensive


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

gosub said:


> varying a type is massively expensive



Yeah I was just mitigating against smart Alecs.


----------



## gawkrodger (Aug 23, 2015)

As planes (specifically fighter planes - normally less attraction to watch a bunch of glorified logistics planes buzzing about) become increasingly militarily outdated and irrelevant, will the airshows reduce?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

gawkrodger said:


> As planes (specifically fighter planes - normally less attraction to watch a bunch of glorified logistics planes buzzing about) become increasingly militarily outdated and irrelevant, will the airshows reduce?



If they stopped making fighter jets tomorrow, in another 60 years it seems.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

It will have been manually flown. I'd be surprised if any manned display flight of any age aircraft is automated.

Not much point speculating on the root cause of the crash - so many possible factors. Historically, error of judgement has been the most common primary factor, but we don't know. The AAIB investigation - and indeed the pilot if he survives - may mean we find out, but we may never conclusively know.

Edit: G forces are a possible factor but I believe an inside loop like this isn't actually that demanding. Could be wrong.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> If they stopped making fighter jets tomorrow, in another 60 years it seems.


Probably a lot longer tbf. The wing walking lot are using a type from 1934. There are 60 year old aircraft in active military service.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> It's possible, but it wouldn't really matter; the point I've been making for a while is that the impact was baked-in a long way back; as Falcon pointed out, with knowledge of the available envelope being wrong, it could be have been aborted at the top of the loop, but beyond that point, in the absence of more power becoming available, you're committed to where you're going.
> 
> FWIW there's a few videos of the Eurofighter experiencing a near miss (and not in the carefully planned sense) at Fairford in 2005:
> 
> ...




Unfortunately I have to live under that plane doing it's stuff at Eastbourne every year. It's a truly terrifying killing machine capable of standing almost still vertically under full power scaring the hell out of small kids and pets. An evil piece of machinery if there ever was one, my hatred for all things military increases every time I see and hear it.

Why do we need such a terrible killing machine?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Unfortunately I have to live under that plane doing it's stuff at Eastbourne every year. It's a truly terrifying killing machine capable of standing almost still vertically under full power scaring the hell out of small kids and pets. An evil piece of machinery if there ever was one, my hatred for all things military increases every time I see and hear it.
> 
> Why do we need such a terrible killing machine?


How many people do you believe the terrifying killing machine has actually killed, out of interest? I can think of a few crew but I don't suppose that's what you mean.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> How many people do you believe the terrifying killing machine has actually killed, out of interest? I can think of a few crew but I don't suppose that's what you mean.



At least eleven in the last two days?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> At least eleven in the last two days?


He's on about the Eurofighter, which on the spectrum of practical application - that goes from rifles to the nuclear deterrent - is somewhere near the latter.

If you're forced to work in defence but don't want to have your efforts actually kill anyone (or you just really hate the taxpayer and treasury) then very expensive military aeroplanes are probably your best bet.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> If you're forced to work in defence but don't want to have your efforts actually kill anyone (or you just really hate the taxpayer and treasury) then very expensive military aeroplanes are probably your best bet.



(((People forced to make killing machines under duress)))


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

You'd be surprised!


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 84 people died at Le Mans in 1955, maybe the whole of motor sport should be banned according to some people here.......



I don't mind people killing themselves when fully consenting to the risks.

Though I don't know what kind of signs they had up at the entrance to the A27 tbf.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 23, 2015)

The BBC have just b'cast some new footage...shockingly close.


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> How many people do you believe the terrifying killing machine has actually killed, out of interest? I can think of a few crew but I don't suppose that's what you mean.



*91 strikes *in Operation Elamy in Libya alone. 

No one killed of course, just for the laughs...

How brainwashed can you be.


----------



## gosub (Aug 23, 2015)

8ball said:


> I don't mind people killing themselves when fully consenting to the risks.
> 
> Though I don't know what kind of signs they had up at the entrance to the A27 tbf.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> *91 strikes *in Operation Elamy in Libya alone.
> 
> No one killed of course, just for the laughs...
> 
> How brainwashed can you be.



People compartmentalise things.

I'm having a v similar conversation with someone on Fb right now - I like planes but can't quite manage to forget that these machines are weapons first and foremost.

Mauvais may well have a point on the raw numbers of deaths created by a career in avionics vs. a career in, say, missile tech, mind.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> *91 strikes *in Operation Elamy in Libya alone.
> 
> No one killed of course, just for the laughs...
> 
> How brainwashed can you be.


Great work Eurofighter. That's almost one actual thing achieved per five aircraft produced.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 23, 2015)

gawkrodger said:


> As planes (specifically fighter planes - normally less attraction to watch a bunch of glorified logistics planes buzzing about) become increasingly militarily outdated and irrelevant, will the airshows reduce?



You obviously haven't seen the Chinook dancing around the sky. Yes, I know it's a helo.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 23, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Why do we need such a terrible killing machine?



Because the world is a nasty place and there are some very nasty people out there. However bad you think Cameron et al are, there are vastly worse people out there.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Quartz said:


> You obviously haven't seen the Chinook dancing around the sky. Yes, I know it's a helo.


Apropos of very little, the main UK display pilot for the Chinook was the one that was piloting the police helicopter that crashed onto the Clutha bar in Glasgow. Sometimes it's an airshow, sometimes it ain't.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> You'd be surprised!



"Forced" as in "keep making the bombs or the kids go to a state school", maybe...


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 23, 2015)

Quartz said:


> You obviously haven't seen the Chinook dancing around the sky. Yes, I know it's a helo.


good for falling out of the sky and killing its politico passengers


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

8ball said:


> "Forced" as in "keep making the bombs or the kids go to a state school", maybe...


I'm from a town where the biggest employer by far is a defence aircraft manufacturer. If you want a job in the region then you may have limited choice. I know that many are at best ambivalent towards the aims of the place.

I also personally worked for an arm of what you would know as a large German civil engineering company, which was then bought out by a UK defence company. Not everyone there would have opted in to that given the original choice, but sometimes you're stuck with what you're served for a while.

It's easy to pontificate but when you're thrown into this yourself, it's not necessarily so simple. For instance you could eschew that job to go and work in automotive engineering only to find yourself producing something that overall quantifiably kills a lot more people.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 23, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Airshows are popular.  Safer airshows, only over the oceans to minimise the risks to the public, wouldn't make them less popular.



Except for with all those people who live nowhere near the fucking sea. Should they drive there and increase the risk to themselves and others? I bet more people die driving to air shows than are killed by air shows.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

8ball said:


> People compartmentalise things.
> 
> I'm having a v similar conversation with someone on Fb right now - I like planes but can't quite manage to forget that these machines are weapons first and foremost.
> 
> Mauvais may well have a point on the raw numbers of deaths created by a career in avionics vs. a career in, say, missile tech, mind.



Or vs how many fatalities a ground invasion might produce.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Except for with all those people who live nowhere near the fucking sea. Should they drive there and increase the risk to themselves and others? I bet more people die driving to air shows than are killed by air shows.



Driving past one on this occasion.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> I'm from a town where by the biggest employer by far is a defence aircraft manufacturer. If you want a job in the region then you may have limited choice. I know that many are at best ambivalent towards the aims of the place.
> 
> I also personally worked for an arm of what you would know as a large German civil engineering company, which was then bought out by a UK defence company. Not everyone there would have opted in to that given the original choice, but sometimes you're stuck with what you're served for a while.
> 
> It's easy to pontificate but when you're thrown into this yourself, it's not necessarily so simple. For instance you could eschew that job to go and work in automotive engineering only to find yourself producing something that overall quantifiably kills a lot more people.


----------



## westcoast1 (Aug 23, 2015)

Did the pilot survive this? From explosion only thing I can think is he ejected just before the impact?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

8ball said:


>


I thought it might be that. Much of the North West would be an even better fit for that particular work.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 23, 2015)

westcoast1 said:


> Did the pilot survive this? From explosion only thing I can think is he ejected just before the impact?



Not caught on camera if he did. And is apparently fighting for his life.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 23, 2015)

He was dragged from the wreckage. Read the thread/links!


----------



## westcoast1 (Aug 23, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He was dragged from the wreckage. Read the thread/links!


Shit! Sorry didn't go through all thread to be fair.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> He was dragged from the wreckage. Read the thread/links!



That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't eject.  Though I read in one place tha the cockpit wassome distance from most of the wreckage.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 23, 2015)

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.


----------



## alfajobrob (Aug 23, 2015)

Rockets....they have actual rockets in the seats...apparently it compresses your spine if you have to eject.

Anyway.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 23, 2015)

mauvais said:


> 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 (Aug 23, 2015)

Fireworks contain explosives.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 23, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Aug 23, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 23, 2015)

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 (Aug 23, 2015)

likesfish said:


> 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 (Aug 23, 2015)

8ball said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

8ball said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

likesfish said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

The seated areas? Of what?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

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


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2015)

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


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 24, 2015)

Geri said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Geri said:


> The seated areas? Of what?



Apparently people were sat on the side of the road.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2015)

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


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> 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.....


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> display minima is 500ft.....


I beg your pardon?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> display minima is 500ft.....


Telegraph reporting 'former air-show promoter' as saying...


> _"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._
> 
> ...


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

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.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

Sorry brogdale, i noticed this also.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> From the Telegraph:
> 
> A former airshow promoter who has worked with the Red Arrows and helped organise airshows around Britain told the Mirror:
> /snip
> ...



No it isn't. The case for Shoreham to have a review as to its suitability definitely is though.


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I beg your pardon?


when i was at Farnborough, there used to be a legal minimum display height.  Just checked, is not part of current CAA guidance.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> The case for legislation to force all future airshows to only display over oceans is compelling.



So almost certainly death for the pilot if he has to attempt an emergency landing on water.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> The case for legislation to force all future airshows to only display over oceans is compelling.


be good for ireland i suppose, as much of the island abuts an ocean and most of britain doesn't.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> when i was at Farnborough, there used to be a legal minimum display height.  Just checked, is not part of current CAA guidance.


It would have been a local restriction, on the basis of a pretty thorough review of the specific circumstances around that particular location.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

(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)


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

People suggest you are an Irritant Pickers.  i don't believe em.

Of course i should have better explained.  Will 'over the sea' do?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Telegraph reporting 'former air-show promoter' as saying...
> ​


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 (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> 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.


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 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> People suggest you are an Irritant Pickers.  i don't believe em.
> 
> Of course i should have better explained.  Will 'over the sea' do?


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.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> So almost certainly death for the pilot if he has to attempt an emergency landing on water.



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 (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> 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.


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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> 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?


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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> If one of them had malfunctioned it would of ploughed into a school.


A school full of surprisingly powerful magnets?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> 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?




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 (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> A school full of surprisingly powerful magnets?



I knew that wasn't quite right, crashed then


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> 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.



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 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Well yes. But when stunts go wrong it is the pilot who is most at risk. Having it over the sea increases that risk.


So its the life of one pilot v the lives of maybe twenty members of the public?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Difficult to do this anywhere, I'd have thought.



Think about it; if that were the case there'd be no profitable/break-even events anywhere.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> 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.


Are you familiar with the geography?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> 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.



But it hit a busy main road.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> So its the life of one pilot v the lives of maybe twenty members of the public?



It isn't one pilot is it? How many pilots die vs members of the public over all?


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

Barking_Mad said:


> But it hit a busy main road.


By which there were groups of people watching/filming.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Think about it; if that were the case there'd be no profitable/break-even events anywhere.


Nope. Go to Bournemouth and watch the show - aside from VIP, it's free. The money comes from other streams like advertising, tourism etc. Now obviously that's a different model to the RAFA thing at Shoreham, but just as people want to go to a football stadium and watch it live in person rather than a second class view on a big screen, people pay to be at the heart of it.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> It isn't one pilot is it? How many pilots die vs members of the public over all?


The stunt pilots decide to accept the risk as part of their contract; members of the public going about their daily lives don't.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> 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.



But in the interests of accuracy don't we also need to take into account the physics of a loop the loop, which could mean that a catastrophe involving public fatalities might occur depending upon the exit point from the loop (in the event of some unidentifiable failure) regardless of the aircrafts immediate proximity to the assembled hoards?

Displaying over large bodies of water (the seas surrounding UK shores ;-) ) at a suitable distance from crowds would minimise the risk to both public and property.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Nope. Go to Bournemouth and watch the show - aside from VIP, it's free. The money comes from other streams like advertising, tourism etc. Now obviously that's a different model to the RAFA thing at Shoreham, but just as people want to go to a football stadium and watch it live in person rather than a second class view on a big screen, people pay to be at the heart of it.


So they could be held 'over the sea', then?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> So they could be held 'over the sea', then?


Do you even read my posts?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Are you familiar with the geography?


 


Barking_Mad said:


> But it hit a busy main road.


I'm not saying that what happened was right, or that we shouldn't have concerns about it.

But it seems silly to me to be using hyperbolic arguments about something that didn't actually happen.

And I'm certainly not making a case for total complacency.

The Ramstein crash in the 80s was an example of what we'd now regard as reckless planning - planes were doing head-on flying manoeuvres in a situation where, when something went wrong, it was almost inevitable that a plane would then crash into a dense crowd.

Those manoeuvres don't happen any more.

It may be that we move from a post-Ramstein regime into a post-Shoreham one, where flight rules are further restricted to minimise the risk of a plane crashing onto a road, though that may well be much more difficult - even impossible - to organise.

But it seems to me to be silly to be saying "but, but, but, this might happen..." when changes have already been in place to ensure that the risk of such things happening is already minimised. If we're going to have a debate about airshow safety, it might be more useful/constructive/interesting if we constrain ourselves to the facts, rather than hyperbole about things that have already been addressed. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about addressing problems that still remain, or be complacent about them.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Nope. Go to Bournemouth and watch the show - aside from VIP, it's free. The money comes from other streams like advertising, tourism etc. Now obviously that's a different model to the RAFA thing at Shoreham, but just as people want to go to a football stadium and watch it live in person rather than a second class view on a big screen, people pay to be at the heart of it.



They may (and do) pay to be "at the heart of it" but the heart of it doesn't appear to be determined by adequate legislative scrutiny.

Lets give public safety absolute centrality, not this or that business model, or any other factors.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> They may (and do) pay to be "at the heart of it" but the heart of it doesn't appear to be determined by adequate legislative scrutiny.
> 
> Lets give public safety absolute centrality, not this or that business model, or any other factors.


This may or may not be the case, but so far you don't seem to know very much about what legislation _does _exist, and the metric of "20 deaths in fifty years" is not a very informative one with which to make decisions for or against. Existentialist's post above yours is a start in that respect.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> They may (and do) pay to be "at the heart of it" but the heart of it doesn't appear to be determined by adequate legislative scrutiny.
> 
> Lets give public safety absolute centrality, not this or that business model, or any other factors.


We need to keep a bit of perspective.

Accidents at UK air shows are incredibly rare and incidents of people hurt on the ground are vanishingly small.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I'm not saying that what happened was right, or that we shouldn't have concerns about it.
> 
> But it seems silly to me to be using hyperbolic arguments about something that didn't actually happen.
> 
> ...


Which is all fair enough, (& you clearly know more about this than I do)...but...your arguments above against the notion of over-the-sea displays seem tenuous in the extreme. Yes, there may be a greater risk to pilots (?) but then they would presumably factor that into their decision to enter into a commercial contract or not, and yes there may be a risk of spectators taking to boats under the display. But in both cases these people would be choosing to put themselves in harms way. The people driving on the A27 did not.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

i'm sick of the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade's opposition to thoughtfully applied legislation which could potentially reduce future fatalities.

Dying in a fire storm when your out on a Sunday bike ride is an avoidable event.  Forcing air displays to perform only in the safest possible areas could make such tragedies even rarer than they are.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i'm sick of the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade's opposition to thoughtfully applied legislation which could potentially reduce future fatalities.
> 
> Dying in a fire storm when your out on a Sunday bike ride is an avoidable event.  Forcing air displays to perform only in the safest possible areas could make such tragedies even rarer than they are.



The middle of the Sahara Desert could certainly do with the boost in tourism.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> We need to keep a bit of perspective.
> 
> Accidents at UK air shows are incredibly rare events and incidents of people hurt on the ground are vanishingly small.


It's always going to be a bit of a vexed question, isn't it?

Nothing is risk-free. Somewhere, the balance between risk and benefit has to be struck.

Clearly, for many, the "benefits" accruing from something like an airshow will never warrant the risk to even a single other life; but for other people, that same argument might apply to, say, driving - how many "innocent" (uninvolved) people are killed each year by cars? Can we say that the benefit to them of driving is so small that we shouldn't allow people to drive if doing so puts them at risk?

There are all kinds of non-essential activities that create small amounts of risk for uninvolved people - if we are to say "ban airshows", then perhaps we need to examine those risks, too, and consider banning them as well. And some may not simply want to draw the line at instant death - what about, for example, the long-term health consequences of certain activities on others? For example, we seem to be starting to realise that diesel particulate emissions are a significant cause of serious health problems for people, particularly in cities. Yet nobody is seriously suggesting that we should simply ban all diesel vehicles, even though I suspect that the (albeit more indirect) harms they cause result in far more significant levels of death or harm.

And, of course, there are plenty of activities that some might regard as non-essential but which others might regard as essential. I've already spoken about the need for a military, which some on this thread clearly regard as not essential. Who gets to decide? If an airshow, for example, results in a significant economic benefit to the country, how do we quantify that benefit in terms of the number of deaths that might be caused, particularly in view of the fact that the larger airshows are usually part of a sales exercise for military hardware? It's easy enough to castigate the military-industrial complex for its ethics, but what effect would closing it down have directly on the lifestyles and incomes of those employed within it, or indirectly on the potential for us as a nation to defend ourselves or simply deter aggressors?

Someone mentioned "absolute" earlier - I am always a little uncomfortable about absolutes, because very little in life IS absolute. and there is almost always a complex interplay of factors, risks, benefits, and so on...to the extent that when I see an "absolute" argument being made, I am immediately suspicious that something is being missed.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Are you familiar with the geography?



Are you from around there? This is a neutral question 

The plane hit the ground around 30 metres from a busy (I assume it would have been _extremely _busy due to weather, big garden, airshow, being a pub) pub. Could have squashed it flat, plus all those cars.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Which is all fair enough, (& you clearly know more about this than I do)...but...your arguments above against the notion of over-the-sea displays seem tenuous in the extreme. Yes, there may be a greater risk to pilots (?) but then they would presumably factor that into their decision to enter into a commercial contract or not, and yes there may be a risk of spectators taking to boats under the display. But in both cases these people would be choosing to put themselves in harms way. The people driving on the A27 did not.


 It wasn't really intended to be a coherent argument against over-sea displays - more a collection of immediate reactions to the suggestion. It may well be that, when all the facts have been gathered, and all of the relevant risks assessed, moving to an over-sea approach ends up being the best one to adopt. I certainly wouldn't be in any position to make that argument one way or the other.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> Are you from around there? This is a neutral question
> 
> The plane hit the ground around 30 metres from a busy (I assume it would have been extremely buy due to weather, big garden, airshow, being a pub) pub. Could have squashed it flat, plus all those cars.


I have family in Southwick.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i'm sick of the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade's opposition to thoughtfully applied legislation which could potentially reduce future fatalities.
> 
> Dying in a fire storm when your out on a Sunday bike ride is an avoidable event.  Forcing air displays to perform only in the safest possible areas could make such tragedies even rarer than they are.


No, that's not my complaint. It is this: why do you feel qualified to repeatedly comment on a requirement for increased legislation, when you don't appear to know anything about what legislation already exists? You don't even know that the display didn't breach it.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Yet nobody is seriously suggesting that we should simply ban all diesel vehicles, even though I suspect that the (albeit more indirect) harms they cause result in far more significant levels of death or harm.


Deeply O/T, but they are actually - Paris and possibly ultimately London


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> No, that's not my complaint. It is this: why do you feel qualified to repeatedly comment on a requirement for increased legislation, when you don't appear to know anything about what legislation already exists? You don't even know that the display didn't breach it.


That seems overly harsh/restrictive. We most of us talk about issues underpinned by complex legislation of which we have little or no knowledge.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i'm sick of the 'health and safety gone mad' brigade's opposition to thoughtfully applied legislation which could potentially reduce future fatalities.


Where is this "health and safety gone mad" brigade's opposition here? All I am seeing - and, hopefully, posting - are reasonable arguments against simply responding to a catastrophe by trying to ban something, when we don't actually know *what* was responsible for the catastrophe yet.

History is too littered with knee-jerk responses to events that turned out not only to fail to achieve what they intended, but have often created other problems in the process to really think that's a sensible way to go about responding to a disaster like this.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> That seems overly harsh/restrictive. We most of us talk about issues underpinned by complex legislation of which we have little or no knowledge.


And talk away, but at least do so with an interest in understanding the context around something, otherwise it's just uninformed rhetoric. I suspect you would (rightly) object to me stating with certainty that the legislation is adequate without possession of the facts of this case.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> And talk away, but at least do so with an interest in understanding the context around something, otherwise it's just uninformed rhetoric. I suspect you would (rightly) object to me stating with certainty that the legislation is adequate without possession of the facts of this case.


My objection would centre on the fact that evidence would suggest otherwise. I don't need detailed legislative knowledge to do so.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> My objection would centre on the fact that evidence would suggest otherwise. I don't need detailed legislative knowledge to do so.


And as before, the evidence - of which so far there is little beyond the event itself having happened - is a poor metric for broad decision making.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> And as before, the evidence - of which so far there is little beyond the event itself having happened - is a poor metric for broad decision making.


Yep, but we're not making any decisions, are we? We're discussing the event and the issues that it raises.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but we're not making any decisions, are we? We're discussing the event and the issues that it raises.


I can't speak for mauvais, but my take on this is that such discussions can be far more interesting and enlightening if we are all able to hold ourselves to a reasonable standard in terms of sticking to the facts. While this is also a great place for venting our feelings about what has happened, it's a lot harder to engage in a sensible discussion when it's all just about feelings.


----------



## Boudicca (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> 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.


Yes, lots of boats - this is from the Bournemouth Air Show a couple of days ago.  I've only been here a year, so I really enjoyed the show.  I love the Red Arrows and the Volcans used to be based at an RAF station near to where I was brought up.



mauvais said:


> Nope. Go to Bournemouth and watch the show - aside from VIP, it's free. The money comes from other streams like advertising, tourism etc.



It's the biggest weekend of the year here, there's 7 miles of cliff and beach and all pretty packed with people.


The Typhoon is out of shot, sorry.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I can't speak for mauvais, but my take on this is that such discussions can be far more interesting and enlightening if we are all able to hold ourselves to a reasonable standard in terms of sticking to the facts. While this is also a great place for venting our feelings about what has happened, it's a lot harder to engage in a sensible discussion when it's all just about feelings.


Again, no issue with that, but the facts (as they stand at present) demonstrate the risks of stunt air-show activity over built-up, urbanised areas with busy infrastructure. To suggest that such risks would be reduced by limiting such entertainment to the sea does not IMO appear over emotive.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

mauvais said:


> No, that's not my complaint. It is this: why do you feel qualified to repeatedly comment on a requirement for increased legislation, when you don't appear to know anything about what legislation already exists? You don't even know that the display didn't breach it.



What i have deduced from the tragedy at Shoreham is that many members of the public have died as a consequence of an accident.  Some of those people were probably disinterested in the air display, and were simply going about their daily activities.  Had this display taken place at a venue overlooking the sea, then there could still have been a tragedy, and a pilot may have died, but the scale of the incident would probably have been greatly reduced.  i'm not aware that there is existing legislation that has been infringed by this catastrophe, i doubt that such infringements could have occurred without experts in the field (yourself?) revealing that law breaking contributed.  So, it is reasonably safe to conclude that existing legislation could be enhanced to include the demand for future air displays to be organised only over areas of open sea (or possibly large areas of unpopulated moorland?).

Such a reform wouldn't even involve too much inconvenience would it?  Banning is out of the question for me (i agree with existentialist's main thrust above), but reform with public safety in mind seems essential.

BTW, as a sentient human being and forum member i'm qualified to remark on this matter.  And i also know that there are those here who can apprise me of current regulations as and when necessary.  Please don't hesitate to be helpful in this matter.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

Boudicca said:


> Yes, lots of boats - this is from the Bournemouth Air Show a couple of days ago.  I've only been here a year, so I really enjoyed the show.  I love the Red Arrows and the Volcans used to be based at an RAF station near to where I was brought up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I caught that typo.


----------



## Boudicca (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I caught that typo.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2015)

Death toll expected to reach 20 apparently. There must be people who were in the area still missing.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> BTW, as a sentient human being and forum member i'm qualified to remark on this matter.  And i also know that there are those here who can apprise me of current regulations as and when necessary.  Please don't hesitate to be helpful in this matter.


All I would say is "Let's wait".

Let's find out what actually happened, and let us trust (as sceptically as we might need to be in order to make that a valid trust) those in possession of the facts and relevant experience to inform us, honestly and in full, what the causes of this accident were, before we start solidifying our thinking about the best way to resolve it. Because there will be all kinds of changes that could be made (eg, I know looping the loop looks impressive, but it does seem to me to be a manoeuvre fraught with potential for all kinds of unintended outcomes, so one answer might be to further restrict the types of manoeuvre that can be performed, but someone far more well versed in the technology and physics of it might disagree with that, too), and even if these displays took place over the sea, aircraft would need to take off and land from strips on land, which poses its own risks - so coming to quick conclusions, even if they seem obvious, might still not yield the safest or most acceptable answers.

It might even be that the safest and most acceptable answer is simply not to conduct aerobatic manoeuvres as part of airshows. But we need to know why that should be before assuming it's the best answer.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Where is this "health and safety gone mad" brigade's opposition here? All I am seeing - and, hopefully, posting - are reasonable arguments against simply responding to a catastrophe by trying to ban something, when we don't actually know *what* was responsible for the catastrophe yet.
> 
> History is too littered with knee-jerk responses to events that turned out not only to fail to achieve what they intended, but have often created other problems in the process to really think that's a sensible way to go about responding to a disaster like this.



i've at no point argued for a ban, in fact earlier in the thread i explicitly ruled one out.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> i've at no point argued for a ban, in fact earlier in the thread i explicitly ruled one out.


Just to be clear, I wasn't singling you out! But I don't see this "H&SGM" thing going on here, either.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

For the sake of complete transparency I ought to declare that I was once a keen observer of airshows and enjoyed taking my lad to Biggin Hill. That changed in 2001 when we witnessed, at fairly close range, the fatal crash of a Kingcobra. I/we haven't been to a show since.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> All I would say is "Let's wait".
> 
> Let's find out what actually happened, and let us trust (as sceptically as we might need to be in order to make that a valid trust) those in possession of the facts and relevant experience to inform us, honestly and in full, what the causes of this accident were, before we start solidifying our thinking about the best way to resolve it. Because there will be all kinds of changes that could be made (eg, I know looping the loop looks impressive, but it does seem to me to be a manoeuvre fraught with potential for all kinds of unintended outcomes, so one answer might be to further restrict the types of manoeuvre that can be performed, but someone far more well versed in the technology and physics of it might disagree with that, too), and even if these displays took place over the sea, aircraft would need to take off and land from strips on land, which poses its own risks - so coming to quick conclusions, even if they seem obvious, might still not yield the safest or most acceptable answers.
> 
> It might even be that the safest and most acceptable answer is simply not to conduct aerobatic manoeuvres as part of airshows. But we need to know why that should be before assuming it's the best answer.



i can see no objection to allowing appropriate investigation to arrive at necessary fact based conclusions.  But we don't really need to wait for a concluded argument (presented by experts) before voicing opinion upon matters which remain pressing and urgent.  Air displays continue, i don't know, but some may already be scheduled to take place in areas of population.  It is legitimate and sensible to raise concerns immediately in such circumstances.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> What i have deduced from the tragedy at Shoreham is that many members of the public have died as a consequence of an accident.  Some of those people were probably disinterested in the air display, and were simply going about their daily activities.  Had this display taken place at a venue overlooking the sea, then there could still have been a tragedy, and a pilot may have died, but the scale of the incident would probably have been greatly reduced.  i'm not aware that there is existing legislation that has been infringed by this catastrophe, i doubt that such infringements could have occurred without experts in the field (yourself?) revealing that law breaking contributed.  So, it is reasonably safe to conclude that existing legislation could be enhanced to include the demand for future air displays to be organised only over areas of open sea (or possibly large areas of unpopulated moorland?).
> 
> Such a reform wouldn't even involve too much inconvenience would it?  Banning is out of the question for me (i agree with existentialist's main thrust above), but reform with public safety in mind seems essential.
> 
> BTW, as a sentient human being and forum member i'm qualified to remark on this matter.  And i also know that there are those here who can apprise me of current regulations as and when necessary.  Please don't hesitate to be helpful in this matter.


You have one accident across fifty years and thousands of displays to extrapolate from, which is never going to be a strong basis for implementing a pattern, but on the other hand may well reveal that current provisions are insufficient. You can call me a technocrat but my view is that that judgement ought to be made by experts that understand the technical risk and probabilities, influenced by a non-technical input from public society, which deserves a say in what the acceptable balance of risk is taken to be, but not how to achieve it. This is just as how we ought to solicit opinion on whether we have nuclear power stations, but not crowdsource how to actually operate any that we end up with.

You and many others come at this from a layman perspective with opinions like 'over the sea is better', and that an accident must mean change is required. Both may transpire to be true but are not necessarily so. Aviation is dangerous, to differing extents based on the nature of the activity, and you cannot completely eliminate risk. You can manage and mitigate it. To say that e.g. a seaside or remote moorland setting is safer requires some expertise in domains like aviation, event, public safety and emergency response planning that I suspect neither of us possess. With a legislative reform, you may well fix the particular circumstance at Shoreham - which again I remind you that we still don't understand - but unfortunately this has already irreversibly happened, so is not a valuable subject of prospective legislation, which is instead the general set of future air display events anywhere in the UK.

And for clarity, although I have some background in and understanding of aviation, I am not in any sense an expert.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 24, 2015)

I'm a bit confused as to why air shows in places like this aren't held overlooking the sea, surely thats an easy way to really minimise fatalities if something should go awry. Especially if they're going to fly planes which are now getting toward 70 years old, and highly explosive on impact, I'm sure anyone who's owned a classic car will say that no matter how much maintenance you do, things will still go wrong, and the same must be true of planes, not to mention the pilots who are capable of flying aircraft of that age are probably aging themselves now.

Anyway, its a very sad accident, and thoughts to everyone involved...... I've got a lot of friends in Shoreham, but have heard back that they're all ok.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

sim667 said:


> I'm a bit confused as to why air shows in places like this aren't held overlooking the sea, surely thats an easy way to really minimise fatalities if something should go awry. Especially if they're going to fly planes which are now getting toward 70 years old, and highly explosive on impact, I'm sure anyone who's owned a classic car will say that no matter how much maintenance you do, things will still go wrong, and the same must be true of planes, not to mention the pilots who are capable of flying aircraft of that age are probably aging themselves now.
> 
> Anyway, its a very sad accident, and thoughts to everyone involved...... I've got a lot of friends in Shoreham, but have heard back that they're all ok.


Telegraph reporting the reassurances from organisers at this coming weekend's Clacton show...


> *11.10 - The shows will go on*
> _Despite the Shoreham flying disaster, organisers of other air displays this summer are determined that the shows will go on.
> 
> Next on the calendar is the hugely-popular display on the seafront at Clacton, Essex, on Thursday and Friday and bosses moved swiftly today to reassure visitors they would be safe.
> ...


----------



## Dan U (Aug 24, 2015)

Fwiw my father in law is a very experienced ATC,  he hates airshows and has refused to work them as he thinks they are too risky. 

He also thinks we are mad where we have some of them in the UK, a view we discussed before this event so it's not a hindsight job sadly.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 24, 2015)

Realistically its something you can worry about if you're planning on going to an airshow, but accidents are few and far between..... this one is a particularly nasty one.

But it does need considering that people want to see historical planes, and as aviation has been around for a relatively short amount of time, we haven't really learnt to deal with such old planes and their safety issues..... maybe thats something that needs more consideration.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

sim667 said:


> Realistically its something you can worry about if you're planning on going to an airshow, but accidents are few and far between..... this one is a particularly nasty one.
> 
> But it does need considering that people want to see historical planes, and as aviation has been around for a relatively short amount of time, we haven't really learnt to deal with such old planes and their safety issues..... maybe thats something that needs more consideration.


I think it gets a lot of consideration - isn't one of the reasons that XH558, the Vulcan, is retiring because its airframe has now reached the limit of its safe life? But yes, nothing should ever be beyond examination, and if we learn things from this crash that result in changes to policies and procedures, then maybe the tragedy will not have been totally in vain.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2015)

The authorities will learn from this and improve safety as they have in the past.

I know from motor racing that when I started visiting races safety was very poor (I am thinking primarily about the Le Mans 24hr where 20 years ago I stood a couple of metres away from racecars doing 250mph) and disaster was only averted by luck, over the years safety has increased a great deal and spectator safety arrangements are now completely different and much more robust than they were 20 years ago.

It was interesting to read that the Red Arrows would not do a full display at Shoreham citing the local environment. I wonder if that and this accident might mean Shoreham's public liability insurance next year might be prohibitively expensive.


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I think it gets a lot of consideration - isn't one of the reasons that XH558, the Vulcan, is retiring because its airframe has now reached the limit of its safe life? But yes, nothing should ever be beyond examination, and if we learn things from this crash that result in changes to policies and procedures, then maybe the tragedy will not have been totally in vain.


no, vulcan is retiring coz they can't get any more rubber seals for the engines


----------



## LDC (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Got a mate on Facebook claiming the pilot should be held personally responsible for being reckless.



Your mate sounds like an arsehole to be honest. And an ignorant and arrogant one too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Your mate sounds like an arsehole to be honest. And an ignorant and arrogant one too.


Not really. He just has a different view.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Not really. He just has a different view.


I would imagine that his basic point about litigation will not be far wrong. I believe the organisers were the RAFA?


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Not really. He just has a different view.


Yes really, reaching that conclusion before the AAIB have started looking at it.   could well have been an engine failure - how would that be the pilots personal responsibility?


----------



## LDC (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Not really. He just has a different view.



A view that blames someone before anyone knows what actually happened. And a view that's not actually informed by fact and so not really valid as listening to. It'd be the same as me saying it's the fault of the bloke that did the maintenance on the plane the day before. And to be honest a pretty nasty view as it might be possible the pilot had some medical issue that caused the crash, or that he did everything he could have at risk to himself to mitigate the damage.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> The authorities will learn from this and improve safety as they have in the past.
> 
> I know from motor racing that when I started visiting races safety was very poor (I am thinking primarily about the Le Mans 24hr where 20 years ago I stood a couple of metres away from racecars doing 250mph) and disaster was only averted by luck, over the years safety has increased a great deal and spectator safety arrangements are now completely different and much more robust than they were 20 years ago.


Yes, it was partly luck, but we do have to remember that we are operating down at the far end of the odds spectrum in any case.

One of the big problems with how we respond to this kind of event is risk perception - something we're just not very good at doing intuitively. We tend not to be able to see any distinction between a one in a hundred chance and a one in a million one - if it doesn't happen, it's safe, and if it does happen, it becomes a certainty. And that perception is further distorted by the severity of the outcome - hence people immediately calling for air show displays to be severely curtailed, banned, or drastically changed, because that tiny chance of something going wrong has "become" a certainty with a horrific outcome.

It's the same thinking error which leads us to go to ever-more-strenuous efforts to prevent train and (civil) plane crashes, when the risk is already very low compared to, say, car travel, but resist efforts to limit the risks of cars. Not that this means we should just throw our hands in the air and not do anything about anything, but we need to bear in mind, as we try to eliminate risks of dramatic tragedies, that we may well be neglecting all kinds of far less dramatic, but far more likely accidents occurring along the way.

In practice, it makes sense to continue to work to improve safety, for example in the situation you give. But we have to remember, as we do that, that we're probably only reducing the risk from (plucks random figure from air) 1/100,000 to 1/500,000: in the grand scheme of things, it probably only cuts the number of deaths and serious injuries by a small amount. And, of course, we then don't see what those changes have averted - because nobody ever sees a headline that says "CAR FAILS TO CRASH INTO CROWD - 23 LIVES SAVED".



weltweit said:


> It was interesting to read that the Red Arrows would not do a full display at Shoreham citing the local environment. I wonder if that and this accident might mean Shoreham's public liability insurance next year might be prohibitively expensive.


This appears to be a myth that is gaining currency. The Red Arrows (and, I imagine, any display flying team) assess very carefully the environment they're being invited to perform in, and I believe that their decision not to participate was because the specific environment at Shoreham was not appropriate for a large (9 aircraft?) display team to operate. That would figure, given that Red Arrows displays tend to take place over a considerable area, rather than along a largely linear one, and I imagine they decided that the area available to them to do a display at Shoreham was not sufficient - nothing to do with any inherent safety issues at the airfield itself.

As for the public liability insurance - that takes us back to the risk perception thing. Insurers are experts in, if nothing else, risk. It is likely that they would have factored in all of the risk elements in this airshow to start with, and - depending on the outcome of any enquiry - it is quite possible that they will deem their initial assessment of the risk to have been perfectly accurate, and therefore not warranting of a change. Such insurance is usually aimed very much at covering very small risks of very severe things happening, and they are unlikely to be (professionally) fazed by a disaster like this. They may well, of course, put other restrictions on - if, for example, it appears that engine failure was a factor (I thought I saw what looked like a very brief "flameout" in the footage of the plane doing its loop, though I am completely ignorant of the workings of these things and it could be irrelevant), they'd refuse to cover demonstrations with single-engined aircraft, or something like that.

Of course, with insurers generally being quite opportunistic bastards, they might just decide they want to change the terms, anyway. I expect someone like kabbes could tell us a bit more about how such risks are assessed and analysed...


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> A view that blames someone before anyone knows what actually happened. And a view that's not actually informed by fact and so not really valid as listening to. It'd be the same as me saying it's the fault of the bloke that did the maintenance on the plane the day before. And to be honest a pretty nasty view as it might be possible the pilot had some medical issue that caused the crash, or that he did everything he could have at risk to himself to mitigate the damage.


His view is that the pilot is at fault for being the pilot in the first place I think. I agree to some extent, though I wouldn't want to publicly malign an individual cog in a sinister machine.
He lives nearby, so I can make concessions for his misplaced anger.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> His view is that the pilot is at fault for being the pilot in the first place I think. I agree to some extent, though I wouldn't want to publicly malign an individual cog in a sinister machine.
> He lives nearby, so I can make concessions for his misplaced anger.


I think the problem is the all-too-human desire to find someone or something specific to *blame*, rather than the rather more intellectualised and abstract activity of carefully trying to *explain* what happened. It's a natural tendency we have, particularly if something very emotive is involved, but it's not often terribly helpful in preventing the same thing from happening again.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

aqua said:


> He will have had his flying suit on though won't he? So some protection from fire. Belted into a flying seat gives a lot of protection and then able to get out.
> 
> Unlike the people sat in their cars who got (from looking at the footage) consumed by a massive ball of fire with no notice at all.


Flying suit doesn't exactly give any protection from slamming in to the ground from a great height tho does it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> Flying suit doesn't exactly give any protection from slamming in to the ground from a great height tho does it?


He wasn't slamming vertically from a great height. Look at the pics and you'll see the cockpit remains intact.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> It should never have been allowed in the first place. You've got the cast of The Last of the Summer Wine maintaining and operating a 55 year old nuclear bomber. A massively complex platform that the RAF struggled with in an era when the RAF was actually good at that sort of thing.


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.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Yeah but airshows are a somewhat superfluous event. Music festivals  more key to national culture. We could manage without airshows, but not music festivals.


Who says?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

[





1927 said:


> Who says?



I've answered this above. So go and read the  post.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Ax^ said:


> when the next air show at Farnborough


Dress them in all red costumes and they could do a Red Arrows type display, with death defying stunts as they dance towards each other and then move out of each other's way at the last second!


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> These deaths were completely avoidable and the event in itself plays a non-crucial role in people's lives. Clubs, pubs, music concerts and festivals are intrinsic parts of British life. People taking risks with their own lives with drugs and alcohol not the same as being randomly burnt to death in your car when driving home.  Who gives a shit if people aren't allowed to fly loop-the-loops over towns and villages anymore though? Utterly pointless deaths caused yesterday. Have airshows where planes do fly-bys and do low risk things by any means, but what the fuck is a plane doing pulling that kind of dodgy manoeuvre anywhere near where people are?


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!


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> [
> 
> I've answered this above. So go and read the  post.


That's 30 seconds of my life wasted!


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> That's 30 seconds of my life wasted!



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


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


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


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


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Bunch of knobs wanking over flying death machines. Sickos.


There's a lot of assumptions there in that statement


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> There's a lot of assumptions there in that statement



People sticking up for airshows are basically guilty of murder.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Indeliblelink said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


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


Go on what we know? What?


agricola said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> 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^ (Aug 24, 2015)

this thread just keeps on giving


----------



## agricola (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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__ (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


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



Not true. 



Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> 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.



Favelado said:


> 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.



Favelado said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Bunch of knobs wanking over flying death machines. Sickos.


Oh shut up, you twonk.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> 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.
> ...


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


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Oh shut up, you twonk.


Just doing what you do.

BTW did you have a hangover this morning?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> People sticking up for airshows are basically guilty of murder.


This is a joke, right?


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


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


So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?

The argument put forward in that article is that drugs are banned, so airshows should be.  Please enlighten me as to where alcohol - a legal substance - fits into that?


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?
> 
> The argument put forward in that article is that drugs are banned, so airshows should be.  Please enlighten me as to where alcohol - a legal substance - fits into that?



You pedantic tit. OK, take an illegal drug such as MDMA, or mephedrone, or cannabis, or even an opiate. 99% of people take some, have a good time, go home. Your point?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?
> 
> The argument put forward in that article is that drugs are banned, so airshows should be.  Please enlighten me as to where alcohol - a legal substance - fits into that?


The only difference is the legality. And, yes caffeine counts, as does the legion of prescription drugs people use.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?
> 
> The argument put forward in that article is that drugs are banned, so airshows should be.  Please enlighten me as to where alcohol - a legal substance - fits into that?


That's not the argument


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> This is a joke, right?


Does this even need pointing out?


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> 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.



I remember sitting in a room in Gatwick with a load of senior Flight Inspectors all trying to talk up the case for banning all alcohol (including duty free that could be used as a Molotov cocktail) from flights


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> I remember sitting in a room in Gatwick with a load of Flight Inspectors all trying to talk up the case for banning all alcohol (including duty free that could be used as a Molotov cocktail) from flights


It would stop people misbehaving at least!


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> I remember sitting in a room in Gatwick with a load of senior Flight Inspectors all trying to talk up the case for banning all alcohol (including duty free that could be used as a Molotov cocktail) from flights



I'd have an open mind to banning alcohol on flights. I'd never thought of it before but what are the stats like? Must cause it's fair share of problems. Why do you need to booze on a plane? They only really allow it to get filthy lucre off us I reckon.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not the argument


What is it then?


Plumdaff said:


> You pedantic tit. OK, take an illegal drug such as MDMA, or mephedrone, or cannabis, or even an opiate. 99% of people take some, have a good time, go home. Your point?


Let's take cannabis for a start, a drug that has proven links to mental illness.

And it's quite clear that the write of that article wasn't talking about alcohol, so I fail to see a) why it was brought up, and b) how that makes me "pedantic"?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

I guess nervous flyers might object to a ban.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> What is it then?
> 
> Let's take cannabis for a start, a drug that has proven links to mental illness.
> 
> And it's quite clear that the write of that article wasn't talking about alcohol, so I fail to see a) why it was brought up, and b) how that makes me "pedantic"?


I've been taking drugs for 42 years and my life isn't ruined. You have too. I'm assuming yours isn't either.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> I'd have an open mind to banning alcohol on flights. I'd never thought of it before but what are the stats like? Must cause it's fair share of problems. Why do you need to booze on a plane? They only really allow it to get filthy lucre off us I reckon.


The booze in the plane thing is a red herring. It's not booze on planes that's the problem, it's people getting on who are already drunk.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I guess nervous flyers might object to a ban.



Diazepam. Or DIzapam.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> The booze in the plane thing is a red herring. It's not booze on planes that's the problem, it's people getting on who are already drunk.



That's that settled then. Great.


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It would stop people misbehaving at least!



I think the first thing I pointed out was the statistical increase in Air rage since smoking on aircraft was banned. Then that people would compensate by getting pissed in the terminal, unless they wanted to ban that too, which would be fine by me as would have an even bigger lobby to stop them politically.  I was already annoyed with them at the time for making £4500 an hour private jets use plastic cutlery.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

Nervous flyers should be offered a cannabis laced muffin as they board.


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Diazepam. Or DIzapam.



That wouldn't work commercially. You'd have to rerun all the evac drills with people dosed up and then reduce load factors to fit.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

And then another as they embark.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> What is it then?


He doesn't really have one. He's just blowing off and comparing things


----------



## MrSki (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> I was already annoyed with them at the time for making £4500 an hour private jets use plastic cutlery.


Me too. Stopped me using my private jet for anything but essentials flights only.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Diazepam. Or DIzapam.



Not a great idea.  Dangerous door to open that one.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Nervous flyers should be offered a cannabis laced muffin as they board.



I thought I could handle it, but then I moved on weed-sponge. Before I knew it I was on THC gateaux. Sometimes 2 a day. Only after my family and friends arranged for a full-scale intervention did I check myself into rehab. These days, I don't even touch madeleines. My brush with death shook me up. I never want to go back to that place.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> That wouldn't work commercially. You'd have to rerun all the evac drills with people dosed up and then reduce load factors to fit.



It's what I do when I get on a long flight. Not saying it's really a good idea.


----------



## pesh (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Nervous flyers should be offered a cannabis laced muffin as they board.


yeah, but obviously prior to going through security *and* after checking the flight is still due to take off on time


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

MrSki said:


> Me too. Stopped me using my private jet for anything but essentials flights only.


A passenger paying £4500 an hour doesn't need a metal implement to convince the Captain to alter course. If he says midflight "take me to Cuba", the Captains correct response is "I'll see what I do sir/madame.". 
 Don't even get me started on the lockable cabin doors


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

Forgive me Favelado, I've no idea what a madeleine is.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Going to airshows is just a gateway drug to cluster bombing villages in Afghanistan


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Forgive me Favelado, I've no idea what a madeleine is.



It's a posh little sponge cake isn't it?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Going to airshows is just a gateway drug to cluster bombing villages in Afghanistan


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Forgive me Favelado, I've no idea what a madeleine is.


Have you never read Proust?


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Have you never read Proust?



Is that on page 3 of the Sun?


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?


Caffeine is indeed a drug, by any system of scientific classification you might care to name.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> Caffeine is indeed a drug, by any system of scientific classification you might care to name.


That's what I said.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> That's what I said.


Excellent, then we agree


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> And then another as they embark.


Never seen a flight safety mandated emergency embarkation exercise.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

gosub said:


> Never seen a flight safety mandated emergency embarkation exercise.


Only flown once, 15 years ago..


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> That's what I said.


No you didn't


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Let's take cannabis for a start, a drug that has proven links to mental illness.



Yes. Proven that it does not cause mental illness.

Let's take cola cubes, they don't cause mental illness either.

Anything else you'd like to point out that doesn't cause mental illness?

Not really sure why you're bringing this up on a thread about an airshow crash. Been snorting super-skunk perhaps?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

Thread takes off. 

Ironically enough.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Got any Clarkycat?


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Plumdaff said:


> You pedantic tit. OK, take an illegal drug such as MDMA, or mephedrone, or cannabis, or even an opiate. 99% of people take some, have a good time, go home. Your point?


Can you back up the 99% bit?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> Can you back up the 99% bit?


It's a figurative 99% to echo Bungle73 's nonsensical argument


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> Can you back up the 99% bit?



How do you feel about the CAA's announcement? I guess they'd be the people who know the most about this stuff.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a figurative 99% to echo Bungle73 's nonsensical argument



He has the same ideas about drugs. He posted it earlier. He might be a Bungle sock puppet.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> How do you feel about the CAA's announcement? I guess they'd be the people who know the most about this stuff.


What? They know what % of drug users have their lives ruined!!!?


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> He has the same ideas about drugs. He posted it earlier. He might be a Bungle sock puppet.


No I didn't!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> He has the same ideas about drugs. He posted it earlier. He might be a Bungle sock puppet.




Bungle, a puppet???







Nah


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

Here you go twat.



1927 said:


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


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Here you go twat.


Exactly I actually stated the exact opposite! 

Who's the twat now?


----------



## Favelado (Aug 24, 2015)

1927 said:


> Exactly I actually stated the exact opposite!
> 
> Who's the twat now?



You stated your belief that drugs lead to a pointless waste of life and misery. You just didn't propose a ban for them. This is a crap wriggle.

It's still you.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2015)

Favelado said:


> You stated your belief that drugs lead to a pointless waste of life and misery. You just didn't propose a ban for them. This is a crap wriggle.
> 
> It's still you.


I didn't say that was my belief, I just stated that I could state that if I wished!


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> No you didn't


Um, what's this then........?



Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug.....[snip]


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes. Proven that it does not cause mental illness.
> 
> Let's take cola cubes, they don't cause mental illness either.
> 
> ...


Why am I bringing it up? Um, I didn't bring it up at all.

And Cannabis has a well known link to mental illness.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, what's this then........?


What a dishonest edit


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What a dishonest edit


"Dishonest" edit? How the f is it "dishonest"? It is exactly what I said, word for word, because it is a direct quote. Talking about drugs, which ones are you on?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> What a dishonest edit


it's always a joy to see that card being played.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bungle, a puppet???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i can still remember the bottom dropping out of my world when i realised bungle was not in fact a bear


----------



## Dan U (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I've been taking drugs for 42 years and my life isn't ruined. You have too. I'm assuming yours isn't either.


Calpol, the gateway drug.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> "Dishonest" edit? How the f is it "dishonest"? It is exactly what I said, word for word, because it is a direct quote. Talking about drugs, which ones are you on?


I'm on nowt right now.
You edited your post to turn a question into a statement, therefore changing the meaning of it.


Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?


That suggests you don't regard caffeine as a 'proper' drug, whatever that means


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm on nowt right now.
> You edited your post to turn a question into a statement, therefore changing the meaning of it.


I did no such thing. I simply only posted the relevant part of the sentence. That part was never a question, it was always a statement, followed by a question.



> That suggests you don't regard caffeine as a 'proper' drug, whatever that means


It's quite obvious what I meant. When people talk about "drugs" they seldom mean widely consumed substances that most people would not class as "drugs" even if technically they are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I did no such thing. I simply only posted the relevant part of the sentence. That part was never a question, it was always a statement, followed by a question.
> 
> 
> It's quite obvious what I meant. When people talk about "drugs" they seldom mean widely consumed substances that most people would not class as "drugs" even if technically they are.


and do you have anything to say about the a27 air disaster or are you only here to witter on about a contentious edit?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I did no such thing. I simply only posted the relevant part of the sentence. That part was never a question, it was always a statement, followed by a question.


Liar!


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> and do you have anything to say about the a27 air disaster or are you only here to witter on about a contentious edit?


Um, why are you having a go at me? It wasn't me who started the conversation...................


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Liar!


Seriously, what are you on? Can I have some?

Full post:


Bungle73 said:


> So is caffeine a drug, are you going to lump that in as well?
> 
> The argument put forward in that article is that drugs are banned, so airshows should be.  Please enlighten me as to where alcohol - a legal substance - fits into that?



I state caffeine is a drug. I then ask if the person would like to lump it into the argument as well. Simples


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 24, 2015)

If I can just butt into this shit fest for a second - latest news from police is that no further bodies were found when the plane was removed by crane. The fear was that they would discover more. So at the moment it still remains at 11 dead.

Carry on


----------



## Giles (Aug 24, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> They could and should make things safer by simply stipulating no ex-mil types on the civil reg. That stupid fucking Vulcan business is a massive accident waiting to happen and should be stopped immediately.



Why is the Vulcan any more of an "accident waiting to happen" than any other old plane used for air shows and displays"?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Liar!


Can you leave this thread now please and allow it to get back on track?


----------



## Gromit (Aug 24, 2015)

DownwardDog said:


> They could and should make things safer by simply stipulating no ex-mil types on the civil reg. That stupid fucking Vulcan business is a massive accident waiting to happen and should be stopped immediately.



The Red Arrows use modern plans and are the best stunt pilots you could hope to get. They've had 16 accidents since 1969 many leading to fatalities.

Planes doing dangerous stunts are dangerous. Planes being flown safely are safe. The answer isn't the choice of plane its the type of activity.
Unfortunately the presense of danger (to others) is what draws people to such spectacles as much as the pretty planes.
People will be treasuring there i was there horror stories as well as feeling horrified by it.

Was it motorcycle enthusisats who made up the majority of the audience at Evil Kinevil jumps or people semi hoping that he was going to have a horrific smash up and impressed when the very real danger of death didn't surface?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Seriously, what are you on? Can I have some?
> 
> Full post:
> 
> ...


No you don't


----------



## quiquaquo (Aug 24, 2015)

Gromit said:


> The Red Arrows use modern plans and are the best stunt pilots you could hope to get. They've had 16 accidents since 1969 many leading to fatalities.
> 
> Planes doing dangerous stunts are dangerous. Planes being flown safely are safe. The answer isn't the choice of plane its the type of activity.
> Unfortunately the presense of danger (to others) is what draws people to such spectacles as much as the pretty planes.
> ...



Modern planes? Just checked that and what they use is 40 years old. Still the B-52s are over 60 years old and still used today for slaughtering their "enemies of freedom"...


----------



## Gromit (Aug 24, 2015)

quiquaquo said:


> Modern planes? Just checked that and what they use is 40 years old. Still the B-52s are over 60 years old and still used today for slaughtering their "enemies of freedom"...



The design is but they are still in production.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2015)

What safety rules govern air shows?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34038649


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> What is it then?
> 
> Let's take cannabis for a start, a drug that has proven links to mental illness.
> 
> And it's quite clear that the write of that article wasn't talking about alcohol, so I fail to see a) why it was brought up, and b) how that makes me "pedantic"?



The vast majority of people who take cananbis have a good time and nothing bad comes of it. Some don't enjoy it but nothing bad comes of it. A very small number have a bad or very bad time and shouldn't take it again.

And yes, it does have proven links to mental health problems, which is why GW Pharmaceuticals are developing anti-pyschotics, anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines from it. Personally I am very interested in the anti-depressants as my personal experience is that cannabis is a great anti-depressant for me (and many other people I know irl or online who self-medicate with cannabis for depression).


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> What safety rules govern air shows?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34038649



they've been on the same journey I went on this morning.  One oclock news was talking about the 500ft limit at Farnborough after the DH110.   That article comes from this


----------



## Plumdaff (Aug 24, 2015)

Tbf there is some evidence linking cannabis use in adolescence and the likelihood of developing depression and schizophrenia. I'm someone who can't touch the stuff because of the effect it has on my mental health. But I'd be as willing to support the continuing ban on it as advocate on a ban on sugar because of its danger to diabetics.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 24, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Is it realy militaristic? Surely it just that the aircraft most capable of doing interesting things happen to have originally been designed for military use.



don't know how comparable these shows are to Farnborough, but no doubt about that one's militaristic pedigree : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/farnborough-air-show-shop-window-weapons


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2015)

BigTom said:


> ...it does have proven links to mental health problems, which is why GW Pharmaceuticals are developing anti-pyschotics, anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines from it.



That's a very charitable reading of GWP's agenda.

It is like saying that botulism has proven links to all-round good health, as shown by Allergan's commitment to injecting BOTOX(tm) into every orifice available looking for a positive effect on any health problem they can think of.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> What safety rules govern air shows?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34038649



my reading of that document leads me to answer your question with a 'very few' response.

Flexibility to the point of laissez faire seems strongly in evidence.

Fucking disgraceful.  Who can know how the bereaved must feel as they learn the truth.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

On the subject of drugs, and aviation fuel so still marginally on topic, is it right that poppers is helicopter fuel or is that some cack someone told me once when I was full of E?


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

cantsin said:


> don't know how comparable these shows are to Farnborough, but no doubt about that one's militaristic pedigree : http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/farnborough-air-show-shop-window-weapons


It's not what is was.  There is a strong BAe undertow so most foreign defence don't bring their shiny new toys to ariel display.  There's a lot of civilian stuff there too.  Most the deals are done in the run up (same with all tradeshows) but announced there coz you have media attention.  The weekend is different as the article correctly asserts - non trade or rather a different type of trade - aviation as entertainment, which is what Shoreham and the countless other weekend shows throughout the country are about.

Article also doesn't mention there is also another arms only fair held annualy close to the site


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 24, 2015)

Giles said:


> Why is the Vulcan any more of an "accident waiting to happen" than any other old plane used for air shows and displays"?



The Vulcan will be doing its thing over my house this coming weekend. 

Should I be selling up and shipping out?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> On the subject of drugs, and aviation fuel so still marginally on topic, is it right that poppers is helicopter fuel or is that some cack someone told me once when I was full of E?



Do helicopters rush more than fixed wing aircraft on MDMA?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Do helicopters rush more than fixed wing aircraft on MDMA?



They're very quick


----------



## gosub (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> On the subject of drugs, and aviation fuel so still marginally on topic, is it right that poppers is helicopter fuel or is that some cack someone told me once when I was full of E?


Short answer is no. Long answer will depend on the helo but Still won't be amyl


----------



## brogdale (Aug 24, 2015)

redcogs said:


> my reading of that document leads me to answer your question with a 'very few' response.
> 
> Flexibility to the point of laissez faire seems strongly in evidence.
> 
> Fucking disgraceful.  Who can know how the bereaved must feel as they learn the truth.


CAA spokesperson on C4 News appeared very conscious of possible litigation and refused to comment on why the Shoreham show was apparently allowed to contravene CAA guidance.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I did no such thing. I simply only posted the relevant part of the sentence. That part was never a question, it was always a statement, followed by a question.
> 
> 
> It's quite obvious what I meant. When people talk about "drugs" they seldom mean widely consumed substances that most people would not class as "drugs" even if technically they are.


Maybe that's what *you* mean about drugs?

Anyway, you are comprehensively diamonding this thread, now.


----------



## Giles (Aug 24, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Vulcan will be doing its thing over my house this coming weekend.
> 
> Should I be selling up and shipping out?



Probably. Are they doing a demo of the Vulcan's nuclear bomb-dropping capability


Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Vulcan will be doing its thing over my house this coming weekend.
> 
> Should I be selling up and shipping out?



That depends on whether they're doing the "nuclear-weapons-included" display or not.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Seriously, what are you on? Can I have some?
> 
> Full post:
> 
> ...


No you don't. You very clearly ask it as a question. You diminish yourself every time you peddle this off-topic lie and attempt to insult Urban's collective intelligence in so doing. In fact, that could almost go as a definition for "bungling", to sit alongside the newly-minted "diamonding".


----------



## 2hats (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> On the subject of drugs, and aviation fuel so still marginally on topic, is it right that poppers is helicopter fuel or is that some cack someone told me once when I was full of E?



Someone is confusing amyl *nitrite* (C5H11ONO) with amyl *nitrate* (CH3(CH2)4ONO2) which is used as a fuel additive.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

This thread begs for your presence!


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

existentialist said:


> No you don't. You very clearly ask it as a question. You diminish yourself every time you peddle this off-topic lie and attempt to insult Urban's collective intelligence in so doing. In fact, that could almost go as a definition for "bungling", to sit alongside the newly-minted "diamonding".


Oh fuck off. I know what I wrote because I fucking wrote it.  You are obviously too stupid understand.

And it wasn't  off topic to the conversation that was going on at the time, WHICH I DID NOT START, so stop fucking acting like I did.

This is fucking harassment you know. I am this close to putting in a complaint about it.

Don't bother with another of your shitty replies as I have zero interest in anything you have to say. 

I've already put one irritant Ignore, would you like to be added to that list?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

I love Bungle. He reminds me of Tobyjug a bit though.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Oh fuck off. I know what I wrote because I fucking wrote it.  You are obviously too stupid understand.
> 
> And it wasn't  off topic to the conversation that was going on at the time, WHICH I DID NOT START, so stop fucking acting like I did.
> 
> ...


Rather than end up ignoring half of Urban, could you not just stop posting idiocies?

Especially on a current and somewhat sensitive thread.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 24, 2015)

What? And kill the humour?


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 24, 2015)

Now you're being a compete hypocrite. Consider yourself on ignore. 

Back to the actual subject of this thread please. Ta.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I've already put one irritant Ignore ...



Whenever Orang Utan is being irritating I just remember that he sits down to wee and it makes me start laughing!


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> I love Bungle. He reminds me of Tobyjug a bit though.


He's like a Tobyjug without the charm, humility and total self-awareness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 24, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Not a great idea.  Dangerous door to open that one.



Why? The addictive potential of low-dose (all that's needed for nervous flyers) occasional diazepam use is very low.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 24, 2015)

brogdale said:


> CAA spokesperson on C4 News appeared very conscious of possible litigation and refused to comment on why the Shoreham show was apparently allowed to contravene CAA guidance.



Prosecution should be considered.  People have died, and a loose regime of controls must have some  significance in this.  i doubt it will happen though, for those at the top  in so many areas of UK public life seem to set the rules, waive them when convenient, and walk away unscathed when things go wrong.

Hope i'm wrong on this though.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2015)

I read today that the last time there was an accident at a UK air-show which caused non pilot fatalities was in the 50s at Farnborough, and following that incident regulations were tightened up and have been tightened a few times since.

There have been UK accidents since then, including the recent one at Chris Evans's northern car show, but only pilots have been killed.

I expect the CAA will tighten regulations again, though whether that makes them liable for prosecution for this accident remains to be seen. I do expect Shoreham will have had to have had some kind of public liability insurance for the show and wonder if that would be an easier route to getting some kind of compensation for the victims families.


----------



## comrade spurski (Aug 24, 2015)

Even by the internet standardsthis has been one weird arsed argument.
On topic...that was a grim accident. 

I hope no rules were broken cos an accident due to just sheer bad luck is easier for survivors and loved ones of those that died to recover from
than having to cope with grief and outrage that comes from knowing that the loss of your loved ones was avoidable.

This is only my opinion and am not stating it as a fact.


----------



## existentialist (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> I read today that the last time there was an accident at a UK air-show which caused non pilot fatalities was in the 50s at Farnborough, and following that incident regulations were tightened up and have been tightened a few times since.
> 
> There have been UK accidents since then, including the recent one at Chris Evans's northern car show, but only pilots have been killed.
> 
> I expect the CAA will tighten regulations again, though whether that makes them liable for prosecution for this accident remains to be seen. I do expect Shoreham will have had to have had some kind of public liability insurance for the show and wonder if that would be an easier route to getting some kind of compensation for the victims families.


Prosecutions aren't for getting compensation for victims: they're about establishing culpability of a crime.

Compensation payments should proceed independently of any prosecution, which will in any case take quite a while to come to court - at this stage nobody knows what, if any, offence has been committed, far less who committed it.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2015)

Oh and in a reference to discussion earlier in the thread the Hunter was apparently fitted with an ejector seat but it was not activated.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Oh and in a reference to discussion earlier in the thread the Hunter was apparently fitted with an ejector seat but it was not activated.


cue wild speculation on it being another lubitz


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Oh and in a reference to discussion earlier in the thread the Hunter was apparently fitted with an ejector seat but it was not activated.



Do you have a link for that cos there's shitloads of speculation all over the place on tbe ejector seat issue.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 24, 2015)

8ball said:


> Do you have a link for that cos there's shitloads of speculation all over the place on tbe ejector seat issue.


http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-08-24/ejector-seat-of-hawker-hunter-was-not-activated/


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2015)

weltweit said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-08-24/ejector-seat-of-hawker-hunter-was-not-activated/



Does 'not activated' mean it wasn't triggered by the pilot, or that the explosive charges on an old seat had been removed for safety reasons?

Seems open to misinterpretation either way...


----------



## weltweit (Aug 25, 2015)

8ball said:


> Does 'not activated' mean it wasn't triggered by the pilot, or that the explosive charges on an old seat had been removed for safety reasons?
> 
> Seems open to misinterpretation either way...


Well the article piece specifically says:


> The recovery operation has taken longer than anticipated as investigators on the ground discovered that the ejector seat of the Hawker Hunter jet had not been activated.
> 
> The teams on the ground had to be very careful not to trigger it themselves, a situation that would have been highly dangerous.


Which suggests the ejector seat was there, and was fully operational.

I suppose it is still possible that this piece is wrong.


----------



## Bungle73 (Aug 25, 2015)

Wouldn't ejecting have been a waste of time anyway? The plane was too low. And had the pilot ejected, god knows where the plane would have ended up - it could have been a whole lot worse.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 25, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Well the article piece specifically says...
> 
> ...which suggests the ejector seat was there, and was fully operational.



Yeah, it does - cheers.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 25, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Wouldn't ejecting have been a waste of time anyway? The plane was too low. And had the pilot ejected, god knows where the plane would have ended up - it could have been a whole lot worse.


Which suggests that the pilot stayed at the controls in an attempt to avert a bigger disaster at the possible cost of his own life.


----------



## kebabking (Aug 25, 2015)

that looks like being the case - certainly in the footage i've seen the aircraft does a significant 'wobble' as it emerges from the bottom of the loop but is still decending. that could be an aerodynamic surfaces failure, or it could be an indication of the pilot _fighting_ the aircraft in order to produce a better result than the one he see's coming.

in relation to the ejector seat, my understanding from pictures and reports is that the fuselage broke in two immediately behind the cockpit upon impact with the ground, with the cockpit/nose shooting off forward, and the rest of the airframe - and all the fuel - staying where it hit the ground. the pilot was then rescued from the cockpit by people on the ground, so the ejector seat was not activated.


----------



## Indeliblelink (Aug 25, 2015)

I think one of reasons it took so long to remove the wreckage was that they had to be sure the ejector seat didn't suddenly go off, could of killed anyone nearby.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2015)

Terrible weather conditions down here today have hampered the search op - we've been asked to remove some trees, either this evening or tomorrow morning, so the police can further their search away from the roadside.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 25, 2015)

the news are being out of order implying there could be more bodies when it's highly likely there are not, mawkish sensationalism


----------



## dylanredefined (Aug 25, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Wouldn't ejecting have been a waste of time anyway? The plane was too low. And had the pilot ejected, god knows where the plane would have ended up - it could have been a whole lot worse.



Probably a zero zero seat so could have ejected probably trying to save the plane though.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 25, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Terrible weather conditions down here today have hampered the search op - we've been asked to remove some trees, either this evening or tomorrow morning, so the police can further their search away from the roadside.


Blimey, doesn't sound like an enviable task. Hope all goes well with that.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2015)

ddraig said:


> the news are being out of order implying there could be more bodies when it's highly likely there are not, mawkish sensationalism



tbf I personally haven't heard of any news today suggesting there is, unlike yesterday, based on what the police did say. Plod have said today though that the deaths are unlikely to exceed 11. But until the search op has been completed 100%, who knows.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Probably a zero zero seat so could have ejected probably trying to save the plane though.



Comments on pprune were the same - ejecting to save your own life whilst having absolutely no idea where the plane would end up.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 25, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Comments on pprune were the same - ejecting to save your own life whilst having absolutely no idea where the plane would end up.


The Pilot didnt  do that tho!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2015)

1927 said:


> The Pilot didnt  do that tho!



I know he didn't. He was fighting with the plane & had no intention (to us anyway) of ejecting.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 25, 2015)

1927 said:


> Which suggests that the pilot stayed at the controls in an attempt to avert a bigger disaster at the possible cost of his own life.



Very plausible - there have been loads of cases of pilots doing exactly this.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 25, 2015)

I'm fairly sure there would have been no time here between being absolutely certain of a crash and the crash itself in which to command an ejection, let alone actually get ejected, which takes a little time.

Plus you probably decide what you will do in those circumstances before you even get into the thing.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 25, 2015)

mauvais said:


> I'm fairly sure there would have been no time here between being absolutely certain of a crash and the crash itself in which to command an ejection, let alone actually get ejected, which takes a little time.
> 
> Plus you probably decide what you will do in those circumstances before you even get into the thing.



Pilot error already being suggested: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...odies-continues-as-11-feared-dead-latest.html

He is apparently in a coma (not sure if it's induced).  A former flight instructer has stated the pilot was "showing off" and a "lunatic" guilty of flying too low and recklessly.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 25, 2015)

The pprune forum is full of theories about pilot error


----------



## mauvais (Aug 25, 2015)

redcogs said:


> Pilot error already being suggested: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...odies-continues-as-11-feared-dead-latest.html
> 
> He is apparently in a coma (not sure if it's induced).  A former flight instructer has stated the pilot was "showing off" and a "lunatic" guilty of flying too low and recklessly.


These people strike me as deeply unprofessional and not to be taken seriously. Again possibly you can blame the Telegraph rather than the supposed source. Either way, wait for the AAIB.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 25, 2015)

redcogs said:


> He is apparently in a coma (not sure if it's induced)



Yeah, it is induced.


----------



## Fingers (Aug 26, 2015)

Mad lad....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter_Tower_Bridge_incident


----------



## mauvais (Aug 26, 2015)

Another Hunter display pilot has written a long & informative post about what the AAIB will be doing, how safety works and what the Hunter is like to fly.

https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial/posts/869126783174965


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 26, 2015)

kebabking said:


> in relation to the ejector seat, my understanding from pictures and reports is that the fuselage broke in two immediately behind the cockpit upon impact with the ground, with the cockpit/nose shooting off forward, and the rest of the airframe - and all the fuel - staying where it hit the ground. the pilot was then rescued from the cockpit by people on the ground, so the ejector seat was not activated.



It would also depend on the model variant as some had armour plating behind and beneath the cockpit, this may have been a reason for the pilot and cockpit being blown/torn away from the fuselage on impact.

As for approaching downed aircraft we were told at school not to go near any as there was then chance of death by ejector seat deployment.
We were quite close to the runway end at finningley and had Vulcans scrambling several times a week!


----------



## Sprocket. (Aug 26, 2015)

Favelado said:


> Yeah but airshows are a somewhat superfluous event. Music festivals  more key to national culture. We could manage without airshows, but not music festivals.



Sadly I can remember when Whitby Folk week started with a display by the Red Arrows every year. Though it was held over the sea it was often marred by people falling off the cliff tops or harbour wall trying to get a better look.


----------



## Favelado (Aug 26, 2015)

Sprocket. said:


> Sadly I can remember when Whitby Folk week started with a display by the Red Arrows every year. Though it was held over the sea it was often marred by people falling off the cliff tops or harbour wall trying to get a better look.



lol


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2015)

News article suggests the Hawker Hunter struggled to take off.
Don't know veracity / expertise of article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...-Hawker-Hunter-jet-struggled-on-take-off.html


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 26, 2015)

dylanredefined said:


> Probably a zero zero seat so could have ejected probably trying to save the plane though.



The Mk.10 was the first zero-zero Martin-Baker seat, the Hunter had the Mk.2.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 26, 2015)

mauvais said:


> Another Hunter display pilot has written a long & informative post about what the AAIB will be doing, how safety works and what the Hunter is like to fly.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial/posts/869126783174965



That's a rather panglossian view of the Hunter's flying characteristics. Perhaps he has a vested interest in the continuation of Hunter display flying?

The Avon engine was rather ill suited to the Hunter's intake geometry and this resulted in surges, compressor stalls and flameouts if one were abrupt with the throttle at high AoA or G. They ended up having to derate the Avon and reduce fuel flow whenever the cannon were fired. They probably would have been better served to persist with the Sapphire engined variant (F.2) but the RAF wanted engine commonality with the Canberra. The Hunter did not have vice free handling and, in that respect, was markedly inferior the aircraft it replaced in RAF service - the F-86.


----------



## redcogs (Aug 26, 2015)

weltweit said:


> News article suggests the Hawker Hunter struggled to take off.
> Don't know veracity / expertise of article.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avi...-Hawker-Hunter-jet-struggled-on-take-off.html



It would be hard to believe that a pilot would fly a struggling aircraft to a public event - endangering themselves and others.


----------



## 2hats (Sep 4, 2015)

The AAIB have published a special bulletin (interim report) documenting the circumstances of the accident, that the pilot was thrown free of the cockpit (it is not clear if any ejection was initiated) and that the plane was apparently responding correctly to inputs (judging from cockpit video). Investigations continue.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2015)

2hats said:


> The AAIB have published a special bulletin (interim report) documenting the circumstances of the accident, that the pilot was thrown free of the cockpit (it is not clear if any ejection was initiated) and that *the plane was apparently responding correctly to inputs *(judging from cockpit video). Investigations continue.


Is that 'code' for pilot error, then?


----------



## existentialist (Sep 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Is that 'code' for pilot error, then?


I wouldn't think that report has any "code" for anything just yet. It just suggests to me that they have ruled out any kind of gross malfunction with the aircraft.

There is a very long and extremely painstaking process still to happen before anyone's going to be publishing any conclusions, in code or otherwise


----------



## brogdale (Sep 4, 2015)

existentialist said:


> I wouldn't think that report has any "code" for anything just yet. It just suggests to me that they have ruled out any kind of gross malfunction with the aircraft.
> 
> There is a very long and extremely painstaking process still to happen before anyone's going to be publishing any conclusions, in code or otherwise


Hmm..."telegraph'" has people prepared to say otherwise.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Hmm..."telegraph'reveals people prepared to say otherwise.


"Shoreham Air Show plane crash: Pilot was too low, official report reveals"
No shit


----------



## existentialist (Sep 4, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Hmm..."telegraph'" has people prepared to say otherwise.


Well, it is getting the opinions of people who are drawing inferences from the facts stated in the interim report, yes. But the report is very clearly not making any conclusions - merely reporting the facts as known.

We might all agree that, given the facts, the pilot may indeed have made an error, but an AAIB report isn't just about finding someone to point the finger at, and stopping there. They are going to want to know what prompted any such error, what else was going on, etc., etc.

Which is why they aren't speculating about anything yet.


----------



## 2hats (Sep 4, 2015)

The special bulletin indicates that the altitudes are not clearly known and they are undertaking photogrammetric analysis of the stills and video they have received in order to better understand the flight path.


----------



## gosub (Sep 5, 2015)

Yeah but looks like they will clear the plane (good news for other Hunter owners)  If it was engine failure they'd know off the cockpit video.  Is gearing up to be pilot error


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 5, 2015)

Unless the pilot became incapacitated. Which isn't necessarily an error on his part.


----------



## gosub (Sep 5, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Unless the pilot became incapacitated. Which isn't necessarily an error on his part.


I've found aviation medics to be the best in business.  Dr Cramond RIP  Defined an alcoholic as someone who drank more than his doctor - and you bastards have got me up to 2bottles of scotch a day to keep you flying.    He saved my hearing.
Straight loop  hardly untoward if medically fit, and he'd have had to lie his arse off to have got the sign-off if you want to blame the Doctor


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 5, 2015)

gosub said:


> I've found aviation medics to be the best in business.  dr Cramond Sir.  Defined an alcoholic as someone who drank more than his doctor - and you badtards have got me up to 2bottles of scotch a day to keep you flying.    He saved my hearing.
> Straight loop  hardly untoward if medically fit, and he'd have had to lie his arse off to have got the sign-off if you want to blame the Doctor



Doctor can't predict cardiac arrest or stroke for example. Wild speculation of course, but not implausible.


----------



## starfish (Sep 5, 2015)

Was his intended flight path to end the loop, obviously higher up, but still above the road?


----------



## gosub (Sep 5, 2015)

Citizen66 said:


> Doctor can't predict cardiac arrest or stroke for example. Wild speculation of course, but not implausible.


Nope you have the last ditch stick pull up.


----------



## Citizen66 (Sep 5, 2015)

gosub said:


> Nope you have the last ditch stick pull up.



It reminds me of the tube crash in Moorgate. I don't think the driver's body didnt produce any useful info. It remains a mystery what actually happened. Suicide is one of the more controversial theories despite family members being adamant that he wasn't particularly troubled by anything.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2015)

Apparently the pilot is recovering and will be questioned by the police and AAIB.

Shoreham Pilot To Be Questioned By Police


----------



## D'wards (Sep 10, 2015)

Family friend was killed in this - riding his motorbike. Apparently there are no remains, he was identified by parts of his bike


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2015)

D'wards said:


> Family friend was killed in this - riding his motorbike. Apparently there are no remains, he was identified by parts of his bike


Nasty, sorry for your loss.

It struck me as a little odd that all the victims are male. That has to be a bit unlikely?


----------



## ffsear (Sep 10, 2015)

My theory. Aircraft failed to respond to throttle inputs by the pilot.  On the downwards part of a loop you are supposed to come off the power, which reduces the angle as you pull up.   The plane seemed to take a long time to pull out of the loop (The plane was nose up when it hit the ground) suggesting that he could have been stuck on full/medium power.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2015)

My theory is that I don't know enough about the intricacies of this to have a theory


----------



## existentialist (Sep 10, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Nasty, sorry for your loss.
> 
> It struck me as a little odd that all the victims are male. That has to be a bit unlikely?


If it were an exactly 50:50 chance of each victim being male, the odds would be 1:2048 (2¹¹). That's not ludicrously unlikely.

I don't think there's any great significance in it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 10, 2015)

D'wards said:


> Family friend was killed in this - riding his motorbike. Apparently there are no remains, he was identified by parts of his bike


Jesus, sorry to hear that


----------



## D'wards (Sep 10, 2015)

5t3IIa said:


> Jesus, sorry to hear that


To be honest I hadn't seen him for a very long time, but they lived next door to my auntie growing up, in the days when your next door neighbour was your best friend, and they had always stayed close when they moved out.

Strange there were no remains - it must have been an immense fireball.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 10, 2015)

D'wards said:


> To be honest I hadn't seen him for a very long time, but they lived next door to my auntie growing up, in the days when your next door neighbour was your best friend, and they had always stayed close when they moved out.
> 
> Strange there were no remains - it must have been an immense fireball.


I don't suppose you want to spend too much time examining the footage but the plane does kind of hit the ground, blow up a bit then bounce/skid/carry on down the road and be more on fire a second later. It's not great


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 10, 2015)

ffsear said:


> My theory. Aircraft failed to respond to throttle inputs by the pilot.  On the downwards part of a loop you are supposed to come off the power, which reduces the angle as you pull up.   The plane seemed to take a long time to pull out of the loop (The plane was nose up when it hit the ground) suggesting that he could have been stuck on full/medium power.


Boffins like David Learmount have said he shouldn't have started the loop below 500'.  This guy started at 200', giving him no safety margin for a tiny error or a patch of sink. The cockpit videos have apparently shown that the aircraft was responding normally to the controls. He should have known he was too low before he started the loop. He should have either not started the loop or changed it to some other manoeuvre, e.g. rolling upright at the top of the loop. He could have corrected his mistake at any time during the loop. But he didn't. Very puzzling.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2015)

D'wards said:


> To be honest I hadn't seen him for a very long time, but they lived next door to my auntie growing up, in the days when your next door neighbour was your best friend, and they had always stayed close when they moved out.
> 
> Strange there were no remains - it must have been an immense fireball.



It's the heat that jet fuel burns at (as high as 1500F in the right conditions), combined with the _brisance_ (the destructive quality) of the explosion - the more rapidly the explosion develops its' force, the greater it's destructive ability, and the lesser likelihood of human remains. The explosion of a barrel of black powder develops relatively slowly, compared to the combination of jet fuel and air that the crash caused.


----------



## elbows (Sep 10, 2015)

Just to make it even worse it wasn't only those kind of deaths either. Certain youtube footage made it obvious that at least one of victims cars was horribly squashed rather than burnt.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 10, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's the heat that jet fuel burns at (as high as 1500F in the right conditions)



It can't melt steel beams though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 10, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> It can't melt steel beams though.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Sep 10, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> It can't melt steel beams though.


The plane might have been carrying the materials to lay some low level chemtrails. Who knows how hot that burns?


----------



## ffsear (Sep 11, 2015)

David Clapson said:


> Boffins like David Learmount have said he shouldn't have started the loop below 500'.  This guy started at 200', giving him no safety margin for a tiny error or a patch of sink. The cockpit videos have apparently shown that the aircraft was responding normally to the controls. He should have known he was too low before he started the loop. He should have either not started the loop or changed it to some other manoeuvre, e.g. rolling upright at the top of the loop. He could have corrected his mistake at any time during the loop. But he didn't. Very puzzling.



Started at 200,  but the apex of the loop was recorded at 2,600'   So why he could not pull out the loop from that height is puzzling.  Still sounds like some kind of engine throttle failure too me.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 11, 2015)

I read in various places that you generally finish a loop at the same height you started it at. I think the investigators will take a very dim view of his start height. He must have given them his side of the story by now. If the engine/throttle didn't respond normally he ought to have been aware of it. There's no black box so I suppose they have to rely on his account. 

In the past there have been low altitude crashes caused by misinterpreting the altimeter reading. It measures altitude with the air pressure so you're supposed to reset it at take-off to allow for the weather conditions. If you forget to do that the altimeter may say you're a few hundred feet higher than you really are. Another error you can make is fly to an airfield which is higher than the one you took off from. If you then do a low level display at the second airfield you need to bear in mind that your altimeter may give you a confusing reading. There was an infamous fuckup of this type by a display pilot in 2004  Thunderbird accident report released


----------



## weltweit (Dec 18, 2015)

Shoreham air crash pilot interviewed by police


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 21, 2015)

Investigators release second report into Shoreham Airshow disaster

AAIB Report - https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5677d6bfed915d144f000000/S4-2015_G-BXFI.pdf

Poor maintenance, & ejector seat parts had expired.


----------



## likesfish (Dec 22, 2015)

Which doesnt mean the plane cant fly martin baker who make the seats decided quite rightly they werent going to certify 40 year old seats that they had no spares for


----------



## redcogs (Mar 16, 2016)

"Organisers of the Shoreham air show, where a jet crashed last year killing 11 people, were unaware of the pilot's display plans, an interim report says.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) also said they failed to carry out a proper risk assessment".


Shoreham crash: Air show 'unaware' of pilot's display plan - BBC News


----------



## redcogs (Jul 10, 2016)

Shoreham crash pilot facing possible manslaughter charge over 11 dead - BBC News

Pilot interviewed under caution.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 10, 2016)

I read somewhere that there were no indications of technical malfunction, and that he commenced the loop below the safe minimum height. I don't know how they know that but, if it's true, he's in trouble. The base height is a protocol they teach you early in flight school, and he was an RAF Qualified Flying Instructor.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 3, 2017)

The final 451 page report is out


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 3, 2017)

David Clapson said:


> I read in various places that you generally finish a loop at the same height you started it at. I think the investigators will take a very dim view of his start height. He must have given them his side of the story by now. If the engine/throttle didn't respond normally he ought to have been aware of it. There's no black box so I suppose they have to rely on his account.



Concerning the height of the manoeuvrer they say this:

"Although it was possible to abort the manoeuvre safely at this point, it appeared the pilot did not recognise that the aircraft was too low to complete the downward half of the manoeuvre. An analysis of human performance identified several credible explanations for this, including: not reading the altimeter due to workload, distraction or visual limitations such as contrast or glare; misreading the altimeter due to its presentation of height information; or incorrectly recalling the minimum height required at the apex.

The investigation found that the guidance concerning the minimum height at which aerobatic manoeuvres may be commenced is not applied consistently and may be unclear.

There was evidence that other pilots do not always check or perceive correctly that the required height has been achieved at the apex of manoeuvres.

Training and assessment procedures in place at the time of the accident did not prepare the pilot fully for the conduct of relevant escape manoeuvres in the Hunter."


----------



## redcogs (Mar 3, 2017)

From the report:

"The investigation found that the parties involved in the planning, conduct and regulatory oversight of the flying display did not have formal safety management systems in place to identify and manage the hazards and risks. There was a lack of clarity about who owned which risk and who was responsible for the safety of the flying display, the aircraft, and the public outside the display site who were not under the control of the show organisers".

Prosecutions should be considered. People have died, and a loose regime of controls had significance in this.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 3, 2017)

redcogs said:


> From the report:
> 
> "The investigation found that the parties involved in the planning, conduct and regulatory oversight of the flying display did not have formal safety management systems in place to identify and manage the hazards and risks. There was a lack of clarity about who owned which risk and who was responsible for the safety of the flying display, the aircraft, and the public outside the display site who were not under the control of the show organisers".
> 
> Prosecutions should be considered. People have died, and a loose regime of controls had significance in this.



wow, that's incredible and yes I would say prosecutions should happen, both the organisers and the local council. Where was the council's Safety Advisory Group (SAG)? Any festivals or outdoor events I've been involved with have had heavy oversight through the licencing process and clearance from the SAG, which includes ensuring H&S policies and procedures, ie formal safety management systems. I'd have assumed that a high risk event like an airshow would be even tighter on this from the council's side if not the organisers themselves.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 22, 2018)

The pilot is being charged with causing manslaughter by gross negligence.



> SHOREHAM Airshow pilot Andy Hill will face trial for manslaughter over the 2015 plane crash which killed eleven men.
> 
> Hill, 53, will be charged with causing manslaughter by gross negligence, and also faces a lesser charge of endangering an aircraft.
> 
> ...





> The case was delayed and complicated when a court ruled the police could not have direct access to evidence gathered by the Air Accident Investigation Board.



I wonder why the court made such a ruling, seems totally illogical to me. 

Shoreham Airshow pilot Andy Hill will be charged with manslaughter | The Argus


----------



## Nivag (Mar 22, 2018)

Why on earth wouldn't they give police access to that information? 
Sounds like they wanted to cover something up.


----------



## 2hats (Mar 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> > The case was delayed and complicated when a court ruled the police could not have direct access to evidence gathered by the Air Accident Investigation Board.
> 
> 
> I wonder why the court made such a ruling, seems totally illogical to me.


AFAICS the police were refused access to AAIB collected evidence whilst the AAIB investigation was still underway (the refusal was in September 2016, the AAIB final report published in March 2017). Which would appear to suggest that the court was allowing the AAIB investigation to reach an independent conclusion first.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 22, 2018)

2hats said:


> AFAICS the police were refused access to AAIB collected evidence whilst the AAIB investigation was still underway (the refusal was in September 2016, the AAIB final report published in March 2017). Which would appear to suggest that the court was allowing the AAIB investigation to reach an independent conclusion first.



That would make sense.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 22, 2018)

The AAIB operates on a broad principle of prioritising future avoidance of accidents over punishment for those that have happened. Learning lessons from accidents requires that the people involved can & will talk openly about what happened without fearing e.g. prosecution or explicit blame. So if the AAIB process is allowed to become a conduit for the police to go after someone before it completes, it has a very serious problem in terms of deterring participants.


----------



## elbows (Mar 22, 2018)

Indeed. the records in question have a protected status in law. Here is an article where Sussex police applied to the high court for access to pilot statements, flight footage from on-plane cameras, and some other material in 2016. The High Court refused the application, except for the film footage.

Shoreham High Court Judgment - GOV.UK


----------



## mauvais (Mar 22, 2018)

elbows said:


> Indeed. the records in question have a protected status in law. Here is an article where Sussex police applied to the high court for access to pilot statements, flight footage from on-plane cameras, and some other material in 2016. The High Court refused the application, except for the film footage.
> 
> Shoreham High Court Judgment - GOV.UK


Expanding on the post above, here's a good summary of why it is this way:

Shoreham: High Court grants access to video but stops short of full disclosure - Lexology


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> The pilot is being charged with causing manslaughter by gross negligence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


About fucking time.


----------



## David Clapson (Mar 22, 2018)

IANAL but his defence could be very complicated - defective aircraft, inadequate briefing by the organisers, poor oversight by local authority, inherent risk, act(s) of God, blah blah. So I doubt they will be able to prove manslaughter. Seems to me that he made one gross error, which was to decide to complete the loop when the lack of height at the top of the loop made it impossible.  A split second decision. Some would that was pilot error and manslaughter by gross negligence. Ever since the crash other pilots have been wondering why on earth he didn't abandon the loop. He had enough height to do that safely. But he's the only one who knows what his thought process was. He has probably explained that in detail to the AAIB. I hope he will be open about it in court.


----------



## redcogs (Mar 22, 2018)

It seems likely that pilot Hill has some culpability in this tragedy.  But if my reading of above posts is correct there are other breeches that ought also to raise  prosecutions.  The governments final report states:

"The investigation found that the parties involved in the planning, conduct and regulatory oversight of the flying display did not have formal safety management systems in place to identify and manage the hazards and risks. There was a lack of clarity about who owned which risk and who was responsible for the safety of the flying display, the aircraft, and the public outside the display site who were not under the control of the show organisers".

It is an uncomfortable parallel, but the Grenfell Tower disaster involves evasions of responsibility, buck passing, and corner cutting.   i reckon it is reasonable to question whether there is a common denomenator at play in both situations?

im certainly in favour of the announced legal action against the pilot, but surely it wouldn't be right to have a single scapegoat whilst others avoid facing the courts.  Of course that may not happen, and presumably further announcements remain possible? But innocent people died, and their loved ones ought to have the possibility that justice is comprehensively served.


----------



## gosub (Mar 22, 2018)

redcogs said:


> It seems likely that pilot Hill has some culpability in this tragedy.  But if my reading of above posts is correct there are other breeches that ought also to raise  prosecutions.  The governments final report states:
> 
> "The investigation found that the parties involved in the planning, conduct and regulatory oversight of the flying display did not have formal safety management systems in place to identify and manage the hazards and risks. There was a lack of clarity about who owned which risk and who was responsible for the safety of the flying display, the aircraft, and the public outside the display site who were not under the control of the show organisers".
> 
> ...


What is your personal history in aviation?


----------



## redcogs (Mar 22, 2018)

i once got a plane to Portugal.  A return flight.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 22, 2018)

David Clapson said:


> But he's the only one who knows what his thought process was. He has probably explained that in detail to the AAIB. I hope he will be open about it in court.


AFAIK the pilot hasn't contributed much because he claims to have no memory of the incident. I could be wrong.


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 23, 2018)

David Clapson said:


> Ever since the crash other pilots have been wondering why on earth he didn't abandon the loop. He had enough height to do that safely.



Probably because he'd entered the maneuver at the wrong height many times before and got away with it.

These things are always going to happen as long as ex military aircraft types are allowed on the civil register.


----------



## redcogs (Mar 23, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Probably because he'd entered the maneuver at the wrong height many times before and got away with it.
> _*
> These things are always going to happen as long as ex military aircraft types are allowed on the civil register.*_



If air displays involving tight maneuvers and gyrations must be organised then it would surely make sense for them to take place over large open areas of sea, ie, areas where humans are not innocently going about their normal daily activities and would not be endangered by any lunatic irresponsibility borne out of gung-ho petrol headed cock waving.


----------



## David Clapson (Mar 23, 2018)

Some do take place over the sea, e.g. the Clacton one, which attracts crowds of 100,000+.

At the inland ones the aircraft have not been allowed to fly close to the crowd since 30 people died in the 1952 Farnborough Air Show crash 1952 Farnborough Airshow crash - Wikipedia. The airfields are typically very large, e.g. Farnborough is 7700 acres. When the aircraft crash nowadays it's almost always on an empty part of the airfield and the debris doesn't go anywhere near people. The Shoreham disaster was very unusual, in that the airfield is tiny, about 300 acres, and has a busy dual carriageway only 200 metres from the runway. 

In 2016 29 new safety measures were introduced because of Shoreham. A number of air shows have been cancelled because they can't comply, or don't want to risk losing money on a boring show which only gets a small crowd. Shoreham hasn't had an air show since the deaths. I haven't found a statement about their future plans, if any. The new rules are here http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP 1371 civil air display review actions eval.pdf 

A few display pilots are probably arrogant willy-wavers, but millions of people want to see them. Football is the only outdoor event in the UK which gets more spectators

Air shows have always had a relatively high accident rate. Some of the aircraft are experimental and they get pushed to the limit, either to please the crowd or to sell the aircraft to potential customers. The Russians used to be in the habit of crashing their latest and greatest designs at the Paris air show. But I doubt the accident rate is as bad as it is for ordinary flying in small single-propeller aircraft, or helicopters. They fall out of the sky all the time. I doubt that old ex-military jets are any worse. The really awful ones crashed or were scrapped years ago when they were in military service. The survivors are still around because they're good at surviving.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Mar 24, 2018)

What fascinates me about this whole thing is how the pilot survived. He wasn't even seriously injured from what I recall.

How on earth did that happen?


----------



## likesfish (Mar 24, 2018)

Luck and military aircraft has a fireproof bulkhead behind the  cockpit the fuel and engines are behind him


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 24, 2018)

David Clapson said:


> I doubt that old ex-military jets are any worse. The really awful ones crashed or were scrapped years ago when they were in military service. The survivors are still around because they're good at surviving.



Plenty of the 'really awful ones' made it on to the UK civil register - MiG-15 and Sea Vixen for a start. The Fresco is unstable in yaw at any speed from 0-1,000km/h and the Sea Vixen was one of the most complicated (14 different fuel tanks that had to be manually managed) and downright dangerous aircraft to spring from the ever fertile minds of post war British aircraft designers.

I doubt that swept wing mil types will be allowed to do aeros for public display in the UK again. The Vampires and JP/Strikemasters will carry on until one of them ploughs into a dual carriageway.

I remember flying with the Shoreham pilot in the late 80s. We were in one of a pair of JPs on a navigation exercise . He got on the radio and asked permission from Fairford for a 'slow fly by'. We came steaming through at about 400KIAS and 200'. I remember looking out at the rows of B-52s as we flashed over them and thinking: _Jesus Christ, this is living._


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 23, 2018)

I meant to post this last week & forgot. 

Hill appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court last Thursday, charged with 11 counts of manslaughter and one count of endangering an aircraft, indicating he would be pleading not guilty, he was bailed to appear at the Old Bailey on 17th May.

Shoreham air crash pilot in court


----------



## Indeliblelink (Jan 16, 2019)

Andrew Hill's trial for manslaughter started yesterday.
Shoreham airshow crash: Trial begins for pilot Andrew Hill


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Jan 17, 2019)

A sad situation all round. How come it's taken 4 years to start the trial?

Edit: well 3 1/2 or so.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 17, 2019)

Rosemary Jest said:


> A sad situation all round. How come it's taken 4 years to start the trial?
> 
> Edit: well 3 1/2 or so.


 He had to recover from his injury. Civil inquiry had to end. Then police enquiry had to begin.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 17, 2019)

It was such a tragic accident, for the 11 victims and their friends & family, but also for the thousands that witnessed it, including some of my family. 

I found out recently, from a third party, that a local funeral director I know did all the funerals free of charge, they had kept that well quiet, out of the press, away from social media, etc., when I asked him about it, he was embarrassed that it had got out.

What a nice thing to do.


----------



## ricbake (Jan 17, 2019)

Rosemary Jest said:


> What fascinates me about this whole thing is how the pilot survived. He wasn't even seriously injured from what I recall.
> 
> How on earth did that happen?


The bottom of his loop was along a road....
Incredible pictures show Shoreham air pilot looking unscathed after crash that killed 11


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2019)

ricbake said:


> The bottom of his loop was along a road....
> Incredible pictures show Shoreham air pilot looking unscathed after crash that killed 11


That's pretty much the same picture of him 7 times.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 17, 2019)

Rosemary Jest said:


> What fascinates me about this whole thing is how the pilot survived. He wasn't even seriously injured from what I recall.
> 
> How on earth did that happen?



Missed this earlier. 

When the aircraft broke up, the cockpit separated from the rest of the aircraft ending in a ditch, he was thrown out of it, and left lying on the ground.

He was seriously injured and admitted to hospital in a critical condition, and placed into an induced coma.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Jan 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Missed this earlier.
> 
> When the aircraft broke up, the cockpit separated from the rest of the aircraft ending in a ditch, he was thrown out of it, and left lying on the ground.
> 
> He was seriously injured and admitted to hospital in a critical condition, and placed into an induced coma.



Still, absolutely a miracle he survived, people die falling over, plus he didn't take long to be discharged from hospital. Hard to believe really, watching the footage of the crash now.

He must have been going 300 odd mph what he crashed.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 17, 2019)

Rosemary Jest said:


> He must have been going 300 odd mph what he crashed.





> The plane was 800ft below the minimum safe height, when the plane was flying at 105 knots, rather than the 150 knots considered the minimum.
> Shoreham plane flew too low for loop the loop, disaster report says



105 knots is only 120mph.

IIRC is was about 3 weeks when he was discharged from the specialist hospital, I can't remember the details of how long it took him to totally recover.

But, yeah, he was very fucking lucky to survive.


----------



## Poi E (Jan 18, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> .
> 
> But, yeah, he was very fucking lucky to survive.



Wonder how he feels about that.


----------



## Nivag (Jan 18, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Wonder how he feels about that.


Not guilty..


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 18, 2019)

I was talking to my brother last night about this, he was at the airshow with my youngest niece & her b/f, so the coverage of the court case has brought back all the memories of witnessing it, the shock & horror of it all.

I was in my garden when I spotted this big cloud of smoke in the distance, I am under 6 miles from Shoreham airport, and was wondering what it was, when I over heard a neighbour say there had been a crash at the airshow, my heart sunk knowing I had family there. Needless to say we couldn't actually make contact for some hours, as the mobile phone networks couldn't cope with demand, it was a scary time. 

I called my S-i-L to let her know, but she was already aware, she had just been urgently called in by Worthing hospital, as they were expecting a lot of admissions, needless to say she was worried sick and fearing her husband, step daughter & B/F could well be on the admissions list.

The crash was early afternoon & it wasn't until early evening when finally a text message arrived saying they were safe & well, but trapped at the airport. Big relief all round.

There's 2 routes in & out of the airport, the main one is to north and the A27 dual carriage way, which was the crash scene. The other is via a narrow lane heading south to the single carriage way A259, which was totally grid-locked because traffic from the A27 had been diverted down, meaning it took hours to get out of the airport. They finally got home between 10 & 11 pm that night.

There was a very strange atmosphere around the town for the next couple of weeks, impossible to describe, everyone just seemed so shocked - the airshow had been such a big thing for the area, for so long. 

I was very much on 'the sidelines', but it seriously impacted on me, and more so for the rest of the family mentioned in this post.


----------



## Nivag (Jan 18, 2019)

I was watching by the The Red Lion Inn with some mates and was taking photos as it happened, most of us haven't really spoken to each other about the day but seeing it being talked about again has brought back some memories. At the time it was a very surreal experience, viewing other people's view point of it and seeing the various footage.
This is one of the photos I shot.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 18, 2019)

Nivag said:


> I was watching by the The Red Lion Inn with some mates and was taking photos as it happened, most of us haven't really spoken to each other about the day but seeing it being talked about again has brought back some memories. At the time it was a very surreal experience, viewing other people's view point of it and seeing the various footage.
> This is one of the photos I shot.
> View attachment 159085



I have a mate that lives near The Red Lion Inn & was there at the time, I also know a couple of people that were at the Sussex Pad, basically looking down on the crash scene.

Like you, we hadn't really spoken about it since I guess a day or two after, until now, because the memories have been brought back, it was surreal at the time, and it's surreal once again.


----------



## gosub (Jan 18, 2019)

He's an arsehole for not pleading guilty, thus spareing people the truma


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 18, 2019)

gosub said:


> He's an arsehole for not pleading guilty, thus spareing people the truma



We need to be careful commenting about on-going court cases, he could in theory be innocent, although his history is not great.



> Jurors were told Mr Hill was known to take risks, and a previous air show display had been halted due to his "dangerous" flying.
> 
> The defence argued Mr Hill had "responded professionally" and taken steps to avoid repeating the mistakes.
> 
> Show pilot 'did nothing' to avoid crash


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jan 18, 2019)

Indeliblelink said:


>




Just been reading the latest on this bloody awful event - Sad stuff


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 13, 2019)

The prosecution has finished presenting their case, the the pilot has taken the stand to defend himself, so I guess we are getting near to the end of the trail now. 



> Andrew Hill, the pilot whose plane crashed during the Shoreham airshow, killing 11 men, has dismissed claims that he ever had a “cavalier attitude” towards flying.





> The jury previously heard of three incidents in 2014, a year before the vintage jet crash, when there were concerns about Hill’s flying. This included one of his displays that was halted with a stop call because he had performed a “dangerous manoeuvre”. But some witnesses since described him as “safety conscious” and an “absolutely gentleman”.





> The court was told he had experienced “cognitive impairment” shortly before the crash and did not remember what happened. He was thrown from the burning plane and told medics he had blacked out while in the air after he was found with blood on his face lying in undergrowth beside the cockpit.
> ----
> He had passed medical checks before the crash. Tests and scans carried out afterwards did not show any sign of a medical condition, including cognitive impairment, that could have affected his health leading up to the crash, the court heard.



Shoreham airshow crash pilot denies being 'cavalier' while flying


----------



## Indeliblelink (Mar 8, 2019)

NOT GUILTY: Shoreham air crash pilot CLEARED of manslaughter



> The pilot whose plane crashed during the Shoreham Airshow, killing 11 men, has been cleared of manslaughter.
> 
> Andrew Hill had been attempting a loop when his Hawker Hunter jet exploded into a fireball on the A27.
> 
> ...




Shoreham airshow crash pilot cleared over deaths of 11 people


> For a conviction for manslaughter by gross negligence, the jury had to be satisfied that Hill’s conduct was so bad as to amount to a criminal act or omission. Jurors were told that the case hinged on the question of whether the defendant was incapacitated in such as way that he was not in control of the aircraft.



I wasn't expecting this, really thought he would of been found guilty.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

The risk of hypoxia is one of many reasons why there's a minimum altitude for maneuvers like the one he was attempting. If he was below that height when he started his loop then he's responsible for the crash and the fatalities IMO.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 8, 2019)

gosub said:


> He's an arsehole for not pleading guilty, thus spareing people the truma



Perhaps that was because he wan't guilty?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 8, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> The risk of hypoxia is one of many reasons why there's a minimum altitude for maneuvers like the one he was attempting. If he was below that height when he started his loop then he's responsible for the crash and the fatalities IMO.



The jury however, having heard _all _the evidence, disagreed with you.

I've just seen, on the BBC news broadcast, a reporter being subjected to the level of G force that would have been experienced during the manoeuvre, the reporter was trying to recite a nursery rhyme, he couldn't, and also blacked out for a few seconds.

I think this spells the end for at least land based air shows. Farnborough is having no display this year.

A truly tragic accident.


----------



## gosub (Mar 8, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> The risk of hypoxia is one of many reasons why there's a minimum altitude for maneuvers like the one he was attempting. If he was below that height when he started his loop then he's responsible for the crash and the fatalities IMO.


Plus he'd tanked up on free display Jet A1 so the performance of the Hunter would be sub optimal.


Surprised they didn't put up a rebuttal witness about the training as well


----------



## gosub (Mar 8, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> The jury however, having heard _all _the evidence, disagreed with you.


That much is true.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> The jury however, having heard _all _the evidence, disagreed with you.



Oh be quiet you silly child.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 8, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Oh be quiet you silly child.



You really are a clown, aren't you? The verdict of the jury was not guilty, you of course know better. Except you don't.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> You really are a clown, aren't you? The verdict of the jury was not guilty, you of course know better. Except you don't.



I'm a trained pilot.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 8, 2019)

gosub said:


> Plus he'd tanked up on free display Jet A1 so the performance of the Hunter would be sub optimal.
> 
> 
> Surprised they didn't put up a rebuttal witness about the training as well



Training? The pilot was an RAF fast jet pilot, who then went on to fly commercial airliners.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 8, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm a trained pilot.



Sorry, I'm in a bad mood regarding something else entirely, I wasn't questioning your competence as a pilot. Apologies.


----------



## gosub (Mar 8, 2019)

So pilot who calls himself careful but has previous cautions for rule breaches  breaks  rules again people die and its an accident because, he says he didn't have training in something that it is part of RAF training.



Prosecution could have been better


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 8, 2019)

gosub said:


> So pilot who calls himself careful but has previous cautions for rule breaches  breaks  rules again people die and its an accident because, he says he didn't have training in something that it is part of RAF training.
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecution could have been better



Often could.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 8, 2019)

40 hours flying time in that jet over 4 years so maybe 4 flights a year and he thought that was adequate time to be a display pilot? truly skygod's can have no faults nobody defending him on the pprune the pilot's board basically they are claiming his defense blinded the jury with jargon they are having none of it entered the flight too low and too slow.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 8, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sorry, I'm in a bad mood regarding something else entirely, I wasn't questioning your competence as a pilot. Apologies.



I'm not a competent pilot, haven't flown in many years. But anyone who is allowed to control an aircraft will have had basic shit like 'if you do maneuver x below altitude y and speed z you will die' drilled into them. There's a reason the reporting referred to the 'cardinal sin' of ignoring y and z.


----------



## agricola (Mar 8, 2019)

gosub said:


> So pilot who calls himself careful but has previous cautions for rule breaches  breaks  rules again people die and its an accident because, he says he didn't have training in something that it is part of RAF training.
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecution could have been better



Perhaps, but even the most comprehensive, compelling and detailed account of what happened would still have to get past a jury.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 8, 2019)

I've been down the hospital most of the day, and heard this on the radio coming home.

I am not that surprised TBH, the defence made a big thing about his 'cognitive impairment', to introduce enough doubt in the minds of the jury, to not be able to convict on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 8, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm a trained pilot.


----------



## Rosemary Jest (Mar 8, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I've been down the hospital most of the day, and heard this on the radio coming home.
> 
> I am not that surprised TBH, the defence made a big thing about his 'cognitive impairment', to introduce enough doubt in the minds of the jury, to not be able to convict on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.



Does seem a bit of an odd angle to base the defense on, but a good one and one that worked. I mean, it's so ambiguous, how the fuck do you prove he wasn't cognitively impaired at the time?

Still doesn't mean it's acceptable to do loop the loops in 60 year old aircraft above dual carriageways.


----------



## redcogs (Mar 9, 2019)

It seems manipulation of jury's by well heeled people who are trained to talk manipulatively for a living is standard practice.

Its got fuck all to do with justice though.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 9, 2019)

he got away with it 11 people dead by his actions and he walks away.
 obviously elderly fighter jet is the ideal murder weapon


----------



## brogdale (Mar 9, 2019)

likesfish said:


> obviously elderly fighter jet is the ideal murder weapon


Well, yeah...


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Training? The pilot was an RAF fast jet pilot, who then went on to fly commercial airliners.



The thing about training is that is has to be recurrent and validated. I was trained to do a great many things in the RAF but if I tried to do them now I'd probably kill myself.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm a trained pilot.


Shut up you fucking bellend. Whatever half arsed training you've had qualifies you to talk about this as much as my 50 meters badge from school qualifies me to talk about deep sea diving. Each jury member will be far brighter than you, will have seen and heard evidence that you have not, and they cleared him. Mr "I'm a trained pilot", my arse. That's right up there with "do you know who I am?"


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 9, 2019)

I've built a balsa wood spitfire from scratch and have flown and landed it with great skill. Later I will be back to tell you all the facts according to my qualified mind. You will be able to close this thread then.

First I must go to Ludlow though where I intend to swap a cow for some magic beans at the market


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 9, 2019)

likesfish said:


> he got away with it 11 people dead by his actions and he walks away.
> obviously elderly fighter jet is the ideal murder weapon



What would the ideal outcome of this trial be for you?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 9, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What would the ideal outcome of this trial be for you?



The gallows more than likely.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> I've built a balsa wood spitfire from scratch and have flown and landed it with great skill. Later I will be back to tell you all the facts according to my qualified mind. You will be able to close this thread then.
> 
> First I must go to Ludlow though where I intend to swap a cow for some magic beans at the market



I may see you there.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 9, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What would the ideal outcome of this trial be for you?



few years inside.
 The PIlot was in command of the Aircraft he was flying no bad weather no mechanical fault he entered the loop too low and too slow g loc or cognitive impairment only happened because of his actions.

if I accidently fired a machine gun into a crowd and killed 11 people a defence of I was cognitively impaired would be bollocks as this is.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The gallows more than likely.



A vigorous shoeing with some punctuation?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

likesfish said:


> few years inside.
> The PIlot was in command of the Aircraft he was flying no bad weather no mechanical fault he entered the loop too low and too slow g loc or cognitive impairment only happened because of his actions.
> 
> if I accidently fired a machine gun into a crowd and killed 11 people a defence of I was cognitively impaired would be bollocks as this is.


At least SpookyFrank agrees with you and he's a trained pilot, dontcha know?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 9, 2019)

I've mentioned before that this was a big thing around here, I had family at the airshow, and could see the smoke from my back garden.

We're on the border between both BBC South & BBC South-East, and last night watched the local news for both regions, and this story was the only one covered during the half-hour local news on both. 

They had in-depth interviews with the families of a couple of those that died, and from witnesses that were on the A27 at the time & had very lucky escapes - all very touching. I feel so sorry for the families, that have basically only got partial closure from this verdict. 

They also showed footage I don't recall seeing before, with the plane going down, just cutting out a few seconds before impact, and returning straight after with the fireball & smoke - it sent a shudder down my back.

Apparently it's been 60 years since a member of public has died as a result of an accident at any airshow in the UK, the Shoreham Airshow has been going over 25 years and has raised over £2m for charity, and this amazing safely record & fund raising event, enjoyed by many hundreds of thousands of people over the years, has been fucked by the actions of one twat. 

And, it still plays on the minds of the local community, I often have to drive past the airport, I usually take the A259 to the south, but when I take the A27 to the north, it hits me every time I drive over the crash scene, clearly marked with new tarmac, not sure how long it'll take to get over that, probably never for the families & friends of those that died, and indeed the emergency & other services that had to deal with the scene.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> I've built a balsa wood spitfire from scratch and have flown and landed it with great skill. Later I will be back to tell you all the facts according to my qualified mind. You will be able to close this thread then.
> 
> First I must go to Ludlow though where I intend to swap a cow for some magic beans at the market



If only we could all make contributions as useful as this.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> If only we could all make contributions as useful as this.



If only you could.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> If only you could.


Shush. He’s a trained pilot.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 9, 2019)

The requirement was for the jury to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't incapacitated. They couldn't do that, so he couldn't be convicted.

Pilots do get jail for doing stupid things - this guy is off to prison:

'His arrogance knows no bounds' - pilot crash landed and claimed he was a hero


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I've mentioned before that this was a big thing around here, I had family at the airshow, and could see the smoke from my back garden.
> 
> We're on the border between both BBC South & BBC South-East, and last night watched the local news for both regions, and this story was the only one covered during the half-hour local news on both.
> 
> ...


We were up visiting my parents near Peebles when the plane went down at Lockerbie. Driving South on the way home we drove over the new tarmac that had been laid a few days earlier. The tarmac was there for years, as a poignant reminder, until the whole road was resurfaced.

A friend was a young policeman at the time, and was drafted in to comb the hills for bodies. It was grim.


----------



## dessiato (Mar 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> We were up visiting my parents near Peebles when the plane went down at Lockerbie. Driving South on the way home we drove over the new tarmac that had been laid a few days earlier. The tarmac was there for years, as a poignant reminder, until the whole road was resurfaced.
> 
> A friend was a young policeman at the time, and was drafted in to comb the hills for bodies. It was grim.


One of the Old Girls at the school where I teach in the summer was on that flight. Every time I see the memorial there it gives me a little shiver down my spine. I hope she died in the initial explosion so didn't have to suffer what is to me incomprehensible.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 9, 2019)

dessiato said:


> One of the Old Girls at the school where I teach in the summer was on that flight. Every time I see the memorial there it gives me a little shiver down my spine. I hope she died in the initial explosion so didn't have to suffer what is to me incompressible.



A friend & I had delayed coming back from Amsterdam by 24 hours, and was thinking of doing a another 24 hour delay, luckily we didn't.

We came back on the Herald of Free Enterprise, the day before it went down, that sends a shudder down my back.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

dessiato said:


> I hope she died in the initial explosion so didn't have to suffer what is to me incompressible.


Decompressible even.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> We came back on the Herald of Free Enterprise, the day before it went down.



Despite having no pertinent information one way or the other, I call bullshit.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Despite having no pertinent information one way or the other, I call bullshit.



He’s mentioned this several times and the story is consistent, and I can see no reason why anyone would make something like that up.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> We were up visiting my parents near Peebles when the plane went down at Lockerbie. Driving South on the way home we drove over the new tarmac that had been laid a few days earlier. The tarmac was there for years, as a poignant reminder, until the whole road was resurfaced.
> 
> A friend was a young policeman at the time, and was drafted in to comb the hills for bodies. It was grim.



I knew the Heathrow station manager for Pan Am, Ian Walsh. He was haunted for the rest of his life. Had to go to Scotland and escort the relatives around. Horrible thing to have to do. We lost a young woman on it, operating as a courier for a service we were doing, her mum was due to go the next day, they tossed a coin to see who would go first. I imagine her mum was destroyed by that, I know I would be.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Despite having no pertinent information one way or the other, I call bullshit.


He should have flown with a trained pilot such as yourself.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 9, 2019)

mauvais said:


> The requirement was for the jury to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn't incapacitated. They couldn't do that, so he couldn't be convicted.
> 
> Pilots do get jail for doing stupid things - this guy is off to prison:
> 
> 'His arrogance knows no bounds' - pilot crash landed and claimed he was a hero



There’s one who I won’t be booking for my next Kessel run.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He’s mentioned this several times and the story is consistent, and I can see now reason why anyone would make something like that up.



Nevertheless I consider myself entitled to call him a liar.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nevertheless I consider myself entitled to call him a liar.



Fill yer boots fella.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fill yer boots fella.



Thanks. Not sure exactly what I get out of it but I'm ploughing ahead just the same.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> A friend & I had delayed coming back from Amsterdam by 24 hours, and was thinking of doing a another 24 hour delay, luckily we didn't.
> 
> We came back on the Herald of Free Enterprise, the day before it went down, that sends a shudder down my back.



We came back from Germany on the sailing before the one that went down. The boat was always packed with squaddies, because they did an army discount. Some of the soldiers on the boat conducted themselves in an exemplary manner, including one who used his body to bridge a gap and allowed others to clamber over him to safety.

I sailed with the fuckers many times, and the realisation that every time the bow doors were open as it set sail does indeed make your blood run cold.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 9, 2019)

dessiato said:


> One of the Old Girls at the school where I teach in the summer was on that flight. Every time I see the memorial there it gives me a little shiver down my spine. I hope she died in the initial explosion so didn't have to suffer what is to me incomprehensible.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nevertheless I consider myself entitled to call him a liar.


Says the “trained pilot”.


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I may see you there.


Had a fab burger in the Queens


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> If only we could all make contributions as useful as this.


Thanks Frankie. The thread needed a bit of help so I delayed my journey and spared the time to contribute.


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 9, 2019)

Actually whilst I was in the Oxfam book shop in Ludlow today I was reminded about another area of aeronautical expertise that I foolishly failed to mention earlier based upon my collection of Observer's Guides Number 11 which, as most of you will know is *Aircraft. *

Today I got the 1974 edition for £1 in said shop so I am now an expert on planes like the Cessna T337G Pressurised Skymaster.

Here it is crowning my other areas of knowledge.



As you can see my knowledge of mid 60's aircraft is nothing short of astounding.


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 9, 2019)

Here's the Cessna T337G Pressurised Skymaster







I'm all over this one


----------



## mauvais (Mar 9, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Actually whilst I was in the Oxfam book shop in Ludlow today I was reminded about another area of aeronautical expertise that I foolishly failed to mention earlier based upon my collection of Observer's Guides Number 11 which, as most of you will know is *Aircraft. *
> 
> Today I got the 1974 edition for £1 in said shop so I am now an expert on planes like the Cessna T337G Pressurised Skymaster.
> 
> ...


Helpful if you travel back through time and have to man an AA gun in an alternate timeline of the Cold War.


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 9, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Helpful if you travel back through time and have to man an AA gun in an alternate timeline of the Cold War.


Yup. That's the great thing about Observer guides. They're timeless as there's always a blank page at the back to ensure that you keep things up to date. My knowledge of Lichens and Manned Spacecraft is but an arms length from my keyboard and even though I'm stuck in 1972 should I need to use spacecraft to travel back in time not much has changed for Liverworts and mosses. Railway locomotives is four volumes now, it wont be long before I'm in diesel territory.


----------



## likesfish (Mar 10, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Here's the Cessna T337G Pressurised Skymaster
> 
> 
> 
> ...


   That's the plane which wouldn't take off if you forgot to turn the rear engine on. Oops


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Despite having no pertinent information one way or the other, I call bullshit.



Only a plank would do that, Frank.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 8, 2019)

So, now the criminal case is over, they are starting a pre-inquest review today, which should include finally setting a date for the inquest itself to start. I guess this could drag on for years, which must be very difficult for the victim's families. 



> On Monday, it is anticipated a decision will be made with regards to the scope and format of the forthcoming inquest with the final dates for the inquest being set.
> 
> While the criminal trial concentrated on the actions of Mr Hill, the coroner at the inquest can consider other wider issues that are linked to the deaths of the 11 people.
> 
> The coroner may consider, having heard the evidence, whether or not she needs to make any Regulation 28 Reports (prevention of future deaths reports) relating to the organisation and planning of future air shows.



Pre-inquest review into Shoreham air crash to begin today


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 8, 2019)

Aye, the Clutha inquest starts today and that was November 2013.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 9, 2019)

They didn't set an inquest date at yesterday's pre-inquest review, instead there will be another pre-inquest review in July, with the inquest now likely to start late this year or early next! 

Few points...

1 - Legal aid for the families had been refused at first, but was in the end granted just last week.

2 - The coroner was urged to enlist a jury for the inquest, after she said he was not considering enlisting a jury.

3 - The coroner did not confirm whether the pilot would have to give evidence, or if transcripts of his trial would be considered instead.

4 - The role of the Civil Aviation Authority and airshow organisers was likely to be scrutinised, but the coroner would have to take the government to court to access evidence about the crash held by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch.  

All a bit shit for the families. 

Shoreham families want 'fearless' inquest


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> They didn't set an inquest date at yesterday's pre-inquest review, instead there will be another pre-inquest review in July, with the inquest now likely to start late this year or early next!
> 
> Few points...
> 
> ...


Not so good for anyone expecting the process to do what it's supposed to


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 10, 2019)

Picked up a whole new era of expertise this weekend. I'm pretty much down with commercial aircraft from 1961 to 1974 now. £1 a year. If only higher education was this cheap. 
 
My knowledge is clearly bang tidy


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 12, 2019)

My dad used to have loads of Janes Books about aircraft. I think my mother made him get rid of them when they moved in 2002.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 30, 2020)

The inquest date has finally been set for Set. 2020, over 5 years after the crash, and there will be no jury. 



> Ms Schofield said she accepted the case raised "questions of great public importance".
> 
> She promised a "fearless and impartial" investigation and added: "As a coroner, I will be able to make very detailed and reasoned factual findings which will be made public.
> 
> "It is my decision that the public interest can be better served by myself sitting alone."











						Shoreham Airshow inquest to be held without a jury
					

Eleven men died when a vintage jet crashed on to the A27 during the Shoreham Airshow in 2015.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 21, 2022)

More than seven years on, and finally the inquest is over, with the coroner concluding the elven men were unlawfully killed, despite the fact that pilot was cleared of manslaughter by gross negligence.



> Senior coroner Penelope Schofield said the plane crashing was "a result of the manner in which it was flown".
> 
> "This was not a small misjudgement," she told the inquest in Horsham, finding the pilot had two opportunities to escape the manoeuvre and prevent the crash.
> 
> ...





> UK law firm Stewarts represented some of the families who lost loved ones in the disaster.
> 
> Partner Sarah Stewart said: "The bereaved families have waited more than seven years to reach this point and although the senior coroner's conclusion will not ease the pain of their loss, their voices have been heard."
> 
> The families, she added, said they had reached "the end of their road" in terms of legal proceedings.











						Shoreham air crash victims unlawfully killed, coroner concludes
					

Eleven men died when a jet crashed on to the A27 in West Sussex during the 2015 Shoreham Airshow.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 21, 2022)

The bar to a criminal conviction is very high, deliberately so with the idea being (supposedly) that it is better guilty go free than innocent get locked up (OK, stop laughing at the back!).

Perhaps this judgment will open the possibility for compo claims against the airshow's insurance..?


----------



## MrSki (Dec 21, 2022)

I am not that familiar with the case but what was another possible ruling?

Lawfully killed? Couldn't really see that as an option.

Accidental death I suppose but more like accident waiting to happen.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 21, 2022)

MrSki said:


> I am not that familiar with the case but what was another possible ruling?
> 
> Lawfully killed? Couldn't really see that as an option.
> 
> Accidental death I suppose but more like accident waiting to happen more like.



I guess 'accident' or 'open verdict' were the other options.  



> What are the verdicts in an inquest?
> 
> Possible outcomes include: *natural causes; accident; suicide; unlawful or lawful killing; industrial disease and open verdicts* (where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict). Sometimes a coroner uses a longer sentence describing the circumstances of the death, which is called a narrative verdict.


----------



## spellbinder (Dec 21, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> More than seven years on, and finally the inquest is over, with the coroner concluding the* elven men* were unlawfully killed, despite the fact that pilot was cleared of manslaughter by gross negligence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would there of been better justice if they weren't shire folk   

Bad joke, soz!


----------

