Shoreham Airshow - Hawker Hunter crash :(

Look at my original post - I did say "being wise after the event"

as I said this should have been foreseen - the very busy A27 on a Saturday and any risk assessment should have highlighted this, (maybe it did), but hindsight is a marvellous thing
 
BillN_33 said:
again a comment that trivialises what has happened
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but your post seems based purely on Daily Heil articles.

This article is a good read and although linked to already in the thread I suggest it may be worth posting it again. For those that do not know the airshow scene Jonathan Whaley is a very experienced fast jet pilot, who until recently regularly operated a Hunter F . 58 in the UK, and he has broached the subject very tactfully unlike most articles on the subject.

https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial/posts/869126783174965

While I agree it is a complete tradedy the chances of it happening were slim to none. It would be totally knee jerk to stop airshows overland, however I can see big implications for certain venues, either with restricted display routines or worse.
 
Hazza said:
Perhaps so, but your post seems based purely on Daily Heil articles.

This article is a good read and although linked to already in the thread I suggest it may be worth posting it again. For those that do not know the airshow scene Jonathan Whaley is a very experienced fast jet pilot, who until recently regularly operated a Hunter F . 58 in the UK, and he has broached the subject very tactfully unlike most articles on the subject.

https://www.facebook.com/MissDemeanourOfficial/posts/869126783174965

While I agree it is a complete tradedy the chances of it happening were slim to none. It would be totally knee jerk to stop airshows overland, however I can see big implications for certain venues, either with restricted display routines or worse.
Click to expand...

I have NOT SAID STOP AIRSHOWS

I do not read the Daily anything

Read what I have written and then post credible comments if you want to argue about what I have said, rather than putting your own spin on it

I'm out as this post seems to be populated by air show "fan boys"
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I have NOT SAID STOP AIRSHOWS

Read what I have written and then post credible comments if you want to argue about what I have said, rather than putting your own spin on it

I'm out as this post seems to be populated by air show "fan boys"
Click to expand...

No Bill, this thread is in fact populated by people who've retained the ability to examine the facts - the statistics regarding airshow safety in this country are irrefutable and the risk to any member of the public, either at the airfield on roads or residential areas, remains negligible. Do some research and you will see that is the case. Nevertheless, the CAA have been pressure to respond to a lot of the nonsense floating around in the media and they have (probably wisely) imposed some immediate restrictions which should be sufficient to appease the media and public, but not necessarily the more hysterical contingent.

I understand that you have an opinion and you are entitled to express that - but you need to look at the situation in context and as a whole when based against the normal risks we all take when we walk out of our homes each day - nor do we 'have a say' in those risks either and it would be utterly absurd to suggest that RTA victims (or any others) are in some way responsible for their own deaths because the majority are not. I have lost one relative on the roads (not his fault) and another was left critically injured and brain-damaged (thanks to a negligent driver who had been drinking). Many road accidents are caused by young drivers who aren't particularly experienced. At an airshow the pilots are the most skilled in the world (in this country at least) - whilst that doesn't entirely rule out a lapse in judgement, it reduces the risk to miniscule proportions.

Aside from the roads, people are savaged by dangerous dogs every year - do they have a say in that, when they leave the house that morning? There are basic rules regarding dog ownership, but you cannot prevent these terrible events without wiping out certain breeds.- and even the most innocuous breed of dog can turn on someone.There are countless other examples which pose far more danger to us than 'an old plane falling out of the sky', yet they do not provoke the same madness in the media. You might argue that the airshow was laid on for entertainment and was therefore unnecessary - these shows are very very necessary given the vital funds they must raise each year for the charities involved. I don't think you have much of an understanding of the role that airshows play and the extreme safety measures which are in fact put into place at every airshow in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere in most of the world) - going by your flippant use of the term airshow 'fan boys'. Yet you accuse others of failing to provide credible comments - as I understand it a credible comment is that which may be backed up by facts or statistics.

How many flights above our heads today do you think are freight, commercial, versus pleasure and recreational? A great many will fall into the latter category, and commercial flights aside there is a huge breadth of experience and qualifications in the private pilot world - and there are many more crashes than you might realise. However the instances where those planes crash into people or roads are nevertheless very low despite air travel density. Preventing or restricting air travel above roads or populated areas is nonsensical, and imposing the same restriction upon airshows would be equally reactionary. There are standards by which private and commercial planes must be maintained, but I would wager that a cherished 'old' aircraft fit for display purposes will be serviced at a far more stringent level. I could go on, but I feel efforts to place this into context are wasted.

However I have no doubt that your statement about litigation is correct - I suspect there are a great many lawyers out there salivating on the doorsteps of those involved.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
No Bill, this thread is in fact populated by people who've retained the ability to examine the facts - the statistics regarding airshow safety in this country are irrefutable and the risk to any member of the public, either at the airfield or beyond it, remains negligible. Do some research and you will see that is the case. Nevertheless, the CAA have been pressure to respond to a lot of the nonsense floating around in the media and they have (probably wisely) imposed some immediate restrictions which should be sufficient to appease the media and public, but not necessarily the more hysterical contingent.

I understand that you have an opinion and you are entitled to express that - but you need to look at the situation in context and as a whole when based against the normal risks we all take when we walk out of our homes each day - nor do we 'have a say' in those risks either and it would be utterly absurd to suggest that RTA victims (or any others) are in some way responsible for their own deaths because the majority are not. I have lost one relative on the roads (not his fault) and another was left critically injured and brain-damaged (thanks to a negligent driver who had been drinking). Many road accidents are caused by young drivers who aren't particularly experienced. At an airshow the pilots are the most skilled in the world (in this country at least) - whilst that doesn't entirely rule out a lapse in judgement, it reduces the risk to miniscule proportions.

Aside from the roads, people are savaged by dangerous dogs every year - do they have a say in that, when they leave the house that morning? There are basic rules regarding dog ownership, but you cannot prevent these terrible events without wiping out certain breeds.- and even the most innocuous breed of dog can turn on someone.There are countless other examples which pose far more danger to us than 'an old plane falling out of the sky', yet they do not provoke the same madness in the media. You might argue that the airshow was laid on for entertainment and was therefore unnecessary - these shows are very very necessary given the vital funds they must raise each year for the charities involved. I don't think you have much of an understanding of the role that airshows play and the extreme safety measures which are in fact put into place at every airshow in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere in most of the world) - going by your flippant use of the term airshow 'fan boys'. Yet you accuse others of failing to provide credible comments - as I understand it a credible comment is that which may be backed up by facts or statistics.

How many flights above our heads today do you think are freight, commercial, versus pleasure and recreational? A great many will fall into the latter category, and commercial flights aside there is a huge breadth of experience and qualifications in the private pilot world - and there are many more crashes than you might realise. However the instances where those planes crash into people or roads are nevertheless very low despite air travel density. Preventing or restricting air travel above roads or populated areas is nonsensical, and imposing the same restriction upon airshows would be equally reactionary. There are standards by which private and commercial planes must be maintained, but I would wager that a cherished 'old' aircraft fit for display purposes will be serviced at a far more stringent level. I could go on, but I feel efforts to place this into context are wasted.

However I have no doubt that your statement about litigation is correct - I suspect there are a great many lawyers out there salivating on the doorsteps of those involved.
Click to expand...


Have you not read what I said in my initial post

I will repeat it

"I suppose the question to be asked is when is the next "old aircraft" going to fall out of the sky
and

what is the likelihood of this happening when looking back at hours flown/accidents by such compared with a modern aircraft

In my view the numbers killed versus the "stunt" and where it was allowed to take place is no longer acceptable in the crowded South East of the UK, or anywhere else that there is a danger to the public.

The death of 10 plus people can never be worth the manoeuvre that was undertaken and some would say that it is not responsible for it to have been allowed in that place.

wise after the event maybe, but it should never be allowed to happen again

Just my views"


?are you saying that the same stunt should be allowed at the same place at the next Airshow at Shoreham?
 
Last edited:
This has been a most tragic event and my condolences are offered to all touched and affected. I'll not make any speculative comments - there's been enough rubbish spouted already - and I'm not qualified to voice an Aeronautical opinion. (Rubbish though, I am highly qualified and able)

I, for one, am an avid lover of all things aviation and have witnessed some horrific events whilst spectating at Duxford. The Fairy Firefly incident in 2003 was the worst and profoundly disturbing as I walked past the field no less than 1.5 hours after the event in which two people were killed. [Yes, I was in the "naughty field"] It took me a long time to return to Duxford - or any Airshow for that matter.

I would not like to see Airshows stopped - they are a spectacle to behold. But, it has to be said, they are not without risk.

A sobering list of Airshows Accidents - it's a wonder to me there have not been more spectator fatalities. Is that a statement of the organisers' ability to correctly assess and manage Risk or just plain luck? Let me just quote one item from that link ...

"June 4 2001 – (Rouen, France) – Pilot Martin Sargeant was killed while making an emergency landing in his Supermarine Spitfire, due to engine failure. He tried to land on the designated emergency grass strip, but it was occupied by spectators. In an attempt to turn to a hard runway, his aircraft stalled and crashed"

Those are just Airshow accidents - there was an L39 which overshot the runway at Duxford and ended up on the M11 in June 2002. No vehicle was touched on the motorway (miraculously) but the Pilot was killed after a failed ejection although the co-pilot remained in the aircraft and walked away relatively unharmed.
 
Last edited:
Yes Bill, I have read your initial post and your subsequent posts. If you read my reply to you I think the answer to your question is clear.

Barry, airshow restrictions and rules can vary greatly by jurisdiction so presidence should be given to the airshow safety records in the UK - you will see that the risks lie with the pilot rather than the public. When looking at these statistics they need to be based over an appropriate timescale rather than focusing on individual incidents. The statistics clearly show that the risk to the (British) public is incredibly low and once again I would suggest reminding ourselves of the risks we take each day when going about our own tasks or recreation.
 
Last edited:
To quote you Lindsay
" I have lost one relative on the roads (not his fault) and another was left critically injured and brain-damaged (thanks to a negligent driver who had been drinking)"

also "dangerous dogs"

what has the death of your relative got to do with this accident or indeed a justification for such a stunt at airshows - what has "not his fault" and "drinking" got to do with this thread - what has this to do with "the answer to my question"

bizzare?

we can all invoke tragedies in our lives in sanctimonious comments and it is tragic that you need to do this
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
To quote you Lindsay
" I have lost one relative on the roads (not his fault) and another was left critically injured and brain-damaged (thanks to a negligent driver who had been drinking)"


what has the death of your relative got to do with this accident or indeed a justification for such a stunt at airshows - what has "not his fault" and "drinking" got to do with this thread - what has this to do with "the answer to my question"

we can all invoke tragedies in our lives in sanctimonious comments
Click to expand...

Wow. I would have thought that the point of raising the two tragedies in my own family would have been self-explanatory since much of this discussion has revolved around the risk to road users. If you cannot see that Bill there is not much point in my trying to explain it again. I must say the tone of your reply is quite defensive - please read and understand my post before suggesting that reference to my personal loss is sanctimonious.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
Wow. I would have thought that the point of raising the two tragedies in my own family would have been self-explanatory since much of this discussion has revolved around the risk to road users. If you cannot see that Bill there is not much point in my trying to explain it again. I must say the tone of your reply is quite defensive - please read and understand my post before suggesting that reference to my personal loss is sanctimonious.
Click to expand...

It is not at all defensive ....... if you associate "dangerous dogs" and "family tragedies" with this incident ... I just do not know what to say
 
BillN_33 said:
It is not at all defensive ....... if you associate "dangerous dogs" and "family tragedies" with this incident ... I just do not know what to say
Click to expand...

Once again - I am talking about the risks we assume most days of our lives - statistically measurable risks which are not of our own making, usually a result of the negligent behaviour of others or our own poor decisions, which we may or may not describe as 'avoidable' - because I believe that is the position you are coming from. In that vein, I could also argue what are the statistical probabilities that one family might lose two family members (or even one) to road traffic accidents? What, then, are the risks of any family losing a family member to an aeroplane crash above the public highway?

You say people are not offering you credible answers - we are actually, but you are refusing to even acknowledge them.
 
Bill, I think Lindsay has provided you with an intelligent response. There is no need to get personal. You may not think you are but that's how it certainly comes across ( to me anyway ! )
 
Lindsay D said:
Once again - I am talking about the risks we assume most days of our lives - statistically measurable risks which are not of our own making, usually a result of the negligent behaviour of others or our own poor decisions, which we may or may not describe as 'avoidable' - because I believe that is the position you are coming from. In that vein, I could also argue what are the statistical probabilities that one family might lose two family members (or even one) to road traffic accidents? What, then, are the risks of any family losing a family member to an aeroplane crash above the public highway?

You say people are not offering you credible answers - we are actually, but you are refusing to even acknowledge them.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, accidents will always happen. Unless we sit at home in cotton wool there is a risk. Everytime kids go out on their bikes, they could fall off the pavement and onto the road, if a car is coming that could be very nasty but the risks are so small you don't think about it. Do I keep the kids at home rather than the park in case there is a bull terrier on the loose? No.

A pilot could blackout and a crash could happen anywhere, like the M1 at rushour... but the chances are so small that we allow flying.
 
Lindsay D said:
The statistics clearly show that the risk to the (British) public is incredibly low and once again I would suggest reminding ourselves of the risks we take each day when going about our own tasks or recreation.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, whilst researching to offer some degree of accuracy with respect to the L39/M11 incident, I 'Googled' (foolishly) "accidents duxford M11" there were dozens of Road Traffic 'hits' against just two for the Aviation incident.

So, your argument, in a lot of ways, is totally supported.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay's road traffic and dangerous dogs points are completely valid in relation to risk which is what the whole Air Display safety philosophy is based on. She is entitled to use those examples without being accuse of introducing sanctimonious comments.
 
We all know that salt in our food and cigarette smoking is far more dangerous to public health than accidents at air shows, but what has that and RTA's or indeed personal events, (unless they are directly related to the subject or similar), got to do with this discussion. Dangerous dogs, alcohol, drunken drivers, not their fault ......... lets bring more irrelevant examples in

at my age, (I'm nearly 70), life has seen some tragic events, but I would never dream as using these as some sort of justification for the argument in hand ..... and I would certainly never use personal experiences of such a raw nature on a public forum.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Bill, I think Lindsay has provided you with an intelligent response. There is no need to get personal. You may not think you are but that's how it certainly comes across ( to me anyway ! )
Click to expand...

The personal element was introduced by Lindsay ..... suggesting that I was becoming "defensive"

the facts of the case are the facts and we must do everything possible to ensure that it does not happen again, (as I said without banning Air Shows)

(I could mention the thousands and thousands of miles that I have flown in all types of Aircraft, (but obviously not a fighter jet), virtually all over the world in the last 50 years - but again that would be irrelevant to this subject - I am not saying that flying is unsafe - I am saying that it would have been far more appropriate to have not performed that manoeuvre, stunt or whatever in that particular place ..... the nearness to the road at the point of descent should have been considered in the risk assessment - but as I have said "wise after the event" and maybe, just maybe it will be taken into account at future air shows)

and a schedule flight landing over the M25 is not the same as what happened at Shoreham
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Those comments are just as silly as they are irresponsible
Click to expand...
Of course it is silly. I was making fun of the over-reaction in the press cited on the thread, by taking it to an extreme. It was not irresponsible or taking sides in any argument. And it was not meant as a real suggestion.
 
True Bill, but at the moment the fact is that we dont know the facts.
Your ascertion that it is the "fault of the aircraft or the pilot" may be correct but may well not be correct, there may be metrological or physiological reasons we are not yet aware of for instance.
A fact we do know is that knee jerk reactions ( for example... banning aerobatic manouvres at airfields near public roads)to these type events are hardly ever useful.
 
Simplythebeast said:
True Bill, but at the moment the fact is that we dont know the facts.
Your ascertion that it is the "fault of the aircraft or the pilot" may be correct but may well not be correct, there may be metrological or physiological reasons we are not yet aware of for instance.
A fact we do know is that knee jerk reactions ( for example... banning aerobatic manouvres at airfields near public roads)to these type events are hardly ever useful.
Click to expand...

Graham, again - I am not suggesting BANNING aerobatic manouvres at airfields near (ALL) public roads

I am saying that (wise after the event), that that specific manoeuvre should not have taken place in the specific place on the specific flight pattern and should not be allowed again ...... and all other similar situational possibilities should now be reviewed and the necessary action taken to prevent them ........ it is really just common sense, if those words can be used

(I have no interest in AirShows, but I was at my son's wedding 40 miles away on the day and we were waiting for a fly past ........ we only heard of the tragic event on Sunday, although we had a couple of guys with "light aircraft" pilots licenses at the wedding)
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I am saying that (wise after the event), that that specific manoeuvre should not have taken place in the specific place on the specific flight pattern and should not be allowed again ...... and all other similar situational possibilities should now be reviewed and the necessary action taken to prevent them ........ it is really just common sense, if those words can be used
Click to expand...

But you are not applying common sense???
The aircraft was not where it was supposed to be, due to a problem that we don't know about yet.
If it had been in the planned position it would not have been where it ended up.
It's really too early to speculate about the cause, that is what the investigations will hopefully discover.
Then will be the time to decide what action needs to be taken to prevent such a tragic accident in the future.
 
odd jim said:
Agreed, The Mail had a very distasteful article today about the pilot, with an opinion (and I stress opinion) from a retired RAF instructor slating the pilots actions. Talk about premature. And he's commentating from his armchair, away from any hard facts or data, and no doubt was miles away from Shoreham when this happened.

They actually published this comment from this so called expert -

"He said: ‘This is a terrible thing to say, but when you look at a guy who is a British Airways captain, has got long hair and wears a cap like that, you get the feeling that he's a glamour puss rather than a professional pilot."

Talk about pre judging someone. As far as I'm concerned this idiot commentator lost any credibility he might have commanded as soon as I read that.
Click to expand...

another daily fail article which is complete nonsense like the one about HS2 destroying the canal network
.you can't just say "Oh, I've got a pilot's licence" and get behind the controls of any plane of your choice. there are several categories.In fact, if he has authority to fly BA planes, this is a commercial pilot's licence, one of the highest categories

The pilot was a substitute, but had proven ability to fly this class of plane, so the issue of appearance and attire is irrelevant

reminds me of ISIRTA Retired Colnel sketch "Damn fine hens we had in those days"
"Not like these Modern Long Haired Pansy hens"
"They have to have their eggs warmed before they will sit on them"
 
Simplythebeast said:
Bill... I dont know if you have noticed but to get to any airfield you need to use a public road, all airfields have public roads near them. Some much busier than others. No display aircraft in the UK has crashed onto a public road causing casualties in all the years these events have been held.
The chances of that aircraft crashing onto that road were minute. Risk assessment is carried out on the basis of probability/effect, in this case it failed.

The M25 passes across the threshold of the runways at Heathrow and everyone knows that the most likely time for an air accident involving a civil airliner is on take off or landing. So when the inevitable happens who will be shouting about allowing a busy airport in such a location?
Click to expand...


Plus the M25 was built long after the airport was.
 
BillN_33 said:
.........................
to compare it with car journeys, as Graham has done is an insult to the families who have lost their loved ones - that is just another insensitive comment

The people who were killed and injured were not responsible for what happened to them.......................
Click to expand...
Many of those killed in road accidents weren't responsible for what happened to them, the cause being another driver in many cases

Many facets of life carries danger, we all take 'reasonable' precautions, but invincibility is not possible.
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
Many of those killed in road accidents weren't responsible for what happened to them, the cause being another driver in many cases

Many facets of life carries danger, we all take 'reasonable' precautions, but invincibility is not possible.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As someone who works with road collision data all day every day in Shoreham Police Station, there are many people injured or killed through no fault of their own. Despite what Bill thinks, this is totally relevant to the situation. The only difference is in scale, and what they were hit by.

Wait until the facts are known before passing judgement. It doesn't help those affected.
 
Simplythebeast said:
No display aircraft in the UK has crashed onto a public road causing casualties in all the years these events have been held.
Click to expand...


Not for the lack of trying though.

Duxford has been chucking airframes at the M11 for years. They just keep missing, that's all.
 
Never mind the rights and wrongs of air displays - did the original photography make a decent wedge out of his pictures - it doesn't matter that they were of a tragic accident, if that were so Don McCullin wouldn't have had a career.
 
Lensflare said:
Never mind the rights and wrongs of air displays - did the original photography make a decent wedge out of his pictures - it doesn't matter that they were of a tragic accident, if that were so Don McCullin wouldn't have had a career.
Click to expand...

Steady on. Don once told me that he felt guilt because he could walk away. He may have pressed the button but not the trigger.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Steady on. Don once told me that he felt guilt because he could walk away. He may have pressed the button but not the trigger.
Click to expand...

pretty much like the OP didn't make the jet crash - but the fact still remains that if photographing tragic things was a no no a lot of photographers of McCullins era wouldn't have had careers (Nick Utt being another example)
 
big soft moose said:
pretty much like the OP didn't make the jet crash - but the fact still remains that if photographing tragic things was a no no a lot of photographers of McCullins era wouldn't have had careers (Nick Utt being another example)
Click to expand...

Tim Page another - and then there was the Dutch guy, who I can never remember! Brian Harris photographed some pretty hair raising scenes in the run up to Live Aid (80s? I forget that too. It is an age thing....)
 
I was at the air show too, I have absolutely no issue with the photos being shown on here. It is not as if the OP was trying to glorify or sensationalise what happened. Thank you for sharing these images.

we can all speculate what happened, and there are people telling me what I saw, but the only people who can really tell us what happened are the investigators and the pilot. Most people around me at the show were immediately concerned that the plane had hit the road - however our view was limited. we had assumed that due to the intensity of the fireball the pilot would not have survived. What disturbed me was that many people with young children took them to the barrier to photograph the scene, I was astonished how many people pushed past me. I only lifted my camera again to photograph the Vulcan as it flew by but as it took me a few days to get over what I saw the only thing I wanted to do was to delete everything I had taken on the day.

the people who are affected by this are the pilot and his family, the victims and their families, those on the A27 and in the vicinity who witnessed the crash, and the spectators at the show (paying or not) - we experienced this first hand. Speculation serves no useful purpose and passing judgement based on what is seen in the media does not either. The response to the disaster in some areas has been over the top. The tributes to the victims has been sensitive, but condemnation of the pilot, the owners of the aircraft and the airshow organisers totally unnecessary.
 
Things not looking totally positive for the maintenance of the jet.

A jet that crashed during the Shoreham air show, killing 11 men, had expired ejector seat parts and an out-of-date technical manual, a report has said.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) also said emergency workers had to delay their response because some explosive cartridges were still live.

Its report said the seats were a "significant hazard" that delayed rescue teams until they were made safe.

The Hawker Hunter jet plummeted on to the A27 on 22 August killing 11 men.

A final report is still to be published by the AAIB, but seven safety recommendations have been made in the bulletin, which has looked at the safety of ejection seats and the maintenance of ex-military aircraft.

The AAIB said manufacturer support for the jet had ended after it was retired from military service, and its technical manual had not been updated.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-35153660
 
Ejection seat cartridges are not like loafs of bread or a pint of milk. They dont go faulty a few days or weeks after their Lot expiry date.
It is normal practice to have the cartridges recertified with a date extension where spares cannot be quickly sourced and we certainly did this in the RAF.
At the end of the day it is a cartridge full of nitro cellulose pellets. They may over years become less effective through moisture ingress or whatever but they are more than likely to function correctly some considerable time after their expiry' date.
Journalists have had a speed read through the report and picked out those bits that are likely to sell their newspapers.
The serviceability of the aircraft doesnt appear to have been a factor in this accident which looks to be down to pilot error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top