- Messages
- 1,237
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Crossed post with similar thoughts cambsno!
again a comment that trivialises what has happened
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ! )
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.Those comments are just as silly as they are irresponsible
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.
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
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.
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?
Many of those killed in road accidents weren't responsible for what happened to them, the cause being another driver in many cases.........................
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.......................
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.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.
No display aircraft in the UK has crashed onto a public road causing casualties in all the years these events have been held.
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.
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.
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)
Police have questioned the pilot involved in the Shoreham plane crash in August, which killed 11 people.
Andy Hill voluntarily attended an appointment with officers from the Surrey and Sussex Major Crime Team on Thursday.
Although the 51-year-old was interviewed under caution, he has not been arrested.
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.