The investigation is not complete so we have no idea what exactly caused the plane to crash, any talk of calling time on air shows or stunts is premature to say the least.
Whatever caused the crash isn't the issue imo, the issue is that if the plane weren't above a busy road when whatever happened happened, those people wouldn't have been killed
The investigation is not complete so we have no idea what exactly caused the plane to crash, any talk of calling time on air shows or stunts is premature to say the least.
Whatever caused the crash isn't the issue imo, the issue is that if the plane weren't above a busy road when whatever happened happened, those people wouldn't have been killed
I totally agree, but as others have pointed out a ban on stunts could spell the death of a lot of people's livelihoods, this was a completely freak accident and apparently the pilot was flying too low in the first place. I would like to think whoever is in charge of regulating this sort of thing will use the results of this investigation to see if this could be reasonably avoided and if that means curtailing stunts then that's that. In the meantime there is an ongoing investigation and trying to speculate on the future of a hobby/profession when clearly most people posting in this thread (me included) are not experts in this field is unnecessary. Do not get me wrong though, I definitely hope measures are brought in to ensure that this cannot ever be repeated but the solution ought to be proportional to the risk.
The investigation is not complete so we have no idea what exactly caused the plane to crash, any talk of calling time on air shows or stunts is premature to say the least.
Whatever caused the crash isn't the issue imo, the issue is that if the plane weren't above a busy road when whatever happened happened, those people wouldn't have been killed
I totally agree, but as others have pointed out a ban on stunts could spell the death of a lot of people's livelihoods, this was a completely freak accident and apparently the pilot was flying too low in the first place. I would like to think whoever is in charge of regulating this sort of thing will use the results of this investigation to see if this could be reasonably avoided and if that means curtailing stunts then that's that. In the meantime there is an ongoing investigation and trying to speculate on the future of a hobby/profession when clearly most people posting in this thread (me included) are not experts in this field is unnecessary. Do not get me wrong though, I definitely hope measures are brought in to ensure that this cannot ever be repeated but the solution ought to be proportional to the risk.
I think that @brogib has raised some good points. From the news reports it seems that people with no connection to the event have been killed in the crash,
@Fiiish I think that saying that "a ban on stunts could spell the death of a lot of people's livelihoods" is one of the most disrespectful comments on this site that I have ever seen. At least 11 people died - not only did they lose their livelihoods, they lost their lives.
How can something so logical like let's not do airshows over roads or residential areas especially if we intend to do stunts not be a reasonable thing to suggest, I know when I am driving along the road and I see an aeroplane doing the loop the loop that the road for a few seconds atleast isn't getting my full attention and surely these incidents have shown us that there needs to be a what if scenario taking into account, rob Steve you are bang on the money
How can something so logical like let's not do airshows over roads or residential areas especially if we intend to do stunts not be a reasonable thing to suggest, I know when I am driving along the road and I see an aeroplane doing the loop the loop that the road for a few seconds atleast isn't getting my full attention and surely these incidents have shown us that there needs to be a what if scenario taking into account, rob Steve you are bang on the money
Just said the same thing, virtually word for word, to my Mrs on the phone.
She's at her parents in Lewes at the moment and was due to go to Marks and Sparks which is at Shoreham apparently. Me brother-in-law who works at Brighton training ground with the Worthing goalkeeper who lost his life is in peices. Sad
We could make exactly the same argument to ban anything where there is a risk of someone dying - even football or in fact most sports. As I said before, any response to this tragedy should be proportional to the risk.
We could make exactly the same argument to ban anything where there is a risk of someone dying - even football or in fact most sports. As I said before, any response to this tragedy should be proportional to the risk.
Silly comparison.
You play Cricket, you take the risk of a ball hitting you on the head and dying. You play Rugby, you risk bashing heads with someone etc, and they are accepted risks of the sports.
I would suggest that it is not an accepted risk of driving that you could be ploughed into by a fucking plane that was doing loops above your head.
This is so simple. Don't do tricks over busy roads etc, just as they are not allowed to do them over the crowd.
The investigation is not complete so we have no idea what exactly caused the plane to crash, any talk of calling time on air shows or stunts is premature to say the least.
Whatever caused the crash isn't the issue imo, the issue is that if the plane weren't above a busy road when whatever happened happened, those people wouldn't have been killed
I totally agree, but as others have pointed out a ban on stunts could spell the death of a lot of people's livelihoods, this was a completely freak accident and apparently the pilot was flying too low in the first place. I would like to think whoever is in charge of regulating this sort of thing will use the results of this investigation to see if this could be reasonably avoided and if that means curtailing stunts then that's that. In the meantime there is an ongoing investigation and trying to speculate on the future of a hobby/profession when clearly most people posting in this thread (me included) are not experts in this field is unnecessary. Do not get me wrong though, I definitely hope measures are brought in to ensure that this cannot ever be repeated but the solution ought to be proportional to the risk.
I think that @brogib has raised some good points. From the news reports it seems that people with no connection to the event have been killed in the crash,
@Fiiish I think that saying that "a ban on stunts could spell the death of a lot of people's livelihoods" is one of the most disrespectful comments on this site that I have ever seen. At least 11 people died - not only did they lose their livelihoods, they lost their lives.
First of all, I was only repeating a point someone else on this thread had already made.
Second of all, it is not disrespectful if you consider it in the context it was meant in - I was definitely not implying that we should not consider life-saving measures purely because some people's jobs will be threatened. Your comment that makes it look like I care more about people's careers than lives is extremely callous and misleading.
I did say that I agreed with brogib, I was merely stating that we should wait until at least the initial investigation has been completed before there is a discussion on how to stop this from reoccurring, and if a ban on air shows anywhere near a main road or other congregation of people is the best way forward I would support that.
How many more airshows will take place while the whitewash investigation takes place?
brogib's suggestion that all stunts should take place over the sea (or lake etc) seems reasonable to me. Then it becomes purely a question of pilot safety.
@brogib, thoughts with your brother in law and the family and friends of those who died.
We could make exactly the same argument to ban anything where there is a risk of someone dying - even football or in fact most sports. As I said before, any response to this tragedy should be proportional to the risk.
The point is as @brogib has stated - the victims were not at the event. They were ordinary people going about their business. Risk management is not about the probability of a risk event occurring, it is about the effect of the risk. If you fly over a main road like the A27 and it could wrong, the best thing to do is not fly there,
We could make exactly the same argument to ban anything where there is a risk of someone dying - even football or in fact most sports. As I said before, any response to this tragedy should be proportional to the risk.
Silly comparison.
You play Cricket, you take the risk of a ball hitting you on the head and dying. You play Rugby, you risk bashing heads with someone etc, and they are accepted risks of the sports.
I would suggest that it is not an accepted risk of driving that you could be ploughed into by a fucking plane that was doing loops above your head.
This is so simple. Don't do tricks over busy roads etc, just as they are not allowed to do them over the crowd.
I totally agree with your last point, however someone else pointed out that the stunt was already in breach of what regulations state, so technically it is already banned in a way. Depending on how high a plane is, the potential area it could crash in if the pilot falls unconscious or loses control could be measured in square miles.
I only made the point about sports was because someone else made the equally ridiculous comparison with bear baiting of all things.
Can I just reiterate to you and everyone else who has seemed to have gotten themselves all worked up over something I categorically did not post - I am not opposed to considering all options in response to this tragedy, and I agree that stunts being curtailed could be a proportional response. What I did post was that the investigation has barely even commenced, therefore it is premature to begin discussing quite drastic measures (such as banning all air shows) until more facts come to light.
We could make exactly the same argument to ban anything where there is a risk of someone dying - even football or in fact most sports. As I said before, any response to this tragedy should be proportional to the risk.
Silly comparison.
You play Cricket, you take the risk of a ball hitting you on the head and dying. You play Rugby, you risk bashing heads with someone etc, and they are accepted risks of the sports.
I would suggest that it is not an accepted risk of driving that you could be ploughed into by a fucking plane that was doing loops above your head.
This is so simple. Don't do tricks over busy roads etc, just as they are not allowed to do them over the crowd.
I totally agree with your last point, however someone else pointed out that the stunt was already in breach of what regulations state, so technically it is already banned in a way. Depending on how high a plane is, the potential area it could crash in if the pilot falls unconscious or loses control could be measured in square miles.
I only made the point about sports was because someone else made the equally ridiculous comparison with bear baiting of all things.
Can I just reiterate to you and everyone else who has seemed to have gotten themselves all worked up over something I categorically did not post - I am not opposed to considering all options in response to this tragedy, and I agree that stunts being curtailed could be a proportional response. What I did post was that the investigation has barely even commenced, therefore it is premature to begin discussing quite drastic measures (such as banning all air shows) until more facts come to light.
That's fair enough.
I would suggest that we actually agree on this topic. Things such as banning air shows etc are silly. But I would also say that the cause of the crash is irrelevant in terms of this discussion - whatever the cause of the crash, just don't do them over roads or busy places.
The other thing is stunts like that are not exclusively the preserve of air shows, after all these stunt pilots have to practice before the show and amateur pilots go up all the time. Harrison Ford crash-landed on a golf course and that could have killed people if he had lost control, there was no cry then for the ban of amateur pilots. It is all about risk - and from what little I have read the pilot should not have been flying that low/near a road when performing that stunt in the first place.
I am all for stopping stunt planes flying near roads or houses or anywhere where a crash is likely to cause deaths, yet it hasn't been officially established yet whether the pilot was in breach of already existing regulations on this matter, or what actually went wrong so that can be examined in order to stop this from happening again. I'd also agree it could be sensible for any more stunts due to take place before the facts are established to be suspended or to only occur above fields/the sea.
I don't agree that establishing the facts does not change the discussion for stopping stunts over roads - if it turns out that the pilot did break the rules then the crash would have been avoided had he not broken the rules. If it was mechanical or health related then yes, stunts need to be curtailed and/or moved further from possible casualty zones.
I am a resident of the fantastic town of Shoreham and this has hit my community very hard. Talk of banning this and stopping that is a bit early as nobody knows why such a tragic accident happened but take it from me that air show is well organised and regulated. The biggest concern is those families that have lost a loved one and not picking apart what has happened. This will surely come with time and something for the authorities to worry about. Let's get things into perspective though please as tragic accidents happen every day so where do you draw the line.RIP to those that have lost their lives.
I am a resident of the fantastic town of Shoreham and this has hit my community very hard. Talk of banning this and stopping that is a bit early as nobody knows why such a tragic accident happened but take it from me that air show is well organised and regulated. The biggest concern is those families that have lost a loved one and not picking apart what has happened. This will surely come with time and something for the authorities to worry about. Let's get things into perspective though please as tragic accidents happen every day so where do you draw the line.RIP to those that have lost their lives.
At doing loops in an ancient aircraft above a busy road/town would be a good start.
Don't disagree with you SE9 but you have to ask the question whether the pilot misjudged it. I have been to that air show many a time and it us unusual for a plane to do a loop over the A27. Tragic accident unfortunately.
Feel for the people and the family's that have lost love ones, sons daughters, kids who have lost there parents it's a very sad and tragic situation.
Being a football bod I also feel for the Worthing United players taken far to young. life can be such a cont sometimes. Planes shouldn't be flying over roads like that performing stunts. After such a horrific situation they need to bad such events over public highways and residential areas.
My aunt is very heavily involved in fundraising for the RNLI down in Lyme. By chance I was down there yesterday visiting and she was upset that they can't get the red arrows next year for lifeboat week because they now charge, whereas before it was free. For me what was interesting was the impact that's going to have on the amount of money they're going to lose next year.
It's a massive draw and she reckons it's the biggest question she gets, 'are the red arrows coming etc'. I guess the sad thing is that that is now going to impact money/funding for a service that saves lives.
I'm pretty sure they go out over sea, so you could raise the point that is slightly safer. The reason I mention it is, as with this example it's not a simple decision just to say, they should be banned. How many other charities are in a similar position and who would lose out without an air show, but there is always a risk of people's lives as we have seen this weekend.
doing a loop the loop in an old aircraft over a busy main road .. utterly ridiculous .. the desire for more and more thrills more speed, more spectacle must have limits even in a 'free' society
Can't believe the arrogance of people who think that collateral damage to completely unconnected bystanders is an ordinary part of any hobby. Just seen a horrible man on TV going on about how wonderful the planes and pilots are! Well they're not wonderful at all. They just managed to kill eleven people who weren't even watching the show.
We could make exactly the same argument to ban anything where there is a risk of someone dying - even football or in fact most sports. As I said before, any response to this tragedy should be proportional to the risk.
Silly comparison.
You play Cricket, you take the risk of a ball hitting you on the head and dying. You play Rugby, you risk bashing heads with someone etc, and they are accepted risks of the sports.
I would suggest that it is not an accepted risk of driving that you could be ploughed into by a fucking plane that was doing loops above your head.
This is so simple. Don't do tricks over busy roads etc, just as they are not allowed to do them over the crowd.
I totally agree with your last point, however someone else pointed out that the stunt was already in breach of what regulations state, so technically it is already banned in a way. Depending on how high a plane is, the potential area it could crash in if the pilot falls unconscious or loses control could be measured in square miles.
I only made the point about sports was because someone else made the equally ridiculous comparison with bear baiting of all things.
Can I just reiterate to you and everyone else who has seemed to have gotten themselves all worked up over something I categorically did not post - I am not opposed to considering all options in response to this tragedy, and I agree that stunts being curtailed could be a proportional response. What I did post was that the investigation has barely even commenced, therefore it is premature to begin discussing quite drastic measures (such as banning all air shows) until more facts come to light.
As usual you miss the point to suit your argument. The "bear baiting" was in response to the ridiculous suggestion that people losing their livelihoods was an important factor in this discussion. The bear baiting analogy was to reinforce my point that the correct decision is always the correct decision. Regardless of some unwanted consequences.
Was at the Herne Bay air show last week. Was spectacular with the Vulcan Bomber and the acrobatic teams and the red arrows. 50,000 people there! But all of the displays were over the sea. Seems a sensible way to do it - just in case...
How many more airshows will take place while the whitewash investigation takes place?
Sorry but the AAIB, respected around the world as probably the best at their job, will not cover anything up.
Let's get one thing clear none of us know what happened, speculation is rife. It could have been a bird strike, depressurisation, G-loc, mechanical failure we won't know for at least 6-8 months.
The T7 in question was some 60 years old, but subject to far more rigorous inspection than RAF aircraft. Saying that some of the Hawks flown by the Red Arrows are almost 40 years old, would you ban them? The stunts they perform are far more complex.
The CAA will not allow certain ex-military planes a licence to fly, planes such as Buccaneers, Phantoms and Lightnings. Classic jets, such as Hunters, are flown around the world safely.
This was a tragedy, a freak event. The rules in place that govern UK air shows are far more stringent than in any other country. They will be tightened, no doubt, but air displays in the UK will continue over sea and over land as well.
I'll be at Duxford in a couple of weeks along with thousands of others.
Can't believe the arrogance of people who think that collateral damage to completely unconnected bystanders is an ordinary part of any hobby. Just seen a horrible man on TV going on about how wonderful the planes and pilots are! Well they're not wonderful at all. They just managed to kill eleven people who weren't even watching the show.
They didn't kill people on purpose did they - it was a horrific accident.
That said, air displays being held over roads and towns, when they are invariably somewhere near the sea, seems unnecessary.
How many more airshows will take place while the whitewash investigation takes place?
Sorry but the AAIB, respected around the world as probably the best at their job, will not cover anything up.
Let's get one thing clear none of us know what happened, speculation is rife. It could have been a bird strike, depressurisation, G-loc, mechanical failure we won't know for at least 6-8 months.
The T7 in question was some 60 years old, but subject to far more rigorous inspection than RAF aircraft. Saying that some of the Hawks flown by the Red Arrows are almost 40 years old, would you ban them? The stunts they perform are far more complex.
The CAA will not allow certain ex-military planes a licence to fly, planes such as Buccaneers, Phantoms and Lightnings. Classic jets, such as Hunters, are flown around the world safely.
This was a tragedy, a freak event. The rules in place that govern UK air shows are far more stringent than in any other country. They will be tightened, no doubt, but air displays in the UK will continue over sea and over land as well.
I'll be at Duxford in a couple of weeks along with thousands of others.
Quite frankly I find this post astonishing. It is breathtaking in it's lack of understanding of the fact that 11 are confirmed dead with the likelihood of that number rising to 20.
Don't worry though. The planes are rigorously checked and what happened doesn't happen very often. We don't want to let a little thing like 20 deaths get in the way of the excitement that an air show generates.
Comments
@Fiiish I think that saying that "a ban on stunts could spell the death of a lot of people's livelihoods" is one of the most disrespectful comments on this site that I have ever seen. At least 11 people died - not only did they lose their livelihoods, they lost their lives.
She's at her parents in Lewes at the moment and was due to go to Marks and Sparks which is at Shoreham apparently. Me brother-in-law who works at Brighton training ground with the Worthing goalkeeper who lost his life is in peices. Sad
You play Cricket, you take the risk of a ball hitting you on the head and dying. You play Rugby, you risk bashing heads with someone etc, and they are accepted risks of the sports.
I would suggest that it is not an accepted risk of driving that you could be ploughed into by a fucking plane that was doing loops above your head.
This is so simple. Don't do tricks over busy roads etc, just as they are not allowed to do them over the crowd.
Second of all, it is not disrespectful if you consider it in the context it was meant in - I was definitely not implying that we should not consider life-saving measures purely because some people's jobs will be threatened. Your comment that makes it look like I care more about people's careers than lives is extremely callous and misleading.
I did say that I agreed with brogib, I was merely stating that we should wait until at least the initial investigation has been completed before there is a discussion on how to stop this from reoccurring, and if a ban on air shows anywhere near a main road or other congregation of people is the best way forward I would support that.
whitewashinvestigation takes place?brogib's suggestion that all stunts should take place over the sea (or lake etc) seems reasonable to me. Then it becomes purely a question of pilot safety.
@brogib, thoughts with your brother in law and the family and friends of those who died.
I only made the point about sports was because someone else made the equally ridiculous comparison with bear baiting of all things.
Can I just reiterate to you and everyone else who has seemed to have gotten themselves all worked up over something I categorically did not post - I am not opposed to considering all options in response to this tragedy, and I agree that stunts being curtailed could be a proportional response. What I did post was that the investigation has barely even commenced, therefore it is premature to begin discussing quite drastic measures (such as banning all air shows) until more facts come to light.
I would suggest that we actually agree on this topic. Things such as banning air shows etc are silly. But I would also say that the cause of the crash is irrelevant in terms of this discussion - whatever the cause of the crash, just don't do them over roads or busy places.
As I said, this is really simple.
I am all for stopping stunt planes flying near roads or houses or anywhere where a crash is likely to cause deaths, yet it hasn't been officially established yet whether the pilot was in breach of already existing regulations on this matter, or what actually went wrong so that can be examined in order to stop this from happening again. I'd also agree it could be sensible for any more stunts due to take place before the facts are established to be suspended or to only occur above fields/the sea.
I don't agree that establishing the facts does not change the discussion for stopping stunts over roads - if it turns out that the pilot did break the rules then the crash would have been avoided had he not broken the rules. If it was mechanical or health related then yes, stunts need to be curtailed and/or moved further from possible casualty zones.
RIP to all those killed so bloody needlessly.
Being a football bod I also feel for the Worthing United players taken far to young. life can be such a cont sometimes. Planes shouldn't be flying over roads like that performing stunts. After such a horrific situation they need to bad such events over public highways and residential areas.
It's a massive draw and she reckons it's the biggest question she gets, 'are the red arrows coming etc'. I guess the sad thing is that that is now going to impact money/funding for a service that saves lives.
I'm pretty sure they go out over sea, so you could raise the point that is slightly safer. The reason I mention it is, as with this example it's not a simple decision just to say, they should be banned. How many other charities are in a similar position and who would lose out without an air show, but there is always a risk of people's lives as we have seen this weekend.
Let's get one thing clear none of us know what happened, speculation is rife. It could have been a bird strike, depressurisation, G-loc, mechanical failure we won't know for at least 6-8 months.
The T7 in question was some 60 years old, but subject to far more rigorous inspection than RAF aircraft. Saying that some of the Hawks flown by the Red Arrows are almost 40 years old, would you ban them? The stunts they perform are far more complex.
The CAA will not allow certain ex-military planes a licence to fly, planes such as Buccaneers, Phantoms and Lightnings. Classic jets, such as Hunters, are flown around the world safely.
This was a tragedy, a freak event. The rules in place that govern UK air shows are far more stringent than in any other country. They will be tightened, no doubt, but air displays in the UK will continue over sea and over land as well.
I'll be at Duxford in a couple of weeks along with thousands of others.
That said, air displays being held over roads and towns, when they are invariably somewhere near the sea, seems unnecessary.
Don't worry though. The planes are rigorously checked and what happened doesn't happen very often. We don't want to let a little thing like 20 deaths get in the way of the excitement that an air show generates.
Un fecking believable.
It was a tragedy but if you ban air shows you might as well ban driving.