No. They're brilliant. Cars? Time to call a halt? Buses? Time to call a halt? Alcohol? Time to call a halt? Trampolines in the garden? Time to call a halt? Planes? time to call a halt?
No, of course not.
Sorry is this a whoosh or one of the most stupid things I have ever read?
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.
Actually you appear to have missed the point I was making. You could also use your argument to ban anything where there is a risk of death, including football, hence why I pointed out what a breathtakingly stupid comparison it was.
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.
This is what I mean by a whitewash. We all know the end result will be to continue to allow air shows take place over residential areas (which, in England, is basically every piece of land). An investigation will take place, and it will be decided the plane had a technical fault, was flying too high or too low, bird strike, the pilot was unwell, air pressure - whatever it is, the investigation will avoid the underlying fact that over 11 people have died at the weekend because an airplane was performing stunts above land - in this case over a busy road. And airshows will continue to take place over land, over people's homes and workplaces, while the investigation takes place.
If the stunts had taken place over sea, then it wouldn't have crashed into anyone's house or car.
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.
Un fecking believable.
I find this post quite astonishing.
You are assuming BDL doesn't give a shite about the casualties and fatalities involved here, or that he doesn't comprehend what has occurred despite the fact he has said it was 'a tragedy, a freak event'.
I'm just assuming here, but I reckon you're very wrong about how you are reading BDL's comment and just looking to get on the Argument Alerter... As that's an assumption it's possibly also wrong... but that's assumptions, they're often incorrect.
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.
Actually you appear to have missed the point I was making. You could also use your argument to ban anything where there is a risk of death, including football, hence why I pointed out what a breathtakingly stupid comparison it was.
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.
Un fecking believable.
I find this post quite astonishing.
You are assuming BDL doesn't give a shite about the casualties and fatalities involved here, or that he doesn't comprehend what has occurred despite the fact he has said it was 'a tragedy, a freak event'.
I'm just assuming here, but I reckon you're very wrong about how you are reading BDL's comment and just looking to get on the Argument Alerter... As that's an assumption it's possibly also wrong... but that's assumptions, they're often incorrect.
I'm not saying that BDL doesn't care. I'm absolutely certain he does. I'm commenting that the post as made does not reflect that.
@IA I have seen enough crashes, some fatal to know that Airshows have an element of danger. I should have been stood on the very spot where the MB339 of Frecce Tricolori impacted into the crowd at Ramstein in 1988. Some people I knew were injured, one badly. He still attends Airshows. I saw the Invader go in at Biggin Hill, someone I knew should have been on board, he gave up his space for someone else. He had to live with that until he passed away.
The point I am trying to make is that this was an accident. An absolute tragedy that possibly 20 people have lost their lives through no fault of their own. I still can't work out why the Hunter was over the A27, pilots would have been briefed to fly over unpopulated/unused land.
If people are saying that they want Airshows banned and no flying over any built up areas what do they want to do about civil planes, such as those flying over London every day. Remember the skill of the pilot that landed the Triple 7 at Heathrow after the engine failure? If he had put it down 100 yards sooner then the loss of life would have been horrific.
@ShootersHillGuru see my earlier post, of course I care. If we hadn't have had a match on Saturday I would probably have been less than 50 yards from where the impact happened. I care deeply for those who have lost their lives and the impact this has on those who have lost their loved ones and also those that witnessed the devastation.
My whole point is that speculation is pointless, we will only know in 6-8 months after people I trust investigate and report. The CAA have already, rightly, said there will be a review of display practices in the UK.
Yes, I would also ban civil planes from performing stunts over land.
Once again, if the stunts had taken place over the sea last weekend, the pilot would be the only person in danger. As they took place over land, the pilot is in critical condition and at least 11 people (none of whom were attending the show) have died.
6-8 months. How many more airshows while the investigation takes place?
A terrible tragedy and RIP to all those who have passed.
Of course we should not knee jerk and stop displays, that would be ridiculous.
I agree a ban is not needed. What is needed is a ban for flying aerobatics over land.
That's almost as good as a ban, if the show is over the sea how can you charge for entry like at Duxford, Culdrose, Biggin Hill etc. If you cannot charge admission how can you pay the planes to attend an air show unless you close off the beaches to the public. Without paid appearances we would not have had the Vulcan flying for some many years, the Red Arrows or the numbers of Spitfires and Hurricanes that form a part of our history. As previously stated this was an accident, a serious accident and a tragedy but lessons will be learned, investigations carried out and safety stepped up. There's always a balance between safety and activity, no doubt as a result of this it will move more to safety.
Let's also not forget that more people have died at football matches, ( Hillsborough, Rangers, Hysel, Bradford etc) but we would not be calling for games to be banned, we are not saying that matches should be no attendance and just televised, but instead we adapt and learn from such events in order to try and prevent reoccurrence.
If you were to calculate the total number of fatalities due to civil aviation accidents over the last 50 years and divide by the total number of miles flown by commercial airplanes during this period and do the same calculation for fatalities at air shows and total number of miles flown at air shows during this period I am sure air shows would be shown to be many thousand times more dangerous than commercial flights. To say that if you ban air shows you must also ban commercial flights is simply nonsense.
If you were to calculate the total number of fatalities due to civil aviation accidents over the last 50 years and divide by the total number of miles flown by commercial airplanes during this period and do the same calculation for fatalities at air shows and total number of miles flown at air shows during this period I am sure air shows would be shown to be many thousand times more dangerous than commercial flights. To say that if you ban air shows you must also ban commercial flights is simply nonsense.
That's a totally invalid calculation you may as well compare how many miles are driven by private cars each year and compare with deaths in motor racing. Aerobatics over residential areas will no doubt be much more restricted, but that doesn't mean that air shows should be banned.
A terrible tragedy and RIP to all those who have passed.
Of course we should not knee jerk and stop displays, that would be ridiculous.
I agree a ban is not needed. What is needed is a ban for flying aerobatics over land.
Let's also not forget that more people have died at football matches, ( Hillsborough, Rangers, Hysel, Bradford etc) but we would not be calling for games to be banned, we are not saying that matches should be no attendance and just televised, but instead we adapt and learn from such events in order to try and prevent reoccurrence.
Again, if you were to calculate the number of supporters killed watching professional football around the world over the last 50 years divided by the total number of minutes that football has been watched.....etc. etc. Watching air shows is statistically many many more times more dangerous than watching football.
So who decides what is an acceptable amount of risk then, you?
Common sense does.
whose, because there are big differences of opinion, even on this forum. People say that standing at football is safe, others disagree. At the end of the day if something is inherently dangerous it will be banned or restricted ie firearms, knives, drugs, smoking, speeding etc, a review and inspection will be carried out on air safety and the rules will be amended, if it's then decided that airshows are dangerous I would support their decision because it is based on fact rather than an emotional response to a tragedy.
So who decides what is an acceptable amount of risk then, you?
Common sense does.
whose, because there are big differences of opinion, even on this forum.
The Major that was on BBC Breakfast this morning, head of the Aviation something, who reeled out some stats about deaths at Airshows, basically its a tragedy but a freak one, that will never happen again, so not much will change. Thats common sense.
BTW thank god it aint some on here, some couldn't be trusted to tie their own shoe laces.
So who decides what is an acceptable amount of risk then, you?
Common sense does.
whose, because there are big differences of opinion, even on this forum.
The Major that was on BBC Breakfast this morning, head of the Aviation something, who reeled out some stats about deaths at Airshows, basically its a tragedy but a freak one, that will never happen again, so not much will change. Thats common sense.
BTW thank god it aint some on here, some couldn't be trusted to tie their own shoe laces.
The point I am trying to make is that this was an accident. An absolute tragedy that possibly 20 people have lost their lives through no fault of their own. I still can't work out why the Hunter was over the A27, pilots would have been briefed to fly over unpopulated/unused land.
Spot on. Whether the crash on the A27 was a result of breaking display minima will be a key part of the investigation. If the general public saw the planning that goes into airshow displays and their safety limitations they should be reassured, this is heavily regulated flying.
madness to think it is fine to use 50 year-old planes to perform stunts they were not designed for over populated areas. They made a change a few years ago so they don't do them over the paying customers, I hope the intention wasn't 'just do these dangerous stunts over nearby homes / roads / trainlines instead'; do them over the sea or unpopulated countryside.
The point I am trying to make is that this was an accident. An absolute tragedy that possibly 20 people have lost their lives through no fault of their own. I still can't work out why the Hunter was over the A27, pilots would have been briefed to fly over unpopulated/unused land.
Spot on. Whether the crash on the A27 was a result of breaking display minima will be a key part of the investigation. If the general public saw the planning that goes into airshow displays and their safety limitations they should be reassured, this is heavily regulated flying.
I'm not reassured and I doubt that the families of those tragically killed are particularly reassured. Perhaps the heavy regulation needs to be a bit heavier.
madness to think it is fine to use 50 year-old planes to perform stunts they were not designed for over populated areas. They made a change a few years ago so they don't do them over the paying customers, I hope the intention was just do these dangerous stunts over nearby homes / roads / trainlines instead; do them over the sea or unpopulated countryside.
Ignorance, the same thing was said by Bill Turnball, the idiot presenter on BBC Brekkie this morning, the Aviation Major said, that he couldn't be more wrong the aircraft concerned was used in the 50's for aerobatic displays, and was designed to be thrown around the sky. Also older planes have more safety checks and services than modern planes.
madness to think it is fine to use 50 year-old planes to perform stunts they were not designed for over populated areas.
The Hawker Hunter was a front line RAF fighter, it is designed to withstand extreme aerobatic maneuvers in combat. The displays flown are really quite gentle when compared with what the aircraft is actually capable of.
madness to think it is fine to use 50 year-old planes to perform stunts they were not designed for over populated areas. They made a change a few years ago so they don't do them over the paying customers, I hope the intention was just do these dangerous stunts over nearby homes / roads / trainlines instead; do them over the sea or unpopulated countryside.
Ignorance, the same thing was said by Bill Turnball, the idiot presenter on BBC Brekkie this morning, the Aviation Major said, that he couldn't be more wrong the aircraft concerned was used in the 50's for aerobatic displays, and was designed to be thrown around the sky. Also older planes have more safety checks and services than modern planes.
madness to think it is fine to use 50 year-old planes to perform stunts they were not designed for over populated areas. They made a change a few years ago so they don't do them over the paying customers, I hope the intention was just do these dangerous stunts over nearby homes / roads / trainlines instead; do them over the sea or unpopulated countryside.
Ignorance, the same thing was said by Bill Turnball, the idiot presenter on BBC Brekkie this morning, the Aviation Major said, that he couldn't be more wrong the aircraft concerned was used in the 50's for aerobatic displays, and was designed to be thrown around the sky. Also older planes have more safety checks and services than modern planes.
Comments
Agree with those saying 'fly over water'.
Disagree with an all out ban.
If the stunts had taken place over sea, then it wouldn't have crashed into anyone's house or car.
That is a very long list
You are assuming BDL doesn't give a shite about the casualties and fatalities involved here, or that he doesn't comprehend what has occurred despite the fact he has said it was 'a tragedy, a freak event'.
I'm just assuming here, but I reckon you're very wrong about how you are reading BDL's comment and just looking to get on the Argument Alerter... As that's an assumption it's possibly also wrong... but that's assumptions, they're often incorrect.
You missed it again.
Of course we should not knee jerk and stop displays, that would be ridiculous.
The point I am trying to make is that this was an accident. An absolute tragedy that possibly 20 people have lost their lives through no fault of their own. I still can't work out why the Hunter was over the A27, pilots would have been briefed to fly over unpopulated/unused land.
If people are saying that they want Airshows banned and no flying over any built up areas what do they want to do about civil planes, such as those flying over London every day. Remember the skill of the pilot that landed the Triple 7 at Heathrow after the engine failure? If he had put it down 100 yards sooner then the loss of life would have been horrific.
@ShootersHillGuru see my earlier post, of course I care. If we hadn't have had a match on Saturday I would probably have been less than 50 yards from where the impact happened. I care deeply for those who have lost their lives and the impact this has on those who have lost their loved ones and also those that witnessed the devastation.
My whole point is that speculation is pointless, we will only know in 6-8 months after people I trust investigate and report. The CAA have already, rightly, said there will be a review of display practices in the UK.
Once again, if the stunts had taken place over the sea last weekend, the pilot would be the only person in danger. As they took place over land, the pilot is in critical condition and at least 11 people (none of whom were attending the show) have died.
6-8 months. How many more airshows while the investigation takes place?
Let's also not forget that more people have died at football matches, ( Hillsborough, Rangers, Hysel, Bradford etc) but we would not be calling for games to be banned, we are not saying that matches should be no attendance and just televised, but instead we adapt and learn from such events in order to try and prevent reoccurrence.
BTW thank god it aint some on here, some couldn't be trusted to tie their own shoe laces.
they were not designed forover populated areas. They made a change a few years ago so they don't do them over the paying customers, I hope the intention wasn't 'just do these dangerous stunts over nearby homes / roads / trainlines instead'; do them over the sea or unpopulated countryside.