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.
what could possibly go wrong...
The Boeing 737s you travel abroad on started flying in 1967.
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.
what could possibly go wrong...
The Boeing 737s you travel abroad on started flying in 1967.
In my holidays to Spain I've never had the pilot attempt a loop de loop in one though.
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.
what could possibly go wrong...
The Boeing 737s you travel abroad on started flying in 1967.
In my holidays to Spain I've never had the pilot attempt a loop de loop in one though.
Doing stunts over a busy road like the A27 seems daft enough not least because of the people driving along the road having a look (I was driving on a country road near Southend Airport last week and cars were slowing down/stopping when the Vulcan flew over)
But without knowing the full facts it does seem too early to talk about banning all airshows. Tragedies happen - we have already had Alton Towers and a big explosion at a mill in the last few months and no doubt lessons will be learned to prevent similar incidents happening again.
Doesnt help the pain and suffering of those involved though, RIP to those poor people and the families involved.
People are dead and that could have been avoided if the plane hadn't been doing tricks over a major road.
Air shows are fine but not if the life of a member of the general public is in jeopardy and from the number of crashes in that Wiki site then crashes happen too often.
Find a safer solution and if that can't be found then why would they not be taken off the agenda ?
Anyone personally affected will be thinking the same way, and asking how it could have been avoided.
Its premature to assume the plane was planning to be over the road, and since the stunt would have been meticulously planned I can't believe it was supposed to and will be surprised if it's not found to have veered off course for reasons yet to be explained.
Anyone who knows the area knows it is mostly open marsh and grassland and barely populated so and in terms of risk must have been evaluated as very low and the roads were virtually the only things within it's circuit it could have hit to cause any deaths.
Having shows only at sea will mean only a few shows as there needs to be an airfield close by. Tens of thousands visit Farnborough which is a big commercial event and I cannot see a ban being implemented purely because of the commercial value. Like it or not the cost of saving lives is measured against the gain in taking the risk. The gain may be commercial but may be purely lifestyle enjoyment.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
Given our experience that bad things always happens to someone else we mostly think the risks are worth taking, we just regulate as far as we can without destroying the things we enjoy.
RIP to all those tragically killed, it could have been any of us. I enjoy air shows and prepared to take the chance of a jet crashing on me driving past the Farnborough air show knowing I've got ten times more chance of winning the lottery.
Age of the aircraft is a bit of an irrelevance, its how its been maintained over its lifetime and what stresses the airframe has been put through. I have lost family members on a badly maintained make do and mend third world aircraft.
Very sad and tragic accident. The only way I can see to stop another disaster happening is by stopping all air shows, that wont happen. Terrible events occur and sometimes things change for the better because of this but I will guarantee air shows will continue.
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.
what could possibly go wrong...
The Boeing 737s you travel abroad on started flying in 1967.
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.
You could well be right. I would question the wisdom of displaying fast jets at Shoreham which is hemmed in very close by residential areas of Shoreham to the east and Lancing to the west. I believe the Red Arrows decline to fly their full show at Shoreham because of the lack of space.
No one has said it should be banned and there are plenty of open spaces in that area away from a busy main road and an airport, the
where they can hold future events, it's the location and the acts they do that need managing,
I was at the Bournemouth airshow when the red arrow crashed, the skill of the pilot ensured that only he was affected, however if it had come down on the seafront God knows the outcome,
There are risks from the minute you get out of bed and there's no certainty that you won't choke on spider that crawls In Your mouth whilst sleeping
Those risks are ones that you assess whilst awake to ensure you do your upmost not to hurt yourself or anyone else during the day without even realising that you are doing it,
There's no other reasonable response to anything mentioned on here other than to move the airshows not cancel them or restrict their content to non residential and non busy carriageways, the pilot fkd up here Imo the flight plan certainly wouldn't have included a loop the loop over the 27 if it did then people should be charged with the most serious and heavy punishment
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
But there is a big audience of people who love airshows. I tell you what its a good job no one took the, shut down football grounds 'I'm sure we can move on' following the Hillsborough, Bradford and Heysel tragedies.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
Willing to accept the risks of everyday living is what I said. Like when you get home on Friday night you have more chance of being dead on Monday morning than winning the lottery regardless of what you avoid doing.
Banning air displays will not improve your chances of surviving to Monday any more than banning bin lorries on the grounds they kill people when they get out of control.
Why don't we ban vehicles from using roads near to where people are walking? Or ban people crossing roads used by vehicles? We would save thousands of lives over 50 years that don't even make the inside pages let alone the headlines. Road deaths caused by drivers having accidents are acceptable because we are all drivers and nothing can stand in the way of our freedom to drive.
Infinitely fewer deaths are caused by pilots having accidents but because fewer of us are pilots or air display enthusiasts, it's OK to ban it if the majority say so. It's about assuaging human reaction to public tragedy, not a rational idea to save lives.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
But what do you mean about willing to accept risk? I mean, I get a train every morning where there is potential risk due to something going wrong but that is a necessity and any mistake is out of control as trains have to be run. In this case though, the rules mean that the people who have actually chosen to attend are at the limited risk as you can't do stunts over the event itself, but the people who had nothing to do at the event were at risk when he attempted to do that stunt over a busy road.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
Banning air displays will not improve your chances of surviving to Monday any more than banning bin lorries on the grounds they kill people when they get out of control.
Insensitive and crass.
Planes don't kill the average motorist unless you have them doing stunts over a major road.
Can we try to tone it down and have a reality check here? Pretty much any attempt to insert even a modicum of common sense, rationality and intelligence into this thread has been instantly called something alone the lines of insensitive, disrespectful, crass etc. It is possible to respect the scale of the tragedy at the same time as pointing out that the event that occurred was extremely unlikely. I also think that pretty much everyone agrees that dangerous stunts should not take place over major roads or where a crash could have multiple casualties, not a single person here discussing the rationality of risk thinks what the pilot did was OK.
An incomprehensible tragedy for the bereaved and our thoughts are with them at this time. As expected there is a tidal wave of ill informed hyperbole being thrown out, not least by supposedly respectable media. The tabloid coverage, especially on their websites, is frankly pornographic in its insensitivity and utterly beneath contempt. Just because A N Other Eyewitness happened to be filming the display at the tragic moment is no justification for reproducing it on every available platform. The only legitimate use for any of those still or moving images is the air accident investigation. Shrieking demands for airshows to be curtailed or banned are just so much self-indulgent noise and no help to anybody. As others have more eloquently written above, to eliminate every conceivable risk in life is impossible. You can just be thankful that fate or whatever higher power you hold to be holy keeps you out of the path of any out of control bin lorry, or sees your head miss the balustrade by half an inch when you fall down the stairs and just sprain your ankle.
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.
what could possibly go wrong...
The Boeing 737s you travel abroad on started flying in 1967.
In my holidays to Spain I've never had the pilot attempt a loop de loop in one though.
Thats because those aircraft were never designed to make those types of moves, the jet fighter were. In the 10 years of covering an airshow, we have seen several aircraft make "urgent" or "emergency" landing due to technical problems such as warning lights, sticky undercarriages, and eveb bird strikes causing engine shut downs. Mostly involving fast jets that some on here would say are modern such as the Red Arrows Hawks, or the French and Italian national teams. The age of the aircraft isn't normally an issue, because these aircraft that display at airshows are far more rigorously maintained that other types because it is normally part of the reguirments for its permit to fly.
Most airshows have someone in charge of the display, who watches each and every aircraft flying. This person has the power (and does use it) to instantly stop a display and order the aircraft to land. I have seen this happen several times at RIAT over the years, and have even seen aircraft sent away from the airshow as the display, aircraft or pilot has been seen to be to risky.
Something went horribly wrong last weekend, and we may not know the complete truth, but things will be changed, amended or completely scrapped. Some of these may be necessary, some may be just to been seen to show the public that things have "changed". But, there will still be airshows, people will still pay to watch them, people will still stand outside of the fence watching and there will still be risk.
Can we try to tone it down and have a reality check here? Pretty much any attempt to insert even a modicum of common sense, rationality and intelligence into this thread has been instantly called something alone the lines of insensitive, disrespectful, crass etc. It is possible to respect the scale of the tragedy at the same time as pointing out that the event that occurred was extremely unlikely. I also think that pretty much everyone agrees that dangerous stunts should not take place over major roads or where a crash could have multiple casualties, not a single person here discussing the rationality of risk thinks what the pilot did was OK.
Pretty much the whole of England has houses in it somewhere nearby, so any place on land, in England, would be a place where a crash could have multiple casualties. If you think a house is an unlikely thing to be hit, well most people would think cars on a road would be unlikely to be hit.
The suggestion made on this thread is that the stunts could possibly take place over the sea, where it is only the pilot who would take on the risks. This has been refused by several posters, all of them seemingly fans of air shows. Some posters have argued that the sea is too far away from some people who would like to attend. Some posters have argued that organisers wouldn't make as much money if the stunts took place at sea.
So no, not everyone agrees that dangerous stunts should not take place over an area where a crash could have multiple casualties.
Can we try to tone it down and have a reality check here? Pretty much any attempt to insert even a modicum of common sense, rationality and intelligence into this thread has been instantly called something alone the lines of insensitive, disrespectful, crass etc. It is possible to respect the scale of the tragedy at the same time as pointing out that the event that occurred was extremely unlikely. I also think that pretty much everyone agrees that dangerous stunts should not take place over major roads or where a crash could have multiple casualties, not a single person here discussing the rationality of risk thinks what the pilot did was OK.
Pretty much the whole of England has houses in it somewhere nearby
I'm just going to refute this point here because you are quite simply wrong, and the rest of your post hinges on this completely incorrect point. Just look at this diagram of the lay of the land of the stunt:
Do you see what is surrounded by that road? That's right, miles and miles of fields. Apart from a few farm buildings, the road was pretty much the only thing that could have been hit. And as you can see from the path of the plane, for some reason he attempted his stunt along and above the road, thus dramatically increasing the chances that he would hit the road. Experts have already pointed out that he should not have attempted this stunt so low when above a major road, so this is why we need the investigation to figure out why the pilot did this. In the meantime we should avoid hysteria and panic and making false statements implying that all of England is covered in houses and roads. If you have ever travelled North of Milton Keynes even a cursory look out of the car window and this is not true. Less than 10% of England is urbanised and if we exclude things like canals, parks, reservoirs and other non-populated development from that figure, the actual figure is 2.27%. Roughly speaking, if a plane crashes at random anywhere in England, there is a 2% chance it will crash into something that could have a person there. Now if you factor in the fact that air shows take place away from urbanised areas and that pilots are trained to avoid buildings and traffic when crash-landing, then the odds of this tragedy occurring are infinitesimally small and until the investigation is complete, we can only speculate on what was the issue. The experts are currently saying based on the footage seen, the loop was attempted too low above a major road, so really at the moment that is the only take-home: don't do these stunts too low above roads and houses. That certainly does not mean most of England is off-limit, in fact only 2% of England is off-limits.
Thanks for the photo. Ignoring the obvious built-up areas in that photo, and the road that was hit resulting in multiple deaths, I see a golf course, I see houses, I see farm buildings, I see playing pitches. These are not all left vacant all the time, so there could be people in any one of these places which could be hit if something goes wrong (for one of a number of reasons listed already). So yes, there is the potential for multiple casualties (which was the threshold you set).
Do you want me to post a photo of the sea?
I don't see any houses or buildings in the sea part of your photo. I can imagine it's likely there are boats there - these could be advised of plans for an air display.
The percentage of land that is "urbanised" and the definitions that you include for it is irrelevant to this point. Yes, nobody is arguing for air displays above city centres. What I'm saying is that there's still the potential for multiple casualties where stunts are performed over land.
Ultimately, an investigation will show why the plane crashed, but the reason why we are discussing multiple fatalities is because it was performing and crashed on land - in this case on a busy road.
Can we try to tone it down and have a reality check here? Pretty much any attempt to insert even a modicum of common sense, rationality and intelligence into this thread has been instantly called something alone the lines of insensitive, disrespectful, crass etc. It is possible to respect the scale of the tragedy at the same time as pointing out that the event that occurred was extremely unlikely. I also think that pretty much everyone agrees that dangerous stunts should not take place over major roads or where a crash could have multiple casualties, not a single person here discussing the rationality of risk thinks what the pilot did was OK.
Pretty much the whole of England has houses in it somewhere nearby
I'm just going to refute this point here because you are quite simply wrong, and the rest of your post hinges on this completely incorrect point. Just look at this diagram of the lay of the land of the stunt:
Do you see what is surrounded by that road? That's right, miles and miles of fields. Apart from a few farm buildings, the road was pretty much the only thing that could have been hit. And as you can see from the path of the plane, for some reason he attempted his stunt along and above the road, thus dramatically increasing the chances that he would hit the road. Experts have already pointed out that he should not have attempted this stunt so low when above a major road, so this is why we need the investigation to figure out why the pilot did this. In the meantime we should avoid hysteria and panic and making false statements implying that all of England is covered in houses and roads. If you have ever travelled North of Milton Keynes even a cursory look out of the car window and this is not true. Less than 10% of England is urbanised and if we exclude things like canals, parks, reservoirs and other non-populated development from that figure, the actual figure is 2.27%. Roughly speaking, if a plane crashes at random anywhere in England, there is a 2% chance it will crash into something that could have a person there. Now if you factor in the fact that air shows take place away from urbanised areas and that pilots are trained to avoid buildings and traffic when crash-landing, then the odds of this tragedy occurring are infinitesimally small and until the investigation is complete, we can only speculate on what was the issue. The experts are currently saying based on the footage seen, the loop was attempted too low above a major road, so really at the moment that is the only take-home: don't do these stunts too low above roads and houses. That certainly does not mean most of England is off-limit, in fact only 2% of England is off-limits.
The flight path he wouldv'e taken is still croosing the A27.....
Comments
But without knowing the full facts it does seem too early to talk about banning all airshows. Tragedies happen - we have already had Alton Towers and a big explosion at a mill in the last few months and no doubt lessons will be learned to prevent similar incidents happening again.
Doesnt help the pain and suffering of those involved though, RIP to those poor people and the families involved.
People are dead and that could have been avoided if the plane hadn't been doing tricks over a major road.
Air shows are fine but not if the life of a member of the general public is in jeopardy and from the number of crashes in that Wiki site then crashes happen too often.
Find a safer solution and if that can't be found then why would they not be taken off the agenda ?
Its premature to assume the plane was planning to be over the road, and since the stunt would have been meticulously planned I can't believe it was supposed to and will be surprised if it's not found to have veered off course for reasons yet to be explained.
Anyone who knows the area knows it is mostly open marsh and grassland and barely populated so and in terms of risk must have been evaluated as very low and the roads were virtually the only things within it's circuit it could have hit to cause any deaths.
Having shows only at sea will mean only a few shows as there needs to be an airfield close by. Tens of thousands visit Farnborough which is a big commercial event and I cannot see a ban being implemented purely because of the commercial value. Like it or not the cost of saving lives is measured against the gain in taking the risk. The gain may be commercial but may be purely lifestyle enjoyment.
ARTHURS post is not stupid or nasty, it's reality. The feelings of the bereaved and sympathetic have to be respected and considered, but they compete with the views of the majority willing to accept risk as part of everyday living and thrill seeking until directly affected.
Given our experience that bad things always happens to someone else we mostly think the risks are worth taking, we just regulate as far as we can without destroying the things we enjoy.
RIP to all those tragically killed, it could have been any of us. I enjoy air shows and prepared to take the chance of a jet crashing on me driving past the Farnborough air show knowing I've got ten times more chance of winning the lottery.
Very sad and tragic accident. The only way I can see to stop another disaster happening is by stopping all air shows, that wont happen. Terrible events occur and sometimes things change for the better because of this but I will guarantee air shows will continue.
where they can hold future events, it's the location and the acts they do that need managing,
I was at the Bournemouth airshow when the red arrow crashed, the skill of the pilot ensured that only he was affected, however if it had come down on the seafront God knows the outcome,
There are risks from the minute you get out of bed and there's no certainty that you won't choke on spider that crawls In Your mouth whilst sleeping
Those risks are ones that you assess whilst awake to ensure you do your upmost not to hurt yourself or anyone else during the day without even realising that you are doing it,
There's no other reasonable response to anything mentioned on here other than to move the airshows not cancel them or restrict their content to non residential and non busy carriageways, the pilot fkd up here Imo the flight plan certainly wouldn't have included a loop the loop over the 27 if it did then people should be charged with the most serious and heavy punishment
Dippenhall, brilliant post. Well done- full of reason and logic.
A lot of entertainment has moved on as safety is the most important thing, I'm sure a lot more people thought F1 was more entertaining when cars were harder to drive and there was a riskier element to it, but peoples lives are more important and it rightfully changed to ensure that was the priority. If air shows have to be limited or completely shut down, I'm sure we can move on.
Banning air displays will not improve your chances of surviving to Monday any more than banning bin lorries on the grounds they kill people when they get out of control.
Why don't we ban vehicles from using roads near to where people are walking? Or ban people crossing roads used by vehicles? We would save thousands of lives over 50 years that don't even make the inside pages let alone the headlines. Road deaths caused by drivers having accidents are acceptable because we are all drivers and nothing can stand in the way of our freedom to drive.
Infinitely fewer deaths are caused by pilots having accidents but because fewer of us are pilots or air display enthusiasts, it's OK to ban it if the majority say so. It's about assuaging human reaction to public tragedy, not a rational idea to save lives.
Planes don't kill the average motorist unless you have them doing stunts over a major road.
As expected there is a tidal wave of ill informed hyperbole being thrown out, not least by supposedly respectable media. The tabloid coverage, especially on their websites, is frankly pornographic in its insensitivity and utterly beneath contempt. Just because A N Other Eyewitness happened to be filming the display at the tragic moment is no justification for reproducing it on every available platform. The only legitimate use for any of those still or moving images is the air accident investigation.
Shrieking demands for airshows to be curtailed or banned are just so much self-indulgent noise and no help to anybody. As others have more eloquently written above, to eliminate every conceivable risk in life is impossible. You can just be thankful that fate or whatever higher power you hold to be holy keeps you out of the path of any out of control bin lorry, or sees your head miss the balustrade by half an inch when you fall down the stairs and just sprain your ankle.
In the 10 years of covering an airshow, we have seen several aircraft make "urgent" or "emergency" landing due to technical problems such as warning lights, sticky undercarriages, and eveb bird strikes causing engine shut downs. Mostly involving fast jets that some on here would say are modern such as the Red Arrows Hawks, or the French and Italian national teams. The age of the aircraft isn't normally an issue, because these aircraft that display at airshows are far more rigorously maintained that other types because it is normally part of the reguirments for its permit to fly.
Most airshows have someone in charge of the display, who watches each and every aircraft flying. This person has the power (and does use it) to instantly stop a display and order the aircraft to land. I have seen this happen several times at RIAT over the years, and have even seen aircraft sent away from the airshow as the display, aircraft or pilot has been seen to be to risky.
Something went horribly wrong last weekend, and we may not know the complete truth, but things will be changed, amended or completely scrapped. Some of these may be necessary, some may be just to been seen to show the public that things have "changed". But, there will still be airshows, people will still pay to watch them, people will still stand outside of the fence watching and there will still be risk.
The suggestion made on this thread is that the stunts could possibly take place over the sea, where it is only the pilot who would take on the risks. This has been refused by several posters, all of them seemingly fans of air shows. Some posters have argued that the sea is too far away from some people who would like to attend. Some posters have argued that organisers wouldn't make as much money if the stunts took place at sea.
So no, not everyone agrees that dangerous stunts should not take place over an area where a crash could have multiple casualties.
Do you see what is surrounded by that road? That's right, miles and miles of fields. Apart from a few farm buildings, the road was pretty much the only thing that could have been hit. And as you can see from the path of the plane, for some reason he attempted his stunt along and above the road, thus dramatically increasing the chances that he would hit the road. Experts have already pointed out that he should not have attempted this stunt so low when above a major road, so this is why we need the investigation to figure out why the pilot did this. In the meantime we should avoid hysteria and panic and making false statements implying that all of England is covered in houses and roads. If you have ever travelled North of Milton Keynes even a cursory look out of the car window and this is not true. Less than 10% of England is urbanised and if we exclude things like canals, parks, reservoirs and other non-populated development from that figure, the actual figure is 2.27%. Roughly speaking, if a plane crashes at random anywhere in England, there is a 2% chance it will crash into something that could have a person there. Now if you factor in the fact that air shows take place away from urbanised areas and that pilots are trained to avoid buildings and traffic when crash-landing, then the odds of this tragedy occurring are infinitesimally small and until the investigation is complete, we can only speculate on what was the issue. The experts are currently saying based on the footage seen, the loop was attempted too low above a major road, so really at the moment that is the only take-home: don't do these stunts too low above roads and houses. That certainly does not mean most of England is off-limit, in fact only 2% of England is off-limits.
Do you want me to post a photo of the sea?
I don't see any houses or buildings in the sea part of your photo. I can imagine it's likely there are boats there - these could be advised of plans for an air display.
The percentage of land that is "urbanised" and the definitions that you include for it is irrelevant to this point. Yes, nobody is arguing for air displays above city centres. What I'm saying is that there's still the potential for multiple casualties where stunts are performed over land.
Ultimately, an investigation will show why the plane crashed, but the reason why we are discussing multiple fatalities is because it was performing and crashed on land - in this case on a busy road.