Following the accident we immediately began an urgent review and have, today, announced a series of immediate restrictions and changes to UK civil air displays.
The CAA has announced the following:
• As a precaution, on Saturday 22 August we took steps to ensure no further flights were made by Hawker Hunter aircraft - this temporary restriction remains in place.
• Flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft will be significantly restricted until further notice. They will be limited to flypasts, which means ‘high energy’ aerobatics will not be permitted.
• The CAA will conduct additional risk assessments on all forthcoming civil air displays to establish if additional measures should be introduced.
• We commenced a full review of civil air display safety yesterday and held an initial meeting this morning.
It's being reported Lancing college evacuates its buildings when this show is on and in the practice in the run up so there is obviously a very real prospective of danger.
for me it is based on emotion looking at the faces of those young men who died. It was all so needless. And I cant understand why some think their few hours pleasure is more important than the safety of others regardless of the odds of it happening.
Succinct and totally sums it all up.
Some are just terrified their bit of fun might be restricted in future. That's all there is to it.
How, precisely, would learning the root causes of the accident ensure there was no repeat?
If it is found to be a mechanical or electrical failure, then how would this be rectified to guarantee a show plane never crashed into a busy road, if the show was being held within that environment?
If it is found to be pilot error, then how would this be rectified to guarantee a show plane never crashed into a busy road, if the show was being held within that environment?
Of course, there has to be an investigation into the root cause, but the root cause is NOT contiguous to the deaths that occurred in this instance. It is impossible to guarantee a performing flying machine controlled by a human being will not plummet to earth. It is NOT impossible to ensure that does not happen into a busy road, or housing estate.
It is this denial that obviously enraged John Humfreys this morning.
Of course moving airshows to over water would reduce some of the risk (apart from aircraft accidentally turning inland but in his "rage", your term, he omitted this point).
The usual way of conducting business in real life is to evaluate the situation and make reasonable changes to the satisfaction of everybody.
Kneejerk reactions are bad by definition.
I'm personally happy to continue with airshows based on what changes arise from this incident and live with the incredibly small risk of being hurt by one.
For those saying the pilot was reckless , irresponsible etc....
He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down.
Have some respect until the facts are established about his own culpability.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
ETA: Pilot info "“He is a highly experienced pilot, well known and well loved. He is highly professional and it is totally unusual for this to happen. He was a Harrier pilot in the air force. They are the top RAF pilots – the best of the best.” "
By your own reasoning then when you quantify the risk it is practically zero.
Also, in the event of an accident happening the impact is almost always on just the pilot.
You're proving the point against you.
"Almost always?"
Its just not acceptable, and certainly not to the families of those that were killed.
It's being reported Lancing college evacuates its buildings when this show is on and in the practice in the run up so there is obviously a very real prospective of danger.
for me it is based on emotion looking at the faces of those young men who died. It was all so needless. And I cant understand why some think their few hours pleasure is more important than the safety of others regardless of the odds of it happening.
The point most of us have been making is that the regulations were inadequate, not that the pilot was to blame.
This is already being addressed by the CAA - see above on this page.
The CAA haven't said the regulations are inadequate. They have said regulations will be reviewed, which makes complete sense. At least the CAA SRG know about aviation and can make informed judgements, unlike most people clamouring for kneejerk responses in this thread.
Its just not acceptable, and certainly not to the families of those that were killed.
So your formula only works for you where risk is zero.
It sounded all complicated with your risk v outcome matrix suggesting a range of outcomes but as we know anything times zero is zero.
Zero risk = zero outcome.
and you could also argue that he steered it onto a busy road instead of ditching in trees
Well you could try, but the video doesn't bear that out. If anything he tried to steer it towards the airfield, which would have angled it across the road, not onto it.
and you could also argue that he steered it onto a busy road instead of ditching in trees
After watching the videos at the weekend we did wonder why he didnt ditch in a field. That's not a criticism of the pilot just curiosity. Did he have no control, did he think he could land on an empty bit of road, did he mistake the road for a runway? That will be one of the main questions of the enquiry I guess.
It isn't. When Lancing College bought the Sussex Pad Hotel the airshow agreed to College requests to hold the event outside school terms to avoid any risk at all to students. The airshow always used to be in early September, near Battle of Britain Day. Now it's in late August.
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
without waiting for the report of the accident, then its only fair to have the other opinion put forward.
Is it ok to be calling the pilot a hero, without knowing all the facts?
It's funny, because its mostly people such as yourself who have gotten all hysterical, acting like this is anything but a rare and freak accident, who are fuelling this type of speculation.
Comments
The CAA have acted. Good! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2479
Succinct and totally sums it all up.
Some are just terrified their bit of fun might be restricted in future. That's all there is to it.
He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down.
Have some respect until the facts are established about his own culpability.
Of course moving airshows to over water would reduce some of the risk (apart from aircraft accidentally turning inland but in his "rage", your term, he omitted this point).
The usual way of conducting business in real life is to evaluate the situation and make reasonable changes to the satisfaction of everybody.
Kneejerk reactions are bad by definition.
I'm personally happy to continue with airshows based on what changes arise from this incident and live with the incredibly small risk of being hurt by one.
The point most of us have been making is that the regulations were inadequate, not that the pilot was to blame.
This is already being addressed by the CAA - see above on this page.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
ETA: Pilot info "“He is a highly experienced pilot, well known and well loved. He is highly professional and it is totally unusual for this to happen. He was a Harrier pilot in the air force. They are the top RAF pilots – the best of the best.” "
"Almost always?"
Its just not acceptable, and certainly not to the families of those that were killed.
Why is it open in non term time?
and you could also argue that he steered it onto a busy road instead of ditching in trees
Really?
On what basis? Can you explain how or why he would do this?
Why not email them and ask them?
Maybe like my local college they run summer classes, maintenance work and have tutors in even when students arent?
There are no words......(facepalm)
Enjoy the hyperbole, I'll wait until the AAIB report before nailing any colours to the mast.
So your formula only works for you where risk is zero.
It sounded all complicated with your risk v outcome matrix suggesting a range of outcomes but as we know anything times zero is zero.
Zero risk = zero outcome.
After watching the videos at the weekend we did wonder why he didnt ditch in a field. That's not a criticism of the pilot just curiosity. Did he have no control, did he think he could land on an empty bit of road, did he mistake the road for a runway? That will be one of the main questions of the enquiry I guess.
Pretty much the norm wherever I've lived.
Why would anyone even try and argue that though?!
If someone is speculating that
"He could've bailed out of that plane at any point, he fought to keep it in the air and he stayed with it all the way down."
without waiting for the report of the accident, then its only fair to have the other opinion put forward.
Is it ok to be calling the pilot a hero, without knowing all the facts?
or "irresponsible"?
or someone spouting porkies
It's funny, because its mostly people such as yourself who have gotten all hysterical, acting like this is anything but a rare and freak accident, who are fuelling this type of speculation.