Airshows should be BANNED!!

1246721

Comments

  • Chris FrostChris Frost Posts: 11,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It does seem a bit reckless performing these stunts when the risk of death is significantly greater than flying a plane normally.
    Well let's just weigh up the risks to the general public shall we.

    Post war (WWII) British Airshows where members of the public have died: Farnborough (1952) - 29 deaths. Shoreham (2015) - 7 deaths, though that figure might go up depending on the injured still in hospital.

    Post war (WWII) British soccer matches where members of the public have died:
    Burnden Park, Bolton (1946) - 33 die and 500 are injured when a wall collapses during a cup tie between Bolton and Stoke.

    Ibrox Park, Glasgow (1971) - 66 people die in a crowd crush near the end of a match between Celtic and Rangers.

    Valley Parade, Bradford (1985) - A fire kills 56 fans.

    Hillsborough, Sheffield (1989) - 96 people are killed and at least 200 injured in Britain's worst sports disaster



    So that's fewer than 40 deaths at events where large and complicated machines are operated towards the edge of their performance envelopes, versus 251 deaths where the most dangerous thing is the risk of scolding from some Bovril or food poisoning from a dodgy meat pie. If the country wants to make things safer then based on the stats soccer has to go first.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    So that's fewer than 40 deaths at events where large and complicated machines are operated towards the edge of their performance envelopes, versus 251 deaths where the most dangerous thing is the risk of scolding from some Bovril or food poisoning from a dodgy meat pie. If the country wants to make things safer then based on the stats soccer has to go first.

    Your stats might be more useful if you revealed the total number of spectators attending all football matches during the same period, and compared them with the total number of spectators attending air shows.

    But the unanswered question remains - why on earth was anyone allowed to do aerobatics over the busy A27? Heck the beach is only 600 metres to the south of the airfield and if they really must have aerobatics at Shoreham, *that's* where they should be done... over the sea as at Bournemouth. Planning stupidity in action. But of course, then they wouldn't find it so easy to sell tickets, would they! >:(

    I see it's been cancelled for today, Sunday. Quite right too.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    d'@ve wrote: »
    Your stats might be more useful if you revealed the total number of spectators attending all football matches during the same period, and compared them with the total number of spectators attending air shows.

    But the unanswered question remains - why on earth was anyone allowed to do aerobatics over the busy A27? Heck the beach is only 600 metres to the south of the airfield and if they really must have aerobatics at Shoreham, *that's* where they should be done... over the sea as at Bournemouth. Planning stupidity in action. But of course, then they wouldn't find it so easy to sell tickets, would they! >:(

    I see it's been cancelled for today, Sunday. Quite right too.

    Some of the biggest UK international airshows or "air tattoos" as the bigger events are often called attract over 150,000 people over a single weekend. The Biggin Hill Airshow which ran in its international format for 48 years until 2010 used to attract nearly 100,000 people in its two days with thousands of unaccounted for spectators also travelling to the town to visit from the outside. You also get the coastal airshows which are typically free, and no concrete number can be put on how many people attend those (especially if you consider that not everyone at the beach may be attending for the sake of the airshow). It's impossible to put a number on the number of attendees at airshows over the years but they're insanely popular regardless - most are advance ticket only these days (security threats and health and safety have rightly demanded more strict limits on total capacity on an airfield or airport) and I don't know of an airshow that doesn't sell out. Biggin Hill recently held a small scale air event at its airport which was a relatively expensive £40 a ticket for a single Battle of Britain take-off and landing - it was limited to just 3000 attendees, but was sold out despite the cost being over double that of a typical full-day airshow.

    The aerobatics themselves were not being performed over the A27 in this case - it just happens to be in the path of the airfield and tragedy unfortunately struck. You argue that a seafront airshow would be more suitable for Shoreham... have you not considered that the planes themselves would likely still be based at the airfield and would therefore be using it? The chances of an accident like this one wouldn't be any smaller at all, and in fact would require the planes to cover a larger area of land in order to display at the seafront. People don't seem to consider that seafront airshows like Bournemouth, or Eastbourne, or Llandudno still require the planes to take off and land elsewhere. And if there's an issue with the plane, it's going to come down somewhere... those airshows traverse more inhabited and residential land than airfield based ones.

    I do however agree that the right decision has been made to cancel the Sunday display. Investigations need to be done into why Shoreham is a relative hotspot for accidents in recent years, or whether it's just coincidence. And the unique nature of this accident for UK aviation means it would be distasteful to 'carry on' - by unique nature, I mean it is only one of two airshows in the UK to have suffered civilian casualties since 1952, and the only one to involve people other than spectators.
  • Teddybear99Teddybear99 Posts: 6,077
    Forum Member
    What is the point of these except to show off?

    Considering the tragedy of today and others in the past, there's absolutely no need to do these anymore. Too dangerous and idiotic.

    What next?

    Firing live tank fire in a field with a massive crowd watching?

    I am from Shoreham and am feeling very sad about what has happened. However, it's not just a case of showing off, my Mum used to sell programmes for this show and over the last 21 years they have made millions of pounds for the RAF Association which provides welfare for ex RAF people and their families. RAFA have helped a lot of people in extreme difficulties who couldn't get that help elsewhere.

    As others have said, all leisure activities carry some risk. Obviously an investigation will be undertaken and it may be that future shows will have to fly out to sea instead on landward. Other than that I hope it continues.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    Keith_13 wrote: »
    It wasn't the only air show this weekend, or this month, or even this week.

    However, there was an accident so it'll get the press. Put into perspective there is little chance of a repeat.

    So far... one accident every 63 years resulting in civilian casualties. That's quite a good track record if you ask me.

    Absolute condolences to those lives lost, but knee-jerk responses to freak incidents of this atypical nature aren't the right way to proceed from here.
    It does seem a bit reckless performing these stunts when the risk of death is significantly greater than flying a plane normally.
    The risk of driving at current motorway speed limits brings a greater risk of death than driving at, say, residential speed limits. Shall we bring both in line together because it's safer? Or shall we take the risk and go the 70mph?

    I am from Shoreham and am feeling very sad about what has happened. However, it's not just a case of showing off, my Mum used to sell programmes for this show and over the last 21 years they have made millions of pounds for the RAF Association which provides welfare for ex RAF people and their families. RAFA have helped a lot of people in extreme difficulties who couldn't get that help elsewhere.

    As others have said, all leisure activities carry some risk. Obviously an investigation will be undertaken and it may be that future shows will have to fly out to sea instead on landward. Other than that I hope it continues.
    I agree fully... these kinds of events are often a major financial lifeline that props up various aspects of the RAF. As with any activity an airshow comes with risks. The horrific incident today is not typical of airshow accidents and yet people keep citing "so many accidents" as if it warrants some kind of airshow ban.

    The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of annual public airshows go ahead without a single hitch. A very small number of them result in accidents or crashes. A smaller number of those involve the fatality of the pilot, who knew the risks as unfortunate as it is. An even smaller number of those - currently two - involve the casualties of innocent bystanders. Only one of those has involved bystanders not attending the airshow itself, and so were not aware of the risks they were facing. It's a horrible freak tragedy, and there isn't enough sympathy for the poor families and victims from today. But it's not a reflection of airshows, or aviaton protocol, or health and safety in the UK skies which as proven time over is sublime.

    As for Shoreham, the continued nature of accidents calls for serious investigation undoubtedly - though it may very well still be down to cruel coincidence. Recall that Biggin Hill had two fatal incidents in a single weekend in 2001 - one just a hundred yards from the crowdline (of which I was at the front of). They've not had one since despite hosting air fairs of some description (including the massive international ones) every year since. Their previous track record was strong as well, with only one crash in its 39 year history prior to 2001.

    Maybe a seafront airshow will work better for Shoreham, though they are harder to make a profit from and are no guarantee of safety. The planes are still based somewhere, likely Shoreham still, and would then all be passing over residential land to reach the seafront in the first place.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    Some of the biggest UK international airshows or "air tattoos" as the bigger events are often called attract over 150,000 people over a single weekend. The Biggin Hill Airshow which ran in its international format for 48 years until 2010 used to attract nearly 100,000 people in its two days with thousands of unaccounted for spectators also travelling to the town to visit from the outside. You also get the coastal airshows which are typically free, and no concrete number can be put on how many people attend those (especially if you consider that not everyone at the beach may be attending for the sake of the airshow). It's impossible to put a number on the number of attendees at airshows over the years but they're insanely popular regardless - most are advance ticket only these days (security threats and health and safety have rightly demanded more strict limits on total capacity on an airfield or airport) and I don't know of an airshow that doesn't sell out. Biggin Hill recently held a small scale air event at its airport which was a relatively expensive £40 a ticket for a single Battle of Britain take-off and landing - it was limited to just 3000 attendees, but was sold out despite the cost being over double that of a typical full-day airshow.

    The aerobatics themselves were not being performed over the A27 in this case - it just happens to be in the path of the airfield and tragedy unfortunately struck. You argue that a seafront airshow would be more suitable for Shoreham... have you not considered that the planes themselves would likely still be based at the airfield and would therefore be using it? The chances of an accident like this one wouldn't be any smaller at all, and in fact would require the planes to cover a larger area of land in order to display at the seafront. People don't seem to consider that seafront airshows like Bournemouth, or Eastbourne, or Llandudno still require the planes to take off and land elsewhere. And if there's an issue with the plane, it's going to come down somewhere... those airshows traverse more inhabited and residential land than airfield based ones.

    The other poster was comparing airshow deaths with football deaths and I just wanted to point out that the total attendances aren't, I think, even close. Last season but one (the latest I could find) the top two English divisions had total attendances of about 23 million, which is I suspect quite a lot more than the total airshow attendances. And the football related deaths he referred to were all a very long time ago and led to tighter safety controls.

    As for where the planes fly, I was referring specifically to aerobatics, which I suspect is a more risky operation than flying from A to B. There is no good reason to allow an aerobatic manoeuvre to take place over or very close to a major road (or for that matter a built up area), as this one apparently did.

    I am sure that this aspect of safety will now be tightened up for future air displays nationwide - the AAIB report will I suspect have something to say about this.
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    idlewilde wrote: »
    Would scare the fish.

    Sometimes I've been fishing at Lutoo Hoo and there is a fair bit of wildlife there, like ducks, geese, coots, moorhens, even the odd deer and kingfisher and Luton airport is only about a mile away with a plane taking off or landing every 5 or 10 minutes during the day and the (overground) wildlife doesn't seem to be in the least bothered about it. Same I presume applies for fish, but don't quote me on it.
  • HP.80 VictorHP.80 Victor Posts: 1,118
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It does seem a bit reckless performing these stunts when the risk of death is significantly greater than flying a plane normally.

    It chums the waters....
  • shaun_davidsshaun_davids Posts: 813
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Has Sweet Princess not found her was to this forum yet?:o
  • Chris FrostChris Frost Posts: 11,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    d'@ve wrote: »
    The other poster was comparing airshow deaths with football deaths and I just wanted to point out that the total attendances aren't, I think, even close. Last season but one (the latest I could find) the top two English divisions had total attendances of about 23 million, which is I suspect quite a lot more than the total airshow attendances. And the football related deaths he referred to were all a very long time ago and led to tighter safety controls.

    As for where the planes fly, I was referring specifically to aerobatics, which I suspect is a more risky operation than flying from A to B. There is no good reason to allow an aerobatic manoeuvre to take place over or very close to a major road (or for that matter a built up area), as this one apparently did.

    I am sure that this aspect of safety will now be tightened up for future air displays nationwide - the AAIB report will I suspect have something to say about this.
    The total attendances might not be close, but you think that that somehow justifies the death of 250+ people at football matches where people are simply standing about (or now sitting) watching twenty-odd men kicking a bag of wind around around a field? Based on the inherent risk of the event there really shouldn't be any deaths, should there.

    Air shows are more dangerous because of the nature of the vehicles involved. However, the CAA has very strict controls over how these events are run. The safety record for air shows stands as testament to those controls. Any loss of life at any event is tragic, and even more so when people who aren't even attending are caught up. However, that's not sufficient justification for calling for a ban on any event.
  • katywilkatywil Posts: 1,245
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bex_123 wrote: »
    I'm outraged that people even leave the house to be honest.
    yes. its shocking. they should wear hard hats, hi viz vests and steel toecapped boots. (although, most people already do that.) :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 486
    Forum Member
    Cars should be BANNED. There are thousands of accidents EVERY DAY.

    See how ridiculous that is?
  • claire2281claire2281 Posts: 17,283
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    What you can do is try to avoid what happened today by not flying over populated areas outside of the spectator area as much as possible. And that is the lesson to be learnt from today

    That's already part of the FAA rules. No aerobatics are allowed over congested population areas. They aren't banned altogether over any populated area because that would make things impossible with the amount of residential land in the UK.
    A Freak Accident did someone say ?

    A freak accident is a plane hitting a flock of birds and crashing , an elderly jet plane doing a low altitude loop the loop has a large element of risk.
    Seems like a lot of pointless danger for some very brief entertainment. While I wouldn't say ban them, some more safety precautions might help. Like not allowing loop the loops, which have killed a few lately.

    You can only assume (hope) that such comments as above are a type of wind up. Surely people aren't really this ignorant?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 246
    Forum Member
    claire2281 wrote: »
    That's already part of the FAA rules. No aerobatics are allowed over congested population areas. They aren't banned altogether over any populated area because that would make things impossible with the amount of residential land in the UK.





    You can only assume (hope) that such comments as above are a type of wind up. Surely people aren't really this ignorant?

    Why is it ignorant, please explain yourself. Since when has safety been an ignorant thing to suggest?
  • fmradiotuner1fmradiotuner1 Posts: 20,476
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hopefully all goes well for our airshow end the week one the last few here in the EAST COAST.
  • Cissy FairfaxCissy Fairfax Posts: 11,782
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    Your links are getting more and more tenuous. Half a million people do not turn up at a football match every weekend to watch a lot of hooligans have a scrap. They turn up to watch the activity going on.

    For probably 80 odd years, there were accidents waiting to happen, fortunate near misses and a lot of luck that tragedies did not happen earlier. When they did those elements of risks were removed which is what some air shows will need to do much better now.

    A hooligan comparison to an accident, air show or football is ludicrous.
  • claire2281claire2281 Posts: 17,283
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Why is it ignorant, please explain yourself. Since when has safety been an ignorant thing to suggest?

    Well the sheer laughable ignorance of your comment the loop the loop is dangerous for a start.

    Not to mention the idea that 1950s jets are dangerous. Some people clearly don't know the amount of checks an aircraft has to go through before it takes off. Nor how well these craft are maintained.

    Oh and the amount of safety guidelines the FAA and CAA impose on airshows and aerobatics. Apparently some people here believe they know better though.
  • NailzNailz Posts: 3,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do the planes have to do loops ? Why not a fly past which should be safer.

    I expect the victims families will be launching compensation claims in the future. Who will pay out for those ?
  • Chris FrostChris Frost Posts: 11,015
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Your links are getting more and more tenuous. Half a million people do not turn up at a football match every weekend to watch a lot of hooligans have a scrap. They turn up to watch the activity going on.

    For probably 80 odd years, there were accidents waiting to happen, fortunate near misses and a lot of luck that tragedies did not happen earlier. When they did those elements of risks were removed which is what some air shows will need to do much better now.

    A hooligan comparison to an accident, air show or football is ludicrous.
    The links were made in direct rebuttal to the point that football has no effect on people unconnected with the event; the argument being that the drivers on the A27 were minding their own business when a plane landed on them, but with football any incidents were confined to the ground and the paying spectators. Respectfully I would disagree. Anyone who has experienced football hooliganism first hand as an innocent bystander would probably agree. Those who have lost their lives as collateral victims of football violence can't speak out. They're dead. Just as dead as those poor victims on the A27. So the argument that football has no effect on those unconnected with watching the event doesn't hold true. As such, I don't believe the comparison is ludicrous at all.
  • TerraCanisTerraCanis Posts: 14,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    claire2281 wrote: »
    You can only assume (hope) that such comments as above are a type of wind up. Surely people aren't really this ignorant?

    I'm inclined to hope the opposite. Not everybody knows everything, and I can excuse those who simply don't know better.

    It's the idea that anybody would use tragic events of any kind as the basis for a "wind-up" - whether in furtherance of some personal axe that they have to grind, or through some twisted concept of "humour" that I would find repugnant.

    v
  • ustarionustarion Posts: 20,322
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They must all be cancelled IMMEDIATELY. Old planes doing difficult manoeuvres = recipe for disaster.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    ustarion wrote: »
    They must all be cancelled IMMEDIATELY. Old planes doing difficult manoeuvres = recipe for disaster.
    Old planes doing manoeuvres they were designed to do, you mean? Old planes that are rigorously tested and checked before each and every flight, and who are grounded when even the slightest doubt is raised? Old planes that are retired when they're not capable any more (i.e. the Vulcan, one of the most profitable displays is in its final display year this year). The protocols that have protected civilians at 99.9% of air shows across the UK for over 70 years (two fatal incidents in 63 years, including this one), and also kept pilot casualties to an absolute minimum as well?

    If you ask me, that's a pretty decent track record.
  • gregrichardsgregrichards Posts: 4,913
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nailz wrote: »
    Why do the planes have to do loops ? Why not a fly past which should be safer.

    I expect the victims families will be launching compensation claims in the future. Who will pay out for those ?

    I know it's insanity 7 people at least are dead for the sake of some entertainment. It's totally unnecessary and HSE should step in to protect the public.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    I know it's insanity 7 people at least are dead for the sake of some entertainment. It's totally unnecessary and HSE should step in to protect the public.

    People die at fireworks displays, funfairs, car shows, car racing, in commercial flights whilst going on holiday. It's not rational to condemn the air show for this when the accident is so atypical - the first of its kind in the UK, and only the second fatal one outside of the pilots themselves in a seven decade history, when the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of air show events each year go ahead without a hitch.

    Protect the public? That would again be the rigorous checks, and safety protocol that keep everybody safe all the time. Gain some perspective.

    This is a tragedy, not a reason to condemn something you personally don't enjoy.
  • claire2281claire2281 Posts: 17,283
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TerraCanis wrote: »
    It's the idea that anybody would use tragic events of any kind as the basis for a "wind-up" - whether in furtherance of some personal axe that they have to grind, or through some twisted concept of "humour" that I would find repugnant.

    v

    You think so but posts like these:
    ustarion wrote: »
    They must all be cancelled IMMEDIATELY. Old planes doing difficult manoeuvres = recipe for disaster.
    I know it's insanity 7 people at least are dead for the sake of some entertainment. It's totally unnecessary and HSE should step in to protect the public.

    Well they're obviously very OTT and show a level of ignorance if they're genuine comments. Tbh I tend to think that silly stuff like this is posted by people on wind ups because they find it funny when people get angry and respond to them.

    A cold lack of empathy about this being related to a tragic accident is nothing that surprises me alas.
Sign In or Register to comment.