Gone to pieces so quickly others get hit by the shrapnel.
In your panic have you even considered how rare an event this is. He could have flown into a nuclear power plant, he could have flown into a warehouse full of hazardous chemicals, he could have flown into a train.
How do you get through the day without hyperventilating?
He didn't though, he flew into a road causing the deaths of people. Shit happens.
This was the first deaths of civilians at a display since 1952, its the first deaths of people not at the display for far longer.
If you want to ban things on chances that remote then you are going to have to ban things like eating which are far higher risks
Yes, so very, very, very RARE. Let's remember as far back as August 1st of this year.
If you read the thread what you'll understand is that it's the rarity of people not involved dying i.e. it's the first time ever.
Spectators were killed 63 years ago.
Shit does happen, all you can do is deal with the consequences and try to prevent it happening again.
Why should something that has happened once in at least 50 years result in such panic. God help you if there's a real crisis like beingbon a train with a gunman
All these comparisons are ridiculous. It is an organised event, the organisers have a responsibility to safety in their planning. Going from the info coming from the Red Arrows, they didn't. It's not a once in 50 years event, two planes crashed at a show the following day, fortunately none of the people in the surrounding area were hurt.
If you read the thread what you'll understand is that it's the rarity of people not involved dying i.e. it's the first time ever.
Spectators were killed 63 years ago.
Fine. So 20+ uninvolved people dead every 63 years purely for entertainment is fine then?
All these comparisons are ridiculous. It is an organised event, the organisers have a responsibility to safety in their planning. Going from the info coming from the Red Arrows, they didn't. It's not a once in 50 years event, two planes crashed at a show the following day, fortunately none of the people in the surrounding area were hurt.
But we are talking about 'civilians' not the people flying the aircraft. Civilian deaths involving airshows are incredibly rare worldwide - the last was in 2011 in Reno, civilian deaths of people not at the airshow are even rarer, its probably pre Ww2 that it last happened in the UK.
Basing reactions on incredibly rare events is insane.
Fine. So 20+ uninvolved people dead every 63 years purely for entertainment is fine then?
Actually it's much longer than that, the people in 1952 were at the airshow. It's virtually certain the last time people not at the airshow died was in the 1930s.
That they are so rare shows how effective the regulations are, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be done. A total ban is nothing but hysteria.
If you read the thread what you'll understand is that it's the rarity of people not involved dying i.e. it's the first time ever.
Spectators were killed 63 years ago.
But members of crew killed taking part are every few months. Are their deaths irrelevant?
Fine. So 20+ uninvolved people dead every 63 years purely for entertainment is fine then?
These arguments are circular. If you find 20 deaths due to an entertainment event unacceptable, how about this graph, show fatalities in aircrashes of craft over 19 passengers, from 1950 to now? http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/fatalities.jpg
Thousands of people. Should we stop flying at all? I mean we've got the internet now, video link phones, and going on holiday..well that's just a form of entertainment isn't it?
Don't be silly. Who said anything about closing the A27? certainly not me. But I do believe these types of aircraft stunt should be banned if these shows are near the public highways.
A spectator takes a risk at being at a show. People travelling along the highway do not expect a plane that has been doing acrobatic loop the bloody loops for people to come crashing down on them from the sky killing them and perhaps many others in the process.
The road is near the end of one of the runways. Any aircraft having an engine failure on take off could potentially land on it (regardless of air shows). It's not something the pilot is going to do deliberately.
Fine. So 20+ uninvolved people dead every 63 years purely for entertainment is fine then?
Why resort to a strawman argument to try to make a point? Don't you have one?
My viewpoint is that of reasonableness as I've made clear in this thread.
In response to the thread title calling for airshows to be banned (the point being debated) I've countered this kneejerk position by stating that we should wait until the outcome of the investigation that hopefully identifies a cause and then take steps to remove that cause from future events.
It may be a small and simple change that's needed to make things as safe as is reasonably practical.
Kneejerk reactions could be applied to any event that causes death or injury but they aren't a reasonable way to go about things.
These arguments are circular. If you find 20 deaths due to an entertainment event unacceptable, how about this graph, show fatalities in aircrashes of craft over 19 passengers, from 1950 to now? http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/fatalities.jpg
Thousands of people. Should we stop flying at all? I mean we've got the internet now, video link phones, and going on holiday..well that's just a form of entertainment isn't it?
There is a difference flying to Spain and an organised event where an old craft does acrobatics. Ridiculous comparison.
It is only luck that more spectators haven't been killed.
They chose to fly knowing the risks.
Luck has nothing to do with so few spectators, let alone non involveds. It's planning and the results of decades of experience to make things safer. To dismiss all that work as 'luck' is insulting to those who plan airshows.
If you want to talk about luck then if the plane had been a few feet higher then it would have ended in a field rather than the A27 and by now we would have forgotten all about it.
Yes it was an accident but it happened as part of an entertainment show. That is why it isnt comparable to the number of car accidents. It was an organised event. Its now being said the Red Arrows refused an invitation over safety concerns.
I'll repost what I said on the other thread on this subject:
"Shoreham is one of several airshows I've never been to (although it was one candidate last year for us to visit when the Canadian Lancaster was over). Up until now I'd always assumed that it was a seafront show as per Eastbourne.
Having taken a look at maps of the area, it certainly seems a very "tight" environment for a show. If the display line is aligned with Runway 02-20 (as everything suggests that it would be) then there are several problems - housing and a railway line at one end, the A27 at the other. What's more, it looks as though the layout forces traffic waiting to enter to queue on the A27, on the extended display line. Overall, it does look as though this particular airfield might not be a suitable venue (although, that being said, for the crash to have occurred on the road itself is incredibly unlucky)"
To expand on that a little, compare with a more "open" venue such as Fairford. There, the display line is aligned with the (only) runway, 09-27, which if memory serves is 12,000 feet long. The runway doesn't go right up to the boundary either, and even beyond the site boundaries the extended display line passes over open farmland. There are only minor roads nearby, and they're pretty much closed off except for access to the airfield itself.
Within the airfield, the flight paths are managed so that the more difficult manoeuvres are carried out with the plane heading toward open country (bear in mind that "loss of control" typically translates to either an inability to turn or maintain height, not to a sudden, unplanned change in direction.
The concern I have had over that venue lies with the open farmland, in that it affords a very good view of the display without the necessity to pay (although at least one farmer operates a "park on my field for a tenner" scheme. Many people do avail themselves of that opportunity, and a very popular place for people to gather is right underneath the flight path at the ends of the runway. There are even some venues where these "unofficial" locations give a better view than the official points
(The morality of watching a show put on to raise money for a charitable cause without paying is at best questionable though - if I were to use such a viewing point I'd feel obligated to make a contribution).
Nor is the manoeuvre called a loop the loop. A rather dated and infantile description.
loop the loop
phrase of loop
1.
(of an aircraft) describe a vertical circle in the air.
"Julie will loop the loop next month on her first trip into the skies"
loop-the-loop
[loop-th uh-loop]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
an airplane maneuver in which a plane, starting upward, makes one complete vertical loop.
loop-the-loop
Also found in: Medical, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:
Noun 1. loop-the-loop - a flight maneuver; aircraft flies a complete circle in the vertical plane
Inside loop
A vertical circle entered from straight and erect level flight. A positive pitching movement is used at all points in the loop to draw the circle, so that the aeroplane canopy is pointing inwards. Both the inside and outside loop are sometimes casually referred to as a 'loop the loop'.
You see that bit at the end, casually referred to. Quit getting your knickers in a twist over the use of an expression which perfectly explains what the pilot was doing and is in general usage by the general public, not pedants like you.
Why resort to a strawman argument to try to make a point? Don't you have one?
My viewpoint is that of reasonableness as I've made clear in this thread.
In response to the thread title calling for airshows to be banned (the point being debated) I've countered this kneejerk position by stating that we should wait until the outcome of the investigation that hopefully identifies a cause and then take steps to remove that cause from future events.
It may be a small and simple change that's needed to make things as safe as is reasonably practical.
Kneejerk reactions could be applied to any event that causes death or injury but they aren't a reasonable way to go about things.
Firstly, I haven't called for the banning of airshows. I find them utterly pointless, polluting, anti-social exercises, but each to their own.
What enrages me is that the usual suspects - and they ARE the same mob who would gleefully see the entire country covered with planes 24/7 if told there was a need - immediately get over-defensive and insulting to those who find it all objectionable.
Of course there has to be an investigation, but no matter what the outcome, it won't change the issue of the environment in which they take place one whit. It can only have been through mechanical/structural failure or pilot error, the precise details are irrelevant to the fact it should never have been happening in the proximity of the road. Or housing. The chair of the BADA simply would not accept this on Radio 4 this morning, and the interviewer was as incredulous as I.
After these two incidents so quickly there definitely needs to be some sort of tough regulation as my brother lives very close to where this happened, it's not right to allow this sort of thing to go on. He was lucky to not be dead straight away but innocent people could have been killed. If you want to do twenty loops in a row and kill yourself do so over the sea not over a neighborhood or busy dual carriage-way!
Comments
Yes, so very, very, very RARE. Let's remember as far back as August 1st of this year.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/01/plane-crashes-at-chris-evans-carfest-in-cheshire
Stop this BS.
Aircraft based at the same airfield, owned by the same organisation. Hmmm.....
and there is a HUGE difference between an aircraft flying over, and one doing aerobatics over you.
If you read the thread what you'll understand is that it's the rarity of people not involved dying i.e. it's the first time ever.
Spectators were killed 63 years ago.
All these comparisons are ridiculous. It is an organised event, the organisers have a responsibility to safety in their planning. Going from the info coming from the Red Arrows, they didn't. It's not a once in 50 years event, two planes crashed at a show the following day, fortunately none of the people in the surrounding area were hurt.
That you are unable to explain your hysteria says everything.
Fine. So 20+ uninvolved people dead every 63 years purely for entertainment is fine then?
Are you Nostradamus? Is it going to happen again in 2078?
But we are talking about 'civilians' not the people flying the aircraft. Civilian deaths involving airshows are incredibly rare worldwide - the last was in 2011 in Reno, civilian deaths of people not at the airshow are even rarer, its probably pre Ww2 that it last happened in the UK.
Basing reactions on incredibly rare events is insane.
That comment you quoted was about flight paths over London not aerobatics. Read previous posts before quoting me please.
Actually it's much longer than that, the people in 1952 were at the airshow. It's virtually certain the last time people not at the airshow died was in the 1930s.
That they are so rare shows how effective the regulations are, but that doesn't mean that nothing should be done. A total ban is nothing but hysteria.
But members of crew killed taking part are every few months. Are their deaths irrelevant?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air_show_accidents_and_incidents
It is only luck that more spectators haven't been killed.
These arguments are circular. If you find 20 deaths due to an entertainment event unacceptable, how about this graph, show fatalities in aircrashes of craft over 19 passengers, from 1950 to now? http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/fatalities.jpg
Thousands of people. Should we stop flying at all? I mean we've got the internet now, video link phones, and going on holiday..well that's just a form of entertainment isn't it?
The road is near the end of one of the runways. Any aircraft having an engine failure on take off could potentially land on it (regardless of air shows). It's not something the pilot is going to do deliberately.
Why resort to a strawman argument to try to make a point? Don't you have one?
My viewpoint is that of reasonableness as I've made clear in this thread.
In response to the thread title calling for airshows to be banned (the point being debated) I've countered this kneejerk position by stating that we should wait until the outcome of the investigation that hopefully identifies a cause and then take steps to remove that cause from future events.
It may be a small and simple change that's needed to make things as safe as is reasonably practical.
Kneejerk reactions could be applied to any event that causes death or injury but they aren't a reasonable way to go about things.
There is a difference flying to Spain and an organised event where an old craft does acrobatics. Ridiculous comparison.
They chose to fly knowing the risks.
Luck has nothing to do with so few spectators, let alone non involveds. It's planning and the results of decades of experience to make things safer. To dismiss all that work as 'luck' is insulting to those who plan airshows.
If you want to talk about luck then if the plane had been a few feet higher then it would have ended in a field rather than the A27 and by now we would have forgotten all about it.
More people die on commercial flights.
I'll repost what I said on the other thread on this subject:
"Shoreham is one of several airshows I've never been to (although it was one candidate last year for us to visit when the Canadian Lancaster was over). Up until now I'd always assumed that it was a seafront show as per Eastbourne.
Having taken a look at maps of the area, it certainly seems a very "tight" environment for a show. If the display line is aligned with Runway 02-20 (as everything suggests that it would be) then there are several problems - housing and a railway line at one end, the A27 at the other. What's more, it looks as though the layout forces traffic waiting to enter to queue on the A27, on the extended display line. Overall, it does look as though this particular airfield might not be a suitable venue (although, that being said, for the crash to have occurred on the road itself is incredibly unlucky)"
To expand on that a little, compare with a more "open" venue such as Fairford. There, the display line is aligned with the (only) runway, 09-27, which if memory serves is 12,000 feet long. The runway doesn't go right up to the boundary either, and even beyond the site boundaries the extended display line passes over open farmland. There are only minor roads nearby, and they're pretty much closed off except for access to the airfield itself.
Within the airfield, the flight paths are managed so that the more difficult manoeuvres are carried out with the plane heading toward open country (bear in mind that "loss of control" typically translates to either an inability to turn or maintain height, not to a sudden, unplanned change in direction.
The concern I have had over that venue lies with the open farmland, in that it affords a very good view of the display without the necessity to pay (although at least one farmer operates a "park on my field for a tenner" scheme. Many people do avail themselves of that opportunity, and a very popular place for people to gather is right underneath the flight path at the ends of the runway. There are even some venues where these "unofficial" locations give a better view than the official points
(The morality of watching a show put on to raise money for a charitable cause without paying is at best questionable though - if I were to use such a viewing point I'd feel obligated to make a contribution).
3 People died out of 7 accidents last year. How many people have died on commercial flights in the last year? Shall we ban commercial flights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobatic_maneuver You see that bit at the end, casually referred to. Quit getting your knickers in a twist over the use of an expression which perfectly explains what the pilot was doing and is in general usage by the general public, not pedants like you.
Firstly, I haven't called for the banning of airshows. I find them utterly pointless, polluting, anti-social exercises, but each to their own.
What enrages me is that the usual suspects - and they ARE the same mob who would gleefully see the entire country covered with planes 24/7 if told there was a need - immediately get over-defensive and insulting to those who find it all objectionable.
Of course there has to be an investigation, but no matter what the outcome, it won't change the issue of the environment in which they take place one whit. It can only have been through mechanical/structural failure or pilot error, the precise details are irrelevant to the fact it should never have been happening in the proximity of the road. Or housing. The chair of the BADA simply would not accept this on Radio 4 this morning, and the interviewer was as incredulous as I.
Commercial flights aren't organised entertainment events.
It wasn't a few feet higher.
How much denial can one person muster?