I wonder if anyone here has living memory of the Farnborough Air Show disaster? and specifically the public reaction in the days after.
As it happened a decade or so before I was born I was only vaguely aware of it. Twenty seven people killed that day and the eventual count was 31 I believe. Yet compare this paragraph from a newspaper report of the time to the current day reaction:
"Fire engines and ambulances arrived within minutes and after a short break the air display continued."
It beggars belief in a way but I rather admire the idea of our stoic ancestors who just got on with life whatever was thrown at them. I can't decide whether it is us as a society who have changed or the reporting style of the press. Either way, safety measures were put in place back then and will be further improved after this weekend's accident, as is already evidenced. No need to ban these type of events entirely.
I wonder if anyone here has living memory of the Farnborough Air Show disaster? and specifically the public reaction in the days after.
As it happened a decade or so before I was born I was only vaguely aware of it. Twenty seven people killed that day and the eventual count was 31 I believe. Yet compare this paragraph from a newspaper report of the time to the current day reaction:
"Fire engines and ambulances arrived within minutes and after a short break the air display continued."
It beggars belief in a way but I rather admire the idea of our stoic ancestors who just got on with life whatever was thrown at them. I can't decide whether it is us as a society who have changed or the reporting style of the press. Either way, safety measures were put in place back then and will be further improved after this weekend's accident, as is already evidenced. No need to ban these type of events entirely.
My dad kind of remembers it. However like the horror crash at Le Mans 3 years later, the reaction was of shock. However the war was not long over and everyone was a bit desentiesed to these accidents.
I wonder if anyone here has living memory of the Farnborough Air Show disaster? and specifically the public reaction in the days after.
As it happened a decade or so before I was born I was only vaguely aware of it. Twenty seven people killed that day and the eventual count was 31 I believe. Yet compare this paragraph from a newspaper report of the time to the current day reaction:
"Fire engines and ambulances arrived within minutes and after a short break the air display continued."
It beggars belief in a way but I rather admire the idea of our stoic ancestors who just got on with life whatever was thrown at them. I can't decide whether it is us as a society who have changed or the reporting style of the press. Either way, safety measures were put in place back then and will be further improved after this weekend's accident, as is already evidenced. No need to ban these type of events entirely.
There was a very important point to the Farnborough Air show then though, not that it still doesn't have that point, but it was a sales event for British military and civil aircraft. The Hunters and Vampires flying then were the very latest thing out on the market.
There was a very important point to the Farnborough Air show then though, not that it still doesn't have that point, but it was a sales event for British military and civil aircraft. The Hunters and Vampires flying then were the very latest thing out on the market.
The Farnborough accident was on the Saturday, though. Whether it was the same in those days I don't know, but in modern times tje sales fair has been during the week with the weekends being the public days. In 2012 (the last time I went) the trade areas had closed by Saturday.
My dad kind of remembers it. However like the horror crash at Le Mans 3 years later, the reaction was of shock. However the war was not long over and everyone was a bit desentiesed to these accidents.
I would have thought it was more a case of "life [actually] does go on" no matter what, rather than de-sensitivity.
There was a very important point to the Farnborough Air show then though, not that it still doesn't have that point, but it was a sales event for British military and civil aircraft. The Hunters and Vampires flying then were the very latest thing out on the market.
The aircraft that crashed was a prototype that suffered structural failure. It led to changes in the rules that made aircraft fly parallel with the crowd during displays, instead of towards them (as the DH 110 had done).
The show went on and, later the same day, the prototype Hawker Hunter went supersonic over the airfield (that certainly wouldn't have been allowed today!)
Good grief. This must be one of the most pathetic posts i've ever seen on this forum.
It must hurt knowing one post of mine meant more than the 7k+ you have, so you have to attack others. I was being attacked and retaliated then my point was proved when they added regulation to a practice which shouldn't be happening in the first place. I got the last laugh there buddy so keep flaming me.
It must hurt knowing one post of mine meant more than the 7k+ you have, so you have to attack others. I was being attacked and retaliated then my point was proved when they added regulation to a practice which shouldn't be happening in the first place. I got the last laugh there buddy so keep flaming me.
Weird....
How does one post become worth more than x amount?? Talk about being over invested in something......
You 'won' nothing, the CAA decide to put some restrictions in place whilst everything is being looked into, completely normal and understandable given the events. Quite how you piggyback that as personal victory is beyond me.
It must hurt knowing one post of mine meant more than the 7k+ you have, so you have to attack others. I was being attacked and retaliated then my point was proved when they added regulation to a practice which shouldn't be happening in the first place. I got the last laugh there buddy so keep flaming me.
It must hurt knowing one post of mine meant more than the 7k+ you have, so you have to attack others. I was being attacked and retaliated then my point was proved when they added regulation to a practice which shouldn't be happening in the first place. I got the last laugh there buddy so keep flaming me.
Nah, the laughing will continue at your immaturity / insensitivity.
why didnt the loop start over the airfield/ runway?
why wasnt this over the sea?
1) It may have started at the regulation height. We don't know the details - that's for an inquiry.
2) The road it crashed onto is at the end of one of the runways, so it probably did start the loop over the runway. The rules ban flying towards the crowd - they don't allow for busy roads etc. The rules (may) need changing but that's for an inquiry to decide.
3) The reason why it wasn't over the sea have already been explained.
1) It may have started at the regulation height. We don't know the details - that's for an inquiry.
2) The road it crashed onto is at the end of one of the runways, so it probably did start the loop over the runway. The rules ban flying towards the crowd - they don't allow for busy roads etc. The rules (may) need changing but that's for an inquiry to decide.
3) The reason why it wasn't over the sea have already been explained.
We can see ourselves that the height it started at left zero room for error.
It did not start the loop over the runway, only in line with the runway. If he had completed the loop he would be out of it by the time he was over the concrete.
It is my speculation that he started the loop too early, mid loop he got confused and mistook the A27 for the runway and came down in line with that, without enough height.
You can see that his loop was twisted and followed the line of the A27.
I do not accept the reason that it was not over the sea. The beach area looks adequate for a display (but not for a static ground display). There is simply no reason the aerobatics could not be over the sea - aside from the fact you could not charge entry.
In Hove and Brighton there is plenty of room for a display exactly like that of Bournemouth.
It is my speculation that he started the loop too early, mid loop he got confused and mistook the A27 for the runway and came down in line with that, without enough height.
We can see ourselves that the height it started at left zero room for error.
It did not start the loop over the runway, only in line with the runway. If he had completed the loop he would be out of it by the time he was over the concrete.
It is my speculation that he started the loop too early, mid loop he got confused and mistook the A27 for the runway and came down in line with that, without enough height.
You can see that his loop was twisted and followed the line of the A27.
I do not accept the reason that it was not over the sea. The beach area looks adequate for a display (but not for a static ground display). There is simply no reason the aerobatics could not be over the sea - aside from the fact you could not charge entry.
In Hove and Brighton there is plenty of room for a display exactly like that of Bournemouth.
There is not a chance in hell that any pilot could confuse a trunk road with a paved runway.
The aircraft was clearly in a stall and not under full control once level.
The rolling left then right is a sign of the stall, not of 'steering'.
I can't speculate on what put the aircraft in that situation.
We can see ourselves that the height it started at left zero room for error.
It did not start the loop over the runway, only in line with the runway. If he had completed the loop he would be out of it by the time he was over the concrete.
It is my speculation that he started the loop too early, mid loop he got confused and mistook the A27 for the runway and came down in line with that, without enough height.
You can see that his loop was twisted and followed the line of the A27.
I do not accept the reason that it was not over the sea. The beach area looks adequate for a display (but not for a static ground display). There is simply no reason the aerobatics could not be over the sea - aside from the fact you could not charge entry.
In Hove and Brighton there is plenty of room for a display exactly like that of Bournemouth.
I was wondering why and how this thread has expanded to almost 20 pages. Then I read the above. It seems that the same discussion is going round and round and folk continue to jump to conclusions. Nothing I have seen from the amateur footage would lead me to make such absolute assertions about the sequence of events. But lets not spoil a good witch hunt with trivial stuff like facts and expertise, eh. Oh dear.
I was wondering why and how this thread has expanded to almost 20 pages. Then I read the above. It seems that the same discussion is going round and round and folk continue to jump to conclusions. Nothing I have seen from the amateur footage would lead me to make such absolute assertions about the sequence of events. But lets not spoil a good witch hunt with trivial stuff like facts and expertise, eh. Oh dear.
Exactly. There no reason to assume with no expertise that the loop was started too early or too low. That may or may not be the case but we don't know yet whether either is true.
All we know so far is the outcome and that the aircraft 'appears' to be stalled at the end (this is a reasonable assumption to make given how it behaved - the reason for being in that situation is not known).
Its just co-incidence that the craft just happen to follow the line of the road instead of the line of the runway?
One thing is absolutely clear, is that the loop was started quite a distance before the airfield/ runway. If it was started in the correct place then perhaps the outcome would have been different.
Its just co-incidence that the craft just happen to follow the line of the road instead of the line of the runway?
One thing is absolutely clear, is that the loop was started quite a distance before the airfield/ runway. If it was started in the correct place then perhaps the outcome would have been different.
From what has been seen, it is fairly clear that the aircraft was following the correct track, but somehow ended up too low. He probably should have had at least 200 feet of clear room as he passed over the road.
He started the loop over open country towards, but not over, the crowd on the airfield and, during the loop, twisted it round slightly in order to do a fast low run down the line of the runway and just the other side of it from the crowd. This would have brought him over the road at an angle with it, not in line with it. The crash took place across the road at an angle with the aircraft ending up in the trees to the side of the road.
Its just co-incidence that the craft just happen to follow the line of the road instead of the line of the runway?
One thing is absolutely clear, is that the loop was started quite a distance before the airfield/ runway. If it was started in the correct place then perhaps the outcome would have been different.
He wasn't following the line of the road, if he had the footage from the road would have had the aircraft go overhead
Its just co-incidence that the craft just happen to follow the line of the road instead of the line of the runway?
One thing is absolutely clear, is that the loop was started quite a distance before the airfield/ runway. If it was started in the correct place then perhaps the outcome would have been different.
Its just co-incidence that the craft just happen to follow the line of the road instead of the line of the runway?
Yes. The aircraft approached the display line at an angle of approximately 45°, the angle between the road and the runway/display line is approximately 40°, to the approach path was approximately aligned with the road.
He's described as a "a pilot with 21 years' experience [who] was at the airshow on Saturday". I'd assumed from that description that he was a display pilot with 21 years' experience but it looks as though "spectator who has held a private pilot's licence for 21 years" would be more a more accurate description. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he's either psychic or a mind reader, so I'll describe the comment we can hear at 0:33 as "unforgivable".
On any basis, a curved road carrying traffic with trees on either side, covered with other obstructions (a barrier down the middle, traffic lights, signs, and street lamps)
(ETA: Oops, no street lamps - I'd mistakenly identified very high level "repeater" traffic lights and a video camera)
Runway (and bear in mind that, if standard practice were followed, there would also have been a series of large fluorescent orange markers laid out to the right of the runway to mark the display line.)
Indeed, but bear in mind that any individual AAIB investigator have considerably more experience in aviation and investigating air accidents that every commenter on this thread put together, so I wouldn't assume that their conclusion will necessarily agree with yours... or that of any other FM for that matter.
Comments
As it happened a decade or so before I was born I was only vaguely aware of it. Twenty seven people killed that day and the eventual count was 31 I believe. Yet compare this paragraph from a newspaper report of the time to the current day reaction:
"Fire engines and ambulances arrived within minutes and after a short break the air display continued."
It beggars belief in a way but I rather admire the idea of our stoic ancestors who just got on with life whatever was thrown at them. I can't decide whether it is us as a society who have changed or the reporting style of the press. Either way, safety measures were put in place back then and will be further improved after this weekend's accident, as is already evidenced. No need to ban these type of events entirely.
My dad kind of remembers it. However like the horror crash at Le Mans 3 years later, the reaction was of shock. However the war was not long over and everyone was a bit desentiesed to these accidents.
There was a very important point to the Farnborough Air show then though, not that it still doesn't have that point, but it was a sales event for British military and civil aircraft. The Hunters and Vampires flying then were the very latest thing out on the market.
The Farnborough accident was on the Saturday, though. Whether it was the same in those days I don't know, but in modern times tje sales fair has been during the week with the weekends being the public days. In 2012 (the last time I went) the trade areas had closed by Saturday.
The aircraft that crashed was a prototype that suffered structural failure. It led to changes in the rules that made aircraft fly parallel with the crowd during displays, instead of towards them (as the DH 110 had done).
The show went on and, later the same day, the prototype Hawker Hunter went supersonic over the airfield (that certainly wouldn't have been allowed today!)
It must hurt knowing one post of mine meant more than the 7k+ you have, so you have to attack others. I was being attacked and retaliated then my point was proved when they added regulation to a practice which shouldn't be happening in the first place. I got the last laugh there buddy so keep flaming me.
Weird....
How does one post become worth more than x amount?? Talk about being over invested in something......
You 'won' nothing, the CAA decide to put some restrictions in place whilst everything is being looked into, completely normal and understandable given the events. Quite how you piggyback that as personal victory is beyond me.
Are you actually an adult?
why didnt the loop start over the airfield/ runway?
why wasnt this over the sea?
That's why we have inquiries.
Nah, the laughing will continue at your immaturity / insensitivity.
Asked and answered.
1) It may have started at the regulation height. We don't know the details - that's for an inquiry.
2) The road it crashed onto is at the end of one of the runways, so it probably did start the loop over the runway. The rules ban flying towards the crowd - they don't allow for busy roads etc. The rules (may) need changing but that's for an inquiry to decide.
3) The reason why it wasn't over the sea have already been explained.
We can see ourselves that the height it started at left zero room for error.
It did not start the loop over the runway, only in line with the runway. If he had completed the loop he would be out of it by the time he was over the concrete.
It is my speculation that he started the loop too early, mid loop he got confused and mistook the A27 for the runway and came down in line with that, without enough height.
You can see that his loop was twisted and followed the line of the A27.
I do not accept the reason that it was not over the sea. The beach area looks adequate for a display (but not for a static ground display). There is simply no reason the aerobatics could not be over the sea - aside from the fact you could not charge entry.
In Hove and Brighton there is plenty of room for a display exactly like that of Bournemouth.
Case closed. Who needs the AAIB?
There is not a chance in hell that any pilot could confuse a trunk road with a paved runway.
The aircraft was clearly in a stall and not under full control once level.
The rolling left then right is a sign of the stall, not of 'steering'.
I can't speculate on what put the aircraft in that situation.
we will see then, after the report is published
Exactly. There no reason to assume with no expertise that the loop was started too early or too low. That may or may not be the case but we don't know yet whether either is true.
All we know so far is the outcome and that the aircraft 'appears' to be stalled at the end (this is a reasonable assumption to make given how it behaved - the reason for being in that situation is not known).
One thing is absolutely clear, is that the loop was started quite a distance before the airfield/ runway. If it was started in the correct place then perhaps the outcome would have been different.
He started the loop over open country towards, but not over, the crowd on the airfield and, during the loop, twisted it round slightly in order to do a fast low run down the line of the runway and just the other side of it from the crowd. This would have brought him over the road at an angle with it, not in line with it. The crash took place across the road at an angle with the aircraft ending up in the trees to the side of the road.
BIB yes.
Yes. The aircraft approached the display line at an angle of approximately 45°, the angle between the road and the runway/display line is approximately 40°, to the approach path was approximately aligned with the road.
Two reconstructions of the flight path:
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/MobileSwitcher/v2/images/1674-1440360636806247526.png
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/16C41/production/_85194239_shoreham_loop_detail_air_crash_624_v2.jpg
And the area over which the loop was carried out:
https://goo.gl/maps/PeZav
This idea of "attempting to crash land on the road" or "mistaking the road for the runway" appears to originate from this interview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34046795
He's described as a "a pilot with 21 years' experience [who] was at the airshow on Saturday". I'd assumed from that description that he was a display pilot with 21 years' experience but it looks as though "spectator who has held a private pilot's licence for 21 years" would be more a more accurate description. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he's either psychic or a mind reader, so I'll describe the comment we can hear at 0:33 as "unforgivable".
On any basis, a curved road carrying traffic with trees on either side, covered with other obstructions (a barrier down the middle, traffic lights, signs, and street lamps)
(ETA: Oops, no street lamps - I'd mistakenly identified very high level "repeater" traffic lights and a video camera)
As for "confusing the A27 for the runway:"
A27
Runway (and bear in mind that, if standard practice were followed, there would also have been a series of large fluorescent orange markers laid out to the right of the runway to mark the display line.)
Indeed, but bear in mind that any individual AAIB investigator have considerably more experience in aviation and investigating air accidents that every commenter on this thread put together, so I wouldn't assume that their conclusion will necessarily agree with yours... or that of any other FM for that matter.