Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 29 August 2015, 02:42   #11
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Length: 3m +
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
Not sure who pulled the plug (or why)
But I think this article puts a few things into a bit more perspective.......
For drivers, the A27 is far more dangerous than any air show | Science | The Guardian
Although it very much depends on your perspective. They seem to be basically saying 11 deaths in 60 years so less than 2 deaths per year. Far more people die on the same road in a year so its the wrong perspectyive of risk. But risk needs to take into account:
  • Did the activity NEED to happen
  • Did the people involved make an informed decision about risk
  • Can we do anything else to REASONABLY minimise the risks

Now I'd argue that the airshow didn't NEED to happen. That means we should be less accepting of risk. Not every other death on a road needed the journey to happen, but if you look at the roads when there is bad weather and the advice has been to only travel when absolutely necessary there would appear to be a lot of people who do feel they need to travel.

I've seen people elsewhere saying this isn't the first accident at an airshow so why is this SO different? Well in my opinion its different on two levels. Every time a pilot gets into a plane they know they may crash. They are, to some extent, in control of that. They make the choice if its worth the risks to them to do the flying. I might even accept that those who go to an airshow (a bit like those going to watch motorsports) accept that they've gone to watch a high risk activity and they must understand there is an inherent level of risk to them (although I think they would expect the risk to be minimised). But as a person in a crowd you can usually make some choices about where to stand and you may either consciously or sub-consciously do that to minimise your risk. The people at Shoreham didn't choose to be at the event. They could have been driving the safest car available, within the speed limit, having undertaken an advanced driving course and they still could do nothing to mitigate that risk.

There is probably a load of things that the council could do to make the A27 safer. That shouldn't cloud what else could be done to make airshows safer. There was no height restriction in place until this week. You couldn't perform over the crowd but you could perform very close to them at very low level. Its a bit like speed limits on roads. Lets face it most of us could safely get from A to B on a motorway at 90mph instead of 70mph... but if that increases the risk can it be justified as a new speed limit?
__________________

__________________
ShinyShoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 04:21   #12
RIBnet admin team
 
willk's Avatar
 
Country: Ireland
Make: Redbay Boats
Length: 9m +
Engine: 370hp
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12,928
RIBase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starovich View Post
My point (now moot as the weather was the factor) that a 50yr old plane at the end of its life funded by donations is more risky than newer planes with all the backup the RAF can muster.
I understood that the issue with the Vulcan was that the airframe was nearing EOL, so the donations were neither here nor there (I believe money was not an issue). If the Vulcan was not conducting operations that stressed the airframe then I'd have thought the risks were extremely small. Failure during aerobatics happens and I am always amazed that the Safety Elfs allowed shows over heavily populated areas.

An aside on old airframes: DC-3
__________________

__________________
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?"
.
willk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 04:39   #13
Member
 
lakelandterrier's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Gloucester
Boat name: Lunasea
Make: Ribcraft
Length: 5m +
Engine: Suzi 140
MMSI: 232005050
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,126
But by that logic, no-one would ever do anything. There's as much chance of an aircraft on a routine or pleasure flight crashing and injuring people on the ground as a random chance, but we still have take off / landing approaches over major cities for example.

In my mind I can entirely see that there are greater risks of failure with an elderly airframe, and possibly greater risks with one maintained privately as opposed to the RAF, and I agree with the restrictions put in place about aerobatics on older planes.

Can't see that anything has changed in the Red Arrows ability to perform "safely" at Dartmouth from previous years, apart from some Regatta Committee clever-cloggs claiming in local press the only proper and "safe" place to watch the show from is Dartmouth with anyone watching from Kingswear itself or surrounding fields does so "at their own risk" (although he didn't mention "or the river"), presumably to drive more people into town to swell the regatta coffers. Well I think his plan has somewhat backfired, and might have signalled the end of this spectacular display that has pulled thousands of people to Dartmouth for many years
__________________
Member of the Macmillan Round the Isle of Wight Club
lakelandterrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 05:00   #14
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Make: Ballistic
Length: 7m +
Engine: Yam 225
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 978
Shinyshoe,
Kegworth 1989 Nothing to do with an Airshow.
Airbus A320 crash Habsheim airshow 1988, crashed in field(missed all roads)
New York Air Show 2015 Airshow Crash In field. (missed all roads)

With any air crash there is a chance it will be into a road/crowd, but the square footage of the "people" is small in comparison with the square mile or so of area the plane could crash in. 500 feet in most directions the A27 would have been missed. no one would knee jerk into reactions and we would not be having this discussion.

It was an accident, you could have a plane land on your house while at home today, as the passengers don't need to travel should we ban all flights just incase?

The rules on air shows are in place and quiet strict, sometimes sh1t just happens.

Here Wikipedia list is a list of crashes at airshows, note how most do not include deaths of people not in the plane, i think this indicates that airshows on the whole are safe enough.
__________________
Starovich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 06:40   #15
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakelandterrier View Post
There's as much chance of an aircraft on a routine or pleasure flight crashing and injuring people on the ground as a random chance, but we still have take off / landing approaches over major cities for example.
You think there's as much chance of civilian aircraft crashing on routine flight during take off and landing, as a display aircraft crashing during a low-level manouvre? I believe you are wrong. I also suspect there is some planning into escape routes when planning airports / flight paths.

Quote:
... and possibly greater risks with one maintained privately as opposed to the RAF,
RAF aircraft crash due to mechanical failure on routine operations and they have had mechanical issues on display aircraft too - I certainly wouldn't assume the RAF are infallible especially in times of budget cuts.

Quote:
Can't see that anything has changed in the Red Arrows ability to perform "safely" at Dartmouth from previous years,
Are you using the fact there were no accidents in the past as a measure of safety? That could just be good fortune.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
Not sure who pulled the plug (or why)
But I think this article puts a few things into a bit more perspective.......
For drivers, the A27 is far more dangerous than any air show | Science | The Guardian
Sadly the article is based on some fundamentally flawed statistical analysis. It makes a perfectly good point about the atrocious safety on our roads and our ability to perceive risk. However the A27 must be about 60+ miles long, and had traffic on it 24/7. Very short sections of it are overflown by aircraft for very short time windows. Comparing average risk of driving along a road and the risk of a plane crashing into that road during a specific event is misleading and moreover implying that because roads are dangerous anyway its OK to add to that risk is crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starovich
With any air crash there is a chance it will be into a road/crowd, but the square footage of the "people" is small in comparison with the square mile or so of area the plane could crash in. 500 feet in most directions the A27 would have been missed. no one would knee jerk into reactions and we would not be having this discussion.
I'm not a big fan of knee jerk reactions, although I suspect you might still be having a similar debate if it had avoided any deaths but the media felt that was just luck.

Quote:
Here Wikipedia list is a list of crashes at airshows, note how most do not include deaths of people not in the plane, i think this indicates that airshows on the whole are safe enough.
Well probably the CAA are basing there decision on something more systematic than looking at Wikipedia, although may have been that kind of complacency was prevalent before the crash? I'm not saying airshows are fundamentally unsafe (and I don't think anyone else was) but you'd want to have good answers to these questions for the coroner if you didn't appear to have reviewed the rules and it happens again:
  1. Do you know what caused the crash on the A27?
  2. Do you know that such circumstances could never happen again? [Hint, if you don't yet know what caused it you can't]
  3. Why do you restrict display aircraft from performing directly over the crowds they are entertaining?
  4. Why then are they allowed to perform over other areas of population?

Increasing restrictions on Airshows might actually be good for most shows in the short term. Following this crash I am sure there will have been many risk averse families who decide its too dangerous (even though being in the crowd might be the safest place to be!) and so stay away - public awareness of tightened restriction probably reassures those people (perhaps falsely as the risks to the crowd remain the same!).
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 07:30   #16
Member
 
Crusher's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Boat name: Bubbas Bouy
Length: 7m +
Engine: Mercruiser
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 626
RIBase
What an interesting topic,
All in all this boils down to differing levels of risk acceptance, I agree with most of the comments above, and only posted the Guardian article as a point of view, not whole heartedly my own, just a different view.
Life itself incurs a level of risk. It is very easy to focus on a tragic event such as this, as it gets a lot of media attention. There are numerous tragic events happen to individuals who were as 'unlucky' to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, either due to another individuals poor choice(drunk, travelling too fast, on the phone, etc) or a 'unforeseeable' mechanical failure. These other individual events will often get little (or even no) media attention and don't result in rule changes overnight.
While I have no interest in, or ever been to an air show, this certainly feels like a knee jerk reaction to what was a tragic accident.


Sent from my iPhone using RIB Net
__________________
Crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 07:39   #17
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Make: Ballistic
Length: 7m +
Engine: Yam 225
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 978
Poly, sorry i am not privy to the CAA investigation, my apologies for sourcing available data, and drawing conclusions based on data going back to 1911.

I am using data available to me, and presenting an opinion based on that data.

I could of course provide no data to support my opinion and just make wild claims with no evidence either way if you'd prefer, that seems to be the ribnet way after all
__________________
Starovich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 08:12   #18
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starovich View Post
Poly, sorry i am not privy to the CAA investigation, my apologies for sourcing available data, and drawing conclusions based on data going back to 1911.
The CAA don't conduct the investigation the AAIB do. The point is NOBODY knows the outcome of that investigation. As a result the CAA have to assume that the circumstances that caused the plane to crash could happen again at any time to any other display aircraft.

When the CAA announced the tighter rules I believe they said they would remain in place until the crash investigation report was available. That seems a fairly logical step.

Quote:
I am using data available to me, and presenting an opinion based on that data.
The person making the decision is the one who will have to stand in front of the coroner though not you! He's probably got information on what the rules are in all the other countries and so is better placed to interpret "your" data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusher
What an interesting topic,
All in all this boils down to differing levels of risk acceptance, I agree with most of the comments above, and only posted the Guardian article as a point of view, not whole heartedly my own, just a different view.
Life itself incurs a level of risk. It is very easy to focus on a tragic event such as this, as it gets a lot of media attention.
Indeed. There's a book you might enjoy http://www.amazon.co.uk/Risk-Science...ords=risk+book

Quote:
While I have no interest in, or ever been to an air show, this certainly feels like a knee jerk reaction to what was a tragic accident.
I hate knee jerk policies because they are rarely properly thought out, however I can't really imagine them having come to any other conclusion. It is peak Airshow season and they would have looked totally ridiculous to come out on Monday and say "we are confident that the current rules are perfectly adequate to protect the public". The media would have had a field day - probably with massively exaggerated statistics / nonsense but it would have undermined the confidence in the CAA.
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 13:51   #19
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Make: Ballistic
Length: 7m +
Engine: Yam 225
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
The CAA don't conduct the investigation the AAIB do. The point is NOBODY knows the outcome of that investigation. As a result the CAA have to assume that the circumstances that caused the plane to crash could happen again at any time to any other display aircraft.

The person making the decision is the one who will have to stand in front of the coroner though not you! He's probably got information on what the rules are in all the other countries and so is better placed to interpret "your" data.
TBH I don't care which three letter acronym do the investigation it makes no difference. i still am not privy to the findings.

Read once more, no where did i say the data was mine, I merely did some research and formed an opinion based on that.
No where did i say i had more/better data than the person making the decision, or that i was the font of all knowledge on the subject.

For those with short attention spans..
Quote:
I am using data available to me, and presenting an opinion based on that data.

I could of course provide no data to support my opinion and just make wild claims with no evidence either way if you'd prefer, that seems to be the ribnet way after all
Its a shame you feel the need to nit pick, please disprove my theory and point of view with logical arguments based on fact, that's the beauty of debate.
__________________
Starovich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29 August 2015, 15:00   #20
RIBnet supporter
 
Pikey Dave's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: South Yorks
Boat name: Black Pig
Make: Ribcraft
Length: 5m +
Engine: DF140a
MMSI: 235111389
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,596
RIBase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starovich View Post

Its a shame you feel the need to nit pick..................that's the beauty of debate.
At what point does one mans debate become another mans "nit pick"
__________________
Rule#2: Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level & then beat you with experience.
Rule#3: Tha' can't educate pork.
Rule#4: See rule#5
Pikey Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.