• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Shoreham Airshow Crash

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tracky

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2011
Messages
483
If true a Retrograde step and not what made this country great.

Before I get attacked for my opinion, I offer full sympathies to those involved in the accident but it's a typical modern day knee jerk reaction.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,533
Location
Redcar
If the idea is 'until we know what happened and why we're going to add some extra restrictions and then review once the reports are out' then I think that's fair enough.
 

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,284
Location
Leeds
The key wording is "vintage jet aircraft". Presumably modern jet aircraft will still be permitted to perform high energy aerobatics.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Hunters are about the same vintage as the F-5, used by the Patrouille Suisse,so I cannot see the long-term practical application of such a rule, meaning that such a ruling would imply that there's something inherently dangerous local to the event itself, although anything remotely tenuous linking in 1950s jet aircraft is sketchy at best.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Hunters are about the same vintage as the F-5, used by the Patrouille Suisse,so I cannot see the long-term practical application of such a rule, meaning that such a ruling would imply that there's something inherently dangerous local to the event itself, although anything remotely tenuous linking in 1950s jet aircraft is sketchy at best.

Well in todays H&S climate isn't there something potentially dangerous about vintage aircraft performing mid air stunts in close proximity to a busy road and houses? I've got relatives in the area and they have expressed concerns in the past about something like this happening.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Well in todays H&S climate isn't there something potentially dangerous about vintage aircraft performing mid air stunts in close proximity to a busy road and houses? I've got relatives in the area and they have expressed concerns in the past about something like this happening.


Like I said above, RIAT has had accidents but no questions relating to its location, and it is twice, if not three times, the amount of traffic Shoreham does. There is no argument really.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
.
It may well be a knee-jerk reaction but one which some people may, on reflection, feel is actually overdue to implement.

If it's a vintage aircraft then I really don't want it to be doing risky aerobatics, I'd much rather see it doing a flypast - and remain in one piece for future generations to enjoy.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Like I said above, RIAT has had accidents but no questions relating to its location, and it is twice, if not three times, the amount of traffic Shoreham does. There is no argument really.

Well I'm not aware of any particular problems about Shoreham, an accident like this could have probably occurred anywhere although I appreciate the cause is unlikely to be known for sometime yet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
.
It may well be a knee-jerk reaction but one which some people may, on reflection, feel is actually overdue to implement.

If it's a vintage aircraft then I really don't want it to be doing risky aerobatics, I'd much rather see it doing a flypast - and remain in one piece for future generations to enjoy.

I really don't think this is a kneejerk reaction in fact I think it is the only sensible decision that could have been taken.
 

Saint66

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2013
Messages
807
Location
Herts
I would say it's a sensible decision until it is fully known what caused such an awful incident.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,190
Location
St Albans
.
It may well be a knee-jerk reaction but one which some people may, on reflection, feel is actually overdue to implement.

If it's a vintage aircraft then I really don't want it to be doing risky aerobatics, I'd much rather see it doing a flypast - and remain in one piece for future generations to enjoy.

It's the usual wise after the event chorus that the media are picking up on. If such a restriction is really overdue then there are many more important changes that should be done first, e.g. over 200 deaths on the roads per year are in incidents where at least one driver was over the drink drive limit. That's about 20 times the number of people killed in this unfortunate random event at Shoreham. Or to put it another way, at least 600 times the number killed since the last airshow event affecting spectators or those not even attending. Why aren't our representatives even putting a simple precaution in place like zero tolerance of drink driving overall?
 

Tracky

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2011
Messages
483
Going to invest in a cotton wool and bubble wrap manufacturer...

Saw this earlier


• UK has long held an exemplary air display record in terms of public safety.
• Prior to Saturday’s accident, the last time a member of the public was killed at a UK airshow was in 1952, nearly 63 years ago.
• This record reflects the maturity of the multiple checks and balances that UK aviation regulators and airshow practitioners have developed.
• The UK has extensive rules that cover airshow organisation, display aircraft heights, speeds and manoeuvres, flying supervision and a special examination and authorisation process for display pilots with graduated steps from simple flypasts to formation and aerobatics approvals.
• In this regard, we are the envy of many other nations, not just in Europe but also across the Atlantic.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
It's the usual wise after the event chorus that the media are picking up on. If such a restriction is really overdue then there are many more important changes that should be done first, e.g. over 200 deaths on the roads per year are in incidents where at least one driver was over the drink drive limit. That's about 20 times the number of people killed in this unfortunate random event at Shoreham. Or to put it another way, at least 600 times the number killed since the last airshow event affecting spectators or those not even attending. Why aren't our representatives even putting a simple precaution in place like zero tolerance of drink driving overall?

I'm as against drink driving as anybody but what on earth has that got to do with the events at Shoreham?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Going to invest in a cotton wool and bubble wrap manufacturer...

Saw this earlier


• UK has long held an exemplary air display record in terms of public safety.
• Prior to Saturday’s accident, the last time a member of the public was killed at a UK airshow was in 1952, nearly 63 years ago.
• This record reflects the maturity of the multiple checks and balances that UK aviation regulators and airshow practitioners have developed.
• The UK has extensive rules that cover airshow organisation, display aircraft heights, speeds and manoeuvres, flying supervision and a special examination and authorisation process for display pilots with graduated steps from simple flypasts to formation and aerobatics approvals.
• In this regard, we are the envy of many other nations, not just in Europe but also across the Atlantic.

But that is no comfort to those who lost loved ones on Saturday.

One accident like this is one too many.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
I actually thought such aerobatics only took place over water already.

I don't see a problem as it doesn't mean an outright ban, just an extra precaution that seems pretty sensible.

And as far as I'm aware, drink driving is already illegal isn't it?
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I really don't think this is a kneejerk reaction in fact I think it is the only sensible decision that could have been taken.


I quite agree, I was merely referring to an earlier 'kneejerk' comment.
 

Tracky

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2011
Messages
483
The same source also included ...

• It is certainly not a time for un-informed or miss-informed rule making, especially when the existing rules have worked so well for so long.

Hear hear to that.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
It's the usual wise after the event chorus that the media are picking up on. If such a restriction is really overdue then there are many more important changes that should be done first, e.g. over 200 deaths on the roads per year are in incidents where at least one driver was over the drink drive limit. That's about 20 times the number of people killed in this unfortunate random event at Shoreham. Or to put it another way, at least 600 times the number killed since the last airshow event affecting spectators or those not even attending. Why aren't our representatives even putting a simple precaution in place like zero tolerance of drink driving overall?


Why do any 'other important changes that should be done first' have to concern us when this (sensible) precaution can be/has been implemented immediately. It's only done for entertainment, I'm sure many off us can cope without the extra 'thrill'.
Drink driving is already better controlled than ever before and lower limits (as in Scotland) are being considered.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,190
Location
St Albans
Why do any 'other important changes that should be done first' have to concern us when this (sensible) precaution can be/has been implemented immediately. It's only done for entertainment, I'm sure many off us can cope without the extra 'thrill'.

This precaution is just during the investigation, and may only be for this season which usually ends in October. My post was in response to the chorus of 'wise after the event' comments that have been echoing on the media since it happened. There is no such thing as a risk-free life. Other risks are available, it didn't have to be drink driving but that is a worthy example of one of the worst needless activities that results in unacceptable loss of life yet is not taken seriously, compared to infinitesimaly small risk of flying displays (on land).
If it is 'one death too many' then it is definitely 200+ deaths too many, - all of them are tragic losses. It is also likely that we are more likely to personally know of somebody killed by irresponsible drinking than somebody taken in a very unusual set of circumstances like in Shoreham last week.
Anyway, even though drinking alcohol is generally fine when not mixed with being in control of a motor vehicle, it is 'only done for entertainment' and hardly a necessity. Drink driving though is a criminal offence and should carry penalties that actually deter it.

Drink driving is already better controlled than ever before and lower limits (as in Scotland) are being considered.

Whilst Scotland 'considers' it, a few more will die needlessly, both there and many more here. Incidentally, all licensed pilots and train drivers have zero limits, so why not motorists. Just look at the figures and answer that.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,823
Location
Featherstone, West Yorkshire
Whilst Scotland 'considers' it, a few more will die needlessly, both there and many more here.

Scotland isn't considering it, it's already been implemented.


But is lowering the limit really going to change the behaviours of those who already drive while way over it?
Just altering some numbers and making a big thing about it is no substitiute for active policing of the problem.
 

Zoidberg

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2010
Messages
1,270
Location
West Midlands
Whilst Scotland 'considers' it, a few more will die needlessly, both there and many more here. Incidentally, all licensed pilots and train drivers have zero limits, so why not motorists. Just look at the figures and answer that.

The limit in Scotland is already lower than in the rest of the UK.

(EDIT 90019 beat me to it. I type too slowly)

As to why there is not a zero limit in Scotland from

http://dontriskit.info/drink-driving/the-law/faqs

There is also a risk because there will be cases where an individual would register slightly above zero even when they had not been drinking; diabetes and the use of mouthwash can both cause an above-zero level. It could make enforcement substantially more difficult.

And earlier there was reference to why is there not Zero Tolerance. Well, there is, is there not? Zero tolerance of being over the legal limit.
 
Last edited:

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Why do any 'other important changes that should be done first' have to concern us when this (sensible) precaution can be/has been implemented immediately. It's only done for entertainment, I'm sure many off us can cope without the extra 'thrill'.
Drink driving is already better controlled than ever before and lower limits (as in Scotland) are being considered.

That's the crux of it and I think the risks associated with these 'thrills' are just too great. In most potentially dangerous activities it is only the participants who put themselves at risk but those who lost their lives at Shoreham were innocent passers-by who were nothing to do with the event.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
The issue with drink driving and countless other offences (I'd add that drug driving is as big a problem these days too) is a lack of enforcement.

These new rules will almost certainly be obeyed by airshows, but you need lots of police to enforce the other rules as these days a lot of people only abide by rules if forced to.

When we have stings for drink drivers, the police usually quote around 10% of those stopped as over the limit. That's shocking, and makes me wonder why they're only doing stings a few times a year around Christmas, New Year etc. Don't people drink the rest of the year?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,190
Location
St Albans
Scotland isn't considering it, it's already been implemented.


But is lowering the limit really going to change the behaviours of those who already drive while way over it?
Just altering some numbers and making a big thing about it is no substitiute for active policing of the problem.

Not whishing to take this thread off topic, but the article I read to check the level was before the implementation. My mistake, but the point is how long will England 'consider' it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The issue with drink driving and countless other offences (I'd add that drug driving is as big a problem these days too) is a lack of enforcement.

The issue is lack of commitment to enforce it. Then there is the drinks industry lobby pretending that there isn't a problem.

These new rules will almost certainly be obeyed by airshows, but you need lots of police to enforce the other rules as these days a lot of people only abide by rules if forced to.

I'm not a follower of airshows but it does seem that other than a temporary halt until the investigation is completed, the clamour for banning anything to ensure a completely risk-free existence is just opportunism by those who have no interest in them. As far as the enforcement is concerned, they are licenced anyway so there's not much risk of transgression of the rules.

When we have stings for drink drivers, the police usually quote around 10% of those stopped as over the limit. That's shocking, and makes me wonder why they're only doing stings a few times a year around Christmas, New Year etc. Don't people drink the rest of the year?

It's not unknown for policemen to enjoy alcohol when off duty so maybe there is a bit of 'there go I but for....'. Otherwise it's just token policing to keep the media off their backs.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
Not whishing to take this thread off topic, but the article I read to check the level was before the implementation. My mistake, but the point is how long will England 'consider' it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The issue is lack of commitment to enforce it. Then there is the drinks industry lobby pretending that there isn't a problem.



I'm not a follower of airshows but it does seem that other than a temporary halt until the investigation is completed, the clamour for banning anything to ensure a completely risk-free existence is just opportunism by those who have no interest in them. As far as the enforcement is concerned, they are licenced anyway so there's not much risk of transgression of the rules.



It's not unknown for policemen to enjoy alcohol when off duty so maybe there is a bit of 'there go I but for....'. Otherwise it's just token policing to keep the media off their backs.

This thread has become side tracked with drink driving but how on earth is cracking down on drink driving 'token policing to keep the media off their backs'?

I'm sure many police officers do partake in alcohol when off duty but to imply that they might be drink driving is just ridiculous!
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
It's the usual wise after the event chorus that the media are picking up on. If such a restriction is really overdue then there are many more important changes that should be done first, e.g. over 200 deaths on the roads per year are in incidents where at least one driver was over the drink drive limit. That's about 20 times the number of people killed in this unfortunate random event at Shoreham. Or to put it another way, at least 600 times the number killed since the last airshow event affecting spectators or those not even attending. Why aren't our representatives even putting a simple precaution in place like zero tolerance of drink driving overall?

I don't think that's a particularly helpful comment, especially as it reads like you're using the air crash as an excuse to highlight an entirely separate issue.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,523
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The same source also included ...

• It is certainly not a time for un-informed or miss-informed rule making, especially when the existing rules have worked so well for so long.

Hear hear to that.

I'd add to that that victims should never be heavily involved in law-making or rule-making after any kind of incident. It needs to be a non-emotional, factual assessment of what happened, never simply "something should be done".

To be fair to the CAA, they are well known for properly investigating and not jumping to conclusions, just like the RAIB.
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
Can't see the ban on airshows over land being a permanent solution as that would pretty much kill off RIAT and the Farnborough Airshow, how else are we to flog our jets to the Arabs if they can't do aerobatics? Seriously though, it does seem like a temporary solution to make it appear the authorities are taking the matter seriously until the investigation has been completed.
 
Last edited:

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,758
Location
Back in Sussex
Can't see the ban on airshows over land being a permanent solution as that would pretty much kill off RIAT and the Farnborough Airshow, how else are we to flog our jets to the Arabs if they can't do aerobatics? Seriously though, it does seem like a temporary solution to make it appear the authorities are taking the matter seriously until the investigation has been completed.

I stand to be corrected but I think you'll find that the ban only refers to vintage jet aircraft, the Arab states just about have enough cash to buy new rather than used
 

Monty

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2012
Messages
2,349
I stand to be corrected but I think you'll find that the ban only refers to vintage jet aircraft, the Arab states just about have enough cash to buy new rather than used

Quite, I had just been watching the BBC news and the way they initially reported it made it sound like the ban was absolute rather than to one specific aircraft type.
 

Antman

Established Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
6,842
I stand to be corrected but I think you'll find that the ban only refers to vintage jet aircraft, the Arab states just about have enough cash to buy new rather than used

I think it does only apply to vintage aircraft and I think it is only intended as an interim measure although I suspect it will become permanent and rightly so in my opinion.

On a related note trains on the west coastway line have been rammed due to people avoiding the gridlock caused by the A27 closure
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top