Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Hunter crash at Shoreham

This sane summary of yesterday’s incident is worth reading:

http://vintageaeroplanewriter.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/uk-airshow-safety.html

Swanborough Farm (UK), Shoreham EGKA, Soysambu (Kenya), Kenya

EGKA – SHOREHAM
C4141/15 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QMRLC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5050N00018W
A) EGKA B) 1508210700 C) 1508241300
E) RWY 07/25 CLOSED

EGKA – SHOREHAM
C4495/15 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QFALC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5050N00018W
A) EGKA B) 1508230730 C) 1508240700
E) AD CLOSED

The notam right now is this

However the email from the airport management says

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

That’s really trying to manipulate what I said. I did not say nor did i write that I find the risk of flying unacceptable for myself.

Following your logic, your flying is maybe unacceptable risk for someone from general public because he doesn’t want you to fall from the sky and kill him.

Few days ago there was mid-air collision in Slovakia where 7 people were killed during airshow – I don’t remember such media coverage.

Btw two years ago there was mid-air collision of two military jets in Croatia with civilians being injured on ground. I remember incident in Italy with civilian casualties when military jet colided with cable car. So I guess military flights should be banned because nobody wants to be killed in such accident.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

If you want to understand a bit more about Hunter aerobatics, have a look at Mark Hanna’s talk through of his routine


.

I do hope Andy Hill makes a good recovery. He’s a great pilot and really good guy who has been more than generous with his time teaching formation and aerobatics with great professionalism and enthusiasm.

KHWD- Hayward California; EGTN Enstone Oxfordshire, United States

Following your logic, your flying is maybe unacceptable risk for someone from general public because he doesn’t want you to fall from the sky and kill him.

I’m sorry, but maybe there’s a possibility that we can differentiate things? I do not think, nor did i say, nor is it logical, that my peronal flying involved the same risks as the display of a historic jet at an airshow. Of course that risks exists, theoretically, but there’s higher risks and there’s lower risks (and I am astonished that this needs explanation).

I could also use the expression “common sense”.

Flyer59 wrote:

Of course that risks exists, theoretically, but there’s higher risks and there’s lower risks

There are higher risks for a PPL operating compared to an ATPL in an AOC environment. No doubt there are some people out there who would use exactly the same argument to try to allow only airlines to fly. Because there are different levels of risk. It seems as if there have been very few accidents historically at airshows that have involved non participants / spectators.

It’s a sad event , but unfortunately accidents happen and we need to accept a certain amount of risk upon getting out of bed every day.

A “certain amount” is exactly what i meant. A certain amount – but not more.

A “certain amount” is exactly what i meant. A certain amount – but not more.

And who defines that amount? What’s acceptable for one person doesn’t have to be for another. The reality in this particular case is that your risk assessment can be hardly backed with facts and statistics.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Flyer59 wrote:

Of course that risks exists, theoretically, but there’s higher risks and there’s lower risks

If you look at the history of professional air display flying with regards to collateral casualties, cases where that has happened are very rare indeed. On the basis of that it is possible to still insure and get permissions to do such events at all.

The one thing which springs to attention when looking at the Hurricane crash a few years ago as opposed to the Hunter crash now is that the pilot of the Hurricane was a PPL with comparatively few experience where as the pilot of this Hunter was a professional with HUGE experience. It will only become clear after the investigation what caused a guy like that to be involved in an accident like this. The question here is probability. How probable is it that someone like this will produce a comparable accident. On that basis will insurers and regulators decide how to go on from here and hopefully not motivated by media or other interests.

Looking at that, the reactions in the UK have been quite promising. Particularly if I compare it to the drivel we had here today after two ULM’s of a well known ULM display team collided at a small airshow near Basel. One pilot died, the other managed to land on a shute. Both airplanes came down in a village with slight collateral damage but no injuries to outsiders. Yet, the politicians are on the warpath and want to ban this airshow and possibly close the airfield due to “unacceptable risks”.

Emir wrote:

And who defines that amount? What’s acceptable for one person doesn’t have to be for another. The reality in this particular case is that your risk assessment can be hardly backed with facts and statistics.

True. But if you look at how Germany traditionally deals with such events, Flyer59 is fully in that mainstream. One incident and the event is gone. Quite a few high profile events have had to fold in Germany in recent years due to overbearing regulation and impossible demands, the most prominent one being “Tannkosh”, but also non-aviation events. The knee – jerk reaction to ANY mishap, as regrettable as they are, is to ban, prohibit, stop instead of analyze, learn, improve. Unfortunately this tendency seems to develop in Switzerland as well.

I am glad that apparently in the UK things are looked at in a more appropriate way.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 23 Aug 22:57
LSZH, Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top