Mooney_Driver wrote:
well known ULM display team collided at a small airshow near Basel.
Speaking of this, do you know who it was that sadly met their demise? I’ve met HK a number of times before and he’s always been extremely helpful and kind. I hope he’s ok but it’s sad for anyone involved.
Flyer 59 is using wooly ill defined terms. Without some sort of accident rate and figures to back it up it’s utterly useless to use perceived risk which is individually vairable. That is just a slippery slope to stopping flying.
Hi
I don’t know which of the pilots, the only thing that was in the media is that the team was called “grasshoppers” and that the pilot concerned was 50 years old.
Off_Field wrote:
That is just a slippery slope to stopping flying.
Not only stop flying. With this kind of argumentation, in order to achieve the kind of level of security, one has to stop a darn sight more than “just” flying…..
>>>> But if you look at how Germany traditionally deals with such events, Flyer59 is fully in that mainstream
Repeating prejudice does not make it true. But i am not sure if you read what i wrote.
Let’s leave it that: You (obviously) see these deaths as a necessary collateral damage to protect your so called “liberty”.
And i want rules that prevent tragedies like this one. IMHO this is the only way to have airshows and jet displays in the future.
Emir: Me! (:-))
Flyer59 wrote:
And i want rules that prevent tragedies like this one.
If by “prevent” you mean they won’t happen, then you can’t by “rules” or otherwise. Believing that is a fallacy. You can reduce the risk, yes. But if the risk is already at an acceptable level, then further regulation doesn’t make sense.
And risk does not suddenly increase just because there was an accident with lots of casualties a few days ago.
The Mark Hanna video was interesting. He had clearance to 7,000’ which shows the vertical penetration of a fast jet if it is using 5 + G for a display loop. He also is quite candid about potential G LOC (loss of consciousness due to grey out or red out). The Bournemouth Red Arrow fatality was attributed to a loss of consciousness event.
If Shoreham did not have dispensation for this type of vertical penetration, then the display pilot is having to apply more G on entry, increasing risk of G LoC and also potentially the risk of a stopped loop or an accelerated stall on the down line.
G LoC is linked to both the G force endured by the pilot, the duration of the G s, and his/her physical resistance and the effectiveness of a G suit. Presumably the display pilots are wearing functioning G suits. It may be an urban myth but women may be able to resist more positive G.
Airborne_Again, a couple of thoughts.
Risk – the (unacceptable?) risk may have always been there.
Prevention, reduction etc – the ethos is “as low as reasonably practicable”. This is the question that will be asked by the CAA.
If by “prevent” you mean they won’t happen, then you can’t by “rules” or otherwise. Believing that is a fallacy. You can reduce the risk, yes. But if the risk is already at an acceptable level, then further regulation doesn’t make sense.
Exactly. Best thing is to make a law to not allow accidents. It is useless.
The problem with zero risk tolerance (even just zero risk tolerance to 3rd parties) is that if we work towards its logical conclusion, instead of living our lives we’ll all be merely waiting to die.
I have also never written “zero risk tolerance”. I find most answers here pretty disapppointing, because they have little to do with what I actually wrote. Neither do I want to suspend Airshows, nor do i find “laws against accidents” intelligent.
My point was that the trajectories of airplanes in airshows should never point twds populated areas.
… instead of living our lives we’ll all be merely waiting to die.
The people who were in those cars don’t have to wait anymore, if that is your point.
The first notch of flaps on a Hunter is used as a manoeuvring flap. Can be used up to very high speed, something like 450 kt. Same on a Harrier.
