Flyer59 wrote:
OTOH i think that Jet displays contain a much higher risk than normal aerobatic displays, and I think that every possible precaution should be taken. But it looks like i am asking for too much.
Actually, you’re asking too much because in UK, Italy, Germany and even in Croatia (just to mention the countries I’m sure about) there’s much more military jet flying activity than jet displays and this presents much higher risk. Yet nobody is trying actively to ban it because of endangering general public.
Emir wrote:
Actually, you’re asking too much because in UK, Italy, Germany and even in Croatia (just to mention the countries I’m sure about) there’s much more military jet flying activity than jet displays
Remove Germany from that list because this is how Luftwaffe operate their Eurofighters. For safety and cost reasons, they are brought to the doorstep of the enemy to scare him and make him surrender.
I’m reading this discussion only now and with some distance, it is quite interesting. It is also being lead in a quite polemic way from both sides, if I may say so. I also find it true that there is a tendency to ignore what Alexis/Flyer59 is saying and to pretend he wants to ban life altogether.
IMHO, what it comes down to is this:
In life, there are activities that put not only yourself, but potentially others (the general, uninvolved public) at risk. That is undisputed. Preventing (in the sense of: doing straight out everything to prevent) those risks is only possible if all those activities are stopped. Practically, that means it’s impossible to prevent those risks altogether. That is also undisputed by both sides (if you don’t agree, read the arguments further up again).
Now, there are activities that involve higher risks for the general, uninvolved public that others. There are also measures that can be taken to reduce such risks, once they are identified. Some of those measures are more effective than others.
So there are two variables:
Before an informed discussion can take place, both values should be determined as objectively as possible – based on examining track records of similar incidents, for example. It is important to note that no one has done that during this discussion. Some have pointed out that one needs to look at the numbers (like I’m doing now) but no one has produced any actual references.
Following from that, everyone is arguing based on perceived values and opinions, rather than established facts – which is fair, as long as you’re not pretending otherwise.
Had the values been established in an objective manner (and I know that risk valuation is an imprecise discipline and can ever only be an approximation), it would then materialize that different people (cultures) would deem different risk levels as acceptable and different mitigation measures as appropriate.
Regarding the tragic Shoreham incident, Flyer59’s opinion appears to be that the risk level for the uninvolved public of such an airshow is not acceptable if they cannot be reasonably protected. Some others argued that the protection measures in place were reasonable but they can obviously never be 100% save. This is where opinions differ! No need for any polemics beyond that, i.e. implying that the one side wants to prevent all life (or all GA) from happening, nor implying that the other side, respectively, is indifferent to the deaths involved in this tragedy.
I have an opinion, too. I personally am with Flyer59 in that I believe airshows at lowish altitudes pose a greater risk to the uninvolved public than the typical GA pilot flying to a destination. And I also believe that airshows should be responsible for ensuring that the uninvolved public be reasonably protected from dying in an airplane crashing on the ground. A busy motorway on the ground does not seem reasonable to me. It would be an adequate measure for a risk that I perceive as not acceptable. I’m not promoting the banning of airshows (or anything else) altogether. But I can’t back up my feeling by numbers, right now during lunch break, either.
Having said all of this, a couple of direct comments:
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Today, a lot of people seem to believe that ANY sort of risk is unacceptable.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
As long as we chase the “vision zero”, we are not doing risk assessment or management but are giving in to emotions triggered by high visibility events
I absolutely agree, @Mooney_Driver et al. There is a tendency for that. Your mistake in this argument, IMHO, was to assume anyone who argues against you here in this discussion belongs to that lot and is chasing “vision zero”. That attitude is not really encouraging objective “risk assessment and management”, either. You’re also very emotional about this, albeit in the direction of saving society from falling into risk-free and colorless lethargy.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
You get a highly visible but extremely rare occurrence and even in the aviation community there are calls for bans and prohibitions
The aviation community, in particular, should be interested in an objective assessment for the sake of their credibility. We as the aviation community should take occurrences such as this serious and evaluate if a change of the risk assessment and the prescribed measurements is appropriate. Rejecting any attempt to to this and fearing the world will stop spinning because no one wants to take risks anymore is not going to help.
Flyer59 wrote:
One human life is worth more than a million airshows. Period.
I agree with that notion but disagree with the “Period.” – this is a value perception the two of us share and probably the vast majority of the population within our cultures – and even some pilots – but the idea that the life of an individual is of such immeasurable value does not exist in other cultures and is nothing like a “general truth” or “fact of life” that cannot be negotiated.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Oh, and no street parades either after Duisburg.
Of course, Urs, that is simply not true. The operator of the Love Parade decided a day after the tragedy that there will be no future Love Parades. Certainly, other events have seen an increased focus on emergency exits etc. since then, but where are you pulling the “no street parades any more” from?
Emir wrote:
The reality in this particular case is that your risk assessment can be hardly backed with facts and statistics.
I’m curious. Can your’s?
achimha wrote:
Remove Germany from that list because this is how Luftwaffe operate their Eurofighters. For safety and cost reasons, they are brought to the doorstep of the enemy to scare him and make him surrender.
Priceless. 
mdoerr wrote:
Exactly. Best thing is to make a law to not allow accidents. It is useless.
Exactly as suggested in this brilliant article (German): http://www.der-postillon.com/2010/07/neuartiges-unfallverbotsschild-soll.html
Be careful, though – the author may not mean what he wrote. 
Flyer59 wrote:
s an intelligent person you should not compare the aerobatic low level display of a fighter jet with my circling overhead the city in 1000 ft AGL.
Maybe I’m not intelligent but I do not see a fundamental difference. The display was flown by professional pilots and was for the benefit of thousands of people while you did it (below the normal minimum altitude) for your own commercial interest and as a private pilot. Just imagine you had crashed into that kindergarden group, a thousand people would have said “how stupid this was allowed, it must be forbidden” and you would have been the last pilot to receive a grant for a photo mission over congested areas. In the UK they would have required you to fly at least a MEP and many commenters would have pointed out that fact after a hypothetical accident. Why is it safe to fly over Munich and over London it’s considered to be too risky?
Achim,
for my taste you have stressed the “Kindergarten”-idea enough. There’s not enough Kindergardens in Munich to crash in one, by the way.
If you want to believe that flying circles overhead a city in 1000 ft AGL contains the same risk as a low level jet fighter display, you are of course entitled to that opinion. But if we take everything one of us writes to such an extreme – well, that’s the end of all discussions, because then “everything is the same”.
Maybe I’m not intelligent but I do not see a fundamental difference.
At the risk of repeating myself, it’s nothing to with intelligence that numbers and facts are missing in this discussion.
Regardless of what’s below (people, dense area, etc.) and the “impact” of the impact, in which case is an impact to the ground likelier?
Obviously, the aerobatic maneuver is riskier at low level as such. To what extend does the often-quoted experience of the sky gods who seem to be flying these maneuvers mitigate the risk? To what extend does the GA flight by an average GA Pilot become riskier in comparison with a sky god?
I doubt anyone here has researched this in detail and can come up with empirical evidence.
Flyer59 wrote:
One human life is worth more than a million airshows. Period.
Patrick wrote:
this is a value perception the two of us share and probably the vast majority of the population within our cultures
I’m sorry Patrick and Flyer59 but this simply isn’t truth. We usually value life of people who we know, like relatives, neighbors, countrymen etc. But when it comes to people who we don’t care so much about, we suddenly forget about this and especially we forget of such strong words like “period”. I don’t want to turn this to political discussion but take a look on recent history (Bosnia, Rwanda) or look at Middle East and North Africa today. It’s not so much about cultures and their appreciation of human life, it’s more about how close or distant we feel to affected people.
Patrick wrote:
I’m curious. Can your’s?
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Risk – the (unacceptable?) risk may have always been there.Of course. My point is simply that the fact that the Shoreham accident occurred does not in itself show that the risk was unacceptable. “Acceptable” simply means that the risk of a casualty is sufficiently remote. It does not mean that there can’t be any casualties. And certainly not that there can’t be any tomorrow.
Prevention, reduction etc – the ethos is “as low as reasonably practicable”. This is the question that will be asked by the CAA.I’m not arguing against the ALARP principle. ALARP is principally a UK idea and I may not understand its application fully, but as far as I understand it does have drawbacks:
Emir wrote:
We usually value life of people who we know, like relatives, neighbors, countrymen etc.
Yah I know. I hate those headlines. “10 Germans killed in airplane crash” – what difference does it make where the poor souls came from?
I’d still say the life of an individual is more valued in our Western cultures than, say, in China. I’m not judging this – I’m just saying in China it is more common to accept some hardship (and more risks) for individuals for the sake of the community.
Let’s suppose this is reliable info – maybe some data is missing but for the sake of discussion let’s assume it’s complete.
That’s a good start. Next, we’d need to compare it to a similar list of.. what.. GA accidents globally in the same time-frame?
