http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...he-uk-airshow/

CAA are generally pretty good but mebbe a bit more thought required:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628

On 06/02/2016 20:45, Adam Aglionby wrote:
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...he-uk-airshow/

CAA are generally pretty good but mebbe a bit more thought required:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628



The fee to the CAA looks like an insignificant cost when compared to the
figure my local council and police said it would cost them to just
provide the rest of the public infrastructure for the air show they
cancelled. No potential commercial beneficiaries of the show were
willing to provide any meaningful sponsorship.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 9:20:52 PM UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 06/02/2016 20:45, Adam Aglionby wrote:
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...he-uk-airshow/

CAA are generally pretty good but mebbe a bit more thought required:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628



The fee to the CAA looks like an insignificant cost when compared to the
figure my local council and police said it would cost them to just
provide the rest of the public infrastructure for the air show they
cancelled. No potential commercial beneficiaries of the show were
willing to provide any meaningful sponsorship.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Think it depends if reckon on second biggest spectator draw after football is a cost or a benefit.

Scottish Air Show returned after break of 22 years , 2014 about 60,000, last year about 120,000 people, roads were smooth thanjs to great organisation by private traffic contractors, Ayr, faded seaside resort, gets a large late season boost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-34167505

On 06/02/2016 22:18, Adam Aglionby wrote:

Scottish Air Show returned after break of 22 years , 2014 about 60,000, last year about 120,000 people, roads were smooth thanjs to great organisation by private traffic contractors, Ayr, faded seaside resort, gets a large late season boost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-34167505



The cost of providing all that smooth traffic flow, crowd safety, litter
collection etc. was far in excess of the proposed CAA fees. If the CAA
fees alone will be the demise of an air-show then perhaps the organisers
were cutting corners with regards safety in the first place.

I suspect the demise of many future air shows may be due to the armed
services not providing aircraft and pilots for public display purposes.
The red arrows are around £100k per UK show.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Adam Aglionby wrote:

http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...he-uk-airshow/

From the linked report, they say charges will go from £2000 to £14000.
£2000 seems ridiculously cheap for an event that has 25 planes attending
- it then further goes on to say that in the late 1990's, Finningley
Air Show made a profit in excess of £250k - that is the amount they paid
to a chairty, I would presume they would keep a large sum in their bank
account too for future planning, so saying they cannot afford it just
does not seem true.

Add in the people who burnt to death because of the Shoreham crash, and
it seems quite clear to me that Air Shows should be regulated better,
so £14k to allow a better regime, for a 25 plane event, does not seem
too bad at all.
--
Alan
To reply by mail, change '+' to 'plus'

On 07/02/2016 08:13, A.Lee wrote:
....
Add in the people who burnt to death because of the Shoreham crash, and
it seems quite clear to me that Air Shows should be regulated better,..

Better regulation wouldn't have stopped the Shoreham crash. The pilot
almost certainly entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required and the line he was supposed to be on was over open
fields, not the A27.


--
Colin Bignell

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 8:05:25 AM UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 06/02/2016 22:18, Adam Aglionby wrote:

Scottish Air Show returned after break of 22 years , 2014 about 60,000, last year about 120,000 people, roads were smooth thanjs to great organisation by private traffic contractors, Ayr, faded seaside resort, gets a large late season boost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-34167505



The cost of providing all that smooth traffic flow, crowd safety, litter
collection etc. was far in excess of the proposed CAA fees.

Would think so, 2014 traffic around town became slightly clogged, 2015 was faster flowing than an average Saturday.Low Green, main crowd arena, was immaculate 3 hours after close of play.

Scottish Air Show really is an example of how it can be done right to everyone`s benefit. Have no idea how it is funded, as the main display is free.


If the CAA
fees alone will be the demise of an air-show then perhaps the organisers
were cutting corners with regards safety in the first place.

Fair point.


I suspect the demise of many future air shows may be due to the armed
services not providing aircraft and pilots for public display purposes.
The red arrows are around £100k per UK show.

Very few of the air displays are from Armed Forces, Red Arrows and Typhoon standing on its tail are and the Forces always have a substantial recruitment presence at these things, but most display aircraft are supplied by private organisations of one sort or another.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 8:16:13 AM UTC, A.Lee wrote:


Add in the people who burnt to death because of the Shoreham crash, and
it seems quite clear to me that Air Shows should be regulated better,
so £14k to allow a better regime, for a 25 plane event, does not seem
too bad at all.
--
Alan
To reply by mail, change '+' to 'plus'

Think the point that no member of the public had been killed prior to Shoreham at a UK air show since 1952 shows that UK air show`s are already very succesfully regulated and that the CAA does an excellent job in public hands.....

The concern is that this is just increased cost and has nothing to do with safety.

Cynical might suspect that the CAA is getting groomed for sell off.

On Sun, 7 Feb 2016 03:55:26 -0800 (PST), Adam Aglionby
wrote:

Cynical might suspect that the CAA is getting groomed for sell off.

As it is now nothing other than the emasculated poodle of the European
Aviation Safety Agency would anyone want it? (The EASA having been
described by the European Court of Auditors as having "Inadequately
managed conflict of interest situations " and needing "gifts and
invitations policies ")

On 07/02/2016 09:35, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 08:13, A.Lee wrote:
...
Add in the people who burnt to death because of the Shoreham crash, and
it seems quite clear to me that Air Shows should be regulated better,..

Better regulation wouldn't have stopped the Shoreham crash. The pilot
almost certainly entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required and the line he was supposed to be on was over open
fields, not the A27.



I don't want to start another opinionated debate like the one you will
probably be aware of on another (aviation) forum BUT your incorrect
statement cannot be left unchallenged. There is absolutely no evidence
that the Hunter pilot "entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required", nor that "the line he was supposed to be on was
over open fields, not the A27".

The flypast appears to have been flown at or above the approved base
height. After the flypast the aircraft pulled-up into the accident
manoeuvre and would have been well above the approved base for the entry
to that manoeuvre by the time the pitch or bank attitudes became
"aerobatic".

AFAIAA the sequence card has not been published and, even if it had,
this would show the manoeuvre sequence and not necessarily the
alignments, which would have been dynamic to take account of the
situation. I believe the avoid areas for the display site did not
include the A27.

The accident may have been the result of pilot error, incapacitation,
mechanical failure, ... or many other things. All that is publicly known
at the moment is that the aircraft did not complete the intended
manoeuvre and that a number of people were tragically killed and injured
in the resulting accident.

Those in the industry will recognise your statements of fact as being
wrong, but those without background knowledge may assume that you know
what you're talking about and be misled. Please do not make misleading
statements that are not based on fact.

My credentials: I am not a display pilot but am an experienced aerobatic
instructor, a CAA examiner, and have some experience of the Hunter.

On 07/02/16 12:52, wrote:
I don't want to start another opinionated debate like the one you will
probably be aware of on another (aviation) forum BUT your incorrect
statement cannot be left unchallenged. There is absolutely no evidence
that the Hunter pilot "entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required", nor that "the line he was supposed to be on was
over open fields, not the A27".

The flypast appears to have been flown at or above the approved base
height. After the flypast the aircraft pulled-up into the accident
manoeuvre and would have been well above the approved base for the entry
to that manoeuvre by the time the pitch or bank attitudes became
"aerobatic".

AFAIAA the sequence card has not been published and, even if it had,
this would show the manoeuvre sequence and not necessarily the
alignments, which would have been dynamic to take account of the
situation. I believe the avoid areas for the display site did not
include the A27.

The accident may have been the result of pilot error, incapacitation,
mechanical failure, ... or many other things. All that is publicly known
at the moment is that the aircraft did not complete the intended
manoeuvre and that a number of people were tragically killed and injured
in the resulting accident.

Those in the industry will recognise your statements of fact as being
wrong, but those without background knowledge may assume that you know
what you're talking about and be misled. Please do not make misleading
statements that are not based on fact.

My credentials: I am not a display pilot but am an experienced aerobatic
instructor, a CAA examiner, and have some experience of the Hunter.

See .sig. vvvvvvvvv

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

"Adam Aglionby" wrote in message
...
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...he-uk-airshow/

CAA are generally pretty good but mebbe a bit more thought required:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628


After the Vulcan stopped flying then there is no need for them:-)

--
Adam

On 07/02/2016 12:52, wrote:
On 07/02/2016 09:35, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 08:13, A.Lee wrote:
...
Add in the people who burnt to death because of the Shoreham crash, and
it seems quite clear to me that Air Shows should be regulated better,..

Better regulation wouldn't have stopped the Shoreham crash. The pilot
almost certainly entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required and the line he was supposed to be on was over open
fields, not the A27.



I don't want to start another opinionated debate like the one you will
probably be aware of on another (aviation) forum BUT your incorrect
statement cannot be left unchallenged. There is absolutely no evidence
that the Hunter pilot "entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required",

The minimum height for manoeuvres was 500 feet and the AAIB report
states that he pitched up into it at 200 feet. Several well qualified
eye witnesses also stated that they thought he had been too low.

nor that "the line he was supposed to be on was
over open fields, not the A27"...

Accepted. That was based upon early reports, which showed he should have
been north of and parallel to the road. The AAIB report shows that the
display line would have taken him across the A27.


--
Colin Bignell

On 06/02/2016 20:45, Adam Aglionby wrote:
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...he-uk-airshow/

I am surprised they charge so little at present.



--
Colin Bignell

On 07/02/2016 18:13, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 12:52, wrote:
On 07/02/2016 09:35, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 08:13, A.Lee wrote:
...
Add in the people who burnt to death because of the Shoreham crash, and
it seems quite clear to me that Air Shows should be regulated better,..

Better regulation wouldn't have stopped the Shoreham crash. The pilot
almost certainly entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required and the line he was supposed to be on was over open
fields, not the A27.



I don't want to start another opinionated debate like the one you will
probably be aware of on another (aviation) forum BUT your incorrect
statement cannot be left unchallenged. There is absolutely no evidence
that the Hunter pilot "entered the manoeuvre lower than the existing
regulations required",

The minimum height for manoeuvres was 500 feet and the AAIB report
states that he pitched up into it at 200 feet. Several well qualified
eye witnesses also stated that they thought he had been too low.

nor that "the line he was supposed to be on was
over open fields, not the A27"...

Accepted. That was based upon early reports, which showed he should have
been north of and parallel to the road. The AAIB report shows that the
display line would have taken him across the A27.


How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.
There are no formal definitions of aerobatic attitudes in the UK, but
the FAA use 30 and 60 degrees so these are often adopted for discussion
purposes. It is highly unlikely that the pitch attitude would have
reached 30 degrees in 300ft when pulling sensibly at 400+kt ... it feels
like this should be easily calculable if we assume 4 or 5g, but I'll
leave that as an exercise for the reader.

For the avoidance of doubt: I don't have any involvement or special
interest in this topic, I just dislike the presentation of opinion as
fact. I also don't understand why armchair experts feel the need to make
statements and guesses about things they know little about and without
access to the facts.
Let's just wait for the investigation and for the facts to be published.
Meanwhile, I think it's a good idea to sign the petition that's
mentioned at the top of the thread.
Happy Landings!

"Nightjar cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote in
:

On 06/02/2016 20:45, Adam Aglionby wrote:
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...ffects-of-caa-
cap1373b-the-end-of-the-uk-airshow/

I am surprised they charge so little at present.




Why would a seaside town have an airshow over a road and fields?

On 07/02/16 19:09, wrote:
I just dislike the presentation of opinion as fact. I also don't
understand why armchair experts feel the need to make statements and
guesses about things they know little about and without access to the
facts.
Let's just wait for the investigation and for the facts to be published.
Meanwhile, I think it's a good idea to sign the petition that's
mentioned at the top of the thread.
Happy Landings!

+100

Its OK to speculate, as long as it is not held to be anything but
speculation.


AS with many other weird air crashes, it will take a long time for the
AAIB (is it that these days) to come up with a report, and often that
itself will be inconclusive.

Did we ever find out what happened in that helicopter crash in Glasgow?

Oh wiki says the usual 'pilot error'

"The final report into the accident was published on 23 October 2015. It
found the main cause of the accident to be mismanagement of the fuel
system by the pilot. This resulted in the engines flaming out due to a
lack of fuel despite there being 73 kilograms (161 lb) of usable fuel
remaining in the main tanks. A failure to follow emergency checklists
and land within ten minutes of the first warning of low fuel was a major
contributory factor. Seven safety recommendations were made."



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

On 07/02/2016 19:09, wrote:
....
How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.

So? According to the rules for the air show, he should not have been
carrying out aerobatics at less than 500 feet. How quickly he manages to
climb having started off lower than that is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that he ended the manoeuvre at ground level, which he probably
wouldn't have if he had started 300 feet higher.

However, my main point was not what caused the crash, but that better
regulation would not have prevented the crash. Do you disagree with that?


--
Colin Bignell

On 08/02/16 09:15, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 19:09, wrote:
...
How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.

So? According to the rules for the air show, he should not have been
carrying out aerobatics at less than 500 feet. How quickly he manages to
climb having started off lower than that is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that he ended the manoeuvre at ground level, which he probably
wouldn't have if he had started 300 feet higher.

However, my main point was not what caused the crash, but that better
regulation would not have prevented the crash. Do you disagree with that?


Well unless you say stuff like 'all aerobatics to be performned at 10k
altitude in which case who is going to want to pay to see it?


Like motor racing, one pays top see some thrills and near misses, not an
orderly procession of machinery at a very safe distance.




--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 07/02/2016 20:45, DerbyBorn wrote:
"Nightjar cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote in
:

On 06/02/2016 20:45, Adam Aglionby wrote:
http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/20...ffects-of-caa-
cap1373b-the-end-of-the-uk-airshow/

I am surprised they charge so little at present.




Why would a seaside town have an airshow over a road and fields?


The town of Shoreham doesn't have an airshow. It is Shoreham airport
(aka Brighton City Airport) that has the airshow and that is about a
kilometre inland.

--
Colin Bignell

On 08/02/2016 09:15, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 19:09, wrote:
...
How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.

So? According to the rules for the air show, he should not have been
carrying out aerobatics at less than 500 feet. How quickly he manages to
climb having started off lower than that is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that he ended the manoeuvre at ground level, which he probably
wouldn't have if he had started 300 feet higher.

However, my main point was not what caused the crash, but that better
regulation would not have prevented the crash. Do you disagree with that?


You've missed the point: a climb to 500ft (arguably, before reaching 30
degrees pitch attitude) is not aerobatic.

Currently, we have no knowledge of what caused the accident. Pitch
radius depends on power, speed, g loading, configuration, and air
density ... adding 300ft (or any other margin) does not affect the pitch
radius and therefore is not a guarantee of avoiding terra firma.

This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be prevented
by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping ourselves in
cotton wool and doing nothing. Every human activity is a balance of risk
against benefit. If we believe an activity brings benefit we can
mitigate the risk by taking a range of actions and we can learn from
experience. The investigation into this accident will result in a series
of actions and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it
can not prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:



This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be prevented
by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping ourselves in
cotton wool and doing nothing. Every human activity is a balance of risk
against benefit. If we believe an activity brings benefit we can
mitigate the risk by taking a range of actions and we can learn from
experience. The investigation into this accident will result in a series
of actions and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it
can not prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

On 08/02/2016 12:28, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:



This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be prevented
by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping ourselves in
cotton wool and doing nothing. Every human activity is a balance of risk
against benefit. If we believe an activity brings benefit we can
mitigate the risk by taking a range of actions and we can learn from
experience. The investigation into this accident will result in a series
of actions and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it
can not prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

I have not made any comment about justification, or the balance of risk
and benefit in this particularly tragic case. But, if the sensational
aspect is removed, how is this accident different to any other accident
where someone is hurt because of an activity in which they are not
involved? - an everyday example might be cars injuring pedestrians.

posted
On 08/02/2016 12:28, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:

This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be prevented
by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping ourselves in
cotton wool and doing nothing.

Some accidents can certainly be prevented by proportionate regulation.

Every human activity is a balance of risk
against benefit. If we believe an activity brings benefit we can
mitigate the risk by taking a range of actions and we can learn from
experience. The investigation into this accident will result in a series
of actions and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it
can not prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

I have not made any comment about justification, or the balance of risk
and benefit in this particularly tragic case.

Yes you did. See above.

But, if the sensational aspect is removed, how is this accident
different to any other accident where someone is hurt because of an
activity in which they are not involved? - an everyday example might be
cars injuring pedestrians.

The difference is that (to use Bill's words) the use of cars is not
carried out solely for the trivial entertainment of a few people.

--
Les

wrote in message ...

Those in the industry will recognise your statements of fact as being wrong, but those
without background knowledge may assume that you know what you're talking about and be
misled. Please do not make misleading statements that are not based on fact.

So that's around 99% of UseNet posts straight out of the
window, for a start.

And for your next trick ?



michael adams

....

On 08/02/2016 16:04, michael adams wrote:
wrote in message ...

Those in the industry will recognise your statements of fact as being wrong, but those
without background knowledge may assume that you know what you're talking about and be
misled. Please do not make misleading statements that are not based on fact.

So that's around 99% of UseNet posts straight out of the
window, for a start.

And for your next trick ?



michael adams

...




;-) Global domination, compulsory DIY skill courses, re-instigation of
personal responsibility, compulsory risk assessment education, building
and launching a Golgafrincham "B Ark" (a Hitchhiker's Guide reference),
.... this could be a very long list.

On 08/02/2016 14:47, Big Les Wade wrote:
posted
On 08/02/2016 12:28, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:

This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be prevented
by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping ourselves in
cotton wool and doing nothing.

Some accidents can certainly be prevented by proportionate regulation.
Some examples would be good ... ?


Every human activity is a balance of risk
against benefit. If we believe an activity brings benefit we can
mitigate the risk by taking a range of actions and we can learn from
experience. The investigation into this accident will result in a
series
of actions and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it
can not prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

I have not made any comment about justification, or the balance of
risk and benefit in this particularly tragic case.

Yes you did. See above.
I didn't intend to and can't see where I did. Can you expand?


But, if the sensational aspect is removed, how is this accident
different to any other accident where someone is hurt because of an
activity in which they are not involved? - an everyday example might
be cars injuring pedestrians.

The difference is that (to use Bill's words) the use of cars is not
carried out solely for the trivial entertainment of a few people.
When I commented initially I said "I don't want to start another
opinionated debate" but ... if you really think that a victim is overly
concerned about whether the driver of a car was driving for fun or
driving on an urgent affair of state then we will have to agree to differ.
I don't have any personal interest in air displays **, but it used to be
said that they were the second most popular visitor activity in the UK
.... I don't know whether or not this is still true (or if it ever was).

** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.

In article , writes
On 08/02/2016 14:47, Big Les Wade wrote:
posted
On 08/02/2016 12:28, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:

This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be prevented
by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping ourselves in
cotton wool and doing nothing.

Some accidents can certainly be prevented by proportionate regulation.
Some examples would be good ... ?


Every human activity is a balance of risk
against benefit. If we believe an activity brings benefit we can
mitigate the risk by taking a range of actions and we can learn from
experience. The investigation into this accident will result in a
series
of actions and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it
can not prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

I have not made any comment about justification, or the balance of
risk and benefit in this particularly tragic case.

Yes you did. See above.
I didn't intend to and can't see where I did. Can you expand?


But, if the sensational aspect is removed, how is this accident
different to any other accident where someone is hurt because of an
activity in which they are not involved? - an everyday example might
be cars injuring pedestrians.

The difference is that (to use Bill's words) the use of cars is not
carried out solely for the trivial entertainment of a few people.
When I commented initially I said "I don't want to start another
opinionated debate" but ... if you really think that a victim is overly
concerned about whether the driver of a car was driving for fun or
driving on an urgent affair of state then we will have to agree to differ.
I don't have any personal interest in air displays **, but it used to
be said that they were the second most popular visitor activity in the
UK ... I don't know whether or not this is still true (or if it ever
was).

** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.
Because it is good to see experts performing at a level that you
yourself will never achieve.
--
bert

In article , bert
wrote:
In article , writes
On 08/02/2016 14:47, Big Les Wade wrote:
posted
On 08/02/2016 12:28, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:

This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be
prevented by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping
ourselves in cotton wool and doing nothing.

Some accidents can certainly be prevented by proportionate regulation.
Some examples would be good ... ?


Every human activity is a balance of risk against benefit. If we
believe an activity brings benefit we can mitigate the risk by
taking a range of actions and we can learn from experience. The
investigation into this accident will result in a series of actions
and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it can not
prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

I have not made any comment about justification, or the balance of
risk and benefit in this particularly tragic case.

Yes you did. See above.
I didn't intend to and can't see where I did. Can you expand?


But, if the sensational aspect is removed, how is this accident
different to any other accident where someone is hurt because of an
activity in which they are not involved? - an everyday example might
be cars injuring pedestrians.

The difference is that (to use Bill's words) the use of cars is not
carried out solely for the trivial entertainment of a few people.
When I commented initially I said "I don't want to start another
opinionated debate" but ... if you really think that a victim is overly
concerned about whether the driver of a car was driving for fun or
driving on an urgent affair of state then we will have to agree to
differ. I don't have any personal interest in air displays **, but it
used to be said that they were the second most popular visitor activity
in the UK ... I don't know whether or not this is still true (or if it
ever was).

** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.
Because it is good to see experts performing at a level that you
yourself will never achieve.

People often go to concerts for the same reason

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 08/02/2016 20:50, charles wrote:
In article , bert
wrote:
In article , writes
On 08/02/2016 14:47, Big Les Wade wrote:
posted
On 08/02/2016 12:28, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:06:15 +0000, wrote:

This accident was tragic, but accidents happen and can not be
prevented by regulation, paperwork, or anything other than wrapping
ourselves in cotton wool and doing nothing.

Some accidents can certainly be prevented by proportionate regulation.
Some examples would be good ... ?


Every human activity is a balance of risk against benefit. If we
believe an activity brings benefit we can mitigate the risk by
taking a range of actions and we can learn from experience. The
investigation into this accident will result in a series of actions
and recommendations to reduce the risk of a recurrence - it can not
prevent a recurrence unless the actions are so severe that they
stop flying displays.


I'm afarid that an airshow crash that killed 11 people who were not
near the airshow site and were not involved in the airshow in anyway
cannot be considered to be part of a reasonable balance of risk.

If it had crashed on the show ground killing spectators, then your
comment could have some application but an accident killing non
participants from an activity which is carried out solely for the
trivial entertainment of a few people is not justified.

I have not made any comment about justification, or the balance of
risk and benefit in this particularly tragic case.

Yes you did. See above.
I didn't intend to and can't see where I did. Can you expand?


But, if the sensational aspect is removed, how is this accident
different to any other accident where someone is hurt because of an
activity in which they are not involved? - an everyday example might
be cars injuring pedestrians.

The difference is that (to use Bill's words) the use of cars is not
carried out solely for the trivial entertainment of a few people.
When I commented initially I said "I don't want to start another
opinionated debate" but ... if you really think that a victim is overly
concerned about whether the driver of a car was driving for fun or
driving on an urgent affair of state then we will have to agree to
differ. I don't have any personal interest in air displays **, but it
used to be said that they were the second most popular visitor activity
in the UK ... I don't know whether or not this is still true (or if it
ever was).

** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.
Because it is good to see experts performing at a level that you
yourself will never achieve.

People often go to concerts for the same reason

Hmm, I play some instruments but I do enjoy concerts so maybe you've
exposed my hypocracy ;-) ... spectator sports seem different somehow. I
think it's the tribalism that bugs me most ... but this is so far from
the original thread, which was a long way from DIY, so I'll stop rambling.
Back to damaging some wood and metal :-)

On 08/02/2016 21:42, wrote:
spectator sports seem different somehow. I
think it's the tribalism that bugs me most ...

Some sports can attract crowds in the 10s of thousands with no tribalism
and zero police presence to control the crowd or traffic!


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 08/02/2016 16:37, wrote:
;-) Global domination, compulsory DIY skill courses, re-instigation of
personal responsibility, compulsory risk assessment education, building
and launching a Golgafrincham "B Ark" (a Hitchhiker's Guide reference),
.... this could be a very long list.

You do realise we are the survivors from the B Ark?

But they'll blame the pilot. They usually do. Sometimes they are right.

Andy

On 09/02/16 21:13, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/02/2016 16:37, wrote:
;-) Global domination, compulsory DIY skill courses, re-instigation of
personal responsibility, compulsory risk assessment education, building
and launching a Golgafrincham "B Ark" (a Hitchhiker's Guide reference),
.... this could be a very long list.

You do realise we are the survivors from the B Ark?

Only Lefty****s

But they'll blame the pilot. They usually do. Sometimes they are right.

Andy


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 08/02/2016 12:06, wrote:
On 08/02/2016 09:15, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 19:09, wrote:
...
How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.

So? According to the rules for the air show, he should not have been
carrying out aerobatics at less than 500 feet. How quickly he manages to
climb having started off lower than that is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that he ended the manoeuvre at ground level, which he probably
wouldn't have if he had started 300 feet higher.

However, my main point was not what caused the crash, but that better
regulation would not have prevented the crash. Do you disagree with that?


You've missed the point: a climb to 500ft (arguably, before reaching 30
degrees pitch attitude) is not aerobatic.

No doubt that technicality will be of great comfort to the families of
the victims.

Currently, we have no knowledge of what caused the accident.

There are some things we do know. The AAIB has stated that the aircraft
appeared to be reacting normally to the controls. We also know that, in
an atmosphere where the media leap on trivia, such as the flight manual
being out of date, neither they nor the AAIB have suggested there was
any obvious fault with the aircraft, which leaves the AAIB looking
carefully to eliminate the possibility of some obscure fault. We also
know that the aircraft hit the ground at a point where it should have
been at least 500 agl, which means that, if the final decision is that
the accident was due to pilot error, he was too low.

Pitch
radius depends on power, speed, g loading, configuration, and air
density

Factors that I would expect the pilot to consider while planning the
display, in order to ensure that the aircraft does not go below the
minimum display altitude. I would also expect that they would be used to
construct an envelope of acceptable parameters that the pilot would
check in flight do make a go/no go decision before irretrievably
committing the aircraft to plummeting towards the earth.

.... adding 300ft (or any other margin) does not affect the pitch
radius and therefore is not a guarantee of avoiding terra firma...

Adding 300 feet would not have even kept the aircraft legal over the
A27, but it might have meant that the people standing there were still
around to tell of their close encounter with the aircraft.


--
Colin Bignell

On 08/02/2016 16:51, wrote:
....
** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.

I have never been tempted to try aerobatics for myself. The times I have
been a passenger in an aircraft doing aerobatics it struck me as all the
discomfort of a fairground ride without the compensation of a pretty
girl clinging to me for comfort.

--
Colin Bignell

On 11/02/16 11:20, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 08/02/2016 12:06, wrote:
On 08/02/2016 09:15, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 19:09, wrote:
...
How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How
much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.

So? According to the rules for the air show, he should not have been
carrying out aerobatics at less than 500 feet. How quickly he manages to
climb having started off lower than that is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that he ended the manoeuvre at ground level, which he probably
wouldn't have if he had started 300 feet higher.

However, my main point was not what caused the crash, but that better
regulation would not have prevented the crash. Do you disagree with
that?


You've missed the point: a climb to 500ft (arguably, before reaching 30
degrees pitch attitude) is not aerobatic.

No doubt that technicality will be of great comfort to the families of
the victims.

Currently, we have no knowledge of what caused the accident.

There are some things we do know. The AAIB has stated that the aircraft
appeared to be reacting normally to the controls. We also know that, in
an atmosphere where the media leap on trivia, such as the flight manual
being out of date, neither they nor the AAIB have suggested there was
any obvious fault with the aircraft, which leaves the AAIB looking
carefully to eliminate the possibility of some obscure fault. We also
know that the aircraft hit the ground at a point where it should have
been at least 500 agl, which means that, if the final decision is that
the accident was due to pilot error, he was too low.

Pitch
radius depends on power, speed, g loading, configuration, and air
density

Factors that I would expect the pilot to consider while planning the
display, in order to ensure that the aircraft does not go below the
minimum display altitude. I would also expect that they would be used to
construct an envelope of acceptable parameters that the pilot would
check in flight do make a go/no go decision before irretrievably
committing the aircraft to plummeting towards the earth.

... adding 300ft (or any other margin) does not affect the pitch
radius and therefore is not a guarantee of avoiding terra firma...

Adding 300 feet would not have even kept the aircraft legal over the
A27, but it might have meant that the people standing there were still
around to tell of their close encounter with the aircraft.


There is evidence from WWII that turn radius was limited by the ability
of the pilot to withstand the G, not by the ability of the airframe to
achieve it.

It's possible he may have slightly blacked out in pull-out,
thereby not performing as tight a pull as he might.

But this is all idle speculation until the full inquiry reveals all the
known facts.


--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 11/02/2016 11:29, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 08/02/2016 16:51, wrote:
...
** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.

I have never been tempted to try aerobatics for myself. The times I have
been a passenger in an aircraft doing aerobatics it struck me as all the
discomfort of a fairground ride without the compensation of a pretty
girl clinging to me for comfort.


'tis one of the best things you can do with your clothes on, as the old
saying goes ;-)
If you're in the south I might be persuaded to offer you a short intro
when the weather gets a bit more reliable - but I don't look like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR76PfL2KRw and I haven't got her skills.

On 11/02/2016 11:20, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 08/02/2016 12:06, wrote:
On 08/02/2016 09:15, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 07/02/2016 19:09, wrote:
...
How long do you think it takes an aircraft like a Hunter to climb from
200ft to 500ft when it is at loop entry speed (400+kt IIRC)? How
much do
you think it would have pitched in that time? The answers are not very
long and not a lot.

So? According to the rules for the air show, he should not have been
carrying out aerobatics at less than 500 feet. How quickly he manages to
climb having started off lower than that is irrelevant. What is relevant
is that he ended the manoeuvre at ground level, which he probably
wouldn't have if he had started 300 feet higher.

However, my main point was not what caused the crash, but that better
regulation would not have prevented the crash. Do you disagree with
that?


You've missed the point: a climb to 500ft (arguably, before reaching 30
degrees pitch attitude) is not aerobatic.

No doubt that technicality will be of great comfort to the families of
the victims.

Nothing will comfort the victims (who include the pilot); I was simply
correcting your erroneous statement.


Currently, we have no knowledge of what caused the accident.

There are some things we do know. The AAIB has stated that the aircraft
appeared to be reacting normally to the controls. We also know that, in
an atmosphere where the media leap on trivia, such as the flight manual
being out of date, neither they nor the AAIB have suggested there was
any obvious fault with the aircraft, which leaves the AAIB looking
carefully to eliminate the possibility of some obscure fault. We also
know that the aircraft hit the ground at a point where it should have
been at least 500 agl, which means that, if the final decision is that
the accident was due to pilot error, he was too low.

I think it's pretty obvious that the aircraft was too low or it wouldn't
have hit the ground.
As a minor correction to your previous paragraph: if the aircraft was
level then I believe the approved minimum was 100ft - 500ft was the
aerobatic base.

Pitch
radius depends on power, speed, g loading, configuration, and air
density

Factors that I would expect the pilot to consider while planning the
display, in order to ensure that the aircraft does not go below the
minimum display altitude. I would also expect that they would be used to
construct an envelope of acceptable parameters that the pilot would
check in flight do make a go/no go decision before irretrievably
committing the aircraft to plummeting towards the earth.

Yes, he would have had a number of pre-planned "gates" and
self-evidently something went wrong - we will find out what, so
speculation is pointless.

... adding 300ft (or any other margin) does not affect the pitch
radius and therefore is not a guarantee of avoiding terra firma...

Adding 300 feet would not have even kept the aircraft legal over the
A27, but it might have meant that the people standing there were still
around to tell of their close encounter with the aircraft.

Something (we know not what) went wrong and the aircraft hit the ground
and caused a tragic accident.
You have failed to understand that the entry height is just one factor
(see above for some of the others) and that it is possible to lose or
gain height in a manouever, depending on how it is flown. As I said
before, the entry does not appear to have been outwith the approvals.

My only reason for intervening in this thread was to correct some
incorrect statements and to provide a little education. If there are
things that you want to understand more deeply then there are a wide
range of aerobatic and aerodynamic books available.
I'm sure everyone else is getting bored so let's get back to DIY.

On 11/02/2016 15:13, wrote:
On 11/02/2016 11:29, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 08/02/2016 16:51, wrote:
...
** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.

I have never been tempted to try aerobatics for myself. The times I have
been a passenger in an aircraft doing aerobatics it struck me as all the
discomfort of a fairground ride without the compensation of a pretty
girl clinging to me for comfort.


'tis one of the best things you can do with your clothes on, as the old
saying goes ;-)
If you're in the south I might be persuaded to offer you a short intro
when the weather gets a bit more reliable - but I don't look like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR76PfL2KRw and I haven't got her skills.

Thank you, but I have had more than enough opportunities since my first
aerobatic experience, in the back seat of a Chipmunk out of RAF Jurby in
the early 1960s. I get absolutely no pleasure from aerobatics, although
I am sure that there is a great deal of satisfaction for the pilot. I
wouldn't want to try bungee jumping either.

--
Colin Bignell

On 11/02/2016 18:42, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 11/02/2016 15:13, wrote:
On 11/02/2016 11:29, Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 08/02/2016 16:51, wrote:
...
** At risk of starting another divergence: I have never been able to
understand why people like watching other people do things (sports,
airshows, etcetera) rather than trying to do them themselves.

I have never been tempted to try aerobatics for myself. The times I have
been a passenger in an aircraft doing aerobatics it struck me as all the
discomfort of a fairground ride without the compensation of a pretty
girl clinging to me for comfort.


'tis one of the best things you can do with your clothes on, as the old
saying goes ;-)
If you're in the south I might be persuaded to offer you a short intro
when the weather gets a bit more reliable - but I don't look like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR76PfL2KRw and I haven't got her skills.

Thank you, but I have had more than enough opportunities since my first
aerobatic experience, in the back seat of a Chipmunk out of RAF Jurby in
the early 1960s. I get absolutely no pleasure from aerobatics, although
I am sure that there is a great deal of satisfaction for the pilot. I
wouldn't want to try bungee jumping either.

My first aeros were also in a Chippie, from RAF Newton, probably around
1968. The ATC and CCF started a lot of people; it's unfortunate that
they and the UASs seem to be losing their way. We are in violent
agreement about bungie jumping!