Shoreham air crash

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2472
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by hondated »

It was only a week ago that we had Airbourne down here in Eastbourne, which is a free for all event, and given that Shoreham airport is quite close to us I hope that after this tragedy the organisers of both events can get together to arrange a combined event down here.

It really would make sense as planes could do their displays and tricks more safely here as they would be doing them over the sea and away from busy roads.

I join everyone else in expressing my deepest sympathies to all those affected by this horrendous incident.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
Brucey wrote:the CAA has banned 'high energy aerobatics' in vintage jets at airshows, over land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

cheers


Not to do something like or similar would be bad.

I remember when we had something similar and the plane crashed into a crowd of spectators.
Then they banned aerobatics / flying over a crowd, makes sense to do all flying adjacent not over people at all, roads included.

Heard from an authority man on BBC that Private owned non forces aren't allowed ejectors as the contain explosives........so do air bags and seat belt retarders :?:

Today a BBC reporter / yesterday even that there were explosives in the ejector seat so police will take some time clearing up:?
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Bonefishblues »

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Brucey wrote:the CAA has banned 'high energy aerobatics' in vintage jets at airshows, over land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383

cheers


Not to do something like or similar would be bad.

I remember when we had something similar and the plane crashed into a crowd of spectators.
Then they banned aerobatics / flying over a crowd, makes sense to do all flying adjacent not over people at all, roads included.

Heard from an authority man on BBC that Private owned non forces aren't allowed ejectors as the contain explosives........so do air bags and seat belt retarders :?:

Today a BBC reporter / yesterday even that there were explosives in the ejector seat so police will take some time clearing up:?

AIUI they are allowed in non-military planes, but because they have to go thro' an inspection and certification regime are usually disarmed.
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Flinders »

TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations. The interviewer's point was that whatever the cause, accidents clearly do happen so, irrespective of the cause he maintained the CAA should be reviewing procedures to remove/lower than risk now rather than wait ages (by e.g. moving such displays over where there are no people. CAA guy's response was that they rather wanted to stop such accidents (hence waiting for AAIB) whereas interviewer was arguing to act now to reduce risk for public (and there will always be a risk of accidents in these types of display). Interviewer came across better as he was arguing that the particular display should have been carried out over the sea (something I guess cannot be done for all airshows e.g. inland ones).

Ian


The usual something must be done knee jerk response. Tragic as they are these are the first spectator/public deaths in an air display in the UK in over 60 years. How about instead doing something about the quarter of a million plus violent deaths of members of the public over that time from road accidents. They've had plenty of time to think about an answer to that one.


It seems to me that the CAA have simply done exactly what they should do- ground the aircraft type until it is known if there was a fault on the aircraft, and limit flying activities in case there was an issue with the display itself. Until they have more information about what happened, what else could they have done?
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Bonefishblues »

Flinders wrote:
TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations. The interviewer's point was that whatever the cause, accidents clearly do happen so, irrespective of the cause he maintained the CAA should be reviewing procedures to remove/lower than risk now rather than wait ages (by e.g. moving such displays over where there are no people. CAA guy's response was that they rather wanted to stop such accidents (hence waiting for AAIB) whereas interviewer was arguing to act now to reduce risk for public (and there will always be a risk of accidents in these types of display). Interviewer came across better as he was arguing that the particular display should have been carried out over the sea (something I guess cannot be done for all airshows e.g. inland ones).

Ian


The usual something must be done knee jerk response. Tragic as they are these are the first spectator/public deaths in an air display in the UK in over 60 years. How about instead doing something about the quarter of a million plus violent deaths of members of the public over that time from road accidents. They've had plenty of time to think about an answer to that one.


It seems to me that the CAA have simply done exactly what they should do- ground the aircraft type until it is known if there was a fault on the aircraft, and limit flying activities in case there was an issue with the display itself. Until they have more information about what happened, what else could they have done?

Taken a while to develop, I'd say - introduced in 1954, last in active service last year!
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Flinders »

maxglide wrote:
I dont recall any facility to do this, my memory is that the tow "rope" was just attached to the back of the tug and nothing can be done to it until it lands. The most I can conceive of is an emergency release handle like the glider has but that would just drop the rope to the ground.


The tow rope remains attached to the tug. There's no release facility. Only the glider can release the rope from the hook up. On an aerotow, when the glider releases, he turns left, the tug turns right. When the tug lands the rope is more or less trailing horizontally behind so, no chance of hooking something on the approach.


I looked it up, and of course you are all correct- the tow line stays o the plane. However, the book I checked out says this (It seems to be American so the rules may be different, but the physics would be the same:
Approach and Landing
A 200-foot tow line hangs down behind the tow plane at a 30 to 40 degree angle. The altitude of the tow plane must be adjusted to ensure the tow line does not become entangled in obstructions at close proximity to the ground.Ensure you are thoroughly briefed and familiar with the obstructions around the airport, especially obstructions on the approach end of the runway to be used. Briefings should include a minimum above ground level (AGL) obstruction crossing height and any factors that may influence altitude udgment, such as visual illusions or other airport distractions.
Landing with the tow line attached is not prohibited by
regulation; however, the following points should be considered:
1.
Obstructions are cleared by more than the tow line length (altimeter lag considered).
2.
The field is well turfed. It is simply inviting early tow line failure from abrasion to land with the tow line on hard ground or paved runways. Landing with the tow line should never be attempted unless the field has clear approaches and is at least 2,500 feet in length.

Other situations require the tow line to be dropped.........
(ctd.)
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by TonyR »

Flinders wrote:
TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations. The interviewer's point was that whatever the cause, accidents clearly do happen so, irrespective of the cause he maintained the CAA should be reviewing procedures to remove/lower than risk now rather than wait ages (by e.g. moving such displays over where there are no people. CAA guy's response was that they rather wanted to stop such accidents (hence waiting for AAIB) whereas interviewer was arguing to act now to reduce risk for public (and there will always be a risk of accidents in these types of display). Interviewer came across better as he was arguing that the particular display should have been carried out over the sea (something I guess cannot be done for all airshows e.g. inland ones).

Ian


The usual something must be done knee jerk response. Tragic as they are these are the first spectator/public deaths in an air display in the UK in over 60 years. How about instead doing something about the quarter of a million plus violent deaths of members of the public over that time from road accidents. They've had plenty of time to think about an answer to that one.


It seems to me that the CAA have simply done exactly what they should do- ground the aircraft type until it is known if there was a fault on the aircraft, and limit flying activities in case there was an issue with the display itself. Until they have more information about what happened, what else could they have done?


Errrr......I was referring to the Today programme attitude, not the CAA. The media "something must be done" driven shut-down of the rail network following the Hatfield rail crash killed more people in just the first few weeks from the increased road traffic than died in the accident. And the shutdown went on not for just a few weeks but for over a year. A clear case of how a media driven knee jerk instant solution is far worse than a properly considered solution.
maxglide
Posts: 194
Joined: 19 May 2013, 5:35pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by maxglide »

However, the book I checked out says this (It seems to be American so the rules may be different, but the physics would be the same:


The tow rope does dangle a bit, now you mention it. Also in the States, on release, the tug & glider turn
in opposite directions to the UK.
Brucey
Posts: 44519
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Brucey »

maxglide wrote:
However, the book I checked out says this (It seems to be American so the rules may be different, but the physics would be the same:


The tow rope does dangle a bit, now you mention it. Also in the States, on release, the tug & glider turn
in opposite directions to the UK.


interesting that the turn is different; most single prop planes turn a bit easier one way than the other... I would suppose that there isn't much difference in the typical tug plane here vs the States...? So I wonder what (if any) the logic is there?

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
maxglide
Posts: 194
Joined: 19 May 2013, 5:35pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by maxglide »

So I wonder what (if any) the logic is there?


Apparently, the majority of US glider pilots are right wing.
F70100
Posts: 139
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 10:33am

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by F70100 »

Flinders wrote:
TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Re: Shoreham Tragedy
Radio 4 Today program had some official from CAA this morning and he didn't handle the interview well. He did comment about their safety record (which he said was good) but fell down badly when asked why the CAA would wait for the AAIB report (which can often take ages and ages) before reviewing the airshow regulations. The interviewer's point was that whatever the cause, accidents clearly do happen so, irrespective of the cause he maintained the CAA should be reviewing procedures to remove/lower than risk now rather than wait ages (by e.g. moving such displays over where there are no people. CAA guy's response was that they rather wanted to stop such accidents (hence waiting for AAIB) whereas interviewer was arguing to act now to reduce risk for public (and there will always be a risk of accidents in these types of display). Interviewer came across better as he was arguing that the particular display should have been carried out over the sea (something I guess cannot be done for all airshows e.g. inland ones).

Ian


The usual something must be done knee jerk response. Tragic as they are these are the first spectator/public deaths in an air display in the UK in over 60 years. How about instead doing something about the quarter of a million plus violent deaths of members of the public over that time from road accidents. They've had plenty of time to think about an answer to that one.


It seems to me that the CAA have simply done exactly what they should do- ground the aircraft type until it is known if there was a fault on the aircraft, and limit flying activities in case there was an issue with the display itself. Until they have more information about what happened, what else could they have done?


It's never quite as simple as that. No-one knows if there was a fault with the Malaysian B777 that was lost over the Indian Ocean but that type (with perhaps 1200 in service worldwide) hasn't been grounded. Likewise, no-one knew what caused the loss of the Air France A330 (again with around 1200 in service) until they got the FDR and CVR out of the Southern Atlantic, and that type wasn't grounded. With just a handful of Hunters operating (and Concordes, after the Paris accident) it's easier for the Authority to take such sweeping action.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by TonyR »

F70100 wrote:
Flinders wrote:It seems to me that the CAA have simply done exactly what they should do- ground the aircraft type until it is known if there was a fault on the aircraft, and limit flying activities in case there was an issue with the display itself. Until they have more information about what happened, what else could they have done?


It's never quite as simple as that. No-one knows if there was a fault with the Malaysian B777 that was lost over the Indian Ocean but that type (with perhaps 1200 in service worldwide) hasn't been grounded. Likewise, no-one knew what caused the loss of the Air France A330 (again with around 1200 in service) until they got the FDR and CVR out of the Southern Atlantic, and that type wasn't grounded. With just a handful of Hunters operating (and Concordes, after the Paris accident) it's easier for the Authority to take such sweeping action.


There were, if yesterday was average, 7 violent sudden deaths on British roads yesterday. Perhaps we should ban all motor vehicles on British roads until it is known whether there are faults on the vehicles or with the driving itself.
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Ellieb »

If the incident had ended up with the aircraft in a field and nobody else killed, do you think they would have grounded the Hunters? This is why it is a knee jerk reaction. They are reacting to the fatalities rather than the incident itself.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by squeaker »

661-Pete wrote:I'm in France and off the internet most of the time - am only now catching up on this story, but back in uK we live fairly close to the crash scene and often drive along that bit of the A27 (it's not really a cycling route).

Er, the A27 from the traffic lights where the plane crashed has a narrow shared use path going west into Lancing; the airport perimeter road is a quiet route to the coast; and the Coombes Road going north is a very popular cycling route to get north of the Downs from the coastal plain (far more bikes than cars use it on most weekends).
I had thought about cycling down to Lancing Sailing Club that morning, having seen the forecast for Sunday (when I would be at the club - a good place to watch the aerobatics, as well as sail, but not in low cloud / heavy rain) but our grass needed mowing...
"42"
User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2472
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by hondated »

squeaker wrote:
661-Pete wrote:I'm in France and off the internet most of the time - am only now catching up on this story, but back in uK we live fairly close to the crash scene and often drive along that bit of the A27 (it's not really a cycling route).

Er, the A27 from the traffic lights where the plane crashed has a narrow shared use path going west into Lancing; the airport perimeter road is a quiet route to the coast; and the Coombes Road going north is a very popular cycling route to get north of the Downs from the coastal plain (far more bikes than cars use it on most weekends).
I had thought about cycling down to Lancing Sailing Club that morning, having seen the forecast for Sunday (when I would be at the club - a good place to watch the aerobatics, as well as sail, but not in low cloud / heavy rain) but our grass needed mowing...

+1 I was thinking that but didn't like to say. There have always been plenty of cyclists when I go to the airport on my motorbike.
Post Reply