Shoreham air crash

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
1gunsalute
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 5:38pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by 1gunsalute »

Ellieb wrote: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.

The conclusion of the review will be that aircraft can do these manoeuvres over an empty field so that no-one on the ground will get killed if/when something goes wrong. Not over a busy road, houses, etc.
Similarly they had the "knee jerk" reaction to ban manoeuvres too close to airshow spectators after the Farnborough disaster.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Psamathe »

Interesting article reflecting some of the comments made through this thread.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/the-a27-is-far-more-dangerous-than-the-aircraft-that-crashed-on-it

Ian
Bonefish Blues
Posts: 47
Joined: 9 Aug 2010, 10:26pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Bonefish Blues »

As I've said previously, a very broad church, with some real expert contributors (and the usual muppets...):

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... m+Air+show
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by squeaker »

squeaker wrote: 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).

Just read that the current estimate is to re-open the A27 with single lanes next Monday BUT
Sussex Police chief constable Giles York said there would be no access from the A27 to Lancing College and Shoreham airport for some time.

Time to get the mountain bike out again for my Worthing 'commute' - pity it's been tipping it down for the last few days :roll: (For those that are wondering, both the A283 and Bostal Road between the A27 and Steyning have been jam packed with stop-start traffic much of the time - unpleasant :( )
"42"
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Ellieb »

The conclusion of the review will be that aircraft can do these manoeuvres over an empty field so that no-one on the ground will get killed if/when something goes wrong. Not over a busy road, houses, etc.
Similarly they had the "knee jerk" reaction to ban manoeuvres too close to airshow spectators after the Farnborough disaster.

& this has what to do with grounding Hunters?
Manc33
Posts: 2218
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Manc33 »

I used to go to air shows as a kid.

"Come on you'll like it".

All I ever did at them was crouch there crying with my hands over my ears, hating it.
We'll always be together, together on electric bikes.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by 661-Pete »

squeaker wrote:
661-Pete wrote:... (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...

Well, certainly this is not the time to argue, you have a point (though to me a narrow shared-use path doesn't constitute a cycling route :roll: ). Much of the A27 is fast D/C and I wouldn't contemplate cycling on those sections myself nor advising others to, partly because there are perfectly good parallel routes (the A259 and the 'old' A27 through Brighton and Shoreham now re-numbered the A270), and partly because part of it (the Southwick Hill tunnel section) is banned to cyclists anyway.

Regarding aerobatics and air shows as a whole - well have the scales been tipped towards the line of reasoning that they are too dangerous to continue? Or does this amount to 'nanny-state'-ing in the extreme? Certainly the casualty rate is alarmingly high - usually only the pilots are involved, but here...... :(

I remember now, witnessing a crash during aerobatics, when I was a small boy, although mercifully no-one was killed on that occasion. It happened over an area of common, popular with walkers, on a Sunday, and I was there with my parents, about a mile off. Plenty of other people were about and saw the crash, and by the time we reached the site, with the plane nose-down in a small copse, quite a crowd had assembled. The plane was a light single-engined two-seater, and the pilot and passenger escaped with bruises and a broken leg, remarkable since the plane was a total write-off. I remember my father took photographs. I may still have them somewhere.

Ever since then, I've had a touch of the jitters whenever watching aerobatics. Especially over populated areas. Is it just me?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
1gunsalute
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 5:38pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by 1gunsalute »

Ellieb wrote:
The conclusion of the review will be that aircraft can do these manoeuvres over an empty field so that no-one on the ground will get killed if/when something goes wrong. Not over a busy road, houses, etc.
Similarly they had the "knee jerk" reaction to ban manoeuvres too close to airshow spectators after the Farnborough disaster.

& this has what to do with grounding Hunters?

Your previous post was that if this had happened over an empty field there would be no problem. I was agreeing with you, just formalising the process.

And yes, it would be better if a dozen people didn't need to be killed to demonstrate that this manoeuvre wasn't safe. Obviously it wasn't safe, it's hard to believe that the airshow organisers approved it. But as at Farnborough, it seems easier for society to learn these things afterwards.
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by squeaker »

661-Pete wrote:Well, certainly this is not the time to argue, you have a point (though to me a narrow shared-use path doesn't constitute a cycling route :roll: ). Much of the A27 is fast D/C and I wouldn't contemplate cycling on those sections myself nor advising others to, partly because there are perfectly good parallel routes (the A259 and the 'old' A27 through Brighton and Shoreham now re-numbered the A270), and partly because part of it (the Southwick Hill tunnel section) is banned to cyclists anyway.

Not arguing, just pointing out that with the upgraded shared use path (October last year, IIRC: still with crap junction treatments, though), North Lancing to Shoreham airport along the A27 no longer involves sharing a 70mph dual carriageway (although IME it's OK westbound when it's clogged up). As such it's another reason for using the Coombes Road as a route north from the coast if you are coming from Worthing on other than an MTB (or without a strong wish to climb over the Downs on the Bostal Road).

And yes, airshows, especially with fast jets, are worrying - speaking as a mechanical engineer.
"42"
Brucey
Posts: 44521
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Brucey »

1gunsalute wrote:....And yes, it would be better if a dozen people didn't need to be killed to demonstrate that this manoeuvre wasn't safe. Obviously it wasn't safe, it's hard to believe that the airshow organisers approved it....


nothing is 'safe', there is no such thing.

Those deaths were tragic enough but the chances of being killed by an aircraft falling from the sky are vanishingly small; you are many times more likely to be killed taking commercial flights in the normal way.

There's actual risk, perceived risk, unnecessary risk, avoidable risk, and statistical likelihood of harm. People (and NB policy makers are people too....) are very, very bad about making rational choices in regard to this.

I think that any aerobatic manoeuvres contain an element of risk, and perhaps you can argue that if some of that risk is 'avoidable', you should take reasonable steps to avoid it. But if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you would ban all 'unnecessary flying' and therefore 'nearly all flying' since most of it (including most passenger flights) is optional, not essential.

[I digress, but policies that are intended to improve public safety are always subject to the law of unintended consequences; for example the introduction of seatbelts in cars in the US improved the death rate but only for a couple of years; people 'felt safer' so took more risks behind the wheel and had more, higher speed accidents. The guy that developed them (and later, the airbag) suggested that the best safety measure in a car would be an 8" steel spike mounted in the middle of the steering wheel; in his view making the driver more acutely aware of his own mortality would prevent most 'accidents'.]

I daresay an airshow that comprised entirely of 'safe manoeuvres' would be a pretty dull event. Similar issues surround the Isle Of Man TT races, and to some extent any motorsport event, for participants and spectators.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1gunsalute
Posts: 95
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 5:38pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by 1gunsalute »

Brucey wrote:I daresay an airshow that comprised entirely of 'safe manoeuvres' would be a pretty dull event. Similar issues surround the Isle Of Man TT races, and to some extent any motorsport event, for participants and spectators.

cheers

Do any of the Shoreham crowd not wish that the show had been a bit duller? I dare any of them to say so.
I have no objection to airshows/TTracers/cyclists/anyone doing things that put at risk their own lives, or indeed the lives of spectators who can choose whether or not the risk is worthwhile (in view of the enjoyment they get from watching/participating).
I do object to people doing things that put third parties' lives at risk. Commercial flights really don't do that (at least not directly, let's not get onto climate change).
That doesn't mean that you can't make arrangements to stage risky events. I assume that for the TT they close the roads, deciding that the disruption is worthwhile because of tradition, tourism revenue, etc. You could do the same for an airshow if you can make a good enough case.
Brucey
Posts: 44521
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Brucey »

1gunsalute wrote: I do object to people doing things that put third parties' lives at risk. Commercial flights really don't do that (at least not directly, let's not get onto climate change).


fair point about third party risk and that is what the recent policy changes are intended to address. But that is a matter more of perception than actual numbers.

Despite the risks being vanishingly small, commercial flights have killed far more innocent bystanders than air displays have (or ever will), and that is before you get into all the collateral damage that commercial aviation causes, which is plentiful and includes many things other than climate change.

If you wanted not to endanger others you wouldn't fly, drive a car, go out in public if you thought you might have any infectious virus, or any one of a hundred other everyday things.

Remember the law of unintended consequences? Well, I think that if vintage jets are banned from aerobatic manoeuvres, the whole attitude to maintaining and operating them is liable to become more lax. I don't care what the rules say, that is just human nature....

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Flinders
Posts: 3023
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Flinders »

Brucey wrote:
1gunsalute wrote: I do object to people doing things that put third parties' lives at risk. Commercial flights really don't do that (at least not directly, let's not get onto climate change).


fair point about third party risk and that is what the recent policy changes are intended to address. But that is a matter more of perception than actual numbers.

Despite the risks being vanishingly small, commercial flights have killed far more innocent bystanders than air displays have (or ever will), and that is before you get into all the collateral damage that commercial aviation causes, which is plentiful and includes many things other than climate change.

If you wanted not to endanger others you wouldn't fly, drive a car, go out in public if you thought you might have any infectious virus, or any one of a hundred other everyday things.

Remember the law of unintended consequences? Well, I think that if vintage jets are banned from aerobatic manoeuvres, the whole attitude to maintaining and operating them is liable to become more lax. I don't care what the rules say, that is just human nature....

cheers


It's all about the risks we actively accept. People driving on the road had accepted the risk of driving, but not the risks of an airshow next to the road. However, I even heard one person suggest that simply by driving past an airfield they had accepted the extra risk, which is ridiculous.

For now, nobody knows why it happened, and the CAA seem to me to be doing exactly the right things in the interim until investigations have been completed, which can take a very long time as it's a complicated situation. They have grounded the specific aircraft in case it is structural, limited the activities of older aircraft in case that may be a factor, and are looking into airshow procedures to see if risks might be able to be better controlled.
There really isn't much else sensible to say about it until the cause(s) is/are known.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by 661-Pete »

Latest update shows that the fears expressed in the OP were well-founded: at least one of the victims was a cyclist. :(
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/13633846 ... _of_crash/
RIP.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Brucey
Posts: 44521
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Shoreham air crash

Post by Brucey »

Flinders wrote:
It's all about the risks we actively accept. People driving on the road had accepted the risk of driving, but not the risks of an airshow next to the road. However, I even heard one person suggest that simply by driving past an airfield they had accepted the extra risk, which is ridiculous...


ridiculous? Not at all. That is very similar to suggesting that if you drive near the sea, or over a bridge, there is no conceivable chance that your car might end up in the water, or that if you buy a house near an airport, you shouldn't have any increased risk that an aircraft is going to end up in your garden or drop 'loo ice' on your house or anything like that. Only a moron wouldn't ever think about such things, or not realise that there was some added risk.

Every time I drive past an airfield I'm looking out for planes; it is just common sense to do so. On the M25 near Heathrow you are regularly beneath 400 tonnes of aircraft that is only a few kts above its stall speed; in the event of catastrophic multiple engine failure (which can and does happen from time to time, mostly at take off or landing) it is quite likely that you will be sharing the road with a jumbo jet, and knowing that this might happen is a good start to self preservation.

If you are arguing that people driving on the A27 didn't know the airfield was there and didn't think about it, I'd argue that they perhaps should have done; its been while since I was down that way, but there are signs, right? If nothing else, if aware of aircraft motorists would then not be startled by aircraft suddenly appearing, which can and does cause accidents in its own right.

As it happens a commercial plane is liable to go in doing less than 100mph and you have a pretty good chance of seeing it coming; a military jet doing aerobatics, less so. Thus I'm not sure awareness would have made much practical difference in this event, I think that some people would have been killed in any event. But I would also suggest that there were very probably some folk who were keeping their eyes peeled, saw what was happening and took avoiding action, too.

As you say it is all about what people perceive to be 'acceptable risk' but that is not the same thing as 'no risk'. Commercial planes come down in built-up areas and squash people quite often; I think you should be aware of that possibility anytime you are near an airfield.

BTW There is a list of prangs here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_accidents_and_incidents_resulting_in_at_least_50_fatalities

in which there were at least fifty casualties (all types) in the crash and on this list they identify bystander casualties. Bystanders are not killed in most crashes but they do form a significant percentage of the whole. You will note that there are about 500 items on this list which means that on average there are about five crashes per year that kill enough people to make it onto the list. The actual rate is a fair bit higher than that because although people have been flying for about 100 years, the vast majority of these prangs have happened in the last 65 years, since commercial aviation 'took off' (ahem). Very few (any?) items on this list are airshow accidents.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Post Reply