Shoreham air crash

[Flinders]

It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there. For some roads there is no alternative route, and road signs don't tell you what private citizens may be doing on all the plots of land alongside.

If landowners wish to do something on their land that is dangerous, that's up to them. If people choose to go to an event knowing those risks, that's up to them. But if someone is doing something dangerous outside that land, that can't be regarded as something that is a risk that has been accepted by people outside the landowner's area.

I think you will find that's how the law regards it. And though I personally am not against air shows, I'm not so daft as not to be able to see that the attitude that people outside the venue have taken the risk knowingly that they will be landed on by a stunt flyer just because they drove down a public road is the attitude best likely to provoke the public into wanting air shows banned.

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way, and a venue choosing to do actual stunts over roads and houses. The one risk we factor in as it is unavoidable unless we do no commercial flying. The other is avoidable without banning airshows, or even stunts.

[TonyR]

The one risk we factor in as it is unavoidable unless we do no commercial flying. The other is avoidable without banning airshows, or even stunts.

The only reason for commercial flying is because there is a demand for it from a sizeable proportion of the population. The only reason for airshows is because there is a demand for it from a sizeable proportion of the population. In both cases there is a proportion of the population that is not part of the demand but that suffers negative consequences as a result. I read that in the Shoreham case, apparently all of the victims were local and some of them were there to watch the airshow from outside the airfield.

[Brucey]

It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there....

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way....

I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree. You choose where you go and the risks are different wherever that is. Not all public roads are equally safe and if most people don't think about that when they are driving around, more fool them.

FWIW you could (easily) mandate that airports are built in places/such a way that aircraft don't go lower than a certain altitude over houses and roads. The reason this isn't done is just money; occasionally killing people is cheaper and the public believe it is 'an acceptable risk'.

cheers

[Psamathe]

It's still ridiculous, I'm afraid, to suggest that someone driving past a piece of land should be regarded as accepting the risk of things that may be taking place there....

I live near an airfield, with whom I have no problems, and was only the other day driving down the M1 past Kegworth. And I can see, if you can't, the difference between a commercial aircraft that has to have a flight path over roads because there is no other way....

I can see where you are coming from but I don't agree. You choose where you go and the risks are different wherever that is. Not all public roads are equally safe and if most people don't think about that when they are driving around, more fool them.

I think a lot depends on the detail. Not necessarily relevant to the Shoreham tragedy, but if you check out an area in detail, buy a house there 'cos all looks safe and then a few years later somebody comes along and builds e.g. an incinerator (health risks) next door then you don't have a choice. Were people driving along the road there "by choice" or not (e.g. going to do the shopping is something you pretty well have to do whilst going to watch an air display (e.g. from outside the airfield) is something you do have a choice about. Where I feel the case against something is stronger is when it is impacting people who don't really have much choice (or limited choice).

For example, I'm afraid I have less sympathy for people who buy a house at the end of a busy runway then complain about the noise yet have a lot of sympathy for people who buy a house in a quiet area then somebody comes along and builds a runway ending by their house.

Technically most people pretty well always "have a choice" and it comes down to a question of degree. People having to go shopping could delay their trip until after external high risks have passed and maybe e.g. miss taking their kids out to football ... People who have a runway build beside their house could sell-up at a massive loss.

Ian

[661-Pete]

As a postscript: the story of those two police 'officers' who sent an offensive message and selfie to a colleague, from the crash scene, is still very much in the news, along with debate as to what should be done with them.

I think a lot of the case hinges on what words were actually used in the message: there are, after all, varying degrees of offensiveness. Now, none of the mainstream media afaik have made the words public, but they can easily be discovered by googling. I did so. Even though I have no direct involvement in this tragedy, I did find the words upsetting: I'm not going to repeat them here . Let's just say, they brought to my mind some of that obscene 'concentration camp' and 'gas chamber' banter that you still see circulating now and again...

Hence, I hope they throw the book at these guys. And then people can move on...

[Brucey]

re commercial flight safety; this was in the news a few days ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11855115/BA-plane-fire-regulators-warned-of-problems-with-engine.html

in this instance they were 'lucky' because the engine failure happened when the plane was still on the ground. A similar failure on take-off (esp between 500 and 1000 ft altitude) almost certainly means a nasty accident, often in in a residential area or over a busy road.

On the other hand they were 'unlucky' in that an engine appears to have suffered what is known as 'an uncontained failure' i.e. where bits of the engine fly out through the casing at very high speed. This is the worst kind of failure because the flying debris can easily compromise the flight controls (or even the airframe structure itself). A fire is always likely with this kind of failure too. Uncontained engine failures in flight very often result in loss of life.

cheers

[MikeF]

A terrible accident and obviously shown in more detail in South East and presumably Southern News, with thousands of flowers and hundreds of people grieving and showing sadness and concern. 11 people killed in close proximity which is tragic, but in contrast no major group of people concerned or public enquiry about these 18 deaths.https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/deaths-on-the-road/. In one case deaths seems to be acceptable and another they're not. Just how many people have been killed on a road since Shoreham?

[The utility cyclist]

The pilot Andy Hill has now being charged with 11 counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one of endangering an aircraft. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43494430
Hopefully closure for the family and indeed justice served.
Incredible how long its taken

[Cyril Haearn]

In 1988 three planes collided over the crowd at an air show at Ramstein Germany, 35 were killed immediately, 35 died later, restrictions on airshows were introduced, could be done in the UK too

Should be banned altogether I think, it is far too 'exciting' (dangerous) just like motor 'sport' which should be banned too I think, has a lot to do with traffic crime

If the RAF needs to practice it could do so over water, or over uninhabited areas if any can be found

Gliding looks interesting, flying without power, one can stay up for hours but has little control, could land anywhere and endanger others
Not thought about that, should it be banned too?

[Barks]

If the RAF needs to practice it could do so over water, or over uninhabited areas if any can be found

Most RAF stations are in relatively remote places and low flying routes even more so. Much training does take place over the sea but training over varying terrain is essential plus landing and taking off. With the recent Red Arrows crash which was just after take off on a routine transit flight we will find out in due course what was the cause but it is highly unlikely to be reckless flying which appears to be the case for the Shoreham incident - that pilot is now facing prosecution for manslughter. I wonder what the chances that he also drives a ‘fast car’ and has or has had quite a few points on his driving licence.

[Cyril Haearn]

Quite high maybe, I would like to know

[Bonefishblues]

Google is your friend on that one - at least v-a-v a car.

[pete75]

I wonder what the chances that he also drives a ‘fast car’ and has or has had quite a few points on his driving licence.

Pictures on the web show him driving an elderly Porsche Boxster.

[Bonefishblues]

I wonder what the chances that he also drives a ‘fast car’ and has or has had quite a few points on his driving licence.

Pictures on the web show him driving an elderly Porsche Boxster.

Mysteriously though, a £40,000 Porsche Boxster. He may have been ripped off

[pete75]

I wonder what the chances that he also drives a ‘fast car’ and has or has had quite a few points on his driving licence.

Pictures on the web show him driving an elderly Porsche Boxster.

Mysteriously though, a £40,000 Porsche Boxster. He may have been ripped off

It probably was in 2005 .......