CAA are generally pretty good but mebbe a bit more thought required:
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.
On Saturday, February 6, 2016 at 9:20:52 PM UTC, alan_m wrote:
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.
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.
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 8:05:25 AM UTC, alan_m wrote:
last year about 120,000 people, roads were smooth thanjs to great organisa
tion by private traffic contractors, Ayr, faded seaside resort, gets a larg
e late season boost.
Would think so, 2014 traffic around town became slightly clogged, 2015 was
faster flowing than an average Saturday.Low Green, main crowd arena, was i
mmaculate 3 hours after close of play.
Scottish Air Show really is an example of how it can be done right to every
one`s benefit. Have no idea how it is funded, as the main display is free.
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 recruitme
nt presence at these things, but most display aircraft are supplied by priv
ate organisations of one sort or another.
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.
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
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 07/02/2016 12:52, no email@example.com wrote:
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.
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.
On 07/02/16 19:09, no firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Its OK to speculate, as long as it is not held to be anything but
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?"
On 07/02/2016 19:09, no email@example.com wrote:
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"
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, no firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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.
I didn't intend to and can't see where I did. Can you expand?
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.
Depends what you like. The Olympics, racing of any sort, athletics in
general seem waste of time as one can barely tell one competitor from
another. Team sports are much better. I used to enjoy the rugby but
they've changed the rules to allow cheating so it's no fun any more.
Re: airshows, I used to live near Duxford so seeing a Lanc, 29 Spits,
and assorted other things flying over my garden was interesting. Being
at Duxford on a show day was, too, as you get a chance to see what
these planes can actually do, and try to figure out whether you'd
actually have enough time to shoot one down if you were the subject of
its ground attack.
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.