The end of the UK airshow?

[no_spam]

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.

[Bill Taylor]

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.

[no_spam]

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.

[Big Les Wade]

Some accidents can certainly be prevented by proportionate regulation.

Yes you did. See above.

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.

[michael adams]

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

And for your next trick ?

michael adams

...

[no_spam]

;-) 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.

[no_spam]

Some examples would be good ... ?

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.

[Tim Streater]

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.

[bert]

Because it is good to see experts performing at a level that you yourself will never achieve.

[charles]

People often go to concerts for the same reason

[no_spam]

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 :-)

[alan_m]

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

[Vir Campestris]

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

[Nightjar]

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

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.

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

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.

[Nightjar]

On 08/02/2016 16:51, no [e-mail] wrote: ...

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

[no_spam]

'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

and I haven't got her skills.

[no_spam]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Nightjar]

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.

[no_spam]

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!