To think we shouldn't have small plane 'airshows'

[JeffsanArsehole]

It seems every year in a small plane at an airshow there's some terrible and tragic accident. 7 people dead so far today.

It's not the same as large commercial craft where out of the thousands of planes every year one or two crashes.

I don't remember a year where one hasn't crashed.

[TalkinPeace]

The crash was horrific, but it must be remembered that is was the first time anybody other than a pilot had died at a UK airshow in many decades.

Far, far more people die on the A27 in car accidents than died on Saturday but the A27 has not been closed due to the death toll.

[catsrus]

but TiP everyone, including me, who drives along that stretch of road has made a choice to do it. We make a risk assessment every time we go out in a car. I will now avoid the M25, at night, in the pouring rain. I have done it too often and seen some nasty accidents.

As you said up thread, it's the engaging in risky behaviour above a main road which is the issue here. Risky behaviour which had fatal consequences for people who were not engaged in it.

[Aked]

I watched an interview with an experienced pilot discussing this. From his point of view he thinks the pilot had to make a split second decision to undertake a "controlled crash" - and crash into the airshow crowd or onto the A27. I think the point soup is making is that he had to choose the option with less fatalities. Terrible.

Those poor, poor people. It is just horrific. I have never in the past considered the impact a tragedy like this has on the local community, I am a few miles out but travel on that part of the road all the time. It is all the more shocking when it is so close to home.

I think the airshow should be performed over the sea, and then the pilots decision would only have to involve himself.

So sad.

[Aked]

Didn't word that last sentence very well.

The pilots decision would involve only himself.

[BishopBrennansArse]

It was the first accident to involve the public in over 50 years. It's not a regular thing. There are very good safety measures currently in place.

I find it interesting that the Red Arrows wouldn't fly there as they risk assessed it as too dangerous. Perhaps if that's the case then shows at that location should no longer happen. But they should absolutely happen elsewhere.

[magimedi]

The Red Arrows won't fly at Shoreham as there is not the height allowance for them to be able to do their full display (due to restricions as Gatwick is so close). Not because they deem Shoreham dangerous per se.

[catsrus]

This was a risk that did not need to be taken. He was engaged in risky behaviour in order to thrill a crowd. This should not happen over a populated area.

I fully get that people like to watch these things but it is not legitimate to endanger the lives of other people in order to have fun when those people have not consented to the risk involved. Fly over the people who choose to be there, let them make that risk assessment for themselves- like a F1 crowd do at a race, fly over the sea, over a field, but not over roads and houses where there are people who have had no choice in the matter.

[TalkinPeace]

catsrus
This was a risk that did not need to be taken
I totally agree.

To do a low level loop over a dual carriage way was an utterly stupid and selfish thing to do - even if he'd got away with it.

Two of the dead were cyclists apparently : they would have been injured by his exhaust at that height.

Shoreham were out of order not to change their flight paths after 2007.
They have brought the CAA down on all shows for their selfishness.

[blueshoes]

I have to say it. I blame the pilot too.

[Aked]

I don't think anyone can blame the pilot until we know what happened.

What if it stalled or there was an engine fire or something? We just don't know do we. (I know nothing about planes so these are speculative faults!)

[serialworrier]

I guess the point is that if you go to an airshow you know that there is a tiny risk that a plane might crash into you. That's a risk you take.

But driving past is an unrelated activity and ok when you get into a car you know each time that you might have an accident. But a plane landing on top of you? I don't think anyone considers that (unless they're passing Heathrow on the M25 just as a huge plane goes overhead maybe).

I think that the displays over populated areas need to be reduced. I also think helicopter flights should be reduced to those which are necessary - ie air ambulance and police/army. We had the accident in Glasgow and the one in London - I'm fed up of planes and helicopters landing on innocent people and killing/badly injuring them. You can't stop people driving their cars (although you could increase the penalties for dangerous driving etc to concentrate peoples minds about texting while driving etc) but you can stop unnecessary flights.

As for the pilot surviving, well I don't want to think about what sort of state he is in.

[Samcro]

"catsrus Tue 25-Aug-15 14:28:11
I know this might not be a popular view - but I'm angry and upset, still waiting to hear if anyone I know was one of the people killed. This is a plane whose sole purpose was to kill. It was a weapon. People go to airshows to watch weapons being flown round doing dangerous maneuvers. They are generally being flown not by young people at the peak of their physical fitness, but by older men at a time of life when they are more prone to heart attacks and strokes. They fly over built up areas full of people who have little or no interest in watching.

I drive down that road a lot. I had friends driving down it that day. I've sat at those traffic lights. Whatever the cause there needs to be a serious rethink about the wisdom of allowing this kind of display to continue over populated areas."

i 100% agree with the sentiment in this post. I live further away. but that is a road I drive along on a lot. it is terrible to think that people with no connection to the air show and no interest in it have been killed in such a horrific way.

[blueshoes]

What he did was inherently dangerous. There are many situations where I reserve judgment until the facts are clear but this is not one of them.

[blueshoes]

Pilot performed a lunatic manoeuvre

"The guy must have been a complete lunatic to come in at 100ft and think he could pull out of it [the loop] safely. This guy — I think simply he was just showing off. This sort of accident should never happen."

• Leslie Hatcher, former RAF aerobatics instructor

[blueshoes]

To have to choose between ploughing into the crowd at the airshow or to plough into a packed motorway. Hobson's choice indeed.

Why did that even have to happen?

[Aked]

To have to choose between ploughing into the crowd at the airshow or to plough into a packed motorway. Hobson's choice indeed.

Why did that even have to happen?

Indeed.

Another expert on that link says he could have suffered a blackout at some point though, which was why the loop wasn't performed correctly.

I feel sorry for him at the moment. If he survives, imagine the mental state he is going to be in whether it was his fault or not. Alongside what can only be horrific injuries.

[Aked]

Bold fail!

[blueshoes]

Somehow I feel sorrier for those who lost their lives or got maimed. Minimising death and injuries he failed to do for whatever reason.]

His family were right to focus on the victims on the motorway, rather than the pilot.

[Aked]

Of course I feel sorrier for the victims!

I'm just saying, I don't blame him at the moment.

[blueshoes]

I would have to disagree then. He could not have chosen a worse spot to land except maybe the crowd of spectators.

[StephanieBeacham]

Ok, there are some assumptions here that are slightly off track which if I may I'd like to just correct briefly - others I'll leave to those more in the know than what I am .

First off, Aked I would be really interested in watching the interview you describe if you can remember where you might have seen it - thank you.

Secondly, yes, the aircraft suffered a stall but there is discussion ongoing among people who know about planes, as to where and what kind of stall it suffered and more importantly, why.

It's totally possible that the pilot was subject to a 'grey-out' as it's known, whereby you're pulling so many Gs in a mavoeuvre that your blood supply drains into the lower half of your body and you lose spatial awareness/orientation, if not consciousness, briefly, and this can throw you off in terms of where you are and where you're heading.

It can happen to anyone, not just older chaps (and he isn't that old at 51). (the pilot is in a medically induced coma at present, just for those who might have wondered)

It was very very clear from watching the footage from various angles that he was not in complete control of his aircraft towards the point of impact, but though he was probably doing his best in the few seconds from top of loop to ground to avoid hitting anyone.

The crowd was quite some distance from the carriageway; there has been speculation he was trying to put it down in the bushes/trees alongside but did not manage it.

There was an ejector seat in place apparently but when in a situation like this a good pilot will probably try and wrestle back control to the last instant if he thinks he may be able to avoid hitting people, rather than abandon ship as it were, leaving the plane to cause maximum carnage.

I'm not saying it didn't cause carnage. I just assume, because he sounds a thoroughly decent man, that he didn't eject because there was still an inkling of a chance to save the situation if he remained on board.

Or maybe he just didn't have time. It is obvious though that he was pulling back on the stick as far as it could go when he hit the deck. The nose was right up. But the plane hadn't enough power.

What I'm trying to say is, there was no intention to put people at risk. Crossing the road there ought to have taken a split second. He is a hugely experienced pilot. Error of judgment is possible however I feel it's more likely that something, either medical or mechanical, went horribly wrong.

[blueshoes]

Thanks for the explanation, Stephanie. He was performing a dangerous manoeuvre. Everything you described is well within the realms of possibility. Did he perform the loop-de-loop high enough off the ground to allow him to recover if any one of those things you described happened?

Somehow showing off comes to mind.

[blueshoes]

He tried to pull up when he was in the bushes. Not land in it. If he went into the bushes like you said, maybe only he would have died. Great he did not eject. Hero.

[StephanieBeacham]

What I mean is, in simplest terms, the manoeuvre would have been planned and cleared with the airshow organisers. It would have involved a transit of the road, taking a split second, plus some fancy stuff over in the area above the fields.

He will have begun the manoeuvre in good faith and at some point, it went wrong, and that could have been on the way up, at the top or on the way down but probably one of the first. After that he had to try and recover the bird and so the whole descent you see on there would likely have been part of the struggle not to crash - it was never a sudden 'Oh, think I'll put it down on that road' situation.

It was never even a 'think I'll line up along the road', either.

The road was not meant to be part of this, apart from getting to and from the other side where there were no houses or people at all.

There are always roads near to airfields, airshows - people have to get there somehow.
It all needs to be addressed in the light, or shadow, rather, of this incident to try and do whatever is necessary to prevent a repeat of this.

[blueshoes]

He was never meant to crash into the road but He Did. That negates everything you just said.