Seven dead after Hawker Hunter hits cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
It really doesn't.
Ground the aircraft in question.

We are getting far to risk adverse. Where people cannot experience many things, that we should be able to. It is an extremely bizarre notion that most of the rest of the world hasn't followed so far.

Accidents happen, things go wrong. Yes it's a tragedy, that doesn't mean anything should change(it depends on outcome of investigation) we should not strive for zero risk, which is where we are heading, risk should be and absolutely is needed as part of live.
 
[TW]Fox;28480625 said:
No, not really. It seems the CAA hold it as well.

It is absolutely appropriate that they introduce temporary measures until what went wrong is understood and how to mitigate it in future has been understood.

It is not 'absolutely bizarre' to find it unacceptable that 11 people are killed at a recreational event they were not even attending.
Click to expand...

Well we need to ban road travel then incase anyone gets hurt when they didn't intend to.

Why do we not mitigate cars to only do 50mph instead of 100+? Would be safer, im sure more than 11 people in 50 years have died in car accidents
 
Boycey0211 said:
Well we need to ban road travel then incase anyone gets hurt when they didn't intend to.
Click to expand...

The difference being if you drive a car, you have assumed the risk of driving a car. If you attend a Formula 1 race, you have assumed the risk of attending a formula 1 race.

If you drive a car you have not assumed the risk of being killed by a stunt plane.

This is why it isn't the same as 'a road accident'.

I'm not saying 'OMGZ BAN AIR SHOWS' I'm saying the short notice measures imposed by the CAA seem reasonable until it is understood what went wrong.
 
[TW]Fox;28480509 said:
When you set out on a car journey you accept that there is a risk you may be involved in a road traffic accident perhaps through no fault of your own. You make that decision as part of the decision to drive.

However one risk you do not consider and do not accept is the risk of driving along an A road, minding your own business and then being involved a horrific accident caused by a display that you had no involvement with and no interest in going horribly wrong. IMHO this is why something had to be done in the short term until more is known - it's much more than previous air show incidents or other risky things gone wrong.

It is absolutely unacceptable that there should be *any* risk to the life of totally unrelated people as a result of something being done purely for entertainment.
Click to expand...

Not entirely sure thats true tbh. You dont just "accept" injury only from other cars when getting in a car. you could be hit at a crossing by a train, a falling tree, a moron throwing a brick off a bridge.

Nor is it that every time you get in a car do you consciously accept "I might die to get this chippy back warm". And even if you do think that, it doesn't excuse a mechanical failure in your car on the journey home.

Your post seems odd because it suggests you have to be directly involved or have to have signed some sort of mental waiver in the cause of your death for it to be "ok".

I agree risk should be minimised but I'm not sure your thinking there is correct.

thenewoc said:
So reading between the lines a little it would seem wrong that the designated restricted air space and some area within that designated as the show area would be wrong in having been defined to take in the area over roads and other built up infrastructure such as properties.
Click to expand...
Every airfield or display area has infrastructure within the designated air space.

The main issue is usually height of surrounding buildings which dictates the individual min height value for each airfield. Clearly the Hunter dropped below this height but thats a question of "why this time" not of a blanket (and undefined) ban imho. Although it makes sense to ban Hunters until the cause of the accident are found out.

scorza said:
Some dude from the CAA getting hauled over the coals by Cathy Newman on C4 news for playing the old PR card "it's too early to comment on anything"
Click to expand...
tbh it is too early, but it doesn't fit the news cycle so they try and dig. Even "straight forward" cases of near misses with plenty of data and pilot accounts can take weeks/months. Let alone a deadly crash in an older jet with a pilot who is now in a coma.
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28480663 said:
The difference being if you drive a car, you have assumed the risk of driving a car. If you attend a Formula 1 race, you have assumed the risk of attending a formula 1 race.

If you drive a car you have not assumed the risk of being killed by a stunt plane.

This is why it isn't the same as 'a road accident'.

I'm not saying 'OMGZ BAN AIR SHOWS' I'm saying the short notice measures imposed by the CAA seem reasonable until it is understood what went wrong.
Click to expand...

It's a terrible analogy, what happens to thousands of people not driving and get hit by vehicles, some of which aren't even crossing the road. You don't expect a car to come though your shop wall and kill you. But it happens.

ban cars, those people didn't accept the risk.
 
Last edited:
Nutella33 said:
Snip

Every airfield or display area has infrastructure within the designated air space.

The main issue is usually height of surrounding buildings which dictates the individual min height value for each airfield. Clearly the Hunter dropped below this height but thats a question of "why this time" not of a blanket (and undefined) ban imho. Although it makes sense to ban Hunters until the cause of the accident are found out.
Click to expand...

Clearly it doesn't make any sense to have a set of rules that protect designated spectators within the show ground but as long as the pilot is within the designated fly zone someone could have made that zone include public areas which aren't afforded the same protection as designated spectators. Surely we're all people whether members of the public or paying spectators and if safety measures are deemed necessary for a designated crowd attending an event then they should equally apply to those not attending.
 
Glaucus said:
Reasons why we should carry on as we did before
Click to expand...

Best you write to the CAA and explain why they are wrong and you are right.

Do you seriously not think it's prudent to stop this sort of display until such time as the CAA is assured of the risk and the circumstances involved in this accident?

I mean really?
 
Oh look failed to debate your silly analogy and switch to rubbish jibes.

And no, seeing as it's happened once in how many decades, affecting one single type of aircraft, so no the risk of it happening again in the next 6months is extremely slim, while they carry out investigation.
Putting restrictions on that aircraft is far more sensible and not over reaction.
 
Well yes - ground the type that crashed , restrict everything until they investigate the WHY then put something permanent in place.


heres a thought - how will the redbull air race happen now??
 
thenewoc said:
Clearly it doesn't make any sense to have a set of rules that protect designated spectators within the show ground but as long as the pilot is within the designated fly zone someone could have made that zone include public areas which aren't afforded the same protection as designated spectators.
Click to expand...

It was because of the rules in place as they are now that the loop was carried out far from the airfield and thus hit the road and not a possible empty field, whilst the pilot was in the designated fly zone. The issue here is not the rules but that the Hunter departed flight (for whatever reason), causing it to break the rules and kill people.
The reason the event has some extra rules is due to the concentration of people. Even a busy road doesnt match up to hundreds of people in a small space.

Surely we're all people whether members of the public or paying spectators and if safety measures are deemed necessary for a designated crowd attending an event then they should equally apply to those not attending
Click to expand...
erm no. Thats completely unenforceable and bizzare. such a rule would stop any public events at all. As it stands the airshow did everything legally reasonable.

The aircraft met CAA regulations and had a qualified pilot. It wasn't on the face of it, a dangerous manoeuvre (a loop is pretty basic) and they had fly zone regulations for the surrounding area.

The problem was with the Aircraft or the pilots influences. Its terrible it hit where it did but unless you want to stop everything in case of risk (and whether you've personally accepted risk of everything ever or not is irrelevant imho) we should stop the aircraft type flying (like the normal response is) until lessons can be learnt and then modify rules or restrictions from there.

Before an investigation and with such a blanket undefined ban is not the way, nor is enforcing impossible rules, on what is a very safe event. Its just unfortunate, although expected, that it has had such a knee jerk reaction
 
Last edited:
I cant work out from that flightplan image that was linked above where the video was taken, doesnt seem at all right to me..
 
Harlequin said:
heres a thought - how will the redbull air race happen now??
Click to expand...

They don't use vintage jets so don't think they are directly affected - although they may get more scrutiny.

I'm not at all surprised with the response so far. I think I saw something about the Gnat and the Hunter being maintained by the same team (they must be feeling very sick right now) - I expect they will be getting a LOT of attention from the authorities.

Two vintage jet crashes in very quick succession, one with multiple fatalaties is going to illicit a strong response.
 
Trig said:
I cant work out from that flightplan image that was linked above where the video was taken, doesnt seem at all right to me..
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess that it was something quickly knocked up by a media outlet. I imagine it has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of formal investigation and constitutes pure speculation.
 
Dis86 said:
Just confirmed that he didn't eject. They're having to be very cautious in case the seat triggers.
Click to expand...

My dad managed to plant one of Martin Baker's finest in a hangar roof when he was in the RN.

<armchairexpert> If the pilot didn't eject, doesn't that indicate he couldn't (medical episode) or wouldn't (trying to get a "disabled" aircraft down safely)? </armchairexpert>
 
How is anyone arguing against a ban on pushing vintage planes to their limits after an incident in which 11 people have died, as a temporary measure until more is known about the circumstances which led to the accident happening?

Oh boo hoo you don't get to see the aeroplanes for a few months.
 
Nutella33 said:
It was because of the rules in place as they are now that the loop was carried out far from the airfield and thus hit the road and not a possible empty field, whilst the pilot was in the designated fly zone. The issue here is not the rules but that the Hunter departed flight (for whatever reason), causing it to break the rules and kill people.
The reason the event has some extra rules is due to the concentration of people. Even a busy road doesnt match up to hundreds of people in a small space.


erm no. Thats completely unenforceable and bizzare. such a rule would stop any public events at all. As it stands the airshow did everything legally reasonable.

The aircraft met CAA regulations and had a qualified pilot. It wasn't on the face of it, a dangerous manoeuvre (a loop is pretty basic) and they had fly zone regulations for the surrounding area.

The problem was with the Aircraft or the pilots influences. Its terrible it hit where it did but unless you want to stop everything in case of risk (and whether you've personally accepted risk of everything ever or not is irrelevant imho) we should stop the aircraft type flying (like the normal response is) until lessons can be learnt and then modify rules or restrictions from there.

Before an investigation and with such a blanket undefined ban is not the way, nor is enforcing impossible rules, on what is a very safe event. Its just unfortunate, although expected, that it has had such a knee jerk reaction
Click to expand...

Erm no, it just means you don't sanction air space for an event unless it's over land which can have access controls on the ground to separate spectators and public from the rest of the show ground. Alternatively it can take place over the sea. If it's deemed not appropriate and prohibited in the rules to be flying over the crowd then they shouldn't be flying over the public. It's crazy that the public should be at more risk than the spectators. There's plenty of fields and countryside that isn't heavily populated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom