ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th August 2015, 12:37 PM   #41
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,614
Originally Posted by Duffy Moon View Post
Avro Vulcan XH558 was due to appear at Shoreham shortly after the crash.
This appearance was cancelled and it went onto its next appointments at Bournemouth and Dawlish.
I saw (and more importantly heard) it at Dawlish, and that was before the Shoreham stuff.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 12:47 PM   #42
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,266
Is it time to end "air shows" ... they cost VASTY more then any income they produce (not even counting death payouts) and I see no useful purpose for them.
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 12:50 PM   #43
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,614
Originally Posted by Yeggster View Post
Is it time to end "air shows" ... they cost VASTY more then any income they produce (not even counting death payouts) and I see no useful purpose for them.
I do see a useful purpose for them, and I'm not sure how you can fail to.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 01:04 PM   #44
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,266
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
I do see a useful purpose for them, and I'm not sure how you can fail to.
Please explain I try to have an open mind ... the entertainment value is depreciated by the MILLIONS of dollars is costs (IMO) ... I can watch bulldozers and backhoes at constructions sites for free and it's JUST as entertain IMO

The risk of life outweighs the value even excluding the HUGE public cash and environmental cost
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:13 PM   #45
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
A high speed stall and pancaking into the ground is not pushing it to its limits? You're right - well over its limits would be a more accurate description.
What a nice example of selective quoting. What I actually said in full was:

"Having been designed and deployed as a front-line fighter, I can assure you that the relatively gentle manoeuvres performed at airshows are not even remotely pushing it to its limits."
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:17 PM   #46
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Yeggster View Post
Is it time to end "air shows" ... they cost VASTY more then any income they produce (not even counting death payouts) and I see no useful purpose for them.
Assuming this isn't satire, presumably you have proof of the above claim?
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:22 PM   #47
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 85,065
Originally Posted by Yeggster View Post
Is it time to end "air shows" ... they cost VASTY more then any income they produce (not even counting death payouts) and I see no useful purpose for them.
Why would there be airshows if they don't make a profit? Who could afford to put them on?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:25 PM   #48
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,266
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why would there be airshows if they don't make a profit? Who could afford to put them on?
Check it the gate does not pay for the fuel and the pilots wages .. never mind the payouts for unintentional deaths.
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:33 PM   #49
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The limits aren't the be-all and end all. If I drive down the motorway at 170mph I'm not safe just because my car can do 185. What's more pertinent are things like this:

Yes, one plane is not the same as a whole bunch of them but clearly there are significant concerns about the surrounding area.
Yes, funnily enough there is a huge difference between a single aircraft performing aerobatics, and multiple aircraft doing so in close formation.

Quote:
And if the risk factor is currently perfectly acceptable I wonder why the CAA would say:
A rather irrational knee-jerk pandering to PR.

Quote:
Irrelevant. Pilots will always make errors, old machinery will always fail. Hence, don't fly upside-down over busy roads.
It's now being suggested that the pilot was flying outside the area he should have been flying in. You make flying upside-down sound like playing Russian roulette with five bullets in the gun. It's not.

Quote:
Clearly it wasn't remote enough. You talk like the chances of a 60 year old plane flying upside down above a busy road then crashing are about the same as being hit by a meteor. Well, they're not. If the chances of a plane crashing was as minuscule as you make out there wouldn't be any regulations other than the plane's upkeep and pilot's experience.
There are a combination of factors that make fatal crashed rare, and fatal to people on the ground even more rare. To reiterate: These are the first fatalities on the ground at a UK airshow since 1952. More people on the ground have died as a result of result of military training,commercial airline, and private flying accidents. Maybe we should ban them, as well.

Quote:
As I already pointed out, there have been three fatal incidents this year and who knows how many crashes. When a single crash has the potential to kill dozens then it makes sense not to fly directly over people whilst performing stunts.
Existing restrictions mean they already don't fly over airshow crowds. What do you want, a five mile exclusion zone , or some other ridiculous measure to effectively put an end to these nasty dangerous airshows?

Quote:
So what are these freak combination of factors? What methods have you used to discount the possibility of a single factor? The upshot is, the point is moot. Had the plane not been flying above a road or inhabited area the disaster would not have happened. It's a simple concept.
That you fail to recognise the obvious combination of multiple factors doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Quote:
Wow, that's a revelation. I really did think that over 1700 people a year die as a result of air show crashes. That's my argument foiled, drat!
No, but it demonstrates your lack of perspective and undertsnding of relative risks.

Quote:
So anyway, it's easily solved. If as a result of this accident the regulations are examined and deemed satisfactory then I will come back on this thread and post that I must have been mistaken as to the risk factor as people more knowledgeable than me have deemed it safe. If, however, the regulations are tightened to involve further restrictions regarding flying over inhabited areas then I'm sure you'll be back and posting that your assessment of the risk factor was quite simply wrong. I'm sure you'll be amenable to this.
Which is pretty meaningless. Already tight restrictions resulted in 63 years without any fatalities on the ground at a UK airshow, whereas other countries with less stringent resgulations haven't been so lucky.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 24th August 2015 at 02:48 PM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:37 PM   #50
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Yeggster View Post
Check it the gate does not pay for the fuel and the pilots wages .. never mind the payouts for unintentional deaths.
Absolute bollocks. Most if not all airshows make a profit, and furthermore many donate those profits to charity. In the case of Shoreham, profits go to the Royal Air Forces Association.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:42 PM   #51
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,871
A lot of the air show stuff is voluntary
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:46 PM   #52
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,614
Originally Posted by Yeggster View Post
Please explain I try to have an open mind ... the entertainment value is depreciated by the MILLIONS of dollars is costs (IMO) ... I can watch bulldozers and backhoes at constructions sites for free and it's JUST as entertain IMO
The "IMO" is the kicker here. I find airshows entertaining. Indeed it might almost be termed exciting, to hear and see. I don't find bulldozers and backhoes entertaining in the slightest. So what you're really saying is that you think they should be banned, because you don't find them entertaining enough. Yours is not a world I want to live in.

The cost in lives is absolutely minimal. Ten or twenty people killed in the last half a century in this country. Compared to the 700 or so that die every year falling down the stairs, that number barely registers.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:54 PM   #53
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,614
Originally Posted by Yeggster View Post
Check it the gate does not pay for the fuel and the pilots wages .. never mind the payouts for unintentional deaths.
As has been pointed out, the pilots are often volunteers. In the case of the Red Arrows, they are RAF pilots, and I assume it is seen as a recruiting tool, or PR exercise.

The pilots want to preserve classic planes and display them, and the public want to see them. You want it banned because of a frankly trivial number of deaths (the number is trivial, of course, not the individual cases).
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:26 PM   #54
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Yes, funnily enough there is a huge difference between a single aircraft performing aerobatics, and multiple aircraft doing so in close formation.
A huge difference? Really? How many planes are going to crash at any one time? The Red Arrows didn't refuse to perform there on the basis that they might crash into each other, rather that the chance of any of them getting into difficulties was too high a risk to take due to the lack of safe landing areas.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
A rather irrational knee-jerk pandering to PR.
So the CAA is irrational whereas you have the answers.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's now being suggested that the pilot was flying outside the area he should have been flying in. You make flying upside-down sound like playing Russian roulette with five bullets in the gun. It's not.
No, flying upside down is perfectly safe, any fool can do it.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
There are a combination of factors that make fatal crashed rare, and fatal to people on the ground even more rare. To reiterate: These are the first fatalities on the ground at a UK airshow since 1952. More people on the ground have died as a result of result of military training,commercial airline, and private flying accidents. Maybe we should ban them, as well.
Maybe you should be addressing someone else. I never mentioned banning air shows, in fact I said the opposite. Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Existing restrictions mean they already don't fly over airshow crowds. What do you want, a five mile exclusion zone , or some other ridiculous measure to effectively put an end to these nasty dangerous airshows?
A straw man with a little bit of hysteria thrown in. You really aren't sure of your position, are you, because if you were you'd be able to address what I actually said. I already told you my suggestion, it's there in black and white, and it does not involve five mile exclusion zones and it does not reference air show crowds.

And furthermore, do you really think it's a great idea to have plane performing aerobatics a couple of hundred feet above a busy road even if they don't crash? Do you not consider that this might be a distraction when driving at 70mph+? Or are a few deaths acceptable here too, as opposed to making some simple changes to make air shows safer?

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
That you fail to recognise the obvious combination of multiple factors doesn't mean they didn't exist.
You stated that this freak combination of factors exists. I asked you what these factors were. Clearly you're unable to tell me.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, but it demonstrates your lack of perspective and undertsnding of relative risks.
What, your straw men demonstrates a failure of my understanding? Interesting.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Which is pretty meaningless. Already tight restrictions resulted in 63 years without any fatalities on the ground at a UK airshow, whereas other countries with less stringent resgulations haven't been so lucky.
No, I didn't think you'd be amenable to that suggestion. After all, the regulating bodies are irrational whereas you have got your finger on the pulse.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:34 PM   #55
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,676
Originally Posted by baron View Post
No, flying upside down is perfectly safe, any fool can do it.
Would that also apply to actually flying a plane?

You're comment to flying this vintage plane "to it's limits" in off base. That maneuver was no where close to this planes limits.

Perhaps you should change your opinion to any aircraft instead of vintage.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:50 PM   #56
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,360
Has anyone heard if the plane may have lost engine power ( flameout ) during the maneuver?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 04:12 PM   #57
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,398
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Would that also apply to actually flying a plane?

You're comment to flying this vintage plane "to it's limits" in off base. That maneuver was no where close to this planes limits.

Perhaps you should change your opinion to any aircraft instead of vintage.
How do you know the limits of a 60 year old second hand ex fighter?
Are they the same as a new one?
From the results it would seem it wasn't well within its limits.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 05:02 PM   #58
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,676
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
How do you know the limits of a 60 year old second hand ex fighter?
Are they the same as a new one?
From the results it would seem it wasn't well within its limits.
Mostly from the maneuver itself. This "loop" is not really taxing at all. The loads are low as long as the pilots timing is right (as goes with a brand new aircraft).

The results do not show that it actually stressed the limit of the aircraft. Something obviously went wrong but, I've seen no evidence of failure on the aircraft part. If you have, by all means share.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 24th August 2015 at 05:04 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 05:17 PM   #59
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Presumably the 1988 Ramstein air show, when aircraft of the the Italian Air Force display team collided, resulting in 67 fatalities. This was during a manoeuvre towards the crowd. I believe that the manoeuvre would not have been allowed at a UK airshow in light of restrictions first introduced after the 1952 Farnborough crash.
The joke at the time was.....

Q: What the best thing about German Air shows.
A: Audience participation.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 05:20 PM   #60
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
I love how peopl who wouldn't know MC/I from Md2x/dt2 are telling us the limits of an airframe...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 11:10 PM   #61
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Has anyone heard if the plane may have lost engine power ( flameout ) during the maneuver?

There doesn't appear to be, based on my listening of the audio. But perhaps more experienced people can chime in.


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The results do not show that it actually stressed the limit of the aircraft. Something obviously went wrong but, I've seen no evidence of failure on the aircraft part. If you have, by all means share.

From my armchair, the leading reason at this point seems pilot error. If one looks at the video the aircraft started its loop from what appears to be a fairly low altitude, and the pilot simply misjudged how much height he'd have remaining after the maneuver. It wouldn't be the first time of that sort of error occurring.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 11:12 PM   #62
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,398
CAA has grounded all Hunters and have banned vintage aircraft from performing aeronautics.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 11:29 PM   #63
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Vintage jets will not be allowed to perform "high-energy aerobatics" over land at air shows after the Shoreham crash, regulators have said.
The Civil Aviation Authority said such planes would be "limited to flypasts", and all Hawker Hunter jets have been temporarily grounded.
At least 11 people died after a Hawker Hunter crashed into traffic on the A27 in West Sussex on Saturday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34044383
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 11:31 PM   #64
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
I wonder how this will affect....
Quote:
Our 2015 air show commemorates the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. The flying display will tell the story of RAF Duxford's pivotal role in this historic WW2 aerial battle.

Watch Spitfires flying in formation

Experience the spectacle of 20 Spitfires taking off from our historic airfield, flying in mass formation as they did in the Battle of Britain.

Feel the tension as we recreate a squadron scramble, with pilots running towards their waiting aircraft, and then witness Spitfires swooping in to chase off the enemy aircraft.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/events/iwm-dux...rsary-air-show
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 11:40 PM   #65
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,871
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
I wonder how this will affect....


http://www.iwm.org.uk/events/iwm-dux...rsary-air-show
Should still be fine I imagine
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 11:45 PM   #66
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Should still be fine I imagine
I hope so, I'm contemplating going.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 03:35 AM   #67
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by baron View Post
A huge difference? Really? How many planes are going to crash at any one time? The Red Arrows didn't refuse to perform there on the basis that they might crash into each other, rather that the chance of any of them getting into difficulties was too high a risk to take due to the lack of safe landing areas.
Flying in close formation runs the risk of two or more aircraft colliding - even you acknowledge that. There is therefore a much greater risk with a formation team of aircraft (e.g. the Red Arrows) than a single aircraft (e.g. a Hawker Hunter). In fact, the very Daily Mail article you cited also says:

"An Royal Air Force source confirmed to MailOnline that Shoreham would be unsuitable for a Red Arrow display.

He said: 'It is not a large enough space for the Red Arrows. An aircraft like the Hunter doesn't need a large space. If it was big enough we would not refuse.' "

Funny how you ignored that bit.

Quote:
So the CAA is irrational whereas you have the answers.
Grounding the Hunters until they determine if there was a potentially repeatable mechanical problem is sensible enough. Banning all jet aerobatics is an over-reaction in the face of the first incident of this type in 63 years.

Quote:
No, flying upside down is perfectly safe, any fool can do it.
You do realise that virtually all of those who do this sort of thing are ex-military and/or professional pilots who practice rigorously?

Quote:
Maybe you should be addressing someone else. I never mentioned banning air shows, in fact I said the opposite. Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate.
No, you just want restrictions that will effecively ban many of them.

Quote:
And furthermore, do you really think it's a great idea to have plane performing aerobatics a couple of hundred feet above a busy road even if they don't crash? Do you not consider that this might be a distraction when driving at 70mph+? Or are a few deaths acceptable here too, as opposed to making some simple changes to make air shows safer?
Presumably you would have a citation for any deaths attributable to that cause? I won't hold my breath, of course...

Quote:
You stated that this freak combination of factors exists. I asked you what these factors were. Clearly you're unable to tell me.
Well, since you are incapable of working them out yourself, in the first instance there is the fact that the road is angled in relation to the runway and also the direction the aircraft (which in itself appears to be angled away from the runway, possible outside of the display box). As I already said, a second or two either want on the actual flightpath, and the aircraft would have either hit the ground before it reached the road, or overshot it. Similarly, if the flightpath had been a couple of degrees either way, and impact at the same point in time would almost certainly have overshot or fallen short.

It's still not clear whether the pilot came out of the loop too low, and if so way, or why he was unable to recover the aircraft even at the level it was. The sudden downwards motion of the aircraft is also currently unexplained. We don't know if this was pilot error, pilot confusion, a bird strike, or a mechanical issue.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 03:49 AM   #68
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,398
Hey, the fan boys like to get off to their jets. A dozen innocent deaths every few decades is a small price to pay.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 03:53 AM   #69
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,871
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Hey, the fan boys like to get off to their jets. A dozen innocent deaths every few decades is a small price to pay.
Dozen?

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 04:04 AM   #70
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,614
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Hey, the fan boys like to get off to their jets. A dozen innocent deaths every few decades is a small price to pay.
I'm not sure I understand the tone of this. A larger number of people are killed at funfairs, but nobody seems to be calling for the banning of those.
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 04:51 AM   #71
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Hey, the fan boys like to get off to their jets. A dozen innocent deaths every few decades is a small price to pay.
No, 11 deaths on the ground in 63 years. Out of hundreds of airshows, and thousands of flying hours.

Meanwhile, 24,500 people have been killed on Britains roads in the last ten years alone, and around 1,600 in our coastal waters in the same time period. Around 30 people die each year in non-commercial air accidents. The fatality rate for motorcycles is around 5-6 times that of light aircraft.

There is some serious lack of perspective being shown in this thread.

Funnily enough, the CAA previously reported:

"Air displays are claimed to be the second most popular spectator activity in the UK after football with 6.5m people reportedly attending displays in 2002."

Last edited by Information Analyst; 25th August 2015 at 05:27 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 04:52 AM   #72
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Rat View Post
I'm not sure I understand the tone of this. A larger number of people are killed at funfairs, but nobody seems to be calling for the banning of those.
It's the Tryanny of I Don't Like It.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 25th August 2015 at 05:21 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 05:49 AM   #73
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,398
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's the Tyranny of I Don't Like It.
As opposed to the false equivalence of other forms of death that are always trotted out.

I am sure the two footballers on their way to a match were expecting to be hit by someone playing around in an old jet. We accept the risks of driving on roads as there is a distinct benefit to ourselves. Being hit by an old airoplane when the man who was showing off for people got it wrong isn't usually a factor in a decision to drive somewhere.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 06:13 AM   #74
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.
Moderator
 
Rat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,614
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
As opposed to the false equivalence of other forms of death that are always trotted out.
Always? Like they have been on every previous occasion that an airshow accident has killed someone on the ground?
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski
UKLS 1988-
Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.
Rat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 06:25 AM   #75
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
As opposed to the false equivalence of other forms of death that are always trotted out.
Assessing relative risks is quite popular here, e.g. it's why we know that vaccines are a benefit compared to the diseases they protect against. The risks of someone on the ground being killed due to an airshow crash are infinitesimally smaller. Certainly far lower than the risk of a hapless pedestrian being mown down by a vehicle mounting the pavement.

Quote:
I am sure the two footballers on their way to a match were expecting to be hit by someone playing around in an old jet. We accept the risks of driving on roads as there is a distinct benefit to ourselves. Being hit by an old airoplane when the man who was showing off for people got it wrong isn't usually a factor in a decision to drive somewhere.
Even though the risks of dying in an RTA are far far far far far higher than being hit by any aircraft, vintage or otherwise? I'm sure the dead in this crash were so relieved to have been killed by tumbling APCs, rather than falling aircraft.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 25th August 2015 at 06:33 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 06:44 AM   #76
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
I saw the smoke plume when that Vulcan crashed up in Glenview here near Chicago. And that wasn't during acrobatics or even where the show was; He was just landing at the NAS.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 07:10 AM   #77
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Flying in close formation runs the risk of two or more aircraft colliding - even you acknowledge that. There is therefore a much greater risk with a formation team of aircraft (e.g. the Red Arrows) than a single aircraft (e.g. a Hawker Hunter). In fact, the very Daily Mail article you cited also says:

"An Royal Air Force source confirmed to MailOnline that Shoreham would be unsuitable for a Red Arrow display.

He said: 'It is not a large enough space for the Red Arrows. An aircraft like the Hunter doesn't need a large space. If it was big enough we would not refuse.' "

Funny how you ignored that bit.
I didn't ignore it, I linked to the very article you quoted. The point is, the Red Arrows stated that the surrounding area offered no safe place to land if a plane got into trouble.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Grounding the Hunters until they determine if there was a potentially repeatable mechanical problem is sensible enough. Banning all jet aerobatics is an over-reaction in the face of the first incident of this type in 63 years.
So the CAA are over-reacting as well as acting illogically. You seem to have no respect for one group of professionals but place almost religious faith in the other.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
You do realise that virtually all of those who do this sort of thing are ex-military and/or professional pilots who practice rigorously?
Is this the professional who another veteran pilot describes as a 'complete lunatic' and a show-off?

Quote:
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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...own-100ft.html

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, you just want restrictions that will effecively ban many of them.
If a restriction against flying over inhabited areas and a prohibition against people who fly like lunatics would put an end to air shows, well, boo hoo.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Presumably you would have a citation for any deaths attributable to that cause? I won't hold my breath, of course...
You want evidence that being distracted by an airplane flying upside down 100ft above your head whilst driving at 70mph is dangerous? Here's hoping you don't drive, for your own and everybody else's safety.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Well, since you are incapable of working them out yourself, in the first instance there is the fact that the road is angled in relation to the runway and also the direction the aircraft (which in itself appears to be angled away from the runway, possible outside of the display box). As I already said, a second or two either want on the actual flightpath, and the aircraft would have either hit the ground before it reached the road, or overshot it. Similarly, if the flightpath had been a couple of degrees either way, and impact at the same point in time would almost certainly have overshot or fallen short.
And if that car had pulled out a second later as I drove along the road at 170mph it wouldn't have been a problem. If this, if that, with no concern for the facts.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
It's still not clear whether the pilot came out of the loop too low, and if so way, or why he was unable to recover the aircraft even at the level it was. The sudden downwards motion of the aircraft is also currently unexplained. We don't know if this was pilot error, pilot confusion, a bird strike, or a mechanical issue.
We don't, no, but one thing we do know is that if he'd been flying over fields or the sea there would have been a maximum of one fatality.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 07:38 AM   #78
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I didn't ignore it, I linked to the very article you quoted. The point is, the Red Arrows stated that the surrounding area offered no safe place to land if a plane got into trouble.
That is totally not what the official source said.

Quote:
Is this the professional who another veteran pilot describes as a 'complete lunatic' and a show-off?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...own-100ft.html
So one pilot finds him at fault, while another quoted in theame pilot doesn't. Even if the former is 100% right (I've already said that the aircraft seems to have been outside the area it shoudl have been in), then this is a mattert of not adhering to the current restrictions, not that those restrictions aren't tight enough. After all, we don't ban all cars because of the huge number of drivers who do so drunk or who fall asleep at the wheel, do we?

Quote:
You want evidence that being distracted by an airplane flying upside down 100ft above your head whilst driving at 70mph is dangerous? Here's hoping you don't drive, for your own and everybody else's safety.
Failure to produce citations for any such distraction noted.

Quote:
We don't, no, but one thing we do know is that if he'd been flying over fields or the sea there would have been a maximum of one fatality.
You must have a real barrel of laughs sitting at home and not doing anything even remotely risky.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 25th August 2015 at 07:48 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 08:05 AM   #79
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
That is totally not what the official source said.
Really?

Quote:
The Royal Air Force display team has declined requests to appear at the show, even though it is organised by the Royal Air Forces Association, because the surrounding area is too built up, with insufficient room for aircraft to crash-land in an emergency.

One former air show promoter said the Red Arrows regarded the site as dangerous because “any accident would be a disaster there – there is nowhere for them to put a plane down without killing someone”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...on-flying.html

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
So one pilot finds him at fault, while another quoted in theame pilot doesn't. Even if the former is 100% right (I've already said that the aircraft seems to have been outside the area it shoudl have been in), then this is a mattert of not adhering to the current restrictions, not that those restrictions aren't tight enough. After all, we don't ban all cars because of the huge number of drivers who do so drunk or who fall asleep at the wheel, do we?
Here you go, talking about bans again. No, we don't ban cars because of drunk drivers but it's interesting that after defending the pilot and calling him a top-of-his-game professional, you're now equating him to a drunk driver as the facts begin to emerge.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Failure to produce citations for any such distraction noted.
Don't embarrass yourself any more on this point, I'm beginning to feel bad for you.

Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
You must have a real barrel of laughs sitting at home and not doing anything even remotely risky.
And I suppose you're posting whilst hanging from one hand on the Trango Towers. A bit of death don't scare you none, sheeeeet.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 08:43 AM   #80
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 8,955
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Really?

Quote:
The Royal Air Force display team has declined requests to appear at the show, even though it is organised by the Royal Air Forces Association, because the surrounding area is too built up, with insufficient room for aircraft to crash-land in an emergency.

One former air show promoter said the Red Arrows regarded the site as dangerous because “any accident would be a disaster there – there is nowhere for them to put a plane down without killing someone”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/avia...on-flying.html
Try again. That's not any official source, but rather your anonymous "former air show promoter."

The Mail quoted an actual official source:

"An Royal Air Force source confirmed to MailOnline that Shoreham would be unsuitable for a Red Arrow display.

He said: 'It is not a large enough space for the Red Arrows. An aircraft like the Hunter doesn't need a large space. If it was big enough we would not refuse.' "

He's talking about the area needed to perform a multi-aircraft display in, as opposes to a single aircraft. It's not rocket science.

Quote:
Here you go, talking about bans again. No, we don't ban cars because of drunk drivers but it's interesting that after defending the pilot and calling him a top-of-his-game professional, you're now equating him to a drunk driver as the facts begin to emerge.
Lots of people have been quoted about the proficiency of the pilot, others have questioned what he did on the day. I also mentioned falling asleep at the wheel, but obviously you prefer to jump on the more extreme alternative. The bottom line is that these are the first ground fatalities at a UK airshow for 63 years, which in terms of risk is absolutely minuscule. It's a tragedy for those actually killed and their families, but they pale into comparison with everyday risks that you don't noticed because your normalised to them.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.