|Mainly For Brummies But All Are Welcome To Join In The Birmingham Fun & Chat|
This is the place where Brummies used to chat about Birmingham old and new along with anything else that interests us. We have Quizzes, Pizzas, Local History, News, Politics, Wedding Cake, Plum Pudding, Champagne, Easter Eggs and, above all, Respect for our fellow members.
The air display was a vanity driven (showing off) event, not necessary and not regulated in the same way as commercial aircraft operations, I would say that the aircraft owner and the pilot are entirely responsible for the deaths and damage caused by their aircraft to persons not attending the event.
Accident or not, it wouldn't have happened if the aircraft wasn't performing unneccesary manouvres for the sole purpose of showng off.
Such displays have to be analysed turn by turn before they can get approval to go ahead. Surely one of the failure scenarios would have included the very unlikely event that an aircraft would crash into a busy road.
If that possibillity exists, how can approval be given?
The possibility that something bad COULD happen exists in many situations including those which are controlled, such as motor racing events and those that are not. If we are to consider the argument in the last paragraph to have any sense then it would stop all events where there is the remotest possibility of anything bad happening. Following that decision then we would have to consider whether we bring the same consideration into play with other potentially less dangerous events. We would end up with no private cars (because of all the potential deaths that COULD happen) and , of course, no travelling by plane. Mind you, provided proper public transport was provided then the first of these would be a good thing as it would decrease global warming.
Quite true Mike, but my points were that there was no point to the activity of the crashed jet and it was given special permission to carry out the pointless aerobatics in the vicinity of a busy road.
It took off, did things that weren't necessary solely for the amusement of a crowd and then crashed into the ground.
Under the rules of air displays the crowd on the ground are given special consideration when choreographing the display to reduce or eliminate the risk of an aircraft hitting them.
I want to know why the same consideration doesn't appear to have been given to the people on the highway.
Most aircraft flights are carried out in a stable horizontal manner with the intention of moving the aircraft and contents safely to a distant destination.
As far as I know, even the worst motor racing disaster didn't involve killing people a mile away from the circuit.
I don't think I could take exception to any of the points you raised, but what I was trying to say was that the "possibility" of something happening cannot automatically exclude any activity because very few things are genuinely impossible. Sure, air displays have to be specifically approved , but, the way government today works , in the future other activities could easily also fall into that category, and thus also be banned if it was "possible" that a serious accident could occur. Presumably the authorities, after consideration, thought that the possibilty of such an accident was minimal.
I suppose that would come under Risk Assessment.
It seems unlikely that such a risk will ever be considered minimal at future air displays.
The email of the species is more deadly than the mail.
An interim report from the AAIB
The Final Report.
So many things were wrong but mainly it was lack of speed prior to, and lack of height at the point of, the manoeuvre which caused the plane to strike the ground.
"Aircraft Accident Report AAR 1/2017 - G-BXFI"