Plane stupid

And yes in this case I think the risk was greater than I would have thought prudent.

I´d say risk equals chance times consequence. With consequences of getting hit being that big (death), I´d say being in the path of any low flying aircraft carries a great risk, no matter how small the chance of getting hit.

PS, spoke to the guy standing next to the photographer that lost his life in the glider accident referred to above, some years later. Traumatic would be an understatement for what bystanders witnessed. Some of these witnesses are visitors to this forum.

The key difference between outside and inside is probably insurance. Inside you are covered by the organisers public liability but outside, in a position of risk, I doubt you are covered at all.

I wonder what the numbers are for fatalities and injuries for spectators who actually payed at air shows and were safely behind the safety line ,

More than has been hit outside I bet, Ramstein, Ukraine, Reno, Farnborough. Its like any motor sport, the chance of something going wrong is always there. Just because there is a so called safety barrier, orange jacket or whatever it does not stop something going wrong. The only way to keep people safe at any airshow or for that matter anything with fast moving chunks of metal is to not have them in the first place…..

Too true D1566!! Not the first time interpretatiion has gotten us into trouble!

Religion+human interpretation=conflict

actually Me109g4, you will find most inmates/taxpayers of the UK are not enamoured with it either!!!

Although a great deal of it does not come from the state itself, but is based on people’s interpretation of legislation.

Spitfireman’s warning sign “tops it” for me in this thread!!:D

Hope you are getting better by the way……spotted your avatar.:)

You can’t legislate against stupid.

It would probably be no bad thing if a few dozen (or even a few hundred) of these morons were to be removed from the gene pool.

This discussion reminds me of people who buy houses under flight paths into busy airports then start complaining about the noise and demanding that the airport be closed. My personal view is that people who stand under low flying aircraft on their final approach (when an aircraft is in a critical flight state) are just plain dumb because they are not only putting their own lives at risk but possibly that of pilots and any passengers in aircraft that may have to suddenly manoeuvre to avoid landing with someone’s head attached to their undercarriage. People do have the right to be idiots but when they exercise that right by placing others at risk then it is my suggestion that they be stopped.

So the glider was not on approach to land but doing a high speed low level pass at what 12ft?
An official report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) found the aircraft was flying too low, the court heard. So there were more factors involved in this case than at first appears?
And yes in this case I think the risk was greater than I would have thought prudent.

Mini, look at the big picture. Anyone stood right under the approach to any airfield landing ground/runway will not get decent photos of the landing a/c. Plan view yes, shock value yes. Stand to the left or right 50yds or so, you get a 3/4 on shot with the pilot,serial,camo details just fine. If the a/c encounters wind shear or loss of power you will get the money shot of the jerks being wiped out!!

Matey you stand where ever you wish, because its your human right. Anyone with half a brain will watch you en route!! I will post no more on this strand. Lifes too short.

Looks more like an end!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229961[/ATTACH]

Its a start.

….and when someone gets injured, they won’t be saying that that they took a risk and it’s their fault. No, the next the organiser/property owner/pilot/etc.will hear will be from the PI lawyer working on a CFA……!

So the glider was not on approach to land but doing a high speed low level pass at what 12ft?
An official report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) found the aircraft was flying too low, the court heard. So there were more factors involved in this case than at first appears?
And yes in this case I think the risk was greater than I would have thought prudent.

Not to labour a point but has it ever happened that spectators have had the misfortune of an aircraft landing/crashing on there head’s on the approach path? Apart from one reply regarding a motorcyclist (who probably was just in the wrong place at the right time) I have never heard of such a thing?

Some years ago at Husbands Bosworth. I had been flying one of about six tugs which had launched a completion. There were numerous aviation photographers around the launch and recovery areas waiting for that stunning shot!!
As the various competitors arrived home one photog was stood up high may have been on his car right under the approach. The gliders were at high speed low level to cross the finish line then pull up bleed off speed nice tight circuit and land.

Our man was killed the glider which was damaged pulled up then crashed on the other side of the road. Pilot got out.

You have heard of such a thing now. That photog would have been about the same height as the goons on the fence!!!!!

One life its not a practice, its lights out for good.

I guess you can say that about any incident where someone gets hit by an aeroplane, on the basis that they were not actually trying to get hit.

Are you trying to argue that it is safe enough for you to put yourself in danger?

I am referring to the situation we are discussing, and yes i am saying that given the lack of previous accidents the RISK of being hit is probably smaller than being hit by a bus. I personally would have no problem standing there, but it’s my choice…………..

I wonder what the numbers are for fatalities and injuries for spectators who actually payed at air shows and were safely behind the safety line ,

Those standing in the field are probably not aviation enthusiasts.
As has been said, you don’t actually see very much, much better to stand to one side.
The only practical advantage that I can see, is those wanting continuity shots for video.
Take videos of aircraft on approach, then the next day take videos of them touching down, from inside the venue..

Not to labour a point but has it ever happened that spectators have had the misfortune of an aircraft landing/crashing on there head’s on the approach path? Apart from one reply regarding a motorcyclist (who probably was just in the wrong place at the right time) I have never heard of such a thing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/4141360.stm

Sprang to mind. I’m sure there are others, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=minimans;2151113 …..who probably was just in the wrong place at the right time….. [/QUOTE]

I guess you can say that about any incident where someone gets hit by an aeroplane, on the basis that they were not actually trying to get hit.

Are you trying to argue that it is safe enough for you to put yourself in danger?

This is a pic of the F-16 in the video, as can be seen its lower than it should be, but its not as low as its arrival on Wednesday afternoon. On that arrival it missed the fence by what seemed a few inches (no pics of that landing it really was to low!!)

SOLO-TURK F-16CG 91-0011 by Gaz West, on Flickr

ahhhhhhh and before anyone thinks or says it I’m not a freeloader….I paid to go in the car park Thursday, Friday and Monday…..Wednesday was free anyway….