If I go to an air display I am perfectly happy to watch any ‘historic’ aircraft perform mainly in level flight. It is sufficient for me to see and hear it in its natural environment. If I get to watch it start up, taxi out, take off and land then so much the better. I do not need to see it thrown around the sky just to prove it is still capable of high energy manoeuvers which IMHO are just as much a reflection of the pilot’s abilities as the aircraft’s, possibly more so. Throughout the entire history of manned flight there have been untold numbers of fatal crashes, not just at public events, where the aircraft’s flight profile in otherwise perfect conditions has failed to take sufficient account of the proximity to the ground. I know this has been said before, but I thought it worthy of repetition following on from #240.
Tough subject.
If we limit air shows to straight and level flight are we really reducing the risk? Aircraft are fatally lost in take-off, landing and straight and level manoeuvres as well as aerobatics. I can think of several aircraft that have been lost in hanger fires.
Where do we draw the line ?
If we make air shows boring gate attendance will reduce and they will cease to operate.
We have to put faith in the operators and pilots that sufficient has been done to minimise any risk,
and accept that some risk will always exist.
Since 1989 I have personally witnessed 3 accidents only one of which was fatal.
We hear about the accidents, no one mentions the thousands of hours of safe flying.
Sign In
