Those wings are…Tempest! Hilarious

Nope, sorry, you’re wrong,…..it’s clearly the famous “Big Wing” Spitfire thingy that old Duggie B was always harping on about….

Yep, even after the “Mark 12” Mod, the wings do look a little too generous in chord and span… definitley shades of Tempest or (Sea)Fury about them

I see the Kent Messenger seems to think the Spitfire has multiple propellors, and that Rob’s accident at Duxford saw him touch wings with another Mustang. Funny, I could have sworn BBD was “rear ended” by a Skyraider’s wing….

Still, the main thing is that Rob is alive and well, and walked away. Bent Spitfires can always be repaired (subject to having sufficient funds available).

Its built up on two sides of the airport, with a road on a third, and only a relatively small gap on the fourth before more housing. The Telegraph reports that the Red Arrows will not display there..

I am less knowledgeable than Bruce on matters aviation, but the Red Arrows, with nine fast-jet aircraft in close formation, opposition passes etc, have presumably assessed the site on the basis of their own display criteria, and their own risk criteria. Those same criteria may not be as applicable for a single fast-jet display, or for lighter/heavier/faster/slower aircraft types?

Likewise, there are numerous open fields/open Downland to the north west, north, and north east, some very close to the airfield, some further away but there are also some small, and some very large, dense areas of housing in the same directions at varying distances. The river Adur is immediately to the east beyond the on-site show car-parking, but yes, the far (Eastern) bank is a large densely populated area. To the south west, south and south east there is a narrow strip of very dense housing, but also some (small) open fields, and then the beach/sea. The the south coast railway runs just south of the airfield boundary, and almost perpendicular to the runway/display axis too, with regular “branch line” sized trains back and forth throughout the display.

What I am trying to say is that, as with the Red Arrows’ criteria, the space available may be assessed as adequate for some display aircraft, and/or some display maneouvers, but not for others. I suspect most, if not all, airshow venues have similar “risks” around them at varying distances.

It is how those risk are assessed and managed, and how display pilots factor them into their display plans to include sufficient contingency room if things go awry, that is important.

As an aviation enthusoast (nothing more) and a regular spectator at the airshow, Shoreham’s display axis has always seemed to me to be orientated such that it avoids passing over built-up areas as far as is possible (which may be why the hard runway there is orientated in the same direction, as much as being to suit the prevailing wind), and many display acts I have seen there also seem to avoid overflying the surrounding built-up areas as far as possible.

To my mind, the location of Heathrow and Gatwick, relative to urban areas, city centres, railways, main arterial roads etc is no more or less of a risk than Shoreham. Statistically they appear safer, but the near miss with G-YYYM (the BA 777) shows just how tight the margins are – imagine if that fuel flow problem had happened a few seconds, or a minute earlier, and the aircraft had come down on central London or on the dense housing around Hatton Cross.

As I have said before, hopefully all decisions made by the relevant parties (CAA, Shoreham Display committee, Emergency services etc) will consider all the facts and aspects, rather than respond to knee-jerk reactions.

P.S. CAA response seems well considered, as we would expect. Restrictions imposed until more facts are known.

PPS Re posts 234 and 238 – I base my comment on the members of the public who were speaking on BBC local radio this morning, at least one of whom said he often (or ‘regularly’ I cannot remember which) watches the show from that spot by the traffic light junction (Coombes Lane). In this very sad case, had they been inside the airfield they would not have been exposed to such a high risk of injury.

If mods want to ammend my earlier post, which appears to have offended others, then I am happy for them to do so. No offence was intended.

Aerobatic manoeuvre is the term any responsible broadcaster or print journalist should use, but they are few and far between…….

Due to family commitments I was intending to attend Shoreham on Sunday, and heard the sad news late Saturday afternoon. Shoreham is my “local” airshow, and I drive that stretch of the A27 frequently. As soon as the sketchy details and first images started to come through I suspected it was going to be a major incident.

Unfortunately my worst fears were subsequently confirmed, and like most regular posters on here I my disbelief has been mixed with sadness for those involved, and anger at the inaccuracy of some of the reporting by the media, however, a number of “experts” should also think before they speak:

I was listening to BBC Sussex local radio this morning on my drive to work.

They did appear to be trying to present a balanced discussion, but when the “experts” and “aviation consultants” they interview use inappropriate language, including a chap from the CAA (I think) who used the word “stunt“, and a former fast jet pilot who suggested people going to airshows 1. like to see “gung ho” displays, and 2. want to experience a “frisson” of “danger”, then I fear the general public get the wrong impression of the degree of professionalism that is (hopefully) involved in airshow management and air display approvals.

Another comment made by one of the “experts” implied that moving the display to Shoreham seafront would “remove the risk to spectators“… err, what about those people who choose to put to seas to watch from their pleasure craft? Had he forgotten about the Harrier that crashed at Southend when the engine failed, the jet trainer that crashed at Eastbourne, or the yacht that was struck by the Red Arrow at Brighton many years ago?

If nothing else, maybe this tragic accident may make ‘free-loaders’ think twice about where they stand to watch a display. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but to my mind there is a big difference between an airshow accident that happens outside the airfield and involves an innocent passer-by driving along a road on their way somewhere, and an accident outside the airfield that involves someone who consciously chooses to avoid paying an airshow entry fee, and who instead regularly watches the display from outside the airfield, but very close to the display line/runway axis.

And spare a thought for the show commentator, who not only had to witness the event unfold, but who then had to try to keep the crowd calm even though he must have feared the worst. He was also unfortunate enough to have had to perform the same role when the Hurricane crashed a few years back. Well done TH, from the few audio clips I have heard, you handled Saturday’s event in the same level-headed manner that you did with the Hurricane accident.

Whatever the evntual outcome, let us hope it is proportionate, and not a “knee jerk” reaction. As for those who call for a ban on airshows – would they also support a ban on football matches (Bradford, Hysel, Hillsborough etc), or on motorways (so many RTA fatalities)?

Being the cynic I am I can see which way that is going!

I presume you fear they may deem the old bridge beyond economic repair,leaving the toll bridge as the only option? Or, that they will find the repair costs so expensive that they decide to apply a toll to the old Bridge too to avoid having to pass costs on to local taxpayers etc. I am sure they have no plans for either at this stage ;-).

You are to cynical for your own good Paul1867 – as am I, it must be something to do with the christian/forename ‘Paul’ :-).

Hi Pogno,

From distant memory I seem to recall that Frederick Rosier landed a Hurricane in the Western Desert campaign to pick up a downed pilot in similar fashion, I think that instance (again, from memory)is mentioned in “Test Pilot” by Neville Duke?

Paul F

P.S. Ah, according to Wikipedia my recollection was not quite right- it seems they failed to take off succesfully…

” In November 1941 he spotted an Australian Tomahawk aircraft being forced down by enemy fighters and landed his single-seater to rescue the pilot. Having got Sgt. Burney aboard he attempted to take-off but suffered a burst tyre and crashed the aircraft. Both he and Burney walked across the desert for four days, avoiding large enemy patrols, to reach safety with a Guards unit.”

Could airshow organisers designate some of the fields as “emergency forced landing zones”, and then get them closed to freeloading spectators on grounds that they are endangering the pilots if they occupy them… but I guess that would require prior agreement of the land owners, who may not wish to pass up the opportunity of charging freeloaders to park/stand on their land.

As Moggy says, if an out of control airframe wipes out a few freeloaders I wouldn’t be too upset, so long as the crew get out safely, but the ramifications on future airshow organisers would probably not bear thinking about… Nor would the long drawn out claims for “compo”, and likely appeals if claims were unsuccesfull, ” by relatives of the freeloaders who got in the way…. How many airshows could bear the cost of fighting those sort of “ambulance chaser”-incited claims in hope of a favourable outcome.

Though it would be interesting to see who the courts felt were responsible (assuming it was a genuine accident, and not down to irresponsiblity or negligence on the part of the display pilot, nor his/her support team, nor the airshow organiser or his/her team). Has anyone asked such a question of a friendly lawyer, and then passed the response around the UK airshow “industry”?

If the landowner has consented to the freeloaders being on his property then presumably he might be deemed responsible, so long as the airshow organisrs have warned him of the risk? If the freeloaders are there without his permission, then presumably he has no liability, so long as the accident is not down to any negligence on his part.

I wish I’d had sufficient lack of morals to freeload in order to buy better lenses…. I could have had a really swanky set by now…. still, nice to know others have benefitted from the unknowing generosity of us paying enthusiasts/airshow goers, and that the freeloaders were happy to know that the money they’d saved would only benefit themslves, rather than help preserve the targets of their swish new lenses for future generations to enjoy.

As another interested onlooker, and equally apalled, any thoughts as to motive Rich – do you think they were stolen to order, or merley taken as “failry easy to move lumps of (potential) scrap metal”?

Was there any other easily moved metal in the same place, or were they the only “metal” within easy reach?

Other than for sale as scrap metal I’d have thought they were a bit too easy to trace if stolen to order, as I assume there are not many potential customers for Shack blades (legit or otherwise?)… except perhaps for the growing trendy “recycled engineering as furniture/art” world…