I saw it at a show at Stapleford Tawney in 1982.
It was a big deal then, quite a rarity, as I think there had been no 109’s/Buchons flying in the UK since the filming of ‘B of B’ in 1968.
In the USA, there was another vintage jet disaster (1972) , when a civilian Sabre failed to get airborne, and crashed into an ice-cream parlour, with the loss of 22 lives.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Sabrejet_crash_site.htm
Of course, the FAA was compelled to take action of some sort, but they did not shut down the whole vintage jet movement, despite pressure to do so, and restrictions were implemented.
”As a result of the crash, the Federal Aviation Administration issued new rules for former military jets later that year. Among them, such aircraft would be prohibited from flying over densely populated areas and their routes during air shows would first need approval by the FAA. Pilots of such flights would be more closely vetted, too; a military or manufacturer’s checkout would be needed beforehand and an FAA inspector would first need to observe three takeoffs and landings to confirm aircraft knowledge and flight proficiency.”
http://www.flightjournal.com/blog/2012/09/24/farrells-crash-remembered-40-years-later/
Lets all click the link madly, and see if we can help Pampa get a Porsche ! :eagerness:
I’ve got a feeling that we may be witnessing the beginning of the end of classic jet operations in this country.
I suspect that may not be a cause of much regret within the CAA.
Maybe when they filmed this sequence. (Red Arrows)
So there is going to be a Skywarrior ? Great !
This from Mark Jefferies – Display Pilot ( Organiser of annual Children In need Dispaly, Little Gransden)
Authority and responsibility
Is the over reaction based upon advice from Lawyers that said you are (CAA) liable?
CAA cashed the cheque, read the application, looked at the organisers submitted map and issued their own map and air show permission.
CAA looked at the list of submitted acts/ aircraft on the application and issued the permission.
CAA cashed the cheque and certified the aircraft.
CAA cashed the cheque and issued the DA
CAA cashed the cheque and issued a “Aircraft Type Rating Exemption” for permission to fly an aircraft “without being the holder of an appropriate type rating”. (This is to do with Permit to Fly jet aircraft)
CAA approved (dont know if there is a fee involved) the DAE to act on their behalf
CAA cashed the cheque and granted the AME a licence to medicaly evaluate pilots
So, to reduce liability you pass the buck. i.e. make everyone else liable except yourself
To reduce the risk you reduce the number of shows
To reduce the number of qualified pilots you make it an unattractive profession
With reducing the number of shows increases the cost burden on those remaining (CAA will only reluctantly and slowly reduce staffing as managers need people to manage-pay structure etc)
With costs increasing it will be like a J curve on those remaining
All this has happened once before in history. People cut down the trees to move the giant heads (Easter Island) with no trees they could not support themselves and as a race they slowly but surely died out. Returning the island to a barren landscape
Is this the intended future our CAA would like?
There is a very significant industry with many jobs created in the UK restoring very historic aircraft for future genarations, lest we forget why these aircraft were built in the first place. The end user (temporary owner) recovers a small amount of his ownership costs flying air shows. Has the CAA done a projected jobs lost analysis of there proposed actions?
Authority without responsibility.
There are some sencible suggestions in the document but it does not justify 100% + cost in fees and an aditional post show tax.
Be it in this instance (Shoreham) or a multitude of other unfortunate disasters we (as a body and country) should all be on the same side pulling together for the better of everybody.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/KeepAirshowsAirborne/permalink/170387960001442/
Some footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn71EBfCYUA
Maybe the Buccaneer got its nickname from the other brick like object?
And the Seafire seems to be a very clipped wing version :/ …it gets quite a distance too!
What ghastly footage ! Poor Seafire, all it wanted to do was fly, and it did pretty well ( with half the wings missing ) .
There is low, and there is Too Low……….
Inverted glider loses fin, and ability to fly.
‘I didn’t think the Hunter had a poor safety history in civilian hands David’
G-BTYL T7 Crashed June 93 Peak District
http://www.peakdistrictaircrashes.co.uk/pages/peakdistrict/peakdistrictG-BTYL.htm
Not sure if we have had this DC-6
Must be disappointing to step away from the project in such circumstances. I suppose that as the move to airworthiness gathers pace, the management of the project evolves in style.
The reality is nothing stays the same, and almost any organisation, or group, or syndicate changes over time, and generally, most people don’t like change, and prefer everything to stay just the way they were comfortable with. My experience is that you can not stop change, it is futile and personally damaging to try, and one simply has to accommodate and accept it.
I hope you can retain your enthusiasm for the aeroplane, and perhaps even find your way back to it at some stage.
I too have a relic of the Market Garden battles.
He’s my friend ‘Tom’ Bowden.
Moggy
Is he the one on the right ?
The control tower is not broken up, t.
Sorry, my description was ill-phrased. It is much-abused, with big parts broken off, but it is indeed still standing.
Bovingdon again.
The apron where those Nissen Huts were built can be seen top right in this recent photo.
Huge amounts of waste spoil were spread around about 15 years ago which is why the broken up control tower is half submerged in an embankment.
It was all in good nick in ’78, but then again, that was 37 years ago…