No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
According to Airbus, they did. Although saying that, BOE weren't hanging around for the public displays anyway
- capercaillie
- Posts: 9336
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
- Location: Leominster
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rubbish, it happened on Monday, they flew Tuesday to Thursday. No problems.
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
AARDVARK wrote:Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
perhaps this is why there have been no spectator fatalities at a British Airshow since the DH.110 accident in 1952 ! god how I long for those days when you never knew whether you were going to come out of the show alive !!
on another note, the P8 also performed a sharp wing over on dept on the Monday....this was also never repeated in the following displays during the week !
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
That was quite some display, wish I could have been there to see it.
Pte. Aubrey Gerald Harmer, R. Suss. R. (att. to the Sherwood Foresters) KIA 26/9/1917 Polygon Wood, aged 19, NKG. RIP
-
- Posts: 848
- Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:39 pm
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rampvan wrote:AARDVARK wrote:Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
perhaps this is why there have been no spectator fatalities at a British Airshow since the DH.110 accident in 1952 ! god how I long for those days when you never knew whether you were going to come out of the show alive !!
on another note, the P8 also performed a sharp wing over on dept on the Monday....this was also never repeated in the following displays during the week !
The DH.110 accident was an airframe breaking up - there are numerous times at airshows now where an airframe breaking up would result in a catostraphic accident - very few rules can solve that (almost entirely hypothetical) problem.
Most airshow rules are bizarre and do little more than endanger those *outside* the airfield and make airshows less spectacular.
- capercaillie
- Posts: 9336
- Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
- Location: Leominster
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rampvan wrote:AARDVARK wrote:Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
perhaps this is why there have been no spectator fatalities at a British Airshow since the DH.110 accident in 1952 ! god how I long for those days when you never knew whether you were going to come out of the show alive !!
Why the nastiness? Totally ridiculous post.
Its a perfectly valid point regarding Farnborough, the display minima height is three times that at other major airshows around the UK, and how many of those have had spectator fatalities since 1952? I don't see Aardvark asking for sonic booms (the stress on the airframe of which did for said spectators) or overhead passes at 50 feet? Farnborough's display rules in the last decade have pushed the displays further away and higher.
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
I wondered why the 787-9 display changed after Monday, lots of people appeared on the hill after seeing the Monday display, hoping for good photos and video, but were only able to see a Airbus like display from the 787-9, its another example of if you film something exciting at a airshow, don't upload it to YouTube until the show is over.
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Its pathetic how the companies show their aircraft when we all know they have no passenges and 2 hours fuel on board, basically nearly empty weight. Do tight turns and steep take offs ever happen in real life............
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Traveller wrote:Do tight turns and steep take offs ever happen in real life............
Yep!
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
capercaillie wrote:Rampvan wrote:AARDVARK wrote:Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
perhaps this is why there have been no spectator fatalities at a British Airshow since the DH.110 accident in 1952 ! god how I long for those days when you never knew whether you were going to come out of the show alive !!
Why the nastiness? Totally ridiculous post.
Its a perfectly valid point regarding Farnborough, the display minima height is three times that at other major airshows around the UK, and how many of those have had spectator fatalities since 1952? I don't see Aardvark asking for sonic booms (the stress on the airframe of which did for said spectators) or overhead passes at 50 feet? Farnborough's display rules in the last decade have pushed the displays further away and higher.
No the crazy rules aardvark refers to were put in place because of the DH.110 incident, they are not so crazy if they save lives, the whole point of the rules is that it takes the inertia of the aerobatics away from the spectators for a reason. I would also take a guess that the height of the show is due to the amount of housing estates built on the northern side of the airfield.....giving the pilot height gives him a better chance of making it back inside the airfield boundary if theres a problem
-
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rampvan wrote:capercaillie wrote:Rampvan wrote:AARDVARK wrote:Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
perhaps this is why there have been no spectator fatalities at a British Airshow since the DH.110 accident in 1952 ! god how I long for those days when you never knew whether you were going to come out of the show alive !!
Why the nastiness? Totally ridiculous post.
Its a perfectly valid point regarding Farnborough, the display minima height is three times that at other major airshows around the UK, and how many of those have had spectator fatalities since 1952? I don't see Aardvark asking for sonic booms (the stress on the airframe of which did for said spectators) or overhead passes at 50 feet? Farnborough's display rules in the last decade have pushed the displays further away and higher.
No the crazy rules aardvark refers to were put in place because of the DH.110 incident, they are not so crazy if they save lives, the whole point of the rules is that it takes the inertia of the aerobatics away from the spectators for a reason. I would also take a guess that the height of the show is due to the amount of housing estates built on the northern side of the airfield.....giving the pilot height gives him a better chance of making it back inside the airfield boundary if theres a problem
The modern appetite for risk is minimal not least because of the sensationalism in the press for absolutely everything. In the absence of changing risk (or even decreasing risk) there is also a perception among what one might loosely term "the authorities" that there must be constant "improvements" in safety. So displays get higher and further, speed limits come down on roads with no perceptible changes to them and so on. This will not change until "the authorities" collectively feed solely on red meat and grow huge testicles, so don't hold your breath.
John
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rampvan wrote:capercaillie wrote:Rampvan wrote:AARDVARK wrote:Once again it's this countries crazy rules trying to kill the excitemt of an airshow,most displays were so far away it wasn't worth entering the airfield for them .
perhaps this is why there have been no spectator fatalities at a British Airshow since the DH.110 accident in 1952 ! god how I long for those days when you never knew whether you were going to come out of the show alive !!
Why the nastiness? Totally ridiculous post.
Its a perfectly valid point regarding Farnborough, the display minima height is three times that at other major airshows around the UK, and how many of those have had spectator fatalities since 1952? I don't see Aardvark asking for sonic booms (the stress on the airframe of which did for said spectators) or overhead passes at 50 feet? Farnborough's display rules in the last decade have pushed the displays further away and higher.
No the crazy rules aardvark refers to were put in place because of the DH.110 incident, they are not so crazy if they save lives, the whole point of the rules is that it takes the inertia of the aerobatics away from the spectators for a reason. I would also take a guess that the height of the show is due to the amount of housing estates built on the northern side of the airfield.....giving the pilot height gives him a better chance of making it back inside the airfield boundary if theres a problem
Ok some rules were put in place after the DH110 disaster, but that was in the 1950's - presumably those rules were in place by the 1970's when I started going to airshows. However things have changed substantially since then and IMHO they have changed again substantially in the last 10 years.
Over 300 free things to do in London
http://www.toplondondaysout.co.uk
http://www.toplondondaysout.co.uk
-
- Posts: 2118
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009, 8:31 am
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
The crazy thing is that display was approved as I saw the T&G the week before the show. Farnborough is different, I doubt if there is more than 500 people living within a mile of the Fairford display line, Farnborough is a town of 45,000 people, probably 10,000 live within a miile of the display line, including me!
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rob is absolutely correct about proximity to built up areas. I keep saying it people need to read,
http://www.farnborough.com/files/f_regs ... l_v5_a.pdf
CAP403 and the relevant MAA pub before leaping into an argument with little knowledge of the rules!!!!
http://www.farnborough.com/files/f_regs ... l_v5_a.pdf
CAP403 and the relevant MAA pub before leaping into an argument with little knowledge of the rules!!!!
Nikon P900 (Sony DSC-HX400V, Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
I'd like to see a new system in place. A premium standing area 10m from the runway edge. By all means charge enthusiasts for the privilege but they sign a disclaimer to go in there. Purely the responsibility of those going in that they acknowledge the risk. If anything it would shut the saddos up who constantly moan about their 400mil F4.5 whatever not being enough!!!!
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
It seems to me that there are a lot of saddo losers that must be so scared of meeting their maker that they presumably never take a trip in a car, cross a road, take a flight or eat a peanut. The risks at airshows are pretty minimal and certainly less than driving up and down the UK's motorways.
Without utter disregard for safety, there is no doubt that even those non-saddos without cameras who brave the struggle of life versus death that is an airshow, would probably enjoy seeing the aircraft at a closer proximity and performing a display that is distinguishable from if they'd been sitting two miles out under the approach to Heathrow airport.
I happen to live under the approach to Manchester airport and I've never really wasted much time sitting here fearing an airliner dropping on my flat - despite being less than half a mile from where one once did.
Anyway, I think I'll go and watch the Final Destination box set and remind myself of the multitude of other highly unlikely ways in which I could find myself prematurely six feet under.
Without utter disregard for safety, there is no doubt that even those non-saddos without cameras who brave the struggle of life versus death that is an airshow, would probably enjoy seeing the aircraft at a closer proximity and performing a display that is distinguishable from if they'd been sitting two miles out under the approach to Heathrow airport.
I happen to live under the approach to Manchester airport and I've never really wasted much time sitting here fearing an airliner dropping on my flat - despite being less than half a mile from where one once did.
Anyway, I think I'll go and watch the Final Destination box set and remind myself of the multitude of other highly unlikely ways in which I could find myself prematurely six feet under.
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Hilarious Harkins, well said!! If I could refer viewers to my earlier near miss, final destination stuff indeed.........
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=60235
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=60235
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
As Rampvan rightly pointed out, there have been no spectator fatalities at British air shows since 1952.
There have, however, been a number of aircrew fatalities (some of which I have had the misfortune to witness at first hand rather than from photographs or videos) and a good number of non-fatal "incidents". It is at least partly due to the regulations in place that few of these have resulted in any physical harm to any member of the audience and where this has occurred it has been relatively minor.
Do members not recall the incident at RIAT at Cottesmore when spectators at the end of the runway suffered minor injuries and burns from the afterburner exhaust of a B-1? They were there "of their own free will", having been warned that it was an unsafe location, yet several attempted (without success it has to be said) to sue IAT as a result. They failed, but I am sure that an enterprising lawyer could make life very difficult indeed for any show where a member of the audience or of the public outside the show ere injured as a result of the show activities. Disclaimers on tickets stating that one enters at one's own risk are worthless in the face of determined legal action and in any case can not apply to anyone outside the venue..
If you crave risk, then partake in "extreme sports" the primary function of which seems to be to give an "adrenaline rush" to those participating. Do not ask that air shows return to the "good old days" where witnessing (and very possibly being involved in and a victim of) accidents was "just part of the show".
People quote the "motorsport is dangerous but people still go to race meetings" argument. Yes, it is and yes, they do, but every effort is made by circuits, organising authorities and competitors to minimise any such risk to the spectator (and to competitors). Air shows are and should be subject to the same considerations.
There have, however, been a number of aircrew fatalities (some of which I have had the misfortune to witness at first hand rather than from photographs or videos) and a good number of non-fatal "incidents". It is at least partly due to the regulations in place that few of these have resulted in any physical harm to any member of the audience and where this has occurred it has been relatively minor.
Do members not recall the incident at RIAT at Cottesmore when spectators at the end of the runway suffered minor injuries and burns from the afterburner exhaust of a B-1? They were there "of their own free will", having been warned that it was an unsafe location, yet several attempted (without success it has to be said) to sue IAT as a result. They failed, but I am sure that an enterprising lawyer could make life very difficult indeed for any show where a member of the audience or of the public outside the show ere injured as a result of the show activities. Disclaimers on tickets stating that one enters at one's own risk are worthless in the face of determined legal action and in any case can not apply to anyone outside the venue..
If you crave risk, then partake in "extreme sports" the primary function of which seems to be to give an "adrenaline rush" to those participating. Do not ask that air shows return to the "good old days" where witnessing (and very possibly being involved in and a victim of) accidents was "just part of the show".
People quote the "motorsport is dangerous but people still go to race meetings" argument. Yes, it is and yes, they do, but every effort is made by circuits, organising authorities and competitors to minimise any such risk to the spectator (and to competitors). Air shows are and should be subject to the same considerations.
nothing is confirmed at a show until its u/c hits the tarmac or it is running in for its display.....
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu 15 Dec 2011, 12:45 pm
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Rule 27 wrote:Traveller wrote:Do tight turns and steep take offs ever happen in real life............
Yep!
I remember having a display flight in an old BA 737 in the early/mid eighties at a biggin hill air show where we did steep climbs and fairly tight turns.
We were up for about half an hour, but displaying for only about 10 minutes.
This kind of display ride would never be allowed to happen these days.
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
harkins wrote:It seems to me that there are a lot of saddo losers that must be so scared of meeting their maker that they presumably never take a trip in a car, cross a road, take a flight or eat a peanut. The risks at airshows are pretty minimal and certainly less than driving up and down the UK's motorways.
Without utter disregard for safety, there is no doubt that even those non-saddos without cameras who brave the struggle of life versus death that is an airshow, would probably enjoy seeing the aircraft at a closer proximity and performing a display that is distinguishable from if they'd been sitting two miles out under the approach to Heathrow airport.
I happen to live under the approach to Manchester airport and I've never really wasted much time sitting here fearing an airliner dropping on my flat - despite being less than half a mile from where one once did.
Anyway, I think I'll go and watch the Final Destination box set and remind myself of the multitude of other highly unlikely ways in which I could find myself prematurely six feet under.
I suppose aircraft pulling high g manoeuvres is a regular occurence on the MAN approach!
Nikon P900 (Sony DSC-HX400V, Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)
-
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
Heavy Metal wrote:Rule 27 wrote:Traveller wrote:Do tight turns and steep take offs ever happen in real life............
Yep!
I remember having a display flight in an old BA 737 in the early/mid eighties at a biggin hill air show where we did steep climbs and fairly tight turns.
We were up for about half an hour, but displaying for only about 10 minutes.
This kind of display ride would never be allowed to happen these days.
Correct. The Don Bullock Invader fatal finished that.
John
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
FarnboroJohn wrote:Heavy Metal wrote:Rule 27 wrote:Traveller wrote:Do tight turns and steep take offs ever happen in real life............
Yep!
I remember having a display flight in an old BA 737 in the early/mid eighties at a biggin hill air show where we did steep climbs and fairly tight turns.
We were up for about half an hour, but displaying for only about 10 minutes.
This kind of display ride would never be allowed to happen these days.
Correct. The Don Bullock Invader fatal finished that.
John
Actually it was the Air France Airbus crash at Mulhouse that killed 3 passengers that stopped displays being performed by passenger laden airliners. The Don Bullock Invader crash stopped non essential passengers being carried on aerobatic flights.
You caaan't trust the system... Maaan!
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Thu 15 Dec 2011, 12:45 pm
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
st24 wrote:FarnboroJohn wrote:Correct. The Don Bullock Invader fatal finished that.
John
Actually it was the Air France Airbus crash at Mulhouse that killed 3 passengers that stopped displays being performed by passenger laden airliners. The Don Bullock Invader crash stopped non essential passengers being carried on aerobatic flights.
Whilst the above may be correct, oddly though, this was a passenger airliner, not laden with fare paying passengers in the sense it is possibly being intimated, as they were spectators unloaded at the airshow, but I was one of about three or four people, along with the cabin staff that were clearly non essential passengers on board an aircraft during a display flight, but it was a few years after the Invader tragedy.
It would be interesting to know exactly when these rules came into play?
Also, didn't the Leicester Varsity tragedy not also have an effect on some of this?
-
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm
Re: No wonder Boeing effed off home early...
st24 wrote:FarnboroJohn wrote:Heavy Metal wrote:Rule 27 wrote:Traveller wrote:Do tight turns and steep take offs ever happen in real life............
Yep!
I remember having a display flight in an old BA 737 in the early/mid eighties at a biggin hill air show where we did steep climbs and fairly tight turns.
We were up for about half an hour, but displaying for only about 10 minutes.
This kind of display ride would never be allowed to happen these days.
Correct. The Don Bullock Invader fatal finished that.
John
Actually it was the Air France Airbus crash at Mulhouse that killed 3 passengers that stopped displays being performed by passenger laden airliners. The Don Bullock Invader crash stopped non essential passengers being carried on aerobatic flights.
Quite right. Accidental conflation - sorry!
John