Red Arrows wont display at Farnborough

Aerohead

They are only going to do a flypast following last years Air Show Hunter crash, no aerobatic display, they are also reported to be looking at other Air Show venues about what they will do on the day, sad day for the Aviation enthusiast .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3644397/Red-Arrows-axe-Farnborough-Air-display-time-52-years-new-safety-rules-brought-Shoreham-disaster.html

Storm 10

Wonder will this have any impact on their Bray display when you look at the high density housing etc in the surrounding area. Looks like the good old days of high speed dare devil displays are over following the Shoreham disaster.

More here
http://news.sky.com/story/1712819/red-arrows-pull-stunts-at-show-after-shoreham

BonkeyDonker

Storm 10 wrote: »

Wonder will this have any impact on their Bray display when you look at the high density housing etc in the surrounding area. Looks like the good old days of high speed dare devil displays are over following the Shoreham disaster.

More here
http://news.sky.com/story/1712819/red-arrows-pull-stunts-at-show-after-shoreham

Bray should be fine as the entire display can be over the sea so the risk to the public is greatly reduced.

Buffman

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Bray should be fine as the entire display can be over the sea so the risk to the public is greatly reduced.

Ye, Bray should be ok, as it's not in the CAAs jurisdiction.

As mentioned in the Irish air shows thread regarding a recently cancelled Belfast display, all UK airshows are at risk due to recent incidents and the CAAs reaction. This one was also cancelled at short notice earlier this month.

I'd say the reason behind this decision with the Reds is the CAA, not the RAF.

afatbollix

They are just doing a fly past at Goodwood next week too.

Bit naff all this.

The One Doctor

Ex-military jet aircraft shouldn't be flown in displays. They were designed to be maintained with very little regard to cost, same goes for the original pilots. They're now maintained and flown by private companies with pilots who get maybe 20 hours experience in them per year. They're essentially air to ground missiles at this point. A classic example was the Thunder City Lightning that crashed a few years ago. It was so badly maintained that it was on fire from takeoff.

arubex

The One Doctor wrote: »

A classic example was the Thunder City Lightning that crashed a few years ago.

And of course it wasn't in the CAA's jurisdiction, so is rather irrelevant to the discussion. In fact it was flying in South Africa *precisely* because the CAA classified it as a complex airframe and demanded a nearly-impossible level of support for it to fly in the UK. See also: Vulcan.

Can you name any ex-military jets that crashed during a UK display due to maintenance failings or misunderstandings?


By the way, cost plays a VERY large part in maintenance of military aircraft. They're certainly not maintained 'regardless' of cost. Cracks in Patrouille Swiss F-5s?

Irish Steve

The unfortunate reality of the situation regarding displays is that until the accident investigation into the Hunter crash at Shoreham is complete, the CAA and others can't be sure what caused the crash, so everyone is exercising their "abundance of caution" mode response, with the results that a lot of flying that used to be seen as acceptable is at present regarded as dangerous.

A very long time ago, at Exeter air display, a Lightning did the normal low and fast pass, then came back round, and pulled up into a vertical climb from a high speed run, which was the traditional display departure for the type. On the way up, those of us that were watching closely saw a few pieces come off the aircraft, shortly before it stopped the climb and departed from the area in a south westerly direction. We subsequently learned that it had taken a bird through one of the engines, which didn't do it any good, and the end result was that the aircraft was flown out over the coast of Cornwall, and the pilot ejected, as the damage that occurred subsequent to the bird strike made it impossible to land safely. A friend of mine worked on Lightning's during his time in the forces, and his comment was that a significant issue with the Lightning was that if an engine took a bird, and self destructed, if it wasn't contained, the other engine could also be damaged, and there was a high risk of damage to hydraulic lines that ran close to the engines, which then meant flight control failure, and problems with deploying the landing gear, as well as a risk of a tailcone area fire from leaking fluids, and the combination of these events meant that punching out was the only viable option for the pilot, and in some cases, ensuring that the aircraft didn't crash into something inappropriate was a matter of luck rather than a controllable situation. In a combat situation, such an event could be considered "collateral damage", but dropping a large lump of aircraft onto anyone or anything other than water or uninhabited land in peacetime is not acceptable.

By their nature, military aircraft don't have the redundant systems that commercial aircraft have, and the older military types were very often performance limited in terms of their ability to recover from some failures, so while people won't be happy to see the Red Arrows doing sedate and very limited fly past displays, for some time to come, that is likely to be the best that will be on offer, and the older aircraft will be even more restricted in terms of what they are allowed to do.

I have my own opinion on some of the causes of the Shoreham crash that have nothing to do with the maintenance of the aircraft, and they caused some controversy on Pprune at the time, but they were based on flying at Shoreham, some very sound advice from a very experienced instructor at that airfield, and knowledge of local conditions.

I would be very reluctant to criticise the maintenance of any ex military aircraft, the people performing that maintenance are usually very dedicated and committed people, and in the case of aircraft like the Vulcan, some of them were retired and volunteers, so while cost was most definitely a factor, it was not the determining factor, the Vulcan was grounded because there were no examples with the number of hours that the last remaining airborne version had accumulated, so no way to gauge the potential failures in service, and in the case of the Vulcan, due to the age of the design, and the nature of some of the critical systems, some failures would have meant the aircraft becoming uncontrollable, which was a risk that was clearly unacceptable.

Some very worrying aspects have emerged from comments post Shoreham in respect of pilot experience and time on type, not just in relation to Shoreham, and that is also clearly a factor in the restrictions that are in place.

It is clearly unacceptable for "civilians" to be injured or killed as a result of being in the wrong place at the right moment, flying high performance aircraft at the edge of their envelope close to the ground and to large numbers of people has inherent risks attached to it, so something had to be done to ensure that a repeat of Shoreham won't happen again. That unfortunately is likely to mean that it will be some time before we see certain types in the air again, and if we do see them, the types of display they will be allowed to do will be significantly restricted.

Negative_G

BonkeyDonker wrote: »

Bray should be fine as the entire display can be over the sea so the risk to the public is greatly reduced.

Yet you will still have people that will criticise that the displays are too far away.

Enthusiasts need to realise that you can't have your cake and eat it with regard to safety. In other words, if it is neccessary to mitigate risk by restricting displays to certain routines or placing the crowd line further away then so be it. Safety is paramount.

I've been witness to, on more than one occasion, dangerous and unsafe manoeuvres being carried out by individuals at some airfields where the notion of a hard deck and crowd lines are blatantly ignored.

Unfortunately as is often the case, it's not until an accident/incident occurs that action is taken.

billy few mates

The problem with flying and maintaining ex military aircraft is that once they become obsolete there is longer any continuing airworthiness development or manufacturers oversight. The manuals (if you have them) become frozen in time and don't take into account the age of the aircraft or the life limits of structural components, wiring, engines etc never mind the availability of parts. There's no 'ageing aircraft' program to follow so they're basically just 'kept going' without the development of the maintenance program necessary to cater for the age of the aircraft.
Military aircraft were never designed for longevity or high numbers of flight hours or cycles, in wartime conditions it was considered a bonus if they returned at all. The problem is there's no proper regulatory oversight either so it's easier for airworthiness authorities to keep them at arms length by heavily restricting their operating conditions rather than properly regulating them.
Basically If you want to take a fifty year old ex military jet fighter out over the sea they won't really stop you, if you want to fly it over a village fete or local air display they will...

billy few mates

The Red Arrows have always had a different level of display for certain air shows, Shorham for example was one which was categorised as suitable for flypast only because of the layout of the place and the proximity of local infrastructure etc.
They only do their full display display at airports and locations that are properly surveyed in advance and certified by themselves as suitable for full display regardless of what anyone else does there.

Shannon757

Any here going to Farnborough?

afatbollix

Nope I'm away that weekend. If I was going back I would pay into the pub just off the runway instead of paying to go in.