had a phone call from my daughter to say a Tornado had crashed just off the airfield at Shoreham air show.
she saw no sign of any ejection.
nothing on local news or sussex police site other than that police are dealing with an incident at Shoreham air show.
does not sound good.
14.02 updated
appears aircraft was a Hunter T7 which has crashed off the airfield near the A27.
14.06 updated.
reports on BBC news say Sussex Police say aircraft crashed across the A27 and several vehicles were involved.
Could even be on the A27 judging by this picture (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/lightbox/plane-crashes-shoreham-airshow-photo-cegrab-20150822-140325-0-1-2048x1152-20150822-131026-310-130604417.html)
I'm afraid that according to the latest updates on BBC news, the police have confirmed that several vehicles were involved.
by the sound of it there was standing traffic where traffic was still queueing to get into the air show.
Very sad to hear all of this :(
Also on BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34027260)
Thoughts to all involved & families. :(
latest reports on BBC are quoting seven fatalities.
airfield still locked down, only pedestrians being allowed to leave.
no ATM on the airfield, so obviously very difficult for those stuck there with young children.
This is unimaginably horrific, there's nothing to be said which can express how bad this is.
My thoughts to everyone in the area, including the emergency services who I'm sure are doing their best on a dreadful day.
Quote from: class37025 on August 22, 2015, 05:04:09 PM
no ATM on the airfield, so obviously very difficult for those stuck there with young children.
Cash machine? ???
Paul
I've seen video posted on Facebook...very terrible and sad..
RIP the seven victims
mega freak out, we passed along that road earlier today on our way homeward at the end of a week away! The traffic around the show was mega, very busy!!
Very sad accident!!
Best wishes to those involved
Simon
Horrific. Very tragic.
Quote from: Sprintex on August 22, 2015, 05:29:59 PM
Quote from: class37025 on August 22, 2015, 05:04:09 PM
no ATM on the airfield, so obviously very difficult for those stuck there with young children.
Cash machine? ???
Paul
yes. as flying was suspended, and police stopped drivers leaving the airfield, it was a case of trying to find things to keep youngsters occupied, and if you didn't have a lot of cash, you were stumped.
daughter and sons, 2 and 7, finally got home at about 10 this evening, left the airfield around six, so a 30 minute journey took nearly 4 hours.
just an example of the problems for traffic in the area, and reports are that the A27 may not re-open till Monday.
on the positive side, it appears that the pilot, though seriously injured, survived and was rescued from the aircraft by passers by. must have taken guts to do that, it never ceases to amaze me the courage people display in situations such as this.
Quote from: class37025 on August 22, 2015, 11:40:11 PM
on the positive side, it appears that the pilot, though seriously injured, survived and was rescued from the aircraft by passers by.
Wow !
So two thoughts spring to mind
1) that has got to be better than a black box to determine what failed
2) would it have had black box, was it a military or civilian one ?
oh and
3) it was a spectacular fireball so how does anyone survive / approach that - must have broken up and the fireball was elsewhere than the pilot ? To survive that is ummm, well ,, lucky !
well ....
1) not necessarily ... it depends what the actual failure was; the pilot may just have had knock-on effects to go by. We'll find out if he survives, and if he can recall the last moments ...
2) hmmm, good question. It was an ex-RAF trainer, I'd be surprised if they'd removed any flight recorder kit ? But don't know what would have been in a 50-y-o aircraft ?
3) some of the imagery have shown two large lumps of wreckage. Going from info I have on Hunters, the pilot is ahead of the main body, including the engines & fuel storage. Drop tanks can provide additional fuel, but the aircraft seemed to be flying 'clean'. The main fuel store is in 4 flexible bag-type tanks in the centre of the fuselage (2 forward, 2 rear), and 4 inter-connected tanks in the forward edge of each mainplane. My assumption is that the cockpit broke away from the main crash, which had the main fireball - but that's all it is, an assumption, based on the Pilot Notes for the Hunter 6.
Quote from: MikeDunn on August 23, 2015, 11:46:55 AM
well ....
3) some of the imagery have shown two large lumps of wreckage. Going from info I have on Hunters, the pilot is ahead of the main body, including the engines & fuel storage. Drop tanks can provide additional fuel, but the aircraft seemed to be flying 'clean'. The main fuel store is in 4 flexible bag-type tanks in the centre of the fuselage (2 forward, 2 rear), and 4 inter-connected tanks in the forward edge of each mainplane. My assumption is that the cockpit broke away from the main crash, which had the main fireball - but that's all it is, an assumption, based on the Pilot Notes for the Hunter 6.
that would certainly account for the passers by being able to reach the pilot. if the cockpit area was within the fire, then I'd think the airfield crash crews would have had to foam the cockpit while crew in protective suits cut him out, having made safe the ejector seat.
IIRC for engine changes, the rear of the fuselage plus tailplane was removed, then the engine. it could be that the break took place at this join.
Thanks Mike, broadly my thoughts also,
except :-
> I'd be surprised if they'd removed any flight recorder kit ? But don't know what would have been in a 50-y-o aircraft
Maybe the reverse,
I may be out of date on this but for a long time the military did not fit black boxes but civilian did ( maybe only passenger carrying tho' ? )
That was what all the Ch4 investigation into Chinooks was all about, some years ago, , twas always pilot error cos there was no contrary evidence from black boxes u c.
may all be different now, hence my wonderings ?
I wish the news media would stop calling it "vintage", they were brand spanking new when I started 'spotting' them :( !
From what I saw in video's of the crash, it looks suspiciously like a bird strike happened when the aircraft was at about the 10-11 o'clock position in the loop..
Just my assumption and better people than me will be looking at all the evidence.
Hope all involved have a speedy recovery.
Cheers
Mark
To follow that horrendous event theres now reports of another airshow crash in Switzerland just coming in :doh:
latest reports on BBC news state death toll has risen to 11, although police say more bodies may be found when the wreckage is moved.
A27 to possibly be closed for several more days while crash site cleared, and it will then need repairs.
gets worse and worse.
Quote from: MalcolmAL on August 23, 2015, 12:35:45 PM
for a long time the military did not fit black boxes but civilian did ( maybe only passenger carrying tho' ? )
That's why I said 'flight recorder' and not 'black box' ... who knows what was fitted post-RAF ???
Just heard from some friends who live a couple of kms away from me and his brother was going to the airshow yesterday (he lives at Brighton) and they can't get in contact with him, no reply from his mobile or anything. They've been in contact with the UK police who state they still have some unidentified bodies but have noted his name in case he is one of them, met him many times, a lovely old chap full of life, they are just hoping his phone battery is dead and that's why they can't get in contact. :(
Quote from: MikeDunn on August 23, 2015, 11:46:55 AM
Drop tanks can provide additional fuel, but the aircraft seemed to be flying 'clean'.
Just seen video footage of the earlier part of the display, and that shows the Hunter
was carrying drop tanks; hence the large first explosion I assume :(
Quote from: Caz on August 23, 2015, 07:01:03 PM
Just heard from some friends who live a couple of kms away from me and his brother was going to the airshow yesterday (he lives at Brighton) and they can't get in contact with him, no reply from his mobile or anything. They've been in contact with the UK police who state they still have some unidentified bodies but have noted his name in case he is one of them, met him many times, a lovely old chap full of life, they are just hoping his phone battery is dead and that's why they can't get in contact. :(
That is terrible,always harder when you start to read/hear these sort of stories, I really do hope that all is well with him.
best wishes
Simon
Quote from: MikeDunn on August 23, 2015, 07:13:30 PM
Quote from: MikeDunn on August 23, 2015, 11:46:55 AM
Drop tanks can provide additional fuel, but the aircraft seemed to be flying 'clean'.
Just seen video footage of the earlier part of the display, and that shows the Hunter was carrying drop tanks; hence the large first explosion I assume :(
They would normally have been empty. When full most aircraft that use drop tanks can only really fly A to B and not do any aerobatics. I wouldn't have thought he'd be carrying any more fuel than needed for the display plus a reserve.
Why bother with them then ??? surely just more weight/drag ?
Probably because it's easier to leave them on for the show (empty they shouldn't have too much effect on flight) and they'd be useful when ferrying to-from shows.
Quote from: bridgiesimon on August 23, 2015, 07:50:23 PM
Quote from: Caz on August 23, 2015, 07:01:03 PM
Just heard from some friends who live a couple of kms away from me and his brother was going to the airshow yesterday (he lives at Brighton) and they can't get in contact with him, no reply from his mobile or anything. They've been in contact with the UK police who state they still have some unidentified bodies but have noted his name in case he is one of them, met him many times, a lovely old chap full of life, they are just hoping his phone battery is dead and that's why they can't get in contact. :(
That is terrible,always harder when you start to read/hear these sort of stories, I really do hope that all is well with him.
best wishes
Simon
Gosh, that is most alarming. Fingers crossed everything is ok he has misplaced his phone or something.
I have just got out of hospital and not been taking much notice of any news and on coming home this has shocked me, how awful this is and why do they allow aerobatics over busy roads.
I only hope the families of the bereaved get plenty of support.
Quote from: Geoff on August 24, 2015, 07:41:23 AM
...why do they allow aerobatics over busy roads.
Beacuase the display needs a couple of miles each end of the runway/display area for the aircraft to manoeuvre and there aren't many accessible airfields that aren't within a couple of miles of a busy road.
Update re my friends brother, they still haven't heard anything from him or the police but have now discovered the friend whom he went with is also missing so it's not looking good. They are just hoping that he is one of the unidentified in hospital as that seems their only hope, very sad.
good news is that all the injured that were admitted to hospital, apart from the pilot, are reported to have been discharged.
bad news is that Sussex Police say death toll may rise to 20.
I am assuming this is based on the number of people who are reported as being 'out of contact', and as time passes it seems less likely that there are other reasons for their silence.
a terrible tragedy that will have repercussions for some time.
on top of that, the weather is now bad, with quite heavy rain north of the downs, and most probably at the crash site too, which will make the investigators job even more difficult.
Quote from: Geoff on August 24, 2015, 07:41:23 AM
why do they allow aerobatics over busy roads.
You might well ask why let cars drive on roads then. The risk of an aircraft causing an accident by briefly flying across a road is extremely small. The risk of a car causing an accident on a road at some point along its journey is very much greater.
On top of that cars are driven by people with a much lower degree of training compared to aircraft, and the people flying at airshows in particular tend to be expert pilots not beginners. Furthermore, mechanical failure is much less likely with aircraft than cars because the inspection of aircraft for airworthiness are more frequent (in terms of hours of use) and more stringent than the annual MOT inspection of cars.
It's always tragic to read about air accidents, I think because the people involved always seem to have been helpless to save themselves. It must be an horrific experience. But at the same time it's important to put things in perspective. Being inside a commercial aircraft is one of the safest places you can be, and the chances of being involved in an accident with a historic aircraft is extremely small not least because these aircraft fly very few hours per year.
What we don't need is a knee-jerk response from government about banning airshows or something along those lines as politicians try to "cash in" on the concern we all justifiably feel towards those who were unfortunately caught up in the Shoreham events.
Cheers, NeMo
very well put :thumbsup:
Quote from: Ian Morton on August 24, 2015, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: Geoff on August 24, 2015, 07:41:23 AM
...why do they allow aerobatics over busy roads.
Beacuase the display needs a couple of miles each end of the runway/display area for the aircraft to manoeuvre and there aren't many accessible airfields that aren't within a couple of miles of a busy road.
Then maybe these displays need to be restricted to seaside towns where the planes are over the sea.
Caz I am so sorry to hear about your friends brother and his friend his missing my thoughts go out to all the families that have someone missing.
Quote from: NeMo on August 24, 2015, 09:16:53 AM
What we don't need is a knee-jerk response from government about banning airshows or something along those lines
Which knowing this country is exactly what will happen! Not a ban as such, but so many new rules and regulations that it won't be worth the hassle or expense putting a show on in the first place :( Sorry Geoff but your suggestion of "seaside only" is precisely the type of knee-jerk reaction we DON'T need :no:
It's a tragic accident and no more.
Paul
I was writing pretty much the same just now, but Sprintex' post managed to wipe mine out ::)
Geoff, that kind of reaction would wipe out displays such as the Flying Legends that Duxford do every year; and others too, Cosford as another example, or Farnborough (although the Govt would no doubt explicitly exclude the latter, given how many £billions come in that way - one rule for the companies, another for the enthusiasts ...). It's the last thing we need.
But - given the proximity of this show to the sea, I have wondered why it wasn't held over water, with the airfield used as the start/end point & also for the stalls etc ?
Maybe a knee Jerk reaction but when I heard this guy on Sky news saying there are lots of accidents on roads and you have to expect an accident every time you get in your car it wound me up some Aviation expert he was.
Yes maybe you are right I di give a Kneejerk reaction but I think we all do at some point, maybe the pilots need checking over plus the aircraft by someone before they do the stunts, but sorry if you thought I spoke out of turn.
let us take a serious look at what is being suggested by some people .....
airshows shouldn't take place near roads ?
vintage aircraft shouldn't be allowed to fly ?
air displays should only take place over the sea /
you would be very hard pushed to find an airfield/airport that doesn't have a road near it.
think Southampton airport, just over the fence from the M27.
let alone Gatwick [M23] Heathrow [M25 / M4] the list goes on.
thousands of air movements, be they at displays or routine flights, land and take off every day across roads without incident. they have to due to the infrastructure.
this appears to have been a terrible ACCIDENT, and no more. if you ban, or constrain, air shows as a result, where do the knee jerkers stop ?
a few years ago IIRC an aircraft crashed on the M1 while on approach to an airport in the midlands.
do you close the airport ?? where do you stop ?
it is a terrible fact of life that accidents happen, every day, and they have often horrendous results.
however I do not believe that stopping everything that has resulted from an accident is the answer.
investigate, and where the reasons can be ascertained, then things can sometimes be done to mitigate them.
but there will always be accidents, and that is a fact of life whether it's an aircraft at an airshow, a ship at sea, an aircraft on a scheduled flight, a hang glider or parachutist, a rock climber, a horse rider ..... the list is never ending.
things can be made safer, but there will always be accidents.
sorry for going on.
Well, to be brutally honest : every day there are numerous car accidents, lots of injuries, and a number of fatalities. And that's just in this country.
That's not true with aircraft; it's just that (passenger aircraft especially) the numbers can be a lot more in one incident :(
As to checking the pilots & aircraft - do you get checked out every time you use a car ? Do you check the car out ? This does happen on aircraft ... OK, pilots don't get fully checked every time - but they have to pass a stringent physical every year. Can you imagine the reaction if that was brought in on all car drivers, say by making the driving test a yearly occurance ? And, like locomotives, the aircraft need to pass inspection before they take to the air, more so when they are in displays like this (and please - no flippant remarks, people, about locomotives not taking to the air ... ::)).
It's a shocking accident; but when you consider the figures it's more shocking that road safety is not given this level of attention ...
As it happens, I know someone (from work) who lives down that area; I've not heard from him today, but I know his family were planning a few days away late last week/early this week. I'm hoping that they didn't change their minds & stayed close to home, attending this ... I'll know more tomorrow when he's due back.
Quote from: Geoff on August 24, 2015, 10:15:59 AM
Yes maybe you are right I di give a Kneejerk reaction but I think we all do at some point, maybe the pilots need checking over plus the aircraft by someone before they do the stunts, but sorry if you thought I spoke out of turn.
Not out of turn at all. And yes, absolutely the aircraft should (and almost certainly was) checked by the pilot before it took off, and it would have had a serious of airworthiness exams across its entire operating life at very regular intervals. Unlike a car, which gets examined once a year regardless of how much its used, an aircraft is checked after specific hours of flying time. There's a series of exams, A, B, C and D exams, and these are steadily more detailed. This is on top of the standard checks pilots are expected to do before they take off.
Before you fly at an airshow you'll have to present a whole bunch of paperwork that demonstrates that the aircraft is safe and you have all the necessary skills. This isn't like a classic car show where someone just turns up with their Morris Minor and parks it on the lawn.
It will be interesting to see what happened with the Hawker Hunter. There is an argument for saying that old aircraft need to be handled with discretion care when it comes to airworthiness, but once the airframe is life expired, it stays on the ground unless the aircraft can be substantially rebuilt with a new airframe (in which case is it more a replica than an original aircraft). The guys who organise airshows take their job very seriously, and civil aviation officials can't be negotiated with. If they say an aircraft is not airworthy, it's stays on the ground. End of story.
Catastrophic accidents happen even with brand new aircraft. Bad luck, a poorly manufactured component that failed, some external distraction or damage to the aircraft occurred... we just don't know yet. The level of investigation makes anything we do with road accidents look like amateur hour. Seriously, there will be some very, very detailed analysis going on now, and once the dust has settled the engineers and officials will hopefully be able to explain what went wrong (and if necessary, make recommendations).
What we don't need is politicians with precisely zero understand of aviation or engineering sticking their noses into the situation. As in almost all situations of crisis, the best thing politicians can do is NOTHING and let the trained professionals get on with it.
Cheers, NeMo
"the best thing politicians can do is NOTHING and let the trained professionals get on with it."
well said.
especially about the 'trained professionals' rather than the 'experts' who are already coming out of the woodwork with their 'expert opinions' .
one was on the news earlier saying how the pilot obviously decided to land on the road rather than risk crashing on the airfield.
this in spite of clear photos showing he was crossing the road and heading towards the airfield, which then has a substantial clear area north of the runway, where he could have landed and been closer to the airfield emergency services.
all this sort of speculation does not help, and just causes even more misery.
IMHO this needs to be left as a terrible accident, and the expert crash investigators left to do their work rather than lots of people guessing, and getting their 10 seconds of fame on TV regardless of how much agony they cause.
rant over :sorrysign:
One thing that annoys me more than these (in)expert 'talking heads' is the way the news teams simply must ask bloody stupid & insensitive questions - as well as the rush to get live coverage from (as near as possible to) the site of the incident in question; add in the near-constant barrage from that reporter for the next 8 hours at least ... :confused1:
I really think that 24-hour news is a bane, not a blessing ... There just isn't enough news for it to be a constant programme ! Bring back the days when news really was news, and not some stuck-up :censored: knickerless actress with delusions of grandeur parading around ... to be replaced only when there's a tragedy like this ...
(whoops, I guess this belongs to the Angry Thread !!! ::))
Great news, he's made contact so panic over. :sweat: :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
Not realise the family was panicking, or ... ?
> "Bring back the days when news really was news, "
Yep, with you 100%, and we all? have heard that clip (was it from 2LO or some other early form of Beeb ?), when the news reader announced that "today there is no news"
>"knickerless actress"
I truss you have evidence to support this ?
> "(whoops, I guess this belongs to the Angry Thread !!! ::)
Yer not wrong there :)
Quote from: MalcolmAL on August 24, 2015, 12:44:09 PM
>"knickerless actress"
I truss you have evidence to support this ?
What, you want a copy :laughabovepost:
I'm sure a Google will bring back a plethora of results, although there are several obvious ones, eg the Lohan girl ...
Guys please...some forms of thread drift are not appropriate !!
Quote from: Caz on August 24, 2015, 12:35:03 PM
Great news, he's made contact so panic over. :sweat: :thumbsup:
Really pleased to hear that!!
best wishes
Simon
Quote from: Tom U on August 24, 2015, 01:16:18 PM
Guys please...some forms of thread drift are not appropriate !!
I agree,
Malcolm behave yourself.
For those interested, have a read of this document from the Civil Aviation Authority:
Civil Air Displays A Guide for Pilots (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CivilAirDisplaysAGuideforPilots.pdf)
It's one of the clearest documents I've ever seen from a regulatory body.
The BBC are (inaccurately) reporting "bans" on aerobatic displays, when in fact the CAA have (sensibly) only placed a temporary ban (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2479) on flying Hunters generally and also on high energy aerobatic displays (but not straightforward flybys and manoeuvres) until such time as they've established what went wrong.
They're reviewing risk assessments for upcoming shows, but not banning them, and leaving it to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch to establish what happened at Shoreham.
In other words, the CAA and AAIB are doing exactly what they're meant to do. I hope that the politicians stay right out of this, but I imagine they'll find it really difficult, what with their encyclopaedic knowledge of aerospace engineering.
Cheers, NeMo
I'm sorry NeMo, but I really must pull you up for expecting "news" organisations to put mundane and unimportant things like so-called 'facts' get in the way of an emotive and glory-grabbing headline & 'report' ...
You should be ashamed ... :telloff: :telloff: :telloff:
I actually agree that these displays shouldn't happen near to a main road especially when they are held somewhere like Shoreham-by-Sea to give the place its full name and also to show there was another option, the sea. However, the reason I say this is nothing to do with what happened on Sunday and the likelihood of it happening again. The reason I say this is that they can also cause a distraction to drivers possibly leading to accidents between the vehicles themselves. Who can honestly say that if there was a display going on above/across the road they were driving on that they wouldn't be distracted and try to sneak a look at what the aircraft are doing? It's bad enough when there's an accident already on a road and the rubber neckers cause another through being distracted looking at it.
Just my thoughts on it as I know I would be tempted to look up rather than straight ahead.
I'm a long way away, and actually the first I heard of this was via this forum. However, we are primarily a railway forum, and if we are to have discussion about what is basically a very, very tragic accident, I feel comments should be specific and not concerned with media interpretation, driver behaviour, etc.
No doubt the aviation authorities will be reviewing the airshow issue.
Quote from: Sprintex on August 24, 2015, 09:53:16 AM
Quote from: NeMo on August 24, 2015, 09:16:53 AM
What we don't need is a knee-jerk response from government about banning airshows or something along those lines
Which knowing this country is exactly what will happen! Not a ban as such, but so many new rules and regulations that it won't be worth the hassle or expense putting a show on in the first place :(
And surprise surprise if this morning's front pages are to be believed that's exactly what's happened :veryangry:
No aerobatics over land and none involving vintage jets is what they're saying (although I haven't read any deeper, don't do newspapers), not worth bothering to organise then really. This country can be REALLY stupid at times, any other country this would just be called an 'accident' and that would be done with it! :censored:
Paul
Quote from: Sprintex on August 25, 2015, 07:09:39 AM
This country can be REALLY stupid at times, any other country this would just be called an 'accident' and that would be done with it! :censored:
No need to fear for the country just yet! If you read my post above (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=29285.msg326995#msg326995), and follow the links therein, you'll see that happened is the Civil Aviation Authority has -- temporarily -- placed a ban on high-energy acrobatics (not basic flypasts and such) and grounded all Hawker Hunters. These two restrictions are sensible precautions that will be in place until the Air Accident Investigation Branch identify what went wrong, at which point the CAA will make appropriate changes to what happens at air shows, if necessary.
Air crashes are never allowed to be called accidents without the AAIB investigating them first. That's a global approach, not just something about the UK, and is part of the 'safety first' mentality that pervades air travel.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: Bealman on August 25, 2015, 06:24:19 AM
if we are to have discussion about what is basically a very, very tragic accident, I feel comments should be specific and not concerned with media interpretation, driver behaviour, etc.
Strange ... I had thought we were within the description of this aspect ?
Quote from: General Category
General Discussion
Talk about anything here! Other gauges, hobbies, the weather...
some good news
fuselage was lifted yesterday, and removed to Farnborough for AAIB examination.
there are no reports so far of further victims being found, which had been feared.
Quote from: MikeDunn on August 25, 2015, 08:57:59 AM
Quote from: Bealman on August 25, 2015, 06:24:19 AM
if we are to have discussion about what is basically a very, very tragic accident, I feel comments should be specific and not concerned with media interpretation, driver behaviour, etc.
Strange ... I had thought we were within the description of this aspect ?
Quote from: General Category
General Discussion
Talk about anything here! Other gauges, hobbies, the weather...
We are a model railway forum. Yes, we have a general discussion area.
The airshow accident we refer to happened on Saturday.
I really don't see how anything we as a forum can do except give witness if we were there.
It is now Tuesday.
My apologies - I must have missed the rule about a 48-hour time limit on things :hmmm:
I think this thread has run its course, there was plane crash, now
being investigated, speculation about causes and press bashing
a bit pointless.
There is not, and never has been a 48 hour time limit on any comment made here.
Quote from: NeMo on August 25, 2015, 07:56:01 AM
temporarily -- placed a ban on high-energy acrobatics (not basic flypasts and such) and grounded all Hawker Hunters.
Quite right NeMo,
one had to listen ever so carefully to the Beeb in the later b/c to fathom that it was protem, the earlier ones were all about A BAN :(
re. your above bit, I think it was also a ban on
vintage aircraft , not just Hunters ?? but I may be wrong and have not heard any today ( been in the hospital most of today so out of
the loop so to speak, oh heck what did I just say ! )
At least I didnt hear anything about banning vintage observers !
and if a fella canna talk about whatever in General well well , whatever is one to do, I mean it isnt like everyone is forced to read it ??? Dont mind me I just had a bad day. I'll tell in the other thread )
Quote from: MalcolmAL on August 25, 2015, 04:50:59 PM
re. your above bit, I think it was also a ban on vintage aircraft , not just Hunters ??
You're quite right to bring this up for clarification. It's a (temporary) ban on vintage JET aircraft (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2479) performing at airshows. Turboprops and piston-engine "propeller" aircraft, vintage* or otherwise, are not affected and will continue to fly at airshows. Propeller planes are much simpler, or perhaps it's better to say, because jets are so complex, and generally fly faster and require better trained pilots, a blanket ban on them makes sense until the causes of the Shoreham incident are understood.
Cheers, NeMo
*The definition of "vintage jet" was not something I knew offhand. Had to look it up. It's quite complicated, but in short means any (jet or propeller) aircraft over 40 years old and not on a specific set of lists called the EASA Product Lists. If an aircraft isn't on these lists, it's up to each nation to decide whether it's allowed to fly or not.
http://easa.europa.eu/document-library/product-certification/type-certificates/easa-product-lists (http://easa.europa.eu/document-library/product-certification/type-certificates/easa-product-lists)
Quote from: NeMo on August 25, 2015, 05:09:42 PMvintage JET
Good point thanks, one that I had missed.
So if they ever get that Sopwith Pup flying it'll be ok :)
So, the interminable discussion turned ok in the end :) :angel: :laugh:
I do hate this tendency these days of everyone starting with "So" , , ,
So do I :(
A Sopwith Pup is flying at the Shuttleworth Air Pagent on 6/9/15
Quote from: javlinfaw7 on August 26, 2015, 03:02:51 PM
A Sopwith Pup is flying at the Shuttleworth Air Pagent on 6/9/15
Interesting, thank you, wish it wasnt so far from me :(
I think that will be a replica ?
The only original remaining (they say) is one that was recently on static display at
Tickenham Tyntsfield Estate Wraxall (SW of Bristol) and is the one that I was (a little tongue-in-cheek :) ) referring to.
Mind u by the time it is rebuilt to air worthy there will not be much left of the original either.
There prob. wont be much left of me by then as it has been in rebuild mode since 1970 (or thereabouts ) and it is still a skeleton !!
Edit to correct location.
The Shuttleworth Pup was originally built as a Dove ,a two seat civilian version of the Pup , it was rebuilt as a Pup in the 1930's and has been with Shuttleworth ever since. I believe there are three more examples in the uk at RAF Cosford ,Middle Wallop and R.N. Yoevilton
Quote from: MalcolmAL on August 26, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
The only original remaining (they say) is one that was recently on static display at Tickenham (SW of Bristol)
Well, what about this one ?
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/sopwith-pup/ (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/collections/sopwith-pup/)
Well, what about it !
I will think about passing the info to BBC "Points West" in Bristol !!
Thank you Javlin and Mike, very interesting.
I did say " I think " with a ?
and " (they say) "
my way of getting feedback from knowledgeable people ( you lot )
Sorry if you thought I was trying to rewrite history.
I had better do the same for the Western Daily Press which says :-
"A First World War aircraft which is the only one left of its type in the world "
tho' they leave themselves more wriggle room/words when they follow with :-
"It is the only Sopwith Pup still in existence which served with the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) during the First World War. "
http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/World-War-Sopwith-Pup-plane-goes-display/story-27621793-detail/story.html (http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/World-War-Sopwith-Pup-plane-goes-display/story-27621793-detail/story.html)
Nice pic of the skeleton though !!
and one of the BBC stories :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-33957463 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-33957463)
Forgive me for believing them all ?? lol! Didnt mean to upset y'sall ;)
where's my flame proof trousers , , , >>>
Quote from: MalcolmAL on August 26, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
tho' they leave themselves more wriggle room/words when they follow with :-
"It is the only Sopwith Pup still in existence which served with the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) during the First World War. "
Hmmm :hmmm: tricky ...
Quote
06 Sep 16 ADD (Aeroplane Depot Dunkerque-St Pol) (via Dover). Allocated to RFC (Military Wing) as A8736 at Dunkirk (Dunkerque) but not taken up.
I guess you could argue it both ways ... the history of this aircraft is quite interesting.
and the really really dumb anecdote is :-
I knew about the Sopwith Camel,
but when I first read about the Sopwith Pup I thought it was a made-up name by W.E.Johns !
I learned the error of my ways somewhat later ;)
Am I drifting too much ( again!) ?