On 25/08/2015 02:55, Jess Lurkin wrote:
> Charles Lindbergh <spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote in
> news:scentahh6pjnqdgiq532gt3evul3bo171n@4ax.com:
>
>> On 25 Aug 2015 00:05:16 GMT, Jess Lurkin <NiceGuy@34576.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Lindbergh <spirit@stlouis.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:v28ntalneoj94pqlbt2getg9al0p5rftm7@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Probably a wise decision.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.seattlepi.com/news/world/article/Police-fear-air-show-cras
>>>> h- toll-could-rise-to-20-6461458.php#photo-8508029
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> http://bit.ly/1IahRqp
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all! Flybys/flyovers should go on just to keep
>>> the birds healthy. That acrobatic stuff with some of
>>> the 50+ year old birds (and maybe a few drivers) needs
>>> to go. My vote is to keep on keeping on. Safely.
>>
>> I have no doubt the pilot and the organizers felt what they did with
>> the Hunter was safe.
>>
>> From what I read, the curbs are on older aircraft performing high
>> energy maneuvers at airshows.
>>
>> No matter how much I love aircraft, I cannot justify the death of 10
>> innocents and one pilot for the sake of entertainment.
>>
>
> Who can justify any deaths? I'm not ready to start walking
> to work because there are over 33k road deaths every year.
>
> High energy maneuvers? That is what I am saying. Fly overs
> aren't that at all. Aerobatic stunts with 50+ year old birds
> (and maybe a few drivers) needs to go - or at least somewhat
> regulated. My vote is to keep on keeping on. Safely.
> But I repeat myself. Cheers sir.
>
Just to be exact, the CAA restriction applies to vintage jets, I
believe, due to them being heavier and faster than, say, a Spitfire or
Tiger Moth. Being an avid airshow goer myself, I think the CAA are
probably right in this instance. Britain is so densely populated and
built-upon that even in a relatively 'open' area, the chances are if
something goes wrong, someone is going to get hit, especially if the
aircraft is travelling at great speed.
|
|