2016 Airshow fee structure petition

[Aviatore]

As some of you have interest and some pretty amazing and in depth knowledge of aviation related topics I thought I'd pass on the following concerning the 2016 and beyond proposed airshow fee structure changes.

The CAA link to their proposals is broken right now but I'll get their official summary uploaded once I find another path.

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2016/02/04/caa-airshow-charges-consultation-2016-cause-effect-in-overview/

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628

[Mr Gazza]

Thanks for flagging that up Aviatore...Petition signed...:thumbsup:

some pretty amazing and in depth knowledge of aviation related topics

....And this is the reason that the CAA was formed in the early thirties, if memory serves.

The "Flying Flea"...A kit plane with a terrible reputation for killing people...The rest is history.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2nquqlg.jpg

[smiffyraf1]

the beginning of the end of uk airshows. such a shame. a prime example of what this country has become.

[Stinger101]

Petition signed. It sounds a typical knee jerk reaction. I hope common sense prevails.

[emzedder]

Unfortunately this is likely to happen. In a time when, as Alan Sugar stated "families take the choice of buying a new Smart TV set or paying for the family to see a premiership football match for 90 mins" because they cost the same people will still pay. 20% of niche "nice" events will disappear but then the run of the mill masses won't care a jot.

[popelli]

signed

just another stealth tax by George Osborne as usual nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue collection

[Aviatore]

That Flying Flea looks like something straight out of Scrapheap Challenge. Clearly there was a need for regulation with things like that being produced and sold. Still I've always thought that any bureaucratic agency, if left alone long enough, will lose its hold on reality and begin to overstep its bounds. The petition is a great way to call them out on it, hopefully it'll force them to listen to reason.

I think that once they are forced to face the economic reality, either by petition or loss of the industry, they'll scale back the proposals to something reasonable. Hopefully they remember that they can't live without the current airshow income stream before they kill it off. If they don't then the airworthy planes will either be retired to museums and static displays or sold off to more airshow friendly countries.

Once the planes are gone it'll be hell getting them back.

[Darren69]

Maybe the name was apt? Fleas don't fly. they don't even have wings!

[Darkness]

http://i63.tinypic.com/2nquqlg.jpg
....And this is the reason that the CAA was formed in the early thirties, if memory serves.

The "Flying Flea"...A kit plane with a terrible reputation for killing people...The rest is history.

That doesn't seem to be a good reason to still be flying one: even, or especially, at demonstrations...........

[Aviatore]

Found it, basically some ham fisted bureaucrat simply doubled the entire fee structure for the application process. No idea how that will affect the operating costs of many of the companies that restore and show the old warbirds but it can't be good for the little guys who only have one plane.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/statutory%20charges%20GA%20V2.pdf

[Mr Gazza]

That doesn't seem to be a good reason to still be flying one: even, or especially, at demonstrations...........

They don't fly it..!
It is the only aircraft in the Shuttleworth collection that they do not fly, even though it is fully restored and has (had) an airworthiness certificate. It just does taxi runs.

Looking at the picture, it does not appear to have any control surfaces beyond the rudder.
So I am assuming that pitch is controlled by throttle only and that it has sufficient dihedral for the rudder alone to be effective in turning.

It also looks extremely close coupled, which will make it very unstable in pitch. With no elevators that will be a recipe for disaster.

Little wonder that it caused a regulatory body into existance....Sensibly so you would think, until the recent over reaction.

But how about this for an ironic twist to the tale?....The French designer of the Flying Flea brought it to England and gave the first demonstration at Shoreham..!

[Flip]

Yep signed here too - thanks!!

I was at Shoreham the day the Hunter crashed (I've been going there for years) and it was as horrible as you can imagine, but ever since my Dad used to take me to Farnborough when I was a lad I've loved airshows and would hate them to stop as a reaction to the accident.

Of course there are risks but there are with most things and it would be a shame for the planes to stop flying.

I am certainly not trying to belittle what happened or disrespect the families involved but as with most accidents it is a case of wrong place, wrong time- for example if it had happened just few feet on it would have been doubtful anyone (except the pilot maybe) would have been killed or injured and next to nothing would have been said such in the case of the Hurricane that crashed there (just off to the North on the Downs) in 2004.

I am certainly no expert but to my eyes from where I saw it I still think the plane had a problem as it was nose up but seemed to be pushing forward without climbing- whether that was as a result of the loop being started at too low an altitude I don't know, as I say I am no expert on the dynamics.

I did find this clip of the planes' take off earlier that day to be rather interesting though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36gUb2NDhI

[Darkness]

They don't fly it..!
It is the only aircraft in the Shuttleworth collection that they do not fly, even though it is fully restored and has (had) an airworthiness certificate. It just does taxi runs.

That's a relief, though still a bit brave. It screams out for a static display.

[Aviatore]

I think pitch control is done through pivoting the entire front wing... can't tell from the picture but there is a lot going on at the upper wing mounting point. Much more than just support struts. I think you're right about the rudder and roll Gazza. All that would make for a good kit plane as there's a lot less complexity/cost in the build but controls would be weird. A fore-aft stick for pitch and the usual rudder pedals for yaw/roll. Makes me curious to know if the terrible safety record stems from controllability or just shoddy kit building. I'm guessing controllability since they don't fly it anymore. Either case does require some regulation to solve.

Unfortunately safety in aviation usually advances from tragic lessons learned. The Flea and its victims helped kit plane safety so that nowadays we enjoy ones that are very good. The FAA/CAA and others have gotten that one right, what bothers me about the airshow proposals is that its an unabashed money grab, it disrespects the Shoreham victims because it does nothing to address the causes of the crash. If the plane had a malfunction then the question they should be asking is whether it was a systemic maintenance issue that allowed a bad plane through, or was it a freak accident. If its systemic then regulation can change procedures for the better, if a freak accident then there is little that can be done to prevent a similar problem. They should also be asking about boundaries and compliance with the established regulations. If the plane was out of the airshow bounds it would be either the pilot's fault or too small a venue for the show. Again regulation in training or airshow venue requirements need to be looked at for improvements. There is a premium on airspace and if it means that some venues are now too small to host jets then its sad but necessary.

Really the biggest tragedy of the crash is that none of the victims chose to accept the extra risk by airshow attendance, they were just going down the motorway. The Hunter could just as easily have crashed into a row of houses or into an empty field. It was simply tragic bad luck for them and for the CAA to make a money grab on the back of their memory is just inappropriate.

[Nickj]

If any of the regulation bodies I have experience of are any guide it sounds like a salary increase is to follow.
Bad idea isn't it, I remember the days of auto-gyros hanging over head and in service Vulcans coming in fast at what seemed like tree top level (kin awesome sight and sound) .. barrel rolls ... 1/2 cuban 8's ... virtual half loops (really bomb toss manoevures)

Wings are inherently unstable enough to flick easily but do generate some heavy and damaging G's if the roll rate is too high

[Mr Gazza]

Flip, I'm well jealous of you seeing the Farnborough airshows. I love the Pathe News reels of the shows from the 50's and early 60's....The Jet age..!!

Your eyewitness comments about the Hunter are the only ones I have heard. The general consensus seems to be that the loop was started too low, but we will only find out the truth when the investigation is complete...Believe it or not that is a Police investigation.

I have seen Hunters deploy the ventral brake, on the descent part of the loop. Presumably to lose as much speed as possible and keep the loop tight. My own theory was that the brake was not used, the loop "stretched" and too much height was lost?

What you say about the nose high attitude makes me think that the plane was not going fast enough....A Hunter pilot once told me that it was a very good thing to "let it run" for about a mile after take off, before pulling the nose up...You need speed or a LOT of power to stay flying with a high angle of attack.

Now I am thinking that the pilot realised he was low after coming over the top, probably had the brake pulled out anyway, but pulled the stick back hard to tighten the loop and increased the angle of attack to the point of stalling.
If he still had the nose up when the turbine was trying to spool back up to speed the plane would never have accelerated (nor generated any lift).
The proper thing to do is to get the nose down so the wings fly...but I guess with a busy road in sight the instinct is to pull up?

For example, if you are heading for the back of a car at speed with your wheels locked..Do you let the brakes off and firmly re-apply? or just keep pulling the lever harder?

Whatever..It's a horrible business...I await the verdict with interest.

[Flip]

Really the biggest tragedy of the crash is that none of the victims chose to accept the extra risk by airshow attendance, they were just going down the motorway. The Hunter could just as easily have crashed into a row of houses or into an empty field. It was simply tragic bad luck for them and for the CAA to make a money grab on the back of their memory is just inappropriate.

Again not to sound disrespectful to those who lost friends and family who were simply victims of fate travelling on the A27 where the accident took place that day, it has to be said that the road there is lined both sides with grassy banks and is always a popular place to watch from. Which, up until the birth of my daughter in 2012 I often took advantage of as it was always easy to park up a motorcycle around there (they Police cone the side roads to prevent cars from blocking them) and have a drink in what used to be the Sussex Pad pub (now accommodation for Lancing College) while watching.

Flip, I'm well jealous of you seeing the Farnborough airshows. I love the Pathe News reels of the shows from the 50's and early 60's....The Jet age..!!

Your eyewitness comments about the Hunter are the only ones I have heard. The general consensus seems to be that the loop was started too low, but we will only find out the truth when the investigation is complete...Believe it or not that is a Police investigation.

I have seen Hunters deploy the ventral brake, on the descent part of the loop. Presumably to lose as much speed as possible and keep the loop tight. My own theory was that the brake was not used, the loop "stretched" and too much height was lost?

What you say about the nose high attitude makes me think that the plane was not going fast enough....A Hunter pilot once told me that it was a very good thing to "let it run" for about a mile after take off, before pulling the nose up...You need speed or a LOT of power to stay flying with a high angle of attack.

Now I am thinking that the pilot realised he was low after coming over the top, probably had the brake pulled out anyway, but pulled the stick back hard to tighten the loop and increased the angle of attack to the point of stalling.
If he still had the nose up when the turbine was trying to spool back up to speed the plane would never have accelerated (nor generated any lift).
The proper thing to do is to get the nose down so the wings fly...but I guess with a busy road in sight the instinct is to pull up?

I agree, there has been a lot of talk about the loop being started too low but my understanding is that the chap flying was one of the two who regularly flew that particular plane around the airshow circuit so I would like to think he wouldn't have risked it knowingly, in the same way the take off looked slow but perhaps that was intentional/normal also?. I read the comments on the clip of it taking off one of which seemed to back up the Hunter pilot's comments you speak of by saying the pilot rotates at 135knots and climbs at 9 degrees to maintain airspeed- nothing like the modern jets we see going vertical almost as soon as they leave the ground (such as the F22- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=totzfPN4hWQ)

I certainly didn't see the brake applied but it is possible my view wouldn't allowed me to but it somehow didn't look right to me.

On a lighter note with regards to the old news reel of the jet age- here's a good one for you from 1953 filmed off the beach about ten minutes from where I live.
Neville Duke breaking the speed record at sea level in a Hunter which took off and landed at Tangmere (which, apart from the Museum there, is now a business park and housing estate).

I was lucky enough to meet him 1996 when they put up a plaque to commemorate the achievement. Bloody nice bloke with a real passion for flight and time to share his stories!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gR31uEC67SA

[Aviatore]

Got to love youtube for the ability to get lost for hours on end watching old plane porn!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weV-9Sj8F5Y#t=1525.88130792

I bet the guy at 31:18 had to use the super wash and extra rinse on his flight suit!

After watching this and seeing just how good the plane was I'd hazard a guess that Shoreham wasn't the fault of the plane, Bill's story starting at 18:40 demonstrates that anyone can get it wrong.

[Dirty]

nothing like the modern jets we see going vertical almost as soon as they leave the ground (such as the F22- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=totzfPN4hWQ)



http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/going-vertical-f-22-f-15.jpg

[Mr Gazza]

Dammit..! I can't access youtube at the moment, so I can't watch your links...Shame, as I fancy a flash of High Speed Silver in black and white...:D

Wow, you met Neville Duke. That's cool.:thumbsup:

I can at least claim meeting a Neville.
He designed a few models for Kiel Kraft in the 50's and early 60's..(His most famous being the Caprice, which is still available and popular.)
I befriended Neville through model flying.

He was a Radar operator back in the day. One of his favorite stories is of the time he guided none other than Neville Duke down for a low super-sonic pass in his Hunter.

Apparently the Queen Mother had heard of these new fangled sonic booms and wanted to hear one at close quarters for herself.....So the Nevilles obliged her..:D

[emzedder]

A long time work colleague and friends father flew Hunters before leaving the RAF before becoming the first Station Commander at StFaiths in Norwich. One of the roads "Buck Courtney Crescent" is named after him, he was called "Buck" because he was shot down in his Hurricane and rescued from the channel during BofB and received shrapnel injury in an area that made sitting down difficult for a while! Buck was one of the pilots that flew the 6 ship Vampire for 54 Squadron between the Hebrides and Canada in late forties.

I had the privilege of reading his entire log book from late 20's through to early 50's .... a mix of routine monotonous excercises and patrols mixed with frantic combat missions written in a manner that only a straight laced, cooled headed British pilot could.

By the way, he also flew Spits but mostly Hurricanes in combat considering the latter the best tool of the lot .... he would have known!

[Mr Gazza]

Well what do you know? we got a result..:biggrin:

Still could do with more signatures though...So please sign the petition if you have not done so...Thanks.

"The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Ask Civil Aviation Authority to rethink their charges to the 2016 Airshow season”.
Government responded:
The Government expects the Civil Aviation Authority to review its draft air display & low flying permission charges after its current consultation, in which we encourage those interested to take part.
The law requires the Civil Aviation Authority to consult first those affected by a charging scheme, and then the Secretary of State, before introducing the scheme. The CAA is currently consulting on proposed changes to air display charges and this consultation ends on 29 February 2016. The Civil Aviation Authority will review its scheme in the light of the consultation responses. The Secretary of State will consider any charging scheme as submitted to him following that consultation and review.
Department for Transport
Click this link to view the response online:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628?reveal_response=yes
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition."