Jon H Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I am not sure if this has been shared already but please give this article a read as these new proposals could pretty much ruin the UK airshow scene. The article details the new money making policies the CAA is proposing in the wake of the Shoreham accident. As the report states, the accident at Shoreham was truly horrific (I was there so I know) and something we should work to avoid, but without an AAIB report stating clearly what went wrong we cannot yet make any changes. Also the doubling of charges has nothing to do with safety. So anyway, please have a read and see what you think of what is being proposed. I personally think it is nothing more than a panic reaction to the bad press and an opportunity to make money. **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leighfield Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I've posted this on Facebook, asked people to object and to share it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I remember the Le Mans disaster when 77 people were killed by one of the Mercedes works cars going out of control and into the spectators. Le Mans still goes on as does other racing events despite the awful tragedy. Perhaps one difference with the desperately tragic Shoreham event is that those killed weren't spectators but members of the public who just happened to be using a road adjacent to the airfield. Never the less the safety record of airshows in the past 50 years has been outstanding and one event shouldn't prejudice all airshows and certainly not penalise them financially to such a huge extent. I can't see how these elevated charges will improve the safety record. I can understand tighter regulation which may need slightly higher fees but this action seems to have as its primary purpose to reduce drastically the number of shows. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 I agree Geoff, and given that there has not been an incident like this in 50+ years clearly the rules in place are sufficient for the moment and following an investigation into what happened if ways to tweak them and make them better are found then clearly we should action that, but without the accident report we have nothing to go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Richardson Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Seems like a backdoor approach to banning airshows without actually banning them, financial attrition, will over a short period of time force most if not all airshow's to close, SNEAKY. Just my opinion. Tony................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Well I've done plenty air shows and I enjoy them as much as you lads, reads to me like there'll be advanced training and medical checks, so the rise is not all about making money is it ? Is it a fair rise ? I've no idea, but I can hazard a guess as to who'll be paying more at the gate. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The justification seems to be that they are producing enhanced risk assessments etc. costing £250k The CAP 1371 document is here - the link to it (from within the link above) didn't work for me... Edited By Martin Harris on 09/02/2016 23:18:13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Are you guys aware of the petition that the airshow pilots themselves are promoting. Please sign it to try and save the airshows as more are being cancelled almost daily. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/120628 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by john stones 1 on 09/02/2016 23:15:23: Well I've done plenty air shows and I enjoy them as much as you lads, reads to me like there'll be advanced training and medical checks, so the rise is not all about making money is it ? Is it a fair rise ? I've no idea, but I can hazard a guess as to who'll be paying more at the gate. John If there is 'advanced training and (additional) medical checks' it will be the display pilots or the organisations they work for that foot the bill, it won't come from the CAA. if the extra fees are for 'risk assessments' then what are the present fees for? As far as 'who will be paying more at the gates'? There won't be any gates John, or at least most of the regional shows will become a thing of the past. No more flying displays at Old Warden for instance. Very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Bran Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Most of the above posts seem to miss the point. The CAA are stating quite clearly that the amount of hours they are expending on Air Shows is greatly exceeding the income they receive, and that this imbalance cannot continue. If the increase is true, the work falls within their remit, and if the costs are justified by verifiable records of efficient hourage expended, they may have a valid point. This is a reasonably easily matter to audit and have verified, so who Audits the Auditor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by Dave Bran on 10/02/2016 07:28:23: Most of the above posts seem to miss the point. I agree, Aviation Highlights has written a knee jerk reaction, concentrating on something that is not entirely honest nor entirely factual. This is just cheap sensationalism. To state that the CAA is "focused solely on aising further funds for the organisation itself" is totally ignorant of the reports available. They claim to be a "fresh and exciting aviation journalism project for 2016". They are a trash "Hello" style magazine, if this article represents how they conduct themselves. Someone has even made a typical knee jerk petition on the .gov website as they completely miss the point. The .gov petition doesn't actually say anything other than to suggest that it is a sneaky hike in price. The real information is there for the taking with a public consultation by the CAA here on the charges. This is the consultation document: **LINK** The form to fill out to be involved in the public consultation is here: **LINK** You will see from this that there is nothing sneaky at all. You can get involved yourself and be part of the solution, rather than sign a knee jerk petition. The CAA has also released an action report : **LINK** The release notes on the report are here: **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 There is some click bait in that article for sure, and they have focused on the negative in certain areas. I cant disagree with that. However, the upshot of all this is that the charges being levied, fair or otherwise will kill off a large number of shows and given that they claim to be spending 250k on risk assessing 300 airshows each show should pay about £834 quid. Given that figure, how can after show fees of 20k be justified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Sorry Jon but the charges are proposed, not definite, and you have every chance to get involved with the public consultation on the matter. Stating that the increase in charges will kill off a number of airshows is pure guestimation. Your £834 increase can easily be recovered by a small increase in admission fees. A mere 42p increase would cover it for 2000 people attending. Take RIAT, for example. Charges could increase, based on the proposed tables, by £17695. 2014 saw 150,000 paying visitors. That is an incease of 12 pence per ticket to cover the increased costs. Don't forget as well that companies sponsor the events, private hospitality for the larger shows pay for the privilege and product showcases and stalls all bring in a fair portion of income too, so the increase in costs would be easily absorbed. I will repeat though that these figures are all proposed. There are no changes yet and you can get involved and be in the coalface of the public consultation. The full explanation of why the costs are inceasing, which has nothing to do with what "Aviation Highlights" claim is the CAA cashing in is here: **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 At the risk of being very unpopular I'd like to suggest that the wrong people are being blamed here. Sadly we live in an age that seems to accept as an axiom that if there is an accident then something must be wrong. We know that isn't true, but non-the-less it does seem to be an unchallenged truth of modern life. The follow on problem it generates is that we get a bad case of "politician's logic": 1. Something must be done 2. This is "something", so 3. Let's do it. The result is a call more far more stringent checks, evaluations, risk assessments and post event checks on compliance, reviews etc. The burden of doing this will fall on the CAA - whether they believe its a good idea or not! That will mean a lot more time and effort. And that in turn means more cost. I would not claim to know the CAA itimately, but I have had a number of dealings with them. My overriding impression has been of a highly professional organisation totally focussed on one ideal - the safe and efficient use of UK airspace. It has become clear to me that many of the people in the organisation that I have spoken to are genuinely interested in aviation. Its not just "a job" for them. I find it really hard to believe, from what I have experienced, that the CAA's actions are motivated by either a desire to increase revenue, or a desire to see the end of airshows. That simply doesn't stack up. I am not saying that there are not those among their political masters who would worry about such things - but not the CAA. Anyway, think about it for a moment, yes on a personal level the sums involved seem large, £20k etc., but just how much extra income do we think this represents? I doubt if it adds up to £500,000pa, believe me to an organisation the size of the CAA, let alone the UK government, that is chicken feed! No, I do not think money is the motivator here, nor do I believe the CAA "have it in for airshows" - sadly I think our opponents are much higher up the food chain, much more powerful and far less informed. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon H Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 John, i cant find anything in there about the actual costs. Where are the tables you mention? Also the 834 quid figure is one i made by dividing the apparent cost of the admin by the number of airshows. What i was getting at is that 834 is a long way from the proposed charges of over 20k in some instances. What i have been trying to find is a breakdown of the charges against attendance figures so that i can get an idea of ticket price rises. if all this extra work amounts to 2 quid on my ticket i am not worried, but the implication is that double the fees means double the ticket price and that will make airshows uneconomical to attend with any regularity. And i know they are proposed, and before they are finalised i would like the full story on what its going to cost and if i dislike it i want to be able to say so! BEB, i agree that the issue is more than likely higher up the chain but in the end the CAA will do as they are told if it gets to that point. I have been trying to find confirmation of the details in the article since i read it but it takes ages to find things! Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 10/02/2016 10:35:03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Airshows cancelled since CAA paper was released, all citing rising expenses as a major contributor: DawlishLlandudnoManchesterShorehamSywellHave fun at RIAT.Edited By Slopetrashuk on 10/02/2016 11:07:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essjay Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by Slopetrashuk on 10/02/2016 11:07:18: Airshows cancelled since CAA paper was released, all citing rising expenses as a major contributor: Dawlish Llandudno Manchester Shoreham Sywell Have fun at RIAT. Edited By Slopetrashuk on 10/02/2016 11:07:43 Add to that Shuttleworth evening shows and flying proms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 10/02/2016 10:33:01: John, i cant find anything in there about the actual costs. Where are the tables you mention? The proposed tables are here: **LINK** With regards to the cancellation of airshows, sorry Slopetrash, but Dawlish cited that they wish to take a break to plan, prepare and increase support for 2017. They did not mention is it cancelled due to proposed CAA costs. **LINK** Manchester similarly state that they are not doing a 2016 airshow whilst the Shoreham Airshow regulations are formulated, introduced and understood. **LINK** Llandudno also state that they have cancelled due to the need to review the new regulations: **LINK** Shoreham state that they have cancelled 2016 out of respect and also due to the investigation pending new regulations: **LINK** Again no mention of costs being a factor. Sywell do not give any reason whatsoever but "hope to return" and are planning a smaller, more intimate, event in August: **LINK** None of the Shuttleworth displays are listed as being cancelled and the proms are still available at the moment: **LINK** Not one single display cancellation cite the proposed increased costs as reasons for cancellations. Edited By John F on 10/02/2016 11:50:01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Well John, we are obviously drawing our information from different sources. For certain the actual airshow pilots fronting the campaign would disagree with you in that respect. Maybe they have better inside information. The shows are still cancelled and the paper has been out 9 days!Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essjay Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Correction to my previous post, Shuttleworth have NOT cancelled any of their 2016 shows, I contacted them to check. Seems I quoted someone else's incorrect info. Apologies for that. Edited By Essjay on 10/02/2016 12:17:08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Slopetrash, the info is easily confirmed in the links I have posted and pilots are "just" pilots and have no input in how a show is run. The "inside" info is obviously just supposition and rumour - which seems to be quite rife at the moment. I've been there, part of the airshow organisation structure, I can happily state that pilots have no info, no say and are not privvy to any organisational or managerial material that covers the organisation and running of the show. I've proven that the shows are cancelled due to the changes in regulations that are coming from the airshow tragedy last year, with links to their websites and their very own words, yet that is still wrong and, according to you, we are all being decieved! Why subscribe to rumour much more readily than accept documented, proven facts? Edited By John F on 10/02/2016 12:31:39 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Have you signed the petition John? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Posted by Slopetrashuk on 10/02/2016 12:29:00: Have you signed the petition John? You mean the petition that states "looking into the proposal in detail reveals that it is nothing more than an inexplicable hike in airshow display charges" which is clearly just subscribing to gossip ? That petition? The petition that pays no attention to the public consultation whereby you, personally, can get involved and say directly to the people doing the consultation what your feelings are? The petition that eschews the Shoreham airshow disaster and the valuable safety lessons that can be learned from it just to sensationalise the fact that the CAA are simply ramping up an "inexplicable" hike in charges? No, I didn't sign that petition. Edited By John F on 10/02/2016 12:53:45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slopetrashuk Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Thought not. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Interestingly Dawlish airshow was cancelled last October, well before the CAA published this public consultation. Can't beat a good rumour though. Are you going to fill out the application to be part of the public consultation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.