May I be permitted to respond to Dr Richard Rawlins’ letter, Chronicle, September 8, and, in particular, to his assumption that it is negligible that an experienced pilot is likely to repeat the mistakes that resulted in the tragic accident at Shoreham which has led to the introduction of more stringent rules governing air displays.

Prior to retiring to Dartmouth, I lived in Biggin Hill, Kent, for 39 years, during which time I saw, and enjoyed, very many air fairs and the displays.

Sadly I also witnessed four serious crashes all of which resulted in fatalities although, fortunately, unlike Shoreham, none involved the deaths of innocent members of the public going about their everyday business.

The first crash I saw at Biggin Hill was indeed the result of an experienced pilot totally disregarding the capabilities of an old aircraft and attempting a fatal manoeuvre.

He lost control and the plane skimmed the roof of my friend’s house by just a few feet before crashing into a field within a 100 yards of his property and exploding, killing the pilot and a number of passengers he had taken up for a ‘joy ride’.

The second involved a small helicopter taking off vertically and colliding with a light aircraft passing immediately above it.

I have no idea who was at fault in this instance but clearly there had been some sort of pilot error. I believe it was the pilot of the helicopter that lost his life.

The last two accidents, both involving vintage aircraft, are particularly significant as they occurred on consecutive days.

I have no idea whether these were attributed to mechanical failure or to pilot error, or both, but two crashes in two days gives food for thought.

The first came down just outside the perimeter fence of the airfield about 75 yards from a row of terraced houses, all occupied, where it exploded killing the pilot.

The following day another aircraft came down in the same general direction and again exploded several hundred yards from the above mentioned terraced houses. As before, the pilot was killed.

Turning to my own thoughts, it is but a few years since the now defunct Business Improvement District thought it necessary to employ the services of birds of prey to discourage the plague of sea birds infesting the town.

These hawks seemed to be of small benefit and no longer patrol above Dartmouth but the sea birds are still here.

While I am certain the risk assessment for air displays has taken into account these large numbers of birds and the likelihood of a ‘bird strike’, it seems strange that one minute measures are being put in force to rid our skies of these numerous ‘pests’ and the next minute they appear to be quite an acceptable risk when allowing aircraft to display.

I would also like to remind your other correspondent, Trevor Pretty, that the Port of Dartmouth Regatta has been going on for about 170 years, give or take a few, and existed quite happily for around 75 per cent of that time without an aircraft in sight.

Indeed, my earliest memories of regatta are of Dartmouth being far more busy with no aircraft than it has been more recently with umpteen flying displays.

It is, therefore, quite ridiculous to suggest that the RAF has started the decline of regatta, the concept of which traditionally centred on water borne activities, by no longer being able to perform.

I would suggest the decline started with the introduction of flying displays in the first place which, over the years, have grown and grown and now regatta seems to be regarded by many as an air fair with a bit of rowing and sailing thrown in as a sideline.

Robin Dadson

Churchfields, Dartmouth