NationStates Jolt Archive

So the Blue Angel air show comes to town. For some of the thousands of spectators they have tents set up. On Friday the wind knocked them over shortly after they were set up. On Saturday the wind knocked them down again. On Sunday the forcast was for the weather to be a little stronger but the tents went back up and the show went on...

Until a near sever thunderstorm (about 50 mph winds) knocked the tents down again, killing a 5 year old boy and sending 12 to the hospital.
http://www.waaytv.com/global/story.asp?s=8575397

How can people be let into a large tent when there is pretty much 100% chance it will come crashing down? Is this criminal negligence? I think so.

Thoughts?

Sounded like fun until the kid died. :p

Hell yes. It happened twice before, the situation had gotten worse, and they went ahead anyway?:eek::headbang::mad:

Let's hope the parents sue them into the ground. Criminal charges should occur as well.

I'm gonna say no because wind is an act of nature, but it's a tough call because if you knowingly build something that is faulty and, say it collapses during an act of nature (when it normally shouldnt, say light hail) that person/company could be charged. It's a crap shoot, on further review, and I'd say depends on the D.A.

i believe that it is a VERY stupid thing for people to do but criminal negelct no

just STUPID why would you:headbang:



to many bogans and stupid people these days

Hell yes. It happened twice before, the situation had gotten worse, and they went ahead anyway?:eek::headbang::mad:

Let's hope the parents sue them into the ground. Criminal charges should occur as well.

I don't think collapsing tents have a very high rate of mortality. I've been involved in several small tent accidents and injured nothing but my pride and dignity.

Unless there's some sort of warning on the tent to not put it up in windy conditions because of the chance of a collapse injuring someone, I don't think there would be any liability. Two accidents in a row doesn't mean there's going to be a third, and certainly doesn't mean it's going to hurt or kill someone. Now, this obviously isn't a completely unforeseen accident, but it's not a given, and the injury (unless there were previous injuries that were not reported) which turned out to be fatal certainly couldn't be predicted, meaning no liability. The situation sucks though.

Am I the only one who finds the Blue Angels no big deal? I was cool with air shows as a kid, but as an adult, I'm less then meh. Seems like a waste of jet fuel to me.

Am I the only one who finds the Blue Angels no big deal? I was cool with air shows as a kid, but as an adult, I'm less then meh. Seems like a waste of jet fuel to me.

Well, it's mostly aimed at the young so that they'll develop dreams of joining the Air Force and when they're 18 they can apply to the Air Force Academy. Adults aren't worth the training as much. I dunno, I still find the whole air show thing kind of interesting. Mostly because of the anti-war protesters who show up (they're funny).

Meh, modern aircraft I'm not really that fond of. Now WW II birds, now I never get tired of seeing them flying. :D

I've been involved in several small tent accidents and injured nothing but my pride and dignity.This begs explanation.

Am I the only one who finds the Blue Angels no big deal? I was cool with air shows as a kid, but as an adult, I'm less then meh. Seems like a waste of jet fuel to me.

I did watch them fly inverted over the tarmac in San Jose once, tails about 5' off the ground. Kinda impressive then.

Well, it's mostly aimed at the young so that they'll develop dreams of joining the Air Force and when they're 18 they can apply to the Air Force Academy. Adults aren't worth the training as much. I dunno, I still find the whole air show thing kind of interesting. Mostly because of the anti-war protesters who show up (they're funny).

Blue Angels are the Navy. The Air Force has the Thunderbirds.

Hell yes. It happened twice before, the situation had gotten worse, and they went ahead anyway?:eek::headbang::mad:

Let's hope the parents sue them into the ground. Criminal charges should occur as well.

Where's the parents' common sense? "Duh, being in a tent at 50 mph wind gusts sounds like a good idea...."

Where's the parents' common sense? "Duh, being in a tent at 50 mph wind gusts sounds like a good idea...."

Oh comon Kat, asking parents to be personally responsible for their child's safety, that's just crazy! We all know that it's everyone else's fault but the parents!

We all know that it's everyone else's fault but the parents!If it was wind, then it was global warmings' fault, which makes it the republicans' fault.

This begs explanation.

I shall leave it to the imagination, which is surely far more terrible than what actually happened.

I routinely get into confrontations with door frames, walls, desks, tables and the ground that leave me bruised and embarrassed. :(

Where's the parents' common sense? "Duh, being in a tent at 50 mph wind gusts sounds like a good idea...."

The 50mph winds that came up out of nowhere after it started raining :rolleyes:

It is looking like this is going to be labeled as an Act of God. Which is complete bullshit! Build a house of cards. Blow on it. It falls down. Build it again. Blow on it again. It falls down again. Build it a third time then turn a fan on it. Everybody and their sister can guess the outcome. To just put people at risk and say God did it when something goes wrong is just not right.

Well, it's mostly aimed at the young so that they'll develop dreams of joining the Air Force and when they're 18 they can apply to the Air Force Academy. Adults aren't worth the training as much. I dunno, I still find the whole air show thing kind of interesting. Mostly because of the anti-war protesters who show up (they're funny).

The Blue Angels are not Air Force. They're Navy/Marines. The Thunderbirds though do belong to the USAF.

I'm going to have to agree with the dumb but not negligent on the part of the people setting up the tents. Failure to prepare for the weather at stateside garrisons is unfortunately not uncommon with the military these days. I experienced that first-hand with Katrina. Hopefully they will finally get the point that the weather can kill you if you don't prepare for it.

It is looking like this is going to be labeled as an Act of God. Which is complete bullshit! Build a house of cards. Blow on it. It falls down. Build it again. Blow on it again. It falls down again. Build it a third time then turn a fan on it. Everybody and their sister can guess the outcome. To just put people at risk and say God did it when something goes wrong is just not right.

lol, Try tellin that to people down here...

Seriously, there are STILL people who claim that Katrina was punishment for Casinoes...and STILL want to restrict them only to barges on water...

Its fuckin Stupid, Damned Bible Belt...

Yeah it was negligent. If the people who built the tent were the only ones in there I would just laugh at their stupidity. But it was a public event and the builders should have been on the side of caution.

Sadly tho I am sure they were pressured to do it as part of their job. The manager of the event should have a fine and some time in jail with thoes idiots who designed it

So the Blue Angel air show comes to town. For some of the thousands of spectators they have tents set up. On Friday the wind knocked them over shortly after they were set up. On Saturday the wind knocked them down again. On Sunday the forcast was for the weather to be a little stronger but the tents went back up and the show went on...

Until a near sever thunderstorm (about 50 mph winds) knocked the tents down again, killing a 5 year old boy and sending 12 to the hospital.
http://www.waaytv.com/global/story.asp?s=8575397

How can people be let into a large tent when there is pretty much 100% chance it will come crashing down? Is this criminal negligence? I think so.

Thoughts?

It most definably is. A kid lost his life, they should have known to strengthen the tent structure somehow. Firstly if bad weather was expected then one would expect them to cancel the show for safety reasons. Secondly if the weather was that bad wouldn't flying in an air show be hazardous for the pilots? Not to mention if one of the flying planes was downed by the storm that the aircraft could crash nearby the audience.

Oh comon Kat, asking parents to be personally responsible for their child's safety, that's just crazy! We all know that it's everyone else's fault but the parents!

I did not see it covered in the story but

1) Did the parents know or could be reasonably expected to know of this tents 2 previous incidents

2) Was their alternitive shelter avaliable ... how quick did the wind come up?

From the size of the storm showed on the radar could have went from fairly calm to crazy windy in a hury

I shall leave it to the imagination, which is surely far more terrible than what actually happened.Depends on whose imagination you leave it with :eek:
*looks wistfully at Ruffy*

I routinely get into confrontations with door frames, walls, desks, tables and the ground that leave me bruised and embarrassed. :(
Ah yes, sorry ... i think you've alluded to that before. :(
*consoles*

Blue Angels are the Navy. The Air Force has the Thunderbirds.

Meh, fine. The point is that the armed forces put these teams together to promote their recruiting, which is aimed at the younger age brackets.

I did not see it covered in the story but

1) Did the parents know or could be reasonably expected to know of this tents 2 previous incidents

2) Was their alternitive shelter avaliable ... how quick did the wind come up?

From the size of the storm showed on the radar could have went from fairly calm to crazy windy in a hury

No mention of the tents falling before until after the injuries.

Most ran to the tents to get out of the rain. It came up quick and the damage was caused by a microburst.

At the time the county was under a near severe thunderstorm warning. The forcast for storms on Sunday were forcast on Wednesday. The damage could have been much worse because it was described by our local meteorologists as a fairly weak microburst.

For those that were inquiring about the little boy, he was right next to his father when the wind knocked over a generator onto him.

Now this is what I call criminal negligence - how can someone 'accidently' use live rounds in a public demonstration. Maybe one of the gun owning people here can tell me how easily that could happen?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7481982.stm

Most ran to the tents to get out of the rain. It came up quick and the damage was caused by a microburst.

A microburst is really really hard to detect. So no to the Criminal Negligence charge.

At the time the county was under a near severe thunderstorm warning.

So a nearby county was under a severe thunderstorm warning?

The forcast for storms on Sunday were forcast on Wednesday. The damage could have been much worse because it was described by our local meteorologists as a fairly weak microburst.

And how did he define what a weak microburst is? I'm curious.

It most definably is. A kid lost his life, they should have known to strengthen the tent structure somehow.
The kid was not killed by a tent. He was killed when a 2 ton generator was blown on top of him.

Firstly if bad weather was expected then one would expect them to cancel the show for safety reasons.
Bad weather wasn't expected. They saw a rainstorm coming and told people to get in their cars or tents, but you can't estimate 50mph winds. And it only hit the small area the airshow was in. Other people in the area didn't even know what had happened.

Secondly if the weather was that bad wouldn't flying in an air show be hazardous for the pilots?
They stopped flying before the storm hit genius.

The 50mph winds that came up out of nowhere after it started raining :rolleyes:

Well, before you roll your eyes -- if the parents didn't think that the tent would kill their kid, why should anyone?

Are the people who set up the tents supposed to have known about "50mph winds that came up out of nowhere after it started raining"? Are they precognitive?

The kid was not killed by a tent. He was killed when a 2 ton generator was blown on top of him.


Bad weather wasn't expected. They saw a rainstorm coming and told people to get in their cars or tents, but you can't estimate 50mph winds. And it only hit the small area the airshow was in. Other people in the area didn't even know what had happened.


They stopped flying before the storm hit genius.

Think you could stop with the insults there, sport? Yes, for emphasis.

Where's the parents' common sense? "Duh, being in a tent at 50 mph wind gusts sounds like a good idea...."

Government-sponsored micromanagement, zero tolerance policies, and plaintiffs' lawyers exist to prevent this kind of problem. Parents are becoming unaccustomed to using their own judgment, and this is the result.

Well, before you roll your eyes -- if the parents didn't think that the tent would kill their kid, why should anyone?

Are the people who set up the tents supposed to have known about "50mph winds that came up out of nowhere after it started raining"? Are they precognitive?

They did know about previous events knocking down the tent in significantly lesser conditions ... they had that crucial bit of information that the parents did not have

If this tent had been stable and some act of god took it down then it would be a different story but this setup had a bad history to start with reguardless of how strong the winds came up

That being said if it follows that the actual death was because of the generator falling over unless their was some sort of history to go with it personally think it is probably simply an act of god

Are the people who set up the tents supposed to have known about "50mph winds that came up out of nowhere after it started raining"? Are they precognitive?
Their tents were set up questionably to begin with.

Think you could stop with the insults there, sport?
I don't know how dense one has to be to think they will continue the flying part of an airshow with a storm rolling in.

A microburst is really really hard to detect. So no to the Criminal Negligence charge.



So a nearby county was under a severe thunderstorm warning?



And how did he define what a weak microburst is? I'm curious.

A near T-Stoem warning means there is a T-Storm that is almost at the severe level in the county it is issued in.

The microburst was defined as weak by the wind speed. (which was about 50 mph) Many other microbursts have had much stronger gusts.

I was obvious the tents would be knocked down again on Sunday since the weather forcast was for storms to be stronger than Friday and Satirday and the tents blew over on Friday and Saturday.

Are the people who set up the tents supposed to have known about "50mph winds that came up out of nowhere after it started raining"? Are they precognitive?

The people that run the airport knew the forcast was for stronger weather. Peole that run airports HAVE to know what the weather forcast is. The Sunday show should have been canceled.

Isolated storms that didn't really happen and were forecast more likely for Saturday than Sunday and it only had a short downpour then. Of course the weather is weirded out there near the river.

The people that run the airport knew the forcast was for stronger weather. Peole that run airports HAVE to know what the weather forcast is. The Sunday show should have been canceled.

From your own link:

Storm Force 31's Keller Watts explains that due to the way radar works with it shooting over the storm due to the curvature of the earth the National weather service could not predict the microburst that caused this tragic accident.

How were they supposed to know?

A near T-Stoem warning means there is a T-Storm that is almost at the severe level in the county it is issued in.

Its either severe or its not! They do not issue warnings for near Severe Thunderstorms. They issue them for severe ones. I have spent several years in the Midwest and not once had we had a warning for near severe t-storms.

The microburst was defined as weak by the wind speed. (which was about 50 mph) Many other microbursts have had much stronger gusts.

I was curious so thanks. Something to look up.

I was obvious the tents would be knocked down again on Sunday since the weather forcast was for storms to be stronger than Friday and Satirday and the tents blew over on Friday and Saturday.

Anyone thought of the anchorage of said tent?

From your own link:



How were they supposed to know?

Corrrect. You can not pinpoint forcast a microburst. But on Friday & Saturday the tents were blown over with no microbursts. The forcast was for stronger weather on Sunday.

From your own link:



How were they supposed to know?

Precisely. Forcasting storms is one thing. Forcasting a microburst is another.

Its either severe or its not! They do not issue warnings for near Severe Thunderstorms. They issue them for severe ones. I have spent several years in the Midwest and not once had we had a warning for near severe t-storms.

Here in the Tennessee Valley we DO have near severe thunderstorm warnings. Many people around here need to know for camping, construction, outdoor sports, etc...

Here in the Tennessee Valley we DO have near severe thunderstorm warnings. Many people around here need to know for camping, construction, outdoor sports, etc...

I bet what they say is that "these storms have the possibility of being severe" in their forcasts. If that is the case, that's normal procedure. I see that all the time but when it comes to actual warnings, those are only for storms that are actually severe.

Corrrect. You can not pinpoint forcast a microburst. But on Friday & Saturday the tents were blown over with no microbursts. The forcast was for stronger weather on Sunday.

so your argument is thus:

1) friday and saturday had certain weather conditions that caused the tents to collapse

2) there was weather predicted for sunday that would be even worse than friday or saturday

3) therefore they should have assumed that a certain type of weather would have manifested on sunday, and posed a risk to the tent

OK, so far so good, but we have a problem. Namely, the predicted weather did not happen on sunday. In fact an entirely different and totally unpredictable weather pattern emerged, which knocked over the tent.

Your argument is, they were negligent because they ignored the real possibility that a thunderstorm would knock over the tent. but you're running into a huge causation problem, namely, that a thunderstorm did not knock over the tent. Something entirely else did, and something that was utterly unpredictable.

While they may have behaved negligently and acted in a way that created a risk, that risk did not manifest. There's a giant proximate cause issue here. While they may have behaved negligently in setting up an unsecure tent in the possibility of thunderstorms, that's not what actually happened.

I bet what they say is that "these storms have the possibility of being severe" in their forcasts. If that is the case, that's normal procedure. I see that all the time but when it comes to actual warnings, those are only for storms that are actually severe.

No they say:

"Near Severe T-Storm. Madison County, Limestone County etc...

They do this mostly because of microbursts. In the 80s, on the Tennessee River there was a microburst that sank a large boat with dozens of people on board.

OK, so far so good, but we have a problem. Namely, the predicted weather did not happen on sunday.
.

Stronger weather was predicted. A near sever T-Storm popped up. When it hit a dry pocket the microburst happened. It was a risk the airport officials took by not canceling Sunday's show.

Stronger weather was predicted. A near sever T-Storm popped up. When it hit a dry pocket the microburst happened.

a microburst that was not predicted. Thus what caused the tent collapse was an unforseen, intervening factor.

It was a risk the airport officials took by not canceling Sunday's show.

You take a risk by getting out of bed each morning. Merely taking a risk doesn't necessarily raise to the level of criminal negligence.

And, in fact, what risk did they take? They took the risk that the tent would be knocked down by a thunderstorm.

Was it knocked down by a thunderstorm? No.

Moreover, here's the real problem with negligence. Negligence requires a breach. What's the breach?

Not taking reasonable precautions to secure the tent in the event of a thunderstorm. Now, let's say the did take reasonable precautions to secure the tent in a thunderstorm, they ancored it more, used better ropes, made sure that the predicted weather would not have knocked it over.

But the microburst would still have knocked it down. So what was their breach? Not securing the tent. but it's possible that even if they had secured the tent the microburst would still have knocked it down. So there's a big causation problem.

So in order to prove negligence, you'd have to prove:

1) due dilligence required them to secure against the normal and predicted weather
2) they failed to secure against the normal and predicted weather
3) that had they secured against the normal and predicted weather, it would have survived this unforseen circumstance

and for a criminal negligence, you'd have to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that reasonable precautions against a thunderstorm would have held against a 50 mph downward microburst.

No they say:

"Near Severe T-Storm. Madison County, Limestone County etc...

They do this mostly because of microbursts. In the 80s, on the Tennessee River there was a microburst that sank a large boat with dozens of people on board.

And microburst took down the plane carrying the Marshall Football Team but yet they still issue them only for severe thunderstorms. I have seen statements like "a severe thunderstorm is located near..." but really!

You take a risk by getting out of bed each morning. Merely taking a risk doesn't necessarily raise to the level of criminal negligence.

When I get up out of bed, it is not in the middle of a large airport field where storms are predicted. Ignoring a greater than normal chance of harm is negligence in my book.

In any event, even if several people had been killed by winds & lightning the airport does somehow have legal immunity. No charges are going to be filed.

I have seen statements like "a severe thunderstorm is located near..." but really!

A near T-Storm means just that. Conditions are near severe levels. 58 mph winds constitute a severe T-Storm. The near warnings are issued when winds are about 50 mph.

A near T-Storm means just that. Conditions are near severe levels. 58 mph winds constitute a severe T-Storm. The near warnings are issued when winds are about 50 mph.

I know what constitutes a Severe Thunderstorm. 50MPH is not a Severe Storm.

Its either severe or its not! They do not issue warnings for near Severe Thunderstorms. They issue them for severe ones. I have spent several years in the Midwest and not once had we had a warning for near severe t-storms.
Yeah, I live here and I have no idea what he is talking about. I don't even think there was a severe thunderstorm warning for this county.

Anyone thought of the anchorage of said tent?
Jury rigged because they had the things half on the tarmac and wern't allowed to plant stakes there.

Yeah, I live here and I have no idea what he is talking about. I don't even think there was a severe thunderstorm warning for this county.

THANK YOU!!! No i do not believe there was either.

Jury rigged because they had the things half on the tarmac and wern't allowed to plant stakes there.

Ahh ok. Explains why only 3 tents were blown over.

I know what constitutes a Severe Thunderstorm. 50MPH is not a Severe Storm.

Yes it is a near severe thunderstorm and they do issue warnings for them. Pay attention will ya?

Yes it is a near severe thunderstorm and they do issue warnings for them. Pay attention will ya?
No they don't and they didn't.

Yeah, I live here and I have no idea what he is talking about.

You live here and youv'e never heard Keller Watts, Dan Satterfield or Brad Travis issue a near severe thunderstorm warning? Do you even own a TV?

Yes it is a near severe thunderstorm and they do issue warnings for them. Pay attention will ya?

Yea since every weather report I have ever read and issued have never contained the phrase "near severe weather". And no they do not. They issue them for Severe Thunderstorms Only.

You live here and youv'e never heard Keller Watts, Dan Satterfield or Brad Travis issue a near severe thunderstorm warning? Do you even own a TV?

Do you realize that they do not actually issue the warnings? The National Weather Service issues those.

Yea since every weather report I have ever read and issued have never contained the phrase "near severe weather". And no they do not. They issue them for Severe Thunderstorms Only.

Maybe that's how they do it in the Midwest but not here.

Maybe that's how they do it in the Midwest but not here.

And where is here? Every warning every issued that I have seen (including those from the TRV) never contained a Near Severe Thunderstorm Warning.

You live here and youv'e never heard Keller Watts, Dan Satterfield or Brad Travis issue a near severe thunderstorm warning? Do you even own a TV?
I think you are confusing a declaration of severe weather with the word "near" + actual declaration of severe weather.
There are either weather warnings/watches or not.

I think you are confusing a declaration of severe weather with the word "near" + actual declaration of severe weather.
There are either weather warnings/watches or not.

Yep!!

I think you are confusing a declaration of severe weather with the word "near" + actual declaration of severe weather.
This to you is confusing? When a storm is almost at a severe level it is refered to in the Tennessee Valley as a "near thunderstorm warning" The weather forcasters interupt programing and say there is a "near severe thunderstorm" warning for X area. Then the words "Near severe thunderstorm" are scrolled across the top or bottom of the screen. And you have never seen this?

This to you is confusing? When a storm is almost at a severe level it is refered to in the Tennessee Valley as a "near thunderstorm warning" The weather forcasters interupt programing and say there is a "near severe thunderstorm" warning for X area.

And did NWS issue that?

Then the words "Near severe thunderstorm" are scrolled across the top or bottom of the screen. And you have never seen this?

I can honestly say I have not.

A near thunderstorm is sometimes refered to as a "strong thunderstorm", each time with the weatherman stating that it could reach severe levels at anytime.

And did NWS issue that?

I can honestly say I have not.
Because you don't live here.


This to you is confusing? When a storm is almost at a severe level it is refered to in the Tennessee Valley as a "near thunderstorm warning" The weather forcasters interupt programing and say there is a "near severe thunderstorm" warning for X area. Then the words "Near severe thunderstorm" are scrolled across the top or bottom of the screen. And you have never seen this?
Considering I don't bother watching local television all the time or memorize what I it says, I don't recall. Have they done this since the local weather service went down and was completely replaced by the NWS?

A near thunderstorm is sometimes refered to as a "strong thunderstorm", each time with the weatherman stating that it could reach severe levels at anytime.

Now we are getting somewhere. You still have not answered my question though. Did NWS issue this so called Near Severe Thunderstorm Warning?

A near thunderstorm is sometimes refered to as a "strong thunderstorm", each time with the weatherman stating that it could reach severe levels at anytime.

That I have heard before. But I don't recall it on the bottom of the screen. Just them saying it over and over... and over.

Did NWS issue this so called Near Severe Thunderstorm Warning?
Yes. They refered to it as a "significant weather alert"

http://zachsweather.com/blog/?p=616

Yes. They refered to it as a "significant weather alert"

http://zachsweather.com/blog/?p=616

Special weather alert is not the same as a Severe Thunderstorm Warning. Next time, use the terms correctly.

Special weather alert is not the same as a Severe Thunderstorm Warning.
I never said it was. If it were a severe thunderstorm warning then the words near, strong and significant would not have been used. The NWS says significant and the TV weather forcasters say strong or near. People around here have enough common sense to know what they mean.

I never said it was. If it were a severe thunderstorm warning then the words near, strong and significant would not have been used. The NWS says significant and the TV weather forcasters say strong or near. People around here have enough common sense to know what they mean.

Still the problem was in the fact that you were saying near severe thunderstorm warning. That was the whole problem with the line of discussion.

Still the problem was in the fact that you were saying near severe thunderstorm warning. That was the whole problem with the line of discussion.

I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the term "near severe T-Storm" (refering to the fact that a storm is near severe levels) So if I had used the word "significant" you would have not made your incorrect statemet of: "They issue them for Severe Thunderstorms Only."?

I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the term "near severe T-Storm" (refering to the fact that a storm is near severe levels) So if I had used the word "significant" you would have not made your incorrect statemet of: "They issue them for Severe Thunderstorms Only."?

Oh for fuck's sake :headbang: