"David CL Francis" wrote in message
...
Thanks. The text that struck me read something like; "That's why aircraft
in displays in the USA are not allowed to fly over the spectators."

Well, I suppose there are a variety of ways to interpret that. However, I
simply read it as saying that aircraft accidents are the reason rules are in
place to minimize (not eliminate) their effect on innocent bystanders.

I have no idea what rules under which the aircraft in question was
operating, whether it was complying with those rules, and whether those
rules would have prevented bystander injuries, even if identical to those
used in the US.

I suppose one could infer from the statement you've quoted that the accident
happened as a result of an operation that would have been prohibited in the
US. But that seems like an awful lot to read into such a short sentence.


Pete