Sept Airshow South side viewing

[helired3]

i was on the mound sunday and the police turned up had a look and left as for the chap from duxford waveing his arms about he didnt get far when he found out the farmer was there as well. i will add if i could have got a ticket i would have gone in. but i went to the mound the day before to check it out. and it seems a good spot. had a good chat with the farmer who didnt have a problem.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

The security are employed by Duxford themselves. It quite obviously wasnt the landowner as the farmer that owns the land the mound is on (and all but two other fields round there) was up on the mound with us on the Sunday. He was nice and chatty and even had a camera.

There was a chap from Duxford who climbed over the fence and came up onto the mound to try and move people off of it on Sunday. Although I could not hear what was being said he was quite animated with his arms, needless to say he soon disappeared when someone pointed at the farmer sitting up there in his 4x4 with us.

Looking at the land registry, the field up by the road which has the red sign on the gate (can't remember the name of the company) is owned by a different organisation than that of the farm and the mound. Hence the sign about trespass. The other signs are erected by Duxford for the airshow.
Although the farmer who's yard you need to walk through to gain access to the mound etc is obviously fairly amenable, this obviously doesn't give the idiots who walk in the middle of his crops an excuse! No need to p the man off by doing that.

I'm not going to enter into the whys and wherefores of whether it's right or wrong in terms of "the future of duxford", quite frankly I don't care about peoples opinions on that or the fact that I have made this statement. I am merely passing the information I know to be correct at the time and from personal first hand experience.

I hope someone finds this info useful.

Kind Regards

Pete

Yes, very useful indeed.

This rather seems to confirm what I've suspected for many years. Duxford are trying it on primarily to protect their revenue by playing the "safety card". If there really are safety issues with people being in those fields then the only option is to reach a proper agreement with the land owners and to securely fence them off. If this can't be done then the show shouldn't take place!

The fact that one farmer at least was watching from there and appears to be very friendly towards casual visitors would seem to suggest he has not done a deal with the IWM. He at least has an absolute legal right to be there and arguably so does anybody else unless he asks the to leave.

43 The commander of an aircraft shall reasonably satisfy
himself before the aircraft takes off:

(a) that the flight can safely be made, taking into account the latest information available as to
the route and aerodrome to be used, the weather reports and forecasts available and any
alternative course of action which can be adopted in case the flight cannot be completed as
planned

So it is his or her decision as to whether the presence of people in the adjoining fields conflicts with this. Whether they are there lawfully or not is irrelevant for this purpose.

The rights and wrongs (morals if you will) of so called "freeloading" have nothing to do with this.

[Pen Pusher]

This rather seems to confirm what I've suspected for many years. Duxford are trying it on primarily to protect their revenue by playing the "safety card". If there really are safety issues with people being in those fields then the only option is to reach a proper agreement with the land owners and to securely fence them off. If this can't be done then the show shouldn't take place!

Get your facts right. It's the CAA who want the fields, not necessarily the mound, sterile of people for safety reasons and if they are not satisfied with the precautions taken by Duxford as in the notices and fencing etc then the CAA will stop the air shows. We'll find out in the new year.

Brian

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

This rather seems to confirm what I've suspected for many years. Duxford are trying it on primarily to protect their revenue by playing the "safety card". If there really are safety issues with people being in those fields then the only option is to reach a proper agreement with the land owners and to securely fence them off. If this can't be done then the show shouldn't take place!

Get your facts right. It's the CAA who want the fields, not necessarily the mound, sterile of people for safety reasons and if they are not satisfied with the precautions taken by Duxford as in the notices and fencing etc then the CAA will stop the air shows.

So it is claimed.......

Either way my main point remains. If the land owner and anybody he wants to invite (or not object to) want to sit there with his Land Rover there is nothing the police or CAA can do to stop him.

Duxford will have to get their cheque book out and I imagine he has realised that.

[Pen Pusher]

The CAA stop the air show's. Problem with people south side in the fields solved. Simples.

Brian

[Paul_Reflex]

I don't understand why the CAA are apparently so concerned about Duxford and not other air displays, for example people watching and camping at Totterdown for RIAT?

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

The CAA stop the air show's. Problem with people south side in the fields solved. Simples.

Indeed.

So, given the legal rights that some people may choose to exert coupled with the very limited powers to deal with trespassers what is your solution?

Given that there must be similar situations elsewhere I do wonder why this is such an issue at Duxford. Is it just that anybody in those fields is in the direct view of the crowd line? I linked earlier to some photos of bystanders / freeloaders all around Duxford. Are they not a problem too. It would seem the obvious extension of the (alleged) CAA argument would be seaside shows only!

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

I don't understand why the CAA are apparently so concerned about Duxford and not other air displays, for example people watching and camping at Totterdown for RIAT?

Exactly!

Cross posted with my last response.

[Flyforfun]

Brian the CAA have no control outside the airfield boundary. CAP 403:

7.5.5 At many events, particularly at airfield sites, the congregation of spectators, outside
the airfield boundary, on the live-side, may give organisers cause for concern. Neither
the Police nor the Local Authority has the power to remove these people, especially
if they have the permission of the landowner upon whose land they are congregating.
It is recommended that the Event Organiser anticipates this during the planning
process and takes necessary steps to reduce it by, where possible, blocking the view
from obvious vantage points. Consideration should also be given to notifying
landowners (or over water, pleasure boat owners) of the risks of allowing spectators
to watch the display/event from their land/vessel. Landowners/owners should be
advised that they have a liability to protect the public from obvious and anticipated
risks at public events, and, in the event of an accident, they could be held liable for
injuries to spectators on the property. It is advised that professional legal advice on
such notification is taken prior to action.

love your duxford pictures though.

[Pen Pusher]

It's not just Duxford they are looking at and besides what would I know about what's going on at Duxford.

Brian

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

It's not just Duxford they are looking at and besides what would I know about what's going on at Duxford.

Brian

More than most I would suspect!

Anyway, my less informed theory is as follows........

The powers that be at Duxford have got on their high horse about freeloaders (rather like some of the OTT reactions one sees about copyright from people who have lost all touch with reality)! Trying to be clever they have got (or have threatened to get) the CAA "on side" to deal with the problem. However, all this has done is open a massive can of worms. The CAA are powerless to stop people going into the fields and the police are little better. The private land issue (if indeed there actually is an issue) could be solved but at a very substantial cost. The land owners have them over a barrel. Even then there remains a problem (which has probably now got bigger) of public land, roads, footpaths and motorway bridges. Then what about the traffic on the M11 right underneath the landing approach? Think back to some of the Duxford flying accidents. If it is not safe for people to be in the fields how on earth is it safe for traffic to pass on the motorway. I suspect they will end up regretting going down this line.

Hopefully I'm wrong!

[FarnboroJohn]

There are people outside the fence at every airshow in Britain. At Farnborough the vantage points are well known and although the development of the airfield has eliminated most places to see taxiing aircraft, once they are up they are visible. The displaying aircraft fly over the town, the golf course, the fields, the roads: the public takes advantage (and, I may say as a resident, puts up with the traffic, the jet noise and the background drone of complaining photographers): this is unavoidable for the airshow organisers who are considerably more avaricious and a considerably less good cause than the Duxford ones.

In addition it is my view - and ought to be that of the Government and other authorities - that whereas those who pay for an event should be entitled to the best reasonable protection from its possible consequences, those who choose of their own free will to view from somewhere that is not recommended by the organisers must be held responsible for what happens to them in the event of an accident. Contributory negligence is the term. Then everybody can enjoy the event in their own way and all the angst discharged here and elsewhere becomes unnecessary.

John

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

In addition it is my view - and ought to be that of the Government and other authorities - that whereas those who pay for an event should be entitled to the best reasonable protection from its possible consequences, those who choose of their own free will to view from somewhere that is not recommended by the organisers must be held responsible for what happens to them in the event of an accident.

I would agree but sadly that is not the case. However, what is worse, is that organisers of just about everything these days have convinced themselves that the risk of being held liable is a hundred times greater than it actually is. It is what I call the coffee cup mentality "Caution, contents may be hot"!

[Private Custard]

Looking at the statistics, I'm pretty certain that there's a much higher chance of being killed when viewing from inside shows, than from any naughty field.

1952, Farnborough - 29 dead, 60 injured.

1998, Rammstein - 67 dead, more than 300 injured.

2002, Sknyliv - 77 dead, more than 500 injured.

2010, Lauf-Lillinghof - 38 injured, 5 seriously.

2011, Reno - 11 dead, 69 injured.

Just throwing it out there!

[cw318is]

And just to throw it back these "folk" are marking the spot where the burning wreckage of a P-38 landed.......



Why does everyone dress up the reasons for using/not using the fields? Spade a spade and all that.

[Private Custard]

Why does everyone dress up the reasons for using/not using the fields? Spade a spade and all that.

One day in, one day out. Best of both worlds. And, from a photographic perspective, at least one of those two days would be properly satisfying!

There are numerous venues that I'll always view from the paying side (Old Warden, Sywell, Little Gransden). To be brutally honest, the displays at Duxford this year have been pretty poor, and definitely not worth more than a Waddington ticket costs! I find it odd, as the pilots all seem to do OK when they get to smaller, more 'personal' venues.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Why does everyone dress up the reasons for using/not using the fields? Spade a spade and all that.

I'm not dressing it up and in any case the reasons are irrelevant to the alleged safety issue. Regardless of whether they are there unlawfully or with the agreement of the landowner the show organisers and pilots don't have the right to endanger them.

If there really is a safety issue then the only answer if for the IWM to reach an agreement to either lease or buy those fields and incorporate them into the airfield. That doesn't stop them being farmed but it does give them control over access. That still doesn't address the issue of people on the roads, footpaths or in other fields particularly those under the runway approach at both ends.

Substantial numbers of people also congregate in a slightly higher field on the north side of the A505 at the Royston end of the airfield. That doesn't attract the attention of people on here as it wouldn't particularly appeal to keen photographers. However display aircraft frequently pass very low over the field partly because of the rising ground but I'm not aware of any attempts to deter the "freeloaders" from this spot.

[Tommy]

I'm not dressing it up and in any case the reasons are irrelevant to the alleged safety issue. Regardless of whether they are there unlawfully or with the agreement of the landowner the show organisers and pilots don't have the right to endanger them.

Eh? I'm not sure I understand but if I'm reading it right you're saying its the show or pilot's fault if those outside are put in harm's way?

I'll say again what I said earlier, I'll never understand why Duxford's naughty fields are always the ones that are brought up when no-one really cares about RIAT, Cosford, or wherever. People do it at every show.

But regardless, on the safety issue point, can Duxford not claim that they're doing their utmost to facilitate the safety of those people in the naughty field, and anyone who does not heed those warnings or whatever is there accepting the safety concerns at their own risk?

Isn't that how it would normally operate? Anyone who goes, goes with the knowledge of the risks, and in acceptance of them? If they claim that they are idiotic enough not to know or think of the risks, then Duxford can claim it had made every effort at its disposal to make them aware?

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

I'm not dressing it up and in any case the reasons are irrelevant to the alleged safety issue. Regardless of whether they are there unlawfully or with the agreement of the landowner the show organisers and pilots don't have the right to endanger them.

Eh? I'm not sure I understand but if I'm reading it right you're saying its the show or pilot's fault if those outside are put in harm's way?

I'll say again what I said earlier, I'll never understand why Duxford's naughty fields are always the ones that are brought up when no-one really cares about RIAT, Cosford, or wherever. People do it at every show.

But regardless, on the safety issue point, can Duxford not claim that they're doing their utmost to facilitate the safety of those people in the naughty field, and anyone who does not heed those warnings or whatever is there accepting the safety concerns at their own risk?

Isn't that how it would normally operate? Anyone who goes, goes with the knowledge of the risks, and in acceptance of them? If they claim that they are idiotic enough not to know or think of the risks, then Duxford can claim it had made every effort at its disposal to make them aware?

Yes!

Basic Air Navigation Order stuff. As I quoted verbatim in an earlier post a pilot's first duty is to reasonably satisfy himself that the flight can safely be made. The fact that somebody in harms way may there unlawfully is irrelevant. If the pilot knows they are there and considers them to be at risk he should not fly.

Think about it, suppose somebody trespasses on the runway, would you expect the pilot to say "Oh well I'll still land as I'll probably stop short of them but if I hit them never mind, they shouldn't be there anyway"!

Or, supposing you were in a rifle range and somebody trespasses just behind the targets. Would you say "Tough, I'll keep shooting because they have no right to be there"? Try telling that to the judge after you have killed somebody!

As I keep saying either it is a reasonable safety judgement to fly with people in those fields or it is not. The lawfulness or otherwise of them being there is complety irrelevant.

[jayne_morris]

is part of the problem at Duxford if you go into the fields off grange road then you have easy access to the airfield and the runway ie no high fences

you have seen plenty of stupid people standing under the windsock which is actually within the boundary of the airfield, certain people that use these fields have spoilt it for others

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

is part of the problem at Duxford if you go into the fields off grange road then you have easy access to the airfield and the runway ie no high fences

Quite possibly. However that could be solved, at a cost, with some decent fencing. The other three sides of the site are fairly securely fenced so why not the fourth?

Obviously that still doesn't address the issue of whether or not it is acceptably safe to fly with people immediately outside the boundary. If it is not then I too would love to know what is different at many other venues.

[J.Smith photography]

is part of the problem at Duxford if you go into the fields off grange road then you have easy access to the airfield and the runway ie no high fences

Quite possibly. However that could be solved, at a cost, with some decent fencing. The other three sides of the site are fairly securely fenced so why not the fourth?

Obviously that still doesn't address the issue of whether or not it is acceptably safe to fly with people immediately outside the boundary. If it is not then I too would love to know what is different at many other venues.

Surely if its not safe to fly whilst people are in the fields, then its not safe to fly when people are driving along the M11 or when people are on the mound, or even when people are in their houses round the corner?
Duxford just want money, but by stopping people in the fields they aren't going to make a lot more, they are just going to get bad publicity on forums like this.
Society nowadays is controlled far too much by health and safety, its just getting ridiculous. Its a wonder we are allowed to cross a road without wearing a hi-viz jacket
People know and accept the risks when they use the fields around Duxford, whereas people driving past on the M11 for example don't necessarily even know about the risks or the airshow
Also who's to say if the pilot is unconscious, or out of control that the plane won't end up in the crowds of paying spectators. No matter where you stand airshows are dangerous, so this whole safety thing from Duxford is just bullsh*t, they can't think up another excuse and they don't want to admit to just wanting money, and by the sounds of it from the September show they don't even care about how bad or how distant their displays are just so long as they can get their hands on some cash

I'd happily pay the price of the ticket and then go and watch from the fields if anyone from Duxford is reading this, that way its a win win situation, you get your money, I get a good view of the displays

[st24]

Looking at the statistics, I'm pretty certain that there's a much higher chance of being killed when viewing from inside shows, than from any naughty field.

1952, Farnborough - 29 dead, 60 injured.

1998, Rammstein - 67 dead, more than 300 injured.

2002, Sknyliv - 77 dead, more than 500 injured.

2010, Lauf-Lillinghof - 38 injured, 5 seriously.

2011, Reno - 11 dead, 69 injured.

Just throwing it out there!

That's fine and dandy but ALL of the Duxford crashes have happened in the naughty areas...

[Private Custard]

Looking at the statistics, I'm pretty certain that there's a much higher chance of being killed when viewing from inside shows, than from any naughty field.

1952, Farnborough - 29 dead, 60 injured.

1998, Rammstein - 67 dead, more than 300 injured.

2002, Sknyliv - 77 dead, more than 500 injured.

2010, Lauf-Lillinghof - 38 injured, 5 seriously.

2011, Reno - 11 dead, 69 injured.

Just throwing it out there!

That's fine and dandy but ALL of the Duxford crashes have happened in the naughty areas...

How many spectator fatalities?

[phreakf4]

Also who's to say if the pilot is unconscious, or out of control that the aircraft won't end up in the crowds of paying spectators...

That one statement proves conclusively that you know far less about the organisation and running of air shows and flying displays than you think you do.

Have you actually read and understood CAP 403?

If you had you would realise that much of the applicable regulations, especially those concerning the layout of crowd areas, the display line distances, the limitations on vectors during aerobatic manoeuvres and the "pointless, prissy H&S rules" are there to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, that in the event of a problem with aircraft or pilot, the "burning wreckage" is unlikely to end up in the crowd area.