Whelford End - spotting from pavement being blocked for 2018

[trebleone]

The notice has just been posted on the official @airtattoo twitter feed, with the dates amended to run from 9th to 17th July.

With the 9th being the first Monday, are we to assume that they are expecting some early arrivals?

[pb643]

In any case, it's supposedly safe enough for cars to be there!

You shouldn't say things like that! It must only be a matter of time until traffic is stopped for landings.

[Dan213]

The point (for me anyway) is that aircraft are exciting, on a visceral level, because they are loud and fast and there's very little way to experience that as supremely as to have an aircraft flying just feet above you on approach.

I accept that the risk is perhaps moderately greater to be there - but I consider it an acceptable one - and a small one. In any case, it's supposedly safe enough for cars to be there!

What's the preferable situation, having 50 people in cars travelling along there or 500 people + 50 in cars? Its all about risk mitigation and minimising the number of people present in the space

[Georgeconna]

Shame, another part of what was good about the show gone, got some of my best pics from that Area over the years. Call me what you want could not give a toss.

[MiG_Eater]

That's the thing though, if it was about risk mitigation the airshow should be cancelled as a whole, but it's *not* about risk mitigation (or at least, it shouldn't be) it's about balancing risk and reward. Any form of flying has risk associated with it, and by going to an airshow you obviously accept some of that risk. I can't help but feel this is just another silly decision where no thought has been given to people's enjoyment which is - really - the *most* important thing, generally speaking!

[Dan213]

That's the thing though, if it was about risk mitigation the airshow should be cancelled as a whole, but it's *not* about risk mitigation (or at least, it shouldn't be) it's about balancing risk and reward. Any form of flying has risk associated with it, and by going to an airshow you obviously accept some of that risk. I can't help but feel this is just another silly decision where no thought has been given to people's enjoyment which is - really - the *most* important thing, generally speaking!

Come on it's simple . You minimise the risk by having fewer stationary bodies underneath the approach path. You also minimise the risk to motorists and pedestrians as it has been pointed out before that people frequently run across the road to get a shot and block up the footpath meaning regular pedestrians have to walk on the road

[MiG_Eater]

I'm not arguing about whether or not it reduces risk. Obviously it does reduce risk, i'm just saying that the risk is only marginally reduced whilst the enjoyment takes a much greater hit.

I can't believe that people who stand under the approach don't consider the risk themselves and deem it worth taking - I certainly have done so.

I certainly do agree that it would be worth putting a barrier to separate the road from the pavement. This would be a sensible move that shouldn't stop anyone enjoying themselves (aside from road running idiots).

[verreli]

Without making judgement either way, another way of looking at it is - Do you want to live in a country where you take personal responsibility for your safety or let the state do it on your behalf?

[MiG_Eater]

verreli, I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Airwolfhound]

Is this just not removing a potential target for the wannabe 'battering-ram' driver ?

If someone wanted to, they could quite easily pick up some speed and wipe out a group of 'knuckle-draggers' who would be congregating around that path.

Seems like a completely sensible decision in these trying times

[Tommy]

I'm not arguing about whether or not it reduces risk. Obviously it does reduce risk, i'm just saying that the risk is only marginally reduced whilst the enjoyment takes a much greater hit.

Right, but if something bad happens, RIAT has some form of liability for that. Even if the "I'm here at my own risk and accept the risk" works (which it doesn't often), if something bad did happen outside of an authorised area and DBH were not at fault, insurance would still skyrocket. Some public would be put off from attending again the following year. They might have a lot of bad PR. So there's always risk to RIAT. Looking at enjoyment, might it be a sensible assumption that those who go to that spot don't buy an airshow ticket for the particular day that they set up outside the fence? So RIAT have a risk of liability if something goes wrong and no benefit whatsoever from those at that location

If those setting up camp there don't pay for tickets for the day, why should RIAT care one jot about their enjoyment?

Exactly the same with Rhymes. RIAT have the risk of liability if, god forbid, something went wrong, yet receive zero benefit from those who congregate there and don't pay for an airshow ticket. So, again, playing devil's advocate, should they care about the "hit" to enjoyment?

I obviously recognise that it's a lot more nuanced than that. Some people may do a "day in/day out" thing for different angles. I went to Totters for a day last year, and was FRIAT, so I had paid for that day I spent outside. But that would be impossible to determine, so idk how else they would handle it.

[verreli]

Is this just not removing a potential target for the wannabe 'battering-ram' driver ?

If someone wanted to, they could quite easily pick up some speed and wipe out a group of 'knuckle-draggers' who would be congregating around that path.

Seems like a completely sensible decision in these trying times

Or another way of looking at it is... The probability of this happening is low and besides, what do the people who carry out these actions want to achieve? I would argue that it's to change our society from the one we have, to the one they want, namely one of fear and control. From the trend of the last few decades I would suggest in effect, they have won or at the very least are winning.

Even if the battering ram driver was a daily occurence, my previous question stands - Are you not prepared to take personal responsibility for yourself?

[Airwolfhound]

Is this just not removing a potential target for the wannabe 'battering-ram' driver ?

If someone wanted to, they could quite easily pick up some speed and wipe out a group of 'knuckle-draggers' who would be congregating around that path.

Seems like a completely sensible decision in these trying times

Or another way of looking at it is... The probability of this happening is low and besides, what do the people who carry out these actions want to achieve? I would argue that it's to change our society from the one we have, to the one they want, namely one of fear and control. From the trend of the last few decades I would suggest in effect, they have won or at the very least are winning.

Even if the battering ram driver was a daily occurence, my previous question stands - Are you not prepared to take personal responsibility for yourself?

Why don't you ask that to the many that have died in such terrorist atrocities........oh wait.......

[Brevet Cable]

Are you not prepared to take personal responsibility for yourself?

That's the usual argument trotted out.
Putting it bluntly, though.....
Someone stands there, one of the display pilots cocks things up, or the aircraft suffers a catastrophic failure.
The aircraft comes down where they're standing, resulting in them being turned into a greasy red smear on the ground.
How are the family going to react?
Will they merely shrug their shoulders & say "Ah well, nobody's fault, he died doing something he loved"?
Will they hell ! They'll be looking to sue the arses off DBH, the pilot, the Police & local authorities ( for not preventing people standing there ) and anyone else they can think of.
The person concerned won't have a say in the matter,being as they're a splat-mark.

[verreli]

Will they merely shrug their shoulders & say "Ah well, nobody's fault, he died doing something he loved"?

Yes, that's exactly how they should react and it's exactly how most Brits have reacted until recently.

A lot of the activities I do in my spare time could result in injury or death. That's a choice I make. Flying aerobatics for instance. I knew several pilots who have paid the price for a misjudgement but why should it be regulated to keep me 'safe'? If you take personal responsibility and want a safe life you do something else or go somewhere else.

Incidentally, I don't stand under the approach myself. It doesn't float my boat but who am I to say you shouldn't.

[MiG_Eater]

I agree with literally everything verreli has said.

[Wrexham Mackem]

Will they merely shrug their shoulders & say "Ah well, nobody's fault, he died doing something he loved"?

Yes, that's exactly how they should react and it's exactly how most Brits have reacted until recently.

A lot of the activities I do in my spare time could result in injury or death. That's a choice I make. Flying aerobatics for instance. I knew several pilots who have paid the price for a misjudgement but why should it be regulated to keep me 'safe'? If you take personal responsibility and want a safe life you do something else or go somewhere else.

That's different. If you are doing something risky and only you are affected by the consequences, its a completely different scenario to this. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, that's what a responsible society does. Within reason of course.

[verreli]

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, that's what a responsible society does. Within reason of course.

No it isn't, it's what a liberal nanny state does. You don't give people the credit they deserve.

I wonder how many people in human existence have been killed by an aircraft on approach? Is it even one?

As for event management, within the event boundary and the travel route to the car park RIAT should make every effort to keep people safe, that's partly what you're paying your money for. But where does their responsibility end? I've been in the Co-op in Fairford village buying a few beers when a display team has come over at about 500ft in formation. This is arguably far more dangerous. Do you evacuate that area too for their own safety?

[jayne_morris]

the way i read it is they are closing the footpath to separate the pedestrians and cyclists from the vehicular traffic

they have tried to Marshall this area for the last few years without success, last year they put higher fencing on the runway side of the road and this just made the people that congregate in this area bring bigger step ladders to see over the new fence and the best place to put up a step ladder is on the nice level footpath

on show days the footpath along the red route is very popular with walkers and cyclists heading for the show and when they encounter spectators camped out on the footpath they take to the road to get around them, I am not saying everybody that used this area is inconsiderate but some are and they have now closed to the path to avoid pedestrians coming into contact with vehicular traffic

we all know that they have been trying to stop people viewing from this area for the last couple of years and it hasnt worked so this year they have gone one step further, the problem has been caused by some of the people that use this area to view arrivals and the show and now everybody is suffering the consequences

[Wrexham Mackem]

the way i read it is they are closing the footpath to separate the pedestrians and cyclists from the vehicular traffic

Exactly. Verelli misses the point. This is about keeping cars (with drivers distracted by aircraft close by) and pedestrians (some so excited they forget they're beside a road), apart. All they've done is relocate a footpath, and in the process made the whole area much safer.

What's nanny state about that? sounds like common sense to me.

[vulcan558]

the way i read it is they are closing the footpath to separate the pedestrians and cyclists from the vehicular traffic

Exactly. Verelli misses the point. This is about keeping cars (with drivers distracted by aircraft close by) and pedestrians (some so excited they forget they're beside a road), apart. All they've done is relocate a footpath, and in the process made the whole area much safer.

What's nanny state about that? sounds like common sense to me.

The use of stepladders should be banned, they are the most at risk of injury. There is a health and safety law with regards there use.
If RIAT are really concerned then step ladders should be banned inside.

[boff180]

As for event management, within the event boundary and the travel route to the car park RIAT should make every effort to keep people safe, that's partly what you're paying your money for. But where does their responsibility end?

Under UK airshow regulations both MAA and CAA, the organiser of an airshow is responsible for mitigating the risk posed to and from spectators gathered at secondary crowd locations. EG: Whelford end of the runway. That can and does include stopping an air display if the FDD deems it necessary.

Moaning about an organisers decision to comply with their safety obligations under the regulations is the wrong thing to do. That is one of the primary objectives at any airshow, comply with the safety regulations and host a safe event.

If you have an issue with the regulations, lobby your MP and the CAA (MAA in this instance via the MoD) with your argument for the regulations to be changed.

[IATthenRIAT]

What happens if you have a mental dissabilty illness and cant cope with a full day and all the crowds bunched together in the show, also you may not be able to plan things well in advance (may not have transport plans or friends/family) but camping and seeing the flying in a less crowded situation is fine, but you still want to see even for just a few moments (long enough to take a few shots of the static).
Does that mean somone like this is not entitled to still try to get thier best from a day out at RIAT.

[rdchawk]

What happens if you have a mental dissabilty illness and cant cope with a full day and all the crowds bunched together in the show, also you may not be able to plan things well in advance (may not have transport plans or friends/family) but camping and seeing the flying in a less crowded situation is fine, but you still want to see even for just a few moments (long enough to take a few shots of the static).
Does that mean somone like this is not entitled to still try to get thier best from a day out at RIAT.

Watch from car park. Still see the aircraft fly. Disability is not an excuse to be someone where encouraged not to be.

[Brevet Cable]

Does that mean somone like this is not entitled to still try to get thier best from a day out at RIAT.

Yes.


And if you're outside the showground, you'll have a hell of a job trying to take photos of 99% of the statics.


Besides, contrary to popular belief there are swathes of crowdline with no crowds.....in fact, you'll often find parts of it with nobody there at all.

Watch from car park. Still see the aircraft fly. Disability is not an excuse to be someone where encouraged not to be.

Although don't be surprised if you get turfed out if you haven't purchased a showground ticket.