The naughty field debate...a new twist

Discuss all things 'aviation' that do not fit into a more appropriate forum
User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9039
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
Location: Solihull
Contact:

The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by boff180 »

Ok I go naughty field at Waddo regularly (first time I haven't this year).

Which is fine in my books, the risk is relatively minimal, compared to the following.

What isn't fine are idiots that stand directly under approach. As what happened Saturday at Waddo... Soloturk got a touch low on final approach.

Note the idiots having to make a jump for it..... And yes anyone who stands at that point during an Airshow is an idiot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGNoupIF5SU[/youtube]

Daft doesn't cut it.

Andy

User avatar
Craig
UKAR Staff
Posts: 4025
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:11 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Craig »

Unfortunately though a lot of people think this is still the 1960s and the "it's my choice" argument still seems to hold sway. The Facebook reaction certainly seems to suggest that. This ignores that stuff like this will see increased safety measures in place to prevent this kind of thing. Organisers simply can't say "it was their choice" if something goes wrong, but getting that message across seems difficult.

User avatar
Rule 27
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 11:22 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Rule 27 »

What safeguards would you suggest?

User avatar
Craig
UKAR Staff
Posts: 4025
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:11 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Craig »

Rule 27 wrote:What safeguards would you suggest?

"Suggest" is the wrong word, the obvious solution is not to stand right under the approach, but it wouldn't surprise me to see increasing limits put on things like missed approaches to minimise such occurrences, and possibly police moving people on from the area. The Typhoon last year was a bit of a non story, but in this instance someone on a ladder would have got whacked. Perspectives etc can lie but that looks for all the world like no more than a few feet.

TYPHOON3
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed 19 May 2010, 4:38 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by TYPHOON3 »

There will always be a certain amount of risk if you use a naughty field.Standing directly under the approach is very foolish though.Unless the Police stop people doing it on airshow days it's an accident waiting to happen.

User avatar
Rule 27
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu 04 Jul 2013, 11:22 am
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Rule 27 »

Jmorgan wrote:Police can't tell, can only advise.
It does show poor airmanship though on behalf of the pilot. He need not have been that low on the approach.
This particular game of chicken took 2 sides to tango.

:clap:

User avatar
Craig
UKAR Staff
Posts: 4025
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:11 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Craig »

Jmorgan wrote:Police can't tell, can only advise.
It does show poor airmanship though on behalf of the pilot. He need not have been that low on the approach.
This particular game of chicken took 2 sides to tango.

Indeed so, but if it comes to it there'll only be one loser...

User avatar
tankbuster
Posts: 2177
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2011, 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by tankbuster »

I’m not sure I get this don’t stand at the end of the runway argument. Aren’t runways and airfield parameters designed to be safe. If outside of the designed safety distance what else do you need to do? If I stand under the lights at the end of Myrtle Avenue is that wreckless. It would be if an A380 came down on my head. Doing the same at Juan Marteen probably is but it doesn’t stop many aviation enthusiasts having it on their wish list.
Trevor C
recent and not so recent pictures here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics

ranger703
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm
Location: Inverness,Scotland.

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by ranger703 »

Rule 27 wrote:
Jmorgan wrote:Police can't tell, can only advise.
It does show poor airmanship though on behalf of the pilot. He need not have been that low on the approach.
This particular game of chicken took 2 sides to tango.

:clap:


The pilot may have been low for a very good reason, he may have had a problem, it could have been any number of factors. If you are clapping on behalf of the poor airmanship argument then the poor decisions by the people that decided to ignore the signs and sit,stand etc in the undershoot deserves the same argument. If the low approach had resulted in a fatality because someone had decided to ignore the signs and I might say common sense, by pitching a ladder against the fence line on the centre line, then what would your argument be then, say for example that it was your brother or sister that died as a result? I am frankly surprised to see so many people in the video that have apparently been allowed to set up camp in the undershoot on a runway approach that is known to have history of low approaches,indeed aircraft in the past have actually hit said fence!

User avatar
PeteM
Posts: 899
Joined: Thu 05 Feb 2009, 7:08 pm
Location: North Cornwall

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by PeteM »

Perhaps they will copy Yeovilton and bring in a temporary order. It would be difficult to ban vehicular traffic at Waddington but I have a feeling they could ban pedestrians under such an order.

ranger703
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm
Location: Inverness,Scotland.

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by ranger703 »

PeteM wrote:Perhaps they will copy Yeovilton and bring in a temporary order. It would be difficult to ban vehicular traffic at Waddington but I have a feeling they could ban pedestrians under such an order.


Vehicular traffic is not the issue at Waddo, Pete, the traffic lights ensure that vehicles do not pass when an aircraft is on finals. A sure way of losing an airshow is to have a freeloader killed in that very undershoot because they decided to ignore the warning signs and thought that they knew better.

User avatar
Offbreed
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat 06 Sep 2008, 12:45 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Offbreed »

Well the police manned the red and white fence, stopping people standing there today. I wish people would wait until the airshow is over before uploading videos, I couldn't put my ladder up. :ninja:

User avatar
RickIngham
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sun 10 Jan 2010, 7:09 pm
Location: Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by RickIngham »

For those that think it isn't dangerous, imagine this was Soloturk on Saturday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Msdza4wZmcg

FarnboroJohn
Posts: 2356
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by FarnboroJohn »

In my long-lost youth I was blown over by a Vulcan running up for departure at Waddington in that exact spot. I learned from that. The presence of the wreck of Ormond Haydon-Bailie's Sea Fury in the undershoot at the time had taught me nothing.....

Its foolish to stand directly under an approach. Even if you survive, if you cause a pilot with a failing aeroplane to heroically turn aside and crash fatally to avoid you, you will be morally responsible for their death. Not clever.

Thankfully I grew out of my youthful follies. Unfortunately some people are simply immune to common sense.

John

DeltaPapa
Posts: 323
Joined: Tue 02 Sep 2008, 8:57 am

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by DeltaPapa »

I'm getting error 404 one the link - has it been removed?

Found it with a search.

Georgeconna
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed 30 May 2012, 2:38 pm

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Georgeconna »

Class, The Lads enjoyed it that's the main thing :grin: Gives em something to talk about in the pub later on over a cool Beer.
Cheers

George

Zero shows for 2018 Giving in a Rest.

User avatar
Thumper
UKAR Supporter
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon 13 Jul 2009, 5:46 pm
Location: Sherborne, Dorset

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Thumper »

Crikey that was a bit low! This will always happen until the airshow is no more. There were still people in the sheep field at Yeovilton when it was closed off last year, not a clue how they got past security and in there. The VC10 came in very low and I think it was the Gripen which actually blasted the fence down on take off.

pb643
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:31 am

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by pb643 »

RAF police cleared everyone out of the approach lights on Wednesday afternoon and moved people off the centreline. Thursday morning there were notices right across the approach saying Danger jet blast and low flying aircraft.

Nobody should be stood blocking the approach lights, not sure who's land it is, but certainly not public.

There is always some risk stood on the live side of the airfield, but in my opinion standing directly under the approach that close to the threshold is stupid and irresponsible.

JAVA
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun 16 Sep 2012, 11:56 am

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by JAVA »

tankbuster wrote:I’m not sure I get this don’t stand at the end of the runway argument. Aren’t runways and airfield parameters designed to be safe. If outside of the designed safety distance what else do you need to do? If I stand under the lights at the end of Myrtle Avenue is that wreckless. It would be if an A380 came down on my head. Doing the same at Juan Marteen probably is but it doesn’t stop many aviation enthusiasts having it on their wish list.


I have to agree Tankbuster. Don't hear many on here calling the Totterdown & Rhymes Farm campsites at RIAT irresponsible for setting up directly under the display, even when the Dutch F-16 came close to losing it in that 2012 rehearsal.

User avatar
Russ
Posts: 5592
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2008, 6:51 am
Location: UK

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by Russ »

Three different angles here -

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06o7fzcE1Hk[/youtube]

None look any better! :hide:

duxfordhawk
Posts: 968
Joined: Sat 04 Oct 2008, 11:32 am
Location: South London/Croydon
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by duxfordhawk »

I admit I took a few risks in the late 1980s early 1990s outside Biggin Hill, but I was a teenager then and did not really feel anything could have would happen. Having seen sadly 5 fatal accidents I now would not stand anywhere I am not meant to that could have turned very nasty with the F-16 there yesterday and one big fatality would be end of airshow in the UK.
Pay to go inside or stand well well out of the way, common sense I think but sadly common sense not that common these days.
Martin
To see my Photos go to
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dxhawk/

User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9039
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
Location: Solihull
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by boff180 »

Is it me or does it look like there is a very sudden and deliberate control input to lower the rate of descent just before he passes over their heads? (7/8s and 15/16s on those angles)

ranger703
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 12:31 pm
Location: Inverness,Scotland.

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by ranger703 »

Jmorgan wrote:
The pilot may have been low for a very good reason, he may have had a problem, it could have been any number of factors. If you are clapping on behalf of the poor airmanship argument then the poor decisions by the people that decided to ignore the signs and sit,stand etc in the undershoot deserves the same argument. If the low approach had resulted in a fatality because someone had decided to ignore the signs and I might say common sense, by pitching a ladder against the fence line on the centre line, then what would your argument be then, say for example that it was your brother or sister that died as a result? I am frankly surprised to see so many people in the video that have apparently been allowed to set up camp in the undershoot on a runway approach that is known to have history of low approaches,indeed aircraft in the past have actually hit said fence!



Get off the plane spotter mentality.

The pilot may have been low for a very good reason,


And if Henry the 8th hadn't married that Tart Ann Boleyn we'd all be Catholic.
He wasn't low for any good reason, ergo, it was poor airmanship, he had plenty of vis down the approach, and NO reason to do it that low.

If someone had been killed then he would have been equally culpable, and as neither my brother or sister was there your point is spurious.

Now, before you answer, have a think then look beyond the end of your nose.


I am not a plane spotter, nor do i need to look beyond the end of my nose. The pilot was on an approach to land, the spotters were in an area that there are signs and warnings telling them not to be, hence the police presence today to enforce said signs and warnings. It is people like you and the people in the undershoot that can not see the real issue here that have the problem. I deal with risk on a daily basis and it is assessed and managed to the best of my ability, idiocy and lack of common sense cannot be assessed or managed!

User avatar
psquiddy
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 10:33 am
Contact:

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by psquiddy »

That looks like all were in a public place and no one got hurt - what is the problem?
Over 300 free things to do in London
http://www.toplondondaysout.co.uk

User avatar
DerekF
Posts: 4780
Joined: Sun 07 Sep 2008, 7:54 am
Location: Handforth, Cheshire, UK

Re: The naughty field debate...a new twist

Post by DerekF »

boff180 wrote:Is it me or does it look like there is a very sudden and deliberate control input to lower the rate of descent just before he passes over their heads? (7/8s and 15/16s on those angles)

Doesn't look like it. Unless of course you are trying to suggest that the pilot deliberately flew low over the road and put spectators in danger. I'm sure that can't be the case......

Anyone who stands so close under the threshold need their heads examining and I'm surprised it wasn't policed better.

psquiddy wrote:That looks like all were in a public place and no one got hurt - what is the problem?


You're right. Maybe tomorrow I won't bother wearing my seatbelt in my car, I haven't had an accident in years so what can possibly go wrong?

Post Reply