The naughty field debate...a new twist

[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

[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.

[Rule 27]

What safeguards would you suggest?

[Craig]

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]

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.

[Rule 27]

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.

[Craig]

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...

[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.

[ranger703]

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.

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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[RickIngham]

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

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

[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]

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

Found it with a search.

[Georgeconna]

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

[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]

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]

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.

[Russ]

Three different angles here -

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

None look any better!

[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.

[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]

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!

[psquiddy]

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

[DerekF]

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.

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?