F-16 low approach, Wadders.

[sandozer]

Courtesy of theaviationist.com

Hit the deck !!

The Aviationist » [Video] Turkish F-16?s ultra low landing at Waddington Airshow (http://theaviationist.com/2014/07/06/solo-turk-low-approach/)

[Chris Kebab]

...looks impressive but does raise more than a few questions:confused:

Recall a similar antic on a sqn exchange some years back; the Belgian pilot concerned was asked to take himself and his jet back across the English Channel from whence he came.

[SFCC]

Really not very funny. Or impressive.
Gash t*at

[Tashengurt]

Low landing?


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[500N]

For those that haven't been there, what is or should be the normal height for an aircraft at that point ?

I gather from the Typhoon video that the runway starts straight after the fence.

[uffington sb]

Those spotters are within the area of the undershoot that has red flashing lights on the road saying 'Stop when red lights show'
So what's the problem Chris kebab, SFCC?

[ranger703]

Are you that are, seriously slating the pilot here!! What about the idiots in the undershoot. I have made my views clear about this matter in a thread in ATC Issues.
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/543080-low-f16-finals-waddington-airshow.html

[sandozer]

Ranger 703, sorry I did not spot your earlier post and link to this F-16 clip, maybe MODS can delete this thread ?

[Courtney Mil]

Bollocks. All my landings are low. Nothing gash, nothing wrong, getting low is something you have to do if you want to land. That fence is very close to the threshold at Waddo. If the pilot flies his approach to touch down on the numbers, that is where I would expect him to be.

So, if you think he's a **** or gash or anything else, you just explain why, what you think he was doing and how that doesn't fit with a proper landing. Remember, a lot of the ac that land at Waddo do so way beyond the piano keys (50 metres over the thrash old?).

[Dominator2]

Courtney, The red wine must have got to you. Obviously, all of your landings were low, most at ground level I assume! 10 years ago while boltholed at Waddo there was a Mirage and then F15 that attacked the fence on the approach to RW21. OC Ops asked for advice on how to reduce the risk and was advised to displace the threshold. He was advised that "Fast Jet pilots" are taught to land "On the Numbers", not at the Instrument Touchdown Point.
As he was reluctant to do this the measure that was introduced was to paint the fence Red and White, as seen in video clip.
There is no doubt that the F16, Mirage, F15 pilots and many more were dragging-in their approach. Most fast jets are designed to land from a 3 degree approach. The last ac I knew about that needed a shallow approach was a F104.
I'm sure that we all remember that a shallow approach spreads the "landing footprint" over a larger area. Obviously in the case of a QWI this would not be true.
Maybe when Waddo gets a new, longer runway in 2015 the Piano Keys will be the correct distance from the beginning of the runway to avoid such close calls in he future.

[BEagle]

I reckon it's around 640 ft from 'the numbers' to the A15 under the final approach path at Waddo:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Waddo_zpsd0edc984.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/Waddo_zpsd0edc984.jpg.html)

Which means anyone intending to touch down on the numbers, if using a normal 2½° - 3° approach, should be no lower than 27-34 ft when clearing the near edge of the road (ex-QWIs can do triggernometry, so will know that this is 640 x tan (approach angle) - n'est ce pas, Courtney?).

Spotters hanging on the fence at Brize could often be deterred by a late-notice VC10 go-around. It took a bit of practice, but if you got the timing right you could call "Simulated runway incursion, GO AROUND!" to one's student and the gentle purr of 4 Conways at max chat would be achieved just as we passed the spotter.....:E

[melmothtw]

Fast Jet pilots" are taught to land "On the Numbers

Here we go...

[Wander00]

seems daft plods had not cleared the idiots from the approach

[Dominator2]

Melmothtw, and your point is? I am not saying that Landing on the Numbers is correct, I am just saying that is what is taught - almost worldwide.

[melmothtw]

Not disparaging you Dominator, it's just that we had a similar thread running a couple of years back I think in which 'fast jet pilots are taught to land on the numbers' came up, and it all got rather heated between some in the FJ community and some in the multi-engine community.

My 'hear we go' comment was just me getting ready for a re-run.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Maybe we should get this German pilot over?

D2JM27LGwd4

[RAFEngO74to09]

Fox3WMB,

Indeed - even more "impressive" viewed from the POV of spectators on the road:

Transall Final Landing in Ballenstedt - YouTube

Or this one:

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/F-4-low-landing.jpg

Or this one:

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RNlAF-NF-5.jpg

[Dominator2]

Having been a Fast Jet Pilot for nearly 40 years allows me some right to comment. There is no doubt that any pilot should understand his ac performance and be able to land at the "correct place". Performance is not only Max Rate and Min Radius.
Clearing a hedge/fence by 10 ft is clearly unacceptable in anyones language.
The majority of such approaches are due to misjudgement or "pilot error" of some type. If not, they either had a piss poor QFI/IP or are God Gifted (QWI)?!!!

[Lima Juliet]

Having been in and around FJs for quite some time, that angle isn't exactly unusual. I too remember the M2000 shaped undercarriage holes in the Waddo fence in the 90s after an ACMI mission.

The Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding requires the approach surface to miss the road by 4.5 metres. The civvy CAP168 requires a bit more at 4.8 metres (yes another whole 30cm!). That is aiming at the runway strip that starts 60m before the declared threshold; so that eats into the 640ft that BEagle has measured quite significantly! So at ~15ft over the heads of these numpties, I don't believe that the viper driver has broken any rules on his approach.

As for the idiots in the undershoot - ever heard of Charles Darwin? And as for the idiot waving his walking stick, well that just beggars belief and is typical of the type of numb-skull that will complain afterwards that they were nearly killed in the local rag.

[814man]

Interesting to hear the aircrew perspective on this as always. From the other side I'm very familiar with the area (2 tours as RAFP at Waddo) and just wonder what the law is in relation to the people standing there. When an aircraft is on approach to that area the A15 red lights are activated (by ATC?) which clearly stop traffic, as they do on a railway crossing. But do they also act as an advisory for pedestrians that they should not be in the area. If I cross a railway crossing when the flashing red lights are activated then surely the risk and responsibility if I come to harm is on me as there were clear warning signs.

[Lima Juliet]

PS. It comes from ICAO...

In guidance material in ICAO annex 14 Volume 1, all roads are considered to be obstacles extending to 4.8 m above the crown of the road. Similarly, railways, regardless of the amount of traffic, are considered to be obstacles extending 5.4 m above the top of the rails.

[Lima Juliet]

814man

Exactly, they can do it. But just because it's legal doesn't make it a good idea - I can pick my nose whilst driving in fog at 70 mph on a wet road, legal it is, stupid as well!

LJ

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Not if you're a clever dick.

[Burnie5204]

Those rules on road heights apply to open roads upon which traffic is travelling.

If traffic is using the road then the reference height is surface+4.5m, but if the traffic is stopped (as it is at Waddo by the flashing red lights either side) then you can use the road surface as your reference height.

This is why Waddo has to stop the traffic for a/c movements, otherwise the road traffic would infringe the approach/climbout surfaces.

[bvcu]

interesting question 814 , the railway comparison is a different thing as the railways and their access are covered under their own very old system. Be interested to know if with an airfield approach its just a warning for info or is it enforceable as some kind of trespass ?

[gzornenplatz]

Having once been lowered into the grass in Waddington's undershoot by an A1 QFI I can report that it is quite a gentle, pleasurable experience. It is, however, one that I am in no hurry to repeat.

[Runaway Gun]

GZ, was this in an aircraft, or during a hand in hand stroll after some wine?

[Valiantone]

The boys and girls from Lincs Police were posted either side of the fence at the end of the runway today, and stopped anyone from going into that area with ladders or anything.

They did not stop them from sitting on the lights over the road however....

Still as there probably won't be another airshow at Waddo again, we will not have to worry (if that's whats happening after the refurb) in 2016????

V1

[Two's in]

It's all a bit of a laugh until someone loses an eye...

- King Harold, 1066

[Tashengurt]

814, if you did two tours as a snowdrop shouldn't you know what the law is?


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Hempy]

If this was an organised, advertised 'Airshow', I am simply amazed that the people running it would allow spectators anywhere near any overshoot areas at all. That guy cops some shear and cleans some of those people up, surely there would be a valid argument that the legal duty of care lays with the organisers? Why take that risk??

[Cows getting bigger]

Whilst LJ is correct with all the 'angle of dangle' stuff, the pragmatic answer is to displace the threshold at Waddington. I'm not sure it still needs 9000ft of Tarmac for landing (sorry, don't have E3, Sentinel, RJ manuals to hand to confirm whether a reduction of LDA by 500ft or so would significantly hinder performance).

[BEagle]

Courtney, it's actually 50 ft threshold crossing height, which would mean a touchdown point roughly 1000 ft into the RW. Whereas crossing the threshold at 50 m on a 3° approach would mean a touchdown some 3130 ft down the RW....

If the requirement really is to have a clear area to account for an aim point 60m short of the RW threshold, then that would imply a minimum height of only 14.8 ft over the near side of the A15 on a 3° approach....which equals 4.52m.

Anyway, enough of the trigonometry. Because however you look at it, standing underneath the RW approach that close to the A15 is utterly stupid - and most certainly 'Darwinian'!

[NigelOnDraft]

Google Earth shows the threshold some 4' below the road as well

NoD

[gzornenplatz]

McDonell Douglas's finest.

[Tiger_mate]

Hempy

The organisers have no power of authority for persons outside the wire. Unless there is a by-law or land owner complaining of trespass, the police have no power either. Common sense and the law are not always in sync.

What is known in the spotter fraternity as a 'naughty field' often places the public in areas forbidden by CAA and MAA regulations yet removal of offenders is not legally viable.

Yeovilton have been proactive in introducing temporary by laws closing bridleways and footpaths, but frankly all this will do is put the stn in good light in a Coroners Court inquiry. The first such court could see the end of air shows in the UK.

..... and had that F16 undershot and taken out even one spectator, the prophesy of doom would be this mornings headlines.

[Treble one]

Looks like the pilot landed on or very close to the numbers (37 sec in)


Turkish F16 Really Low Approach (3 different angle) - YouTube

[814man]

Fair point Tashengurt, in my defence back in the 80’s I spent just about all my tour on the SSA site and anything relating to traffic law that I learnt back then I have long forgotten! In those days anyone stopping anywhere along the A15 was regarded with suspicion, including aircraft spotters, and generally from inside the fence we were instructed just to tell them to move on. Of course it was all double yellow lines along the road and the parking area at the WAVE didn't exist.
The reference to a train crossing was because I assumed that the principles, if not the actual law, may be the same. Looking at the Highway Code does not seem to provide the answers and this link simply references vehicles.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312214/the-highway-code-light-signals-controlling-traffic.pdf

I think it may be that a pedestrian going past the red flashing lights at a railway crossing commits a trespassing offence under the Railway by laws but it’s not clear if the same applies to a road. We clearly need an up to date proper policeman’s view here not some retired snowdrop!

[Davef68]

Chap in the orange t shirt on the ladder gets a bit of a fright.

I suppose the solution would be to re-route the A15 in the same manner that the A38 was moved at Bristol.

[814man]

They also did that a few miles further up the A15 at Scampton, but that was quite a long time back I think, anyone know a date?

[Courtney Mil]

It was in the 50s when the V-Force moved in. I'm guessing around 55?

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, just found it the RAF website. 1956.

[814man]

Thanks Courtney Mil, I suspect that the planning process may have been a tad simpler back then.

[Wensleydale]

Waddington's current runways were put down between 1953 (when the airfield closed) and 1955. The airfield then received two Canberra Squadrons (21 & 27) - the Ops block and other supporting infrastructure went in at the same time as the runway was lengthened. The Vulcan OCU, 230, arrived at Waddington in May 1955 with the first Vulcan landing for contractor's trials work in March 1956. 230 OCU received its first Vulcans proper in January 1957 with 83 Sqn standing up in May 57. The final Canberra Sqn disbanded in June 57.

[Fitter2]

At Scampton the unmoved road would have crossed the extended runway, so some movement was inevitable

http://i62.tinypic.com/2e35njq.jpg

[Ogre]

Thread drift

Reminds me of a story from Cosford, where one end of the runway is near the main Wolverhampton - Shrewsbury train line. Bit of difference though, in that case the train line is on top of a earth bank which is what, 30 feet tall?

Back in the 80's someone was delivering a Vulcan for the museum, and we were out to watch it land. It went round a couple of times, and the story was that the pilot said he would take one last shot to which ATC responded, "You'll need to get a move on, the next train is due in 10 minutes...."

I've driven past Waddo, and Coningsby, and in my opinion anyone who decides to hang around there and then complain about the low flying aircraft are due everything they get. :ugh: It's like that airport where the undershoot is on the beach, people hang off the perimeter fence for a laugh as civvy airliners rev up for take off.

I really wonder about the future of the human race....

[Wensleydale]

If you look at the photograph above, you will see the origins of the Scampton station badge!


http://www.terrane.co.uk/prodimg/MG1647_1_Large.jpg

[814man]

A quick look on Google Maps shows why the A15 was rerouted around Scampton as it would have gone clean through the runway but I wonder if a similar change was considered at the time at Waddo given the close proximity of the end of the new runway to the A15 (which even in 1950's must still have been quite busy) and the new large aircraft being located there.

[Jet Jockey A4]

Even managed to hit the fence but by pure luck not the idiotic sunbather.

Lucky escape: Plane narrowly misses German sunbather (http://www.smh.com.au/world/lucky-escape-plane-narrowly-misses-german-sunbather-20140603-zrw11.html)

[BEagle]

Surely the re-routing of Ermine Street between Lindum and Eboracum goes back earlier than that?

It seems that a couple of centurions were arguing about the best route; should the road follow the line of what later became the B1398 along the bottom of the Lincoln Edge, or should Ermine Street be improved. The discussions went on for some time; one centurion was worried about the danger of ambush from the low life who lived beneath the edge causing him to require more legions and cohorts every time he went north to duff up the Picts, whereas the other was more concerned at the exposed nature of the top of the Edge along Ermine Street.

This ruckus attracted the attention of Caesar....

"Why do you argue so, centurions?"
"Err, Hail Caesar. It is this road here in the land of the Britons"
"These things having been said however, notwithstanding the having been stated arguments, bloody sort it, will you!"
"My Lord, we are unable to agree"
"Best you do - or it's off to gladiator school for the pair of you!"
"Verily have we tried, O Caesar, but have failed to agree"
"Right. Hand me that ruler and thy strigil, in order that I can decide! And thy map of parchment"
"By your command, Sire..."

"Good", mumbled Caesar. "Right from here, the college which I shall name Bishop Grottestrix and fill with nubile young wenches, in order my legionnaires to please, to here - the port of Winteringham by the river. It shall follow this route; hear ye buggers that this shall be my command!"

Placing the ruler between the two points, he dragged the strigil across the parchment. But, in common with later generations of student pilots, he caught his thumb with the strigil, causing it to jump off the ruler and the route to have a bend in it....

Now, parchment being expensive and time being short, rather than send for a new map, he peered at the result and asked one of the centurions for the name of the nearest settlement to the diversion. "Sire, 'tis known in those parts as Scampton - inhabited by a strange tribe who worship the god Vulcan", he replied.

"Well, so be it. The barbarians will be avoided, in order for the legions to march quickly to defeat the Picts. Now, build the road as I command, or become lion fodder"

"As Caesar commands, so shall it be", chorused the centurions.

Which is why there's now a bend in the A15 at Scampton!

[Red Line Entry]

And BEagle should know...!

[HTB]

Assuming that the military regulations try to emulate the CAA (CAP 168, derived from ICAO Annex 14, Volume I), the origin of the approach surface (1:50 slope) should be 60 metres before the threshold, and for a precision instument runway (ILS) be 150 metres either side of the runway centreline. Given that the road represents an obstacle 4.8 metres high, the road should be 240 metres from the start of the approach surface (and 300 from the threshold). So in practice the threshold should be displaced by 300 metres to provide the required clearance over the road.

Same applies to the take-off climb surface, except that it is only 90 metres either side of the centreline. To provide the clearance, a reduction of declared distances (of 300 metres)would be required. In any event the road would be repesented on the Type A chart as a 4.8m obstacle and taken into account during take-off performance planning.

The fence is also an obstacle.

Rail lines are considered a slightly taller obstacle to cater for any overhead power lines.

Mister B

[HTB]

From the Highway Code (adjacent to a depiction of the lights most commonly used at railway crossings):



Flashing red lights


Alternately flashing red lights mean YOU MUST STOP
At level crossings, lifting bridges, airfields, fire stations, etc.

That takes care of traffic, and it would be reasonable to assume this also applies to pedestrians.

Mister B

[814man]

In English law I don't think its reasonable to assume anything. I think that a pedestrian passing a red light at traffic crossing then gets into Rail Act and by-laws etc and the railway is essentially private land, not sure that same regulations are in place for the public highway unless a local by- law is enacted.

[HTB]

This applies to pedestrians at level crossings:


34

Railway level crossings. You MUST NOT cross or pass a stop line when the red lights show, (including a red pedestrian figure). Also do not cross if an alarm is sounding or the barriers are being lowered.The tone of the alarm may change if another train is approaching. If there are no lights, alarms or barriers, stop, look both ways and listen before crossing. A tactile surface comprising rounded bars running across the direction of pedestrian travel may be installed on the footpath approaching a level crossing to warn visually impaired people of its presence. The tactile surface should extend across the full width of the footway and should be located at an appropriate distance from the barrier or projected line of the barrier.
Law TSRGD, reg 52



So as the HC states that the flashing reds also apply to airfields, etc, it would seem logical to apply the same status as described above (at least the first sentence).

Mister B

[melmothtw]

The quoting of railway crossing bylaws must be a new low for PPRuNE.

[sitigeltfel]

Placing the ruler between the two points, he dragged the strigil across the parchment. But, in common with later generations of student pilots, he caught his thumb with the strigil, causing it to jump off the ruler and the route to have a bend in it....

"Strigil" :confused:

"Stylus" ?

[Burnie5204]

HTB - that road surface+4.5m/+4.8m rule applies to an open road to take account of traffic using the road. Waddo stops it's traffic so that +4.5/+4.8m rule doesnt apply and they can use the road height as it's reference.

The easiest way to visualise the approach surface is to look at the approach lights. The approach lights will usually be set to 'sit' on the bottom of the approach surface. You can see from that video that the spectators are standing and are taller than the approach lights - thus they are infringing the approach surface.


With Railway crossings there are Byelaws of Tresspass on Railway premises which they can use but with roads the offences relate to passing the red light. If the pedestrians are already past the red lights when they start flashing then they don't commit an offence.

However, they are technically committing offences of endangering aircraft safety by infringing the approach surface meaning that Police can use force (i.e. move them on) to prevent the offence.

Alternatively, as they are on the highway (legally defined as including verges and footpaths) they are required to obey the directions of a constable to proceed in a particular direction.

[cornish-stormrider]

"And Beagle should know,"
Yes, because he was there, on his second tour, no less.....:E

[Onceapilot]

No need for a displaced threshold, IMC traffic half a dot low on a 2.5 degree G/S crosses the road at 70 feet AGL. Likewise, visual traffic if aiming to touchdown on the numbers crosses the road above 20 feet AGL on a 2.5 degree approach. So, why not have a crossing restriction of 20 feet AGL for the crossing the A15? ;)

OAP

[BEagle]

His verbis dictis autem, the point of the strigil being that it was the nearest instrument to hand - and was probably still covered in centurion sweat, hence was slippery!

After a hard day judging gerundive attraction, Caesar was in no mood to wait for the squabbling centurions to find the correct tool!

[Wensleydale]

I thought it was most enterprising of the Romans to anticipate the locations of the many airfields from Cambridgeshire to North Lincolnshire then build a road that would connect them all.

[Lima Juliet]

OAP

As HTB says, the approach needs to be obstacle free to 1in50, 2% or 1.15 degrees. So your calculations don't really count. The Secretary of State underwrites the obstacle minima for a Government Aerodrome and it is subtly different to what HTB describes in that the MAA's Manual of Aerodrome Design and Safeguarding needs just 4.5m of clearance above the crown of the road (yes, the fence is lower). The 60m from the threshold is the same though in order to start the 1.15degree calculation.

LJ

[NutLoose]

Nothing surprises me, remember these turkeys topping up their tans... :E

Blown by the Bone - YouTube

[NutLoose]

Btw, if you haven't seen it, this was at Old Warden airshow on the 29th, he never made it over the fence / gate

Sopwith Triplane Crash 29th June 2014 - YouTube

[thing]

Looks to me like he wasn't trying to get it over the fence, I think he drifted into it.

[NutLoose]

Apparently there was a bit of a crosswind, rotaries are either on or off, they do not have throttles per se. The aircraft a replica apparently, hopefully it will be repaired soon :)

[Onceapilot]

Yes Leon, of course the obstacle criteria are met by the obstacles or it would not be licensed/approved. My rough figures are just to illustrate that the airfield operator could stipulate a local restriction that would cure the "issue" without impinging upon any aircraft operations. Just my opinion:ok:

OAP

[HTB]

Burnie

Thanks for embellishing my understanding of obstacle limitation surfaces. You will see that I made an assumption - that MoD try to apply the CAP168/ICAO criteria - in full knowledge that this seldom happens in reality; perhaps I should have typed more slowly to indicate that I was describing a hypothetical scenario. Hence my use of the modal verb "should" rather than "shall" (in ICAO meaning "ought" and must" - except that the preamble to Annex 14 urges Member states to apply the former - used in Recommended Practices with the same weight as the latter, used in Standards - SARPS).

You will also have picked up that the runway strip - 300 metres wide and 60 meteres before the threshold - provides the origin of both the approach surface and the transitional surface (the latter's origin at the longitudinal extent of the strip, it is a 1:7 slope).

I haven't been to Waddington for some time (since I left 101 sqn in 1975 to move up the road to Scampton), but I do recall that the the A15 was/is close to runway 20 threshold and the adjacent taxiway; in fact so close as to infringe the runway strip, including a good portion to the south of the southern set of traffic lights (and the aerodrome boundary fence).

Just as well that the military OLS do not fully embrace the civil criteria (Northolt is an even more striking example of where the criteria are not met). I'm sure that more differences would be revealed if one were to make a more detailed inspection of the infrastructure. I base this last satement on 12 years employment with the CAA as an aerodrome inspector, which included the transition of Farnborough, Finningley and St Mawgan from military to civil licensing criteria and an MoD requested inspection/audit of Northolt in December 2008.

Mister B

Happy to expand and clarify any technical questions, cognizant (and that's the first spelling option in the OED) that the ambition of MoD to apply civil criteria is often constrained by, financial limits, topography, operational needs, etc.

[Wensleydale]

Meanwhile, wait for the spate of accidents on the roundabout at the junction of the A15 and the new eastern bypass when it is built - it cannot be far away from the threshold and aircraft landing will be a major distraction for drivers approaching it....Waddington will undoubtedly get the blame.

[HTB]

Old age onset:

I forgot to mention that the threshold elevation can play a significant part in determining if an object close to the approach surface is treated as an obstacle; i.e. if the threshhold is lower than the ground on which the object stands, then the object's elevation increases by the difference between threshold and ground height (and vice versa).

Likewise for potential obstacles outside the runway strip that could infringe the transitional surface.

Mister B

[thing]

Meanwhile, wait for the spate of accidents on the roundabout at the junction of the A15 and the new eastern bypass when it is builtDo you remember when the Lincoln-Newark bypass was opened and people kept driving into the roundabout at Swinderby? The commonest excuse was 'I wasn't expecting there would be a roundabout.' The mind boggles.

[Tashengurt]

seems daft plods had not cleared the idiots from the approach

Daft plods eh? Seems to me that if people don't realise that standing under the path of rapidly descending lumps of metal isn't a good idea then they could probably do with being removed from the gene pool.
As has been said above the legal options for moving pedestrians from where they wish to be are very, very limited.

[HTB]

From the ANO - CAP393; a tenuous reference to the Darwinian spectators under the flight path:


Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations

Published for the use of those concerned with air navigation,but not to be treated as authoritative (see Foreword)


FOREWORD

1 Status

1.1 This work sets out the provisions of the Air Navigation Order as amended together with Regulations made under the Order. These Regulations are The Rules of the Air Regulations,The Air Navigation (General) Regulations, the Air Navigation (Cosmic Radiation)(Keeping of Records) Regulations, the Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations and a number of permanent Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) Regulations. It also contains the provisions of the Civil Aviation Authority Regulations. As with the Air Navigation Order itself, the Regulations are in their currently amended form.

1.2 It has been prepared for those concerned with day to day matters relating to Air Navigation who require an up to date version of the Orders and the Regulations mentioned above. It is edited by the Legal Adviser’s Department of the Civil Aviation Authority. Courts of Law will however refer only to the Queen’s Printer’s Edition of Statutory Instruments.


PART 19 Prohibited Behaviour

Endangering safety of an aircraft

137 A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

Endangering safety of any person orproperty

138 A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.


So it works both ways...

Mister B

[Tashengurt]

Legislation is all very well HTB but I'd like to see anyone being prosecuted for simply being on a public highway which happens to be at the end of a runway.
I suspect that any court (not that it'd get that far) would say that aircrew could (should) foresee and plan for that situation.

[HTB]

TG

Quite; stupidity is not a crime. I've not seen those parts of the ANO being used (successfully) during 12 years of aerodrome safety regulation (although some aerodromes do have warning/threatening signs at vulnerable points, such as footpaths that cross a runway, quoting the relevant reference and large fines for transgression).

I suppose you could argue that hanging from the boundary fence could constitute trespass - better ask a lawyer (and don't use reheat on the go around...:E).

Mister B

[WPW]

a few years ago -Did not some visiting aircraft ? (french) demolish the fence?

[Wensleydale]

"a few years ago -Did not some visiting aircraft ? (french) demolish the fence?"


I have unsuccessfully tried to find the photograph of a 50 Sqn Vulcan K2 tanker that could not retract its hose and dragged it through the fence at Waddington in the early 1980s. A Nimrod AEW also dragged its trailing radio aerial through the fence a few years later. The former was expected and the traffic lights set - I understand that the indications in the Nimrod were incorrect and the crew did not know that they had 150' of wire trailing behind them. The traffic lights may not have been set to red on this occasion.

[HTB]

Slight correction to my last:

The ANO Rule would most likely have been used to collar the Darwinian candidates who fired green lasers at police helicopters (and other sundry aircraft), but not directly conected to aerodromes.

Wensly

Was there not an exuberant co-pilot many years ago who was selected to carry out a brake test on a Vulcan. Adopting the callsign "Roadrunner", I recall that's just what he did - run onto the road while carrying out some high speed runs (proving that either the brakes were faulty, or his decsiion-making was).

Mister B

[Lima Juliet]

Fox3kill

Slight point of order, if I may...

The MAA regs (note, they are not guidelines) at RA2335 state "If it is predicted that the general public will gather, as aviation enthusiasts, in off-site viewing areas, the EO will include such gatherings in his risk assessment." So you do have to consider areas over which you have no control and is outside of your event area (I also know this having been a Display Director myself :ok:). Therefore, I would expect the Waddington Airshow Risk Assessment to have suitable mitigations for expected gatherings like this bunch of loons.

LJ

[Background Noise]

Another MRP open to interpretation - define 'off-site viewing area'. Is that a promulgated/defined site or a random gathering?

[Wensleydale]

At the risk of crossing threads...one wonders if the F-16 was using QFE or QNH, or indeed was confused between the two?

[Gerry Mobbs]

Waterbeach had traffic lights to control the A10(Cambridge to Ely) We operated them from local control.If they were red for more than three minutes a buzzer reminded us.I recall one incident when a double decker bus jumped them and one of our Hunters had to do a quick avoidance.That would have been in 1958.

[bobward]

The point was well made earlier in the thread that some people have little in the way of common sense. If there isn't a notice saying 'Don't do this...' people think they can.

When in the day job a few years ago I got into a full and frank exchange of views with a senior person on health and safety rules, my point being that we had too many, and people therefore stopped thinking. I tried to illustrate my argument with the following example: Our cooker at home does Not have a sign saying 'do not stick your head inside when the cooker is operating'. Since it doesn't say don't do this, it must mean I can. I suspect argument this stuffed my glittering career......:sad::=(*)

Anyone with a bit of sense should not stand underneath fast moving objects, yet these idiots do so. People still try to cross railway lines against Stop signals, and pay the price. It's tragic but true.

(* For pedants, career has two meanings. One is a logical well ordered path throiugh life, work etc. The second is to rush about in an unco-ordinated fashion, crashing into things..... which one best describes you?)

Finally, I have my doubts that the waddi people were 'spotters' as such. Waddington is a great place to photograph aircraft, but only from about 100 yards on either side of the landing area.

[Kerosene Kraut]

That's not a low approach.
THIS is a low one.
(German Transall at Ballenstedt, scheduled final landing to become permanent display a/c there):

Landung einer Transall C-160 in Ballenstedt - YouTube

[Wander00]

GM - probably my late ex Father in law driving the bus (Littleport-Ely-Cambridge and return). Strangely we had a family in one of our gites a couple of years ago, and the Father drive the same bus route now, and often picks up the former Mrs W, as she does not herself drive, and drives her too or from Cambridge to Ely.

[7of9]

Another angle on that approach! Selfie?

https://mobile.twitter.com/warrenadrake/status/486547490997817344

[500N]

That is an awesome photo.

Thanks for posting.

[glad rag]

I was going to point out an obvious mismatch but filsdl...

[iain55]

Used to love watching and feeling the Jags land at Coltishall on the road round the perimiter fence was the highlight of many a holiday back in the late 70's and early 80's the fire escape nearby was never as much fun.

[TEEEJ]

Another video of the landing.

kBwEFz_WIdQ&feature=related

[gzornenplatz]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that landing. I speak with a great deal of experience as a fighter pilot and QFI.


Gz

[Boudreaux Bob]

Well, it is an "Air" "Show" ain't it? Folks are supposed get a thrill out of watching the antics ain't they? Seems a success all the way round, some thrills, a safe landing, and lots of AH's and other shouts heard and no one hurt!

If one is so terminally stupid as to stand yourself at that particular location while Flight Ops are being conducted, well perhaps it is time to thin the Herd a bit if something goes all ugly.

[WH904]

I was at Waddington the day the event occurred but I left after the Vulcan arrived - couldn't be bothered to wait another 40 minutes to see an F-16. Before the Vulcan arrived an E-3 and Sentinel were doing overshoots and rollers, all of which were very impressive from the spot under the approach lights, but of course they were at about 50ft as they crossed the road.

As ever, the Police turned-up and told everyone to move away - which they did. I didn't, and as ever, the coppers admitted that they couldn't make anyone move, it was just advice. I pointed-out that I'd been standing there on and off since the 1980s, so I was aware of the risk and I was willing to take my chances.

I think that's fair enough. What I don't understand is why there is no sign that informs people of the risks. Surely, a simple sign could be erected that states the danger and that anyone standing there does so at their own risk. Obviously, even the lowest approach is safe, and it is rare that there is any true danger (I can't remember how long ago it was when a Starfighter actually hit the fence, but we're talking decades). The key problem is that most people don't even realise the potential danger and are therefore unprepared to do anything about it if they need to.

I was astonished to see one person actually standing on a stepladder right under the approach lights on the road side. Okay, he still wasn't nearly high enough to be at risk but he would obviously be in no position to make a swift exit if an aircraft really did come in way too low. Why would one need to be on a ladder in any case? Bizarre!

I suspect the whole issue will be resolved during the runway reconstruction. I heard dark rumours a long time ago about that stretch of the A15 being diverted or even closed (using the parallel road instead). I doubt if there's enough money to do this but I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of arrangements were made to simply keep people away from the area.

Although it smacks of "spoilsportism" I can see how frustrating it must be for the coppers, when people still dump their cars on the roadside, even though there's a dedicated car park. The A15 is a very busy road and some of the people you see there just act like idiots, throwing themselves into the road and running about as if it's Alton Towers. I don't think the police or the RAF will be happy until the whole area is cleansed of enthusiasts. Still, the way things are now with no show and no aircraft worth seeing, I doubt if many people are going to be standing there any more, so maybe the problem is solved by proxy!

[Wensleydale]

"I was astonished to see one person actually standing on a stepladder right under the approach lights on the road side. Okay, he still wasn't nearly high enough to be at risk but he would obviously be in no position to make a swift exit if an aircraft really did come in way too low. Why would one need to be on a ladder in any case? Bizarre!"

A few years ago, on arrivals day, the Police had to move a nutter who was on a step ladder in the middle of the A15 - lorries passing either side! They asked that the RAF prevent the spotters from leaving the viewing enclosure once they had parked up, to which we pointed out that we were not a prisoner of war camp and physically could not stop them. The next year we did not issue pass outs, but the spotters were always prepared to park their cars in the enclosure for a fiver, walk out of the enclosure to stand under the approach, then pay another pound to pick up their car at the end of the day.