EGNH bans banners
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53152212

Is this wise for an airport authority to get involved in?:hmm:

Already being discussed in "Jet Blast"

Ah so it is, although they seem to be debating the politics of it all.

I'm just wondering where EGNH airport authority comes into it all. Apparently there was a BLM banner flown by the same company a few days before, does the airport now censure the legitimate business on its premises? Who decides what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? Genuine question - maybe try and avoid the politics of it in this discussion!

Does an airport authority now take its guidance from the Daily Mail and Twitter to see who is outraged and react accordingly?:confused:

Can this ban be cancelled quietly in a few weeks time ?

Frankly I'd have thought that Blackpool airport can ill afford to pick and choose who operates from there and what they do or don't do. Perhaps the Daily Mail and the Twitterarty would like to pick up the bill for lost revenue!

Surely the airport has the freedom to chose who it does business with?

Is there a CAA rule saying that a banner has to be picked up from an airfield, could it be collected from a suitable piece of land and the aircraft operates from home base.

Rather than the message on the banner, how does a SEP aircraft towing a banner over a city comply with the ANO regarding landing in the event of an engine failure?

There may be a case to answer by the pilot/AOC holder over that, imho

Well as long as he was 1500’ above the highest obstacle, the flight was legal.

And if 22 players wore shirts that said BLM, what’s the problem with a banner saying WLM??

Vortex,

As I said, I didn't want to talk about the message so as to detract from my point (I may agree with your sentiment, or not), but to look at the legality of the flight.

From what I could see fromlimited FR24 data, the 182 was at 1400ft. Now, I don't know what the QNH was etc, but EGCC is about 240ft amsl, so that, to me, would suggest that limits were being pushed, at the very least!

You’d think after Mr Farage’s Election Day mishap that wing of politics would steer clear of the banners. Clearly it was an ethically questionable slogan or it would have said “All Lives Matter”. Perhaps the operator needed the business too much to say no although it was never going to end well for them in terms of coverage

The only possible outcome of flying a white lives matter what’s division and outrage, clearly that was the intent of this.

Ethically yes, the airport does have a responsibility to not allow this sort of business. In the same way that social media companies crack down on fake news and offensive material. Most of it perfectly legal, just not acceptable ethically.

The modern world is definitely crazy, masses and masses of people just waiting to be offended and outraged by everything and anything. I see the pilots name has now been revealed on the poison that is social media, that cannot be right or reasonable in anyones viewpoint.

Maybe I just don't get it, I find it hard to understand an airport authority getting involved in policing banners that incidentally the local plod stated there was no criminal offence committed. It just seems to set a tricky precedent, what next? Will airports refuse arriving private aircraft because they are wary of the passenger on board being controversial? Will every private pilot have to justify his/her/nonbinary intentions to the local airport manager before being given permission to fly?

Maybe if airport managers ran airports, police actually police crimes, we all just wised up and live and let live. Maybe life would be easier? Maybe i'm naive!!

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....fc094ceada.jpg

Another woke bit of nonsense.... What the hell is wrong with the UK these days?

We are living in 1984 - group think all the way !

Oh dear, there was meant to be a BLM banner next week and Blackpool have banned it.
Now they either have to lift the ban or have a protest arrive on their runway next week.

This is is exactly why they should have stayed neutral, they’ve messed up big time, BLM UK is after them.

No flight below 500’ would put paid to that, unless an exemption was obtained.
Doesn’t matter if Blackpool have banned such flights, just go to another airfield else (farm strip) to pick it up...

Ah yes the 500 foot rule.

EGNH bans banners
 

If the truth were but known, tens of millions of Proles out here cheered as I did when seeing that someone had the courage to fly that banner in the face of all the brainwashing. Maybe there should now be a statue of the pilot erected at the entrance to Blackpool Airport.

Forget the message, is it a curtailment of Freedom of Speech??

Regards the message to me it is Racist like BLM is Racist... All lives matter..

If it is aimed at the Met who appear to not regard BLM as important then take the message to Cressida Dick...

Of interest how many of the footballers would NOT take the knee if they were giver a free choice by their employer with NO repercussions? and where is the FA as to me this is a Political Statement....

OK - way of aviation now, there's an active discussion in "Jet Blast" if you want to carry on.

Top Bunk/Vortex

Even if it’s legal I certainly wouldn’t want to do it. I don’t understand people who fly single engine over built up areas. There is literally nowhere to go if the engine stops.
It may well be legal in this day and age (I think it’s 1000’ above highest object etc), but common sense dictates otherwise.

I had the very same discussion on the Gatwick GA thread and was shot down about it.

There’s even an article in this months Pilot magazine about flying over London in an RV6.

Old pilots and bold pilots and all that..

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....13a80a38e.jpeg

I’ll just leave this here, and risk moderators deleting the post for drifting the thread. If - before being deleted - it is seen by just one person who thinks that “white lives matter” is an appropriate stance to take then my work here will be done.

Be safe, everyone.

If you think about it that was the only outcome they could go with. If it had been deemed to be unlawful there would be outrage from the other side that all the BLM banners and signs would also fall into the same unlawful category (with no regard to the delicate ethics or context) I think ultimately its going to be difficult to actually prove context of a sign/message.

My personal belief is the people who paid for the it to be flown did so to deliberately antagonise "the other side" and its succeeded by the level of media attention etc.

With retrospect applied the people against it would of been better to simply ignore and have the media do the same. No coverage, no uproar, no additional people tipping support one way or another. The media might not think or believe it but by publishing the story its fuelled the issue.

Good one. Sad to see all of the ignorance in here with that "WLM" nonsense.

I do find it odd that somebody has chosen to be so offended by the term "Black Lives Matter" they actually paid for a plane to tow some words across the sky above a football match. Bonkers.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....aa07a9a5fd.png

I, and many others here, would disagree with the 5th panel of your cartoon, which presupposes that "black lives are treated as expendable by the police and govt".
The sheer weight of legislation, quotas in police/govt/media and over representation in tv and films would suggest otherwise. The US may have its own issues but we don't.

The number of black people who have died in police custody says that we do have the same problem. And any black in the professions has experienced random searches if not worse.

Black crime stats in urban areas and drug use explain the first. The second is hearsay

Links to prove please.

Why 1500 feet?

Basic Freedom at risk
 

Aviation would be well advised to avoid 'taking a stance' on such issues. Blackpool Airport which should concern itself with providing a service to anyone wishing to use it, is letting 'politics' get in the way of its remit. If the Football industry chooses to embroil itself with politics then that's up to them, but as with everything there is ALWAYS more than one point of view, and if its
ok to say BLM then it is equally ok to say WLM, although a better slogan (in my point of view) would be All LM.
We must not allow the rubbish that has become Social Media to invade our basic freedom of choice and voice, and those who choose to play the 'Racist' card at every opportunity have to realise that not agreeing with everything they say IS NOT RACIST, it is the normal right of reply.
The whole world has come a long way since some of its darker times, and due to the advent of free press (and media) plus more democracy, we should applaud the improvements made in how we all live together, and not rise to the attempts of those who seek conflict of any sort.
It so happens that Blackpool Airport saw the new start of Aerial advertising back in 84/85 and there were plenty of 'interesting ' banners flown after that,many of which were either pro or anti Government, plus a very high profile GET STUFFED S,,,,,,L which flew past a party conference in Brighton.

OK - we are now replicating the same discussion about the same cartoon as is taking place in JetBlast, suggest this subject gets switched?

Airports Thread
 

This thread refers specifically to Blackpool Airport and its 'decision' to ban an authorised long term operator to operate from that Airport.
Seems the correct place to run the discussion.

Yes, it really sticks out like a sore thumb, but only if you ignore how many white people die in police custody.

I read one the other day where the chap had died in police custody.

The thing was, he’d taken a drugs overdose and the cops had not called for an ambulance quick enough.

thats “their fault” apparently, not his, go figure.

But most posts aren't discussing BLK (e.g. #37 immediatley after yours). As an aside, many airfields ban banner towing because of the difficulty in integrating into other traffic (mine does), it may be that case is the straw that broke the camels back and they finally decided it was more trouble than it was worth?

I am admittedly a bit rusty on civil airlaw. Haven't used my CAA PPL since the 90s.

I dug out an old copy of Trevor Thom Airlaw Vol 2 which says:

LF Regs (Rule 5), flight over congested area: not below a height to land clear if an engine fails and not below 1500' above the highest fixed object within 600m of the ac, whichever is higher.
it also says no lower than 1000m of an open-air gathering of more than 1000 people. Maybe this one applies?

Has all this changed? I forgot all this stuff when I left the Chinook force 15 years ago.

.

Yes it’s all changed. Quick read of the ANO will bring you up to speed. The rule is now 1000’. Check out the Gatwick GA thread in Private Flying.