Low F16 on Finals at Waddington Airshow
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low F16 on Finals at Waddington Airshow
I am assuming that the traffic lights were at red on the main road for the landing. Why were all the spotters allowed to be in the undershoot? As controllers and airfield managers are we responsible in any way or is this a police matter?Waddington has always been bad for this sort of thing. Is it going to take a fatality until something is done?
Open to the floor for discussion.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: That France
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NannyStates R Us.
Accidents happen all the time, big deal, get over it. IMV it is the /personal/ responsibility of the onlookers to ensure that their heads don't get in the way of the aeroplanes, and not the responsibility of controllers, managers, etc.
Accidents happen all the time, big deal, get over it. IMV it is the /personal/ responsibility of the onlookers to ensure that their heads don't get in the way of the aeroplanes, and not the responsibility of controllers, managers, etc.
I dont know if it is still there but there used to be a mound near the runway threshold at RAF Valley that was known as suicide hill. Always plenty of people willing to risk all for an exciting encounter with landing aircraft.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Many' years ago an ?F4? bounced its wheels on the fence in the undershoot of 09 at RAF Leuchars. The area was significantly under-populated for quite a while thereafter.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waddo are legally covered - Unless they've been removed then I distinctly remember that there are MASSIVE signs saying things like "NO PEDESTRIANS BEYOND THIS POINT" "DANGER FROM LOW FLYING AIRCRAFT" "DO NO PROCEED"
Yet every year they do it and every year the same thing happens.
Last year - Eurofighter
This year - F16
Next time???
Yet every year they do it and every year the same thing happens.
Last year - Eurofighter
This year - F16
Next time???
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So under what legal power could the Police move folk from that area that is part of the public highway?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I will put it another way. I am the controller in the tower, I can see that there are people in the undershoot and indeed, from other videos posted, people on ladders at the fence,directly on the centre line. I clear an aircraft to land,knowing fine that these people are where they are, regardless of whether I advise the aircraft or not, the aircraft subsequently approaches too low and as a result hits one of the spotters who as a result dies.
At the subsequent BOI are you telling me that the clearance to land from the controller would not be a contributory factor? I certainly would not be happy being the tower controller!
Are the people in the undershoot really aware of the potential danger and are you telling me that if they were injured they would not try to sue the asses of the airshow authorities??
At the subsequent BOI are you telling me that the clearance to land from the controller would not be a contributory factor? I certainly would not be happy being the tower controller!
Are the people in the undershoot really aware of the potential danger and are you telling me that if they were injured they would not try to sue the asses of the airshow authorities??
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The onus if any rests with the owners/operators of the airfield (MOD) as it is a known issue (there is a link to last year's near miss with a Typhoon in another part of Pprune).
If all they can appear to do is erect warning signs then it is highly likely that this is the only legal option open to them.
From another POV it could be said that the onus actually rests with the owners/operators to ensure that aircraft are not, normally, permitted to fly that low on the approach at that location
If all they can appear to do is erect warning signs then it is highly likely that this is the only legal option open to them.
From another POV it could be said that the onus actually rests with the owners/operators to ensure that aircraft are not, normally, permitted to fly that low on the approach at that location
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ranger. I am of the opinion that cleared to land means that the runway is free from obstructions and/or ( in general) traffic. Obstructions (frangible or otherwise) outside of the fence or penetrating the horizontal surfaces are the responsibility of the Aerodrome Operator. It is incumbent upon THEM to make sure that there are none OR that they are properly NOTAMN'd . The responsibility for accepting a clearance rests with the pilot.
However as my old Boss used to drill in to us "ATC are never blameless"
However as my old Boss used to drill in to us "ATC are never blameless"
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
It is outside the fence therefore action will lie with the civil police.
As the controller, if he considers the approach to be fouled then he should not clear the aircraft to land or to instruct the aircraft to land long. It used to be the case that aircraft would be instructed to land long if the threshold barrier had not been de-riged.
Clearly, if the FJ cannot land long then the onus transfers to the pilot to go around and for the controller to call civpol.
Coningsby has the same problem only 575 feet to the 25 numbers.
As the controller, if he considers the approach to be fouled then he should not clear the aircraft to land or to instruct the aircraft to land long. It used to be the case that aircraft would be instructed to land long if the threshold barrier had not been de-riged.
Clearly, if the FJ cannot land long then the onus transfers to the pilot to go around and for the controller to call civpol.
Coningsby has the same problem only 575 feet to the 25 numbers.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it could have been a deliberate action by the pilot to pass that low over the crowd, there is no doubt I think that he was below the glideslope
Are the people in the undershoot really aware of the potential danger and are you telling me that if they were injured they would not try to sue the asses of the airshow authorities??
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So under what legal power could the Police move folk from that area that is part of the public highway?
But if you're looking for offences or legislative powers then you can start with Actions endangering safety of aircraft (under ANO) for one (approach surface infringement which is a safety specification). Constables have power to use reasonable force to prevent the offence (i.e. move the people on)
For anyone between the hedgeline and the field boundary then they're on the highway (as the legal highway includes footpaths and verges) and must obey the directions of a constable to proceed in a particular direction.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In the mountains somewhere
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVfaTgPwxXU
3 different point of view of this...
Crazies for standing there if you ask me!
3 different point of view of this...
Crazies for standing there if you ask me!
Last edited by phildan89; 7th Jul 2014 at 05:26. Reason: stuffed the link up...