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.

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.

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.

Minesthechevy......Until someone gets injured/killed and your local friendly noWin no Fee leeches get involved.

'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.

The only way this can be prevented is with police input. Why the air show co-ordinators haven't done it with evidence such as this is beyond me.

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???

So under what legal power could the Police move folk from that area that is part of the public highway?

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??

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

Can't see what all the fuss is about myself.:D

Low F16 on Finals at Waddington Airshow

There it is again, "finals." Being a foreign pilot, he probably didn't know which one of the finals to use.

Maybe we should get this German pilot over?

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"

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.

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

I would imagine that most of the individuals in shot are enthusiasts, and even those who aren't are probably capable of working out that being hit by an F-16 travelling at 140kts is going to ruin their entire day.

Westlakes:

<<So under what legal power could the Police move folk from that area that is part of the public highway?>>

Many. Trust me on this.

To start with the constable could start with simply ask them to move off the centreline using powers of persuasion (a cop can ask you to do pretty much anything they like without needing a legal power as you can choose to comply or refuse)


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.

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

3 different point of view of this...
Crazies for standing there if you ask me!