Air Cadets grounded?
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
The newly erected signs all the way around the peri track make it clear that public access inside the peri track is not permitted - I wonder if Surrey Hills GC have had any problems with wandering public.
The Kenley Fence!
It seems that a minority of the locals do not like the "amateur plane enthusiasts" AKA Surrey Hills.
This is taken from RAFKenley [OC2FTS] Facebook Page!
There needs to be balance in any proposal on the airfield. An unbalanced proposal serving the needs of a couple of amateur plane enthusiasts during the week is not serving the greater needs of the public. Happy to see the RAF taking a lead in this at the weekend - but an amateur club must take second place.
Last edited by Freda Checks; 7th Feb 2018 at 15:04. Reason: Added reference!
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,597
Received 275 Likes
on
153 Posts
Hmmmm, given the huge areas of public open space around the area (Kenley Common, Coulsdon Common, Farthing Down and Riddlesdown - which are all close to being contiguous - plus several other areas of woodland) I think the greater needs of the public are more than adequately catered for! Mostly thanks to the City of London Corporation who own much of the public access land hereabouts.
I've walked around the peri-track a number of times on weekday afternoons and evenings when SHGC have been active and I don't believe I've ever seen more than two or three dozen dog walkers, cyclists, runners and walkers...
Bloody NIMBYs!
I've walked around the peri-track a number of times on weekday afternoons and evenings when SHGC have been active and I don't believe I've ever seen more than two or three dozen dog walkers, cyclists, runners and walkers...
Bloody NIMBYs!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely morning at RAF Cosford, cadets to fly, serviceable aircraft, pilots current and ready to go, weather good and temperature within limits but.....
No Air Traffic Controller so no cadet flying.
No Air Traffic Controller so no cadet flying.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole thing about public access, signs warning people not to walk across the airfield when glider operations are in progress and frangible fencing to ensure the idiots can't do that has been going on at KY for donkey's years.. at least since the mid 80s / early 90s when I was on 615.
It's a nonsense, simply because some people can't be bothered to read or who think they are fireproof and that their bodies are immune to a steel cable travelling at x00 mph..
ISTR that a note saying "Give a winch an inch and it'll take a foot" was pinned in the cab of one at a site somewhere.
Because that's exactly what happened and the surgeon who reattached this person's foot wanted to come and see 'what the hell it was that had taken off someone's foot more cleanly that my scalpel can'.
Potentially dangerous, yes. But not if people heed the warnings and stay away from them..
Hmmm, obviously this is advanced rocket science
It's a nonsense, simply because some people can't be bothered to read or who think they are fireproof and that their bodies are immune to a steel cable travelling at x00 mph..
ISTR that a note saying "Give a winch an inch and it'll take a foot" was pinned in the cab of one at a site somewhere.
Because that's exactly what happened and the surgeon who reattached this person's foot wanted to come and see 'what the hell it was that had taken off someone's foot more cleanly that my scalpel can'.
Potentially dangerous, yes. But not if people heed the warnings and stay away from them..
Hmmm, obviously this is advanced rocket science
Happened to me at Shawbury years ago. Pilot and cadet got in; aircraft started and just sat there. Phoned the tower; only AATCs no controller; but phoned SDO and hey presto he was a controller so he and I rushed over to the tower and opened up. The AEF 'boss' was on the point of sending me over to do it but as I tried to explain, I only had a civilian ATCO licence and no unit endorsement (I was an RAFVR[T] Officer y'see)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once had an idiot walking his kid across the active line of cables who objected to the vehicle that then came 'screaming towards them' (so we could remind him about the dangers and ensure their safety. And get them the hell off the field !!!!
His rationale? "Well my son's in his buggy so he's perfectly safe"
Perhaps it's time for cigarette pack style piccies on the warning signs round the airfield boundary?? A leg removed? A Landie which has been sliced up by a cable? Blood and nasties? Oh, no, that wouldn't be terribly pc would it and might terrify innocent people... Aarghhhhh...
Hmmm, you have to remember that you can't teach stupid..
In the summer of 1940 RAF Kenley used to regularly receive complaints from some of the locals about the noise of Merlins being run up around dawn. Not sure if these NIMBYs quietened down a bit after the first Ju. 88s arrived.
Staying (loosely..) on the gliding topic, there was the case years ago of a noise complaint against what turned out to be a glider doing aerobatics; complainant turned out to be a stone-deaf retired colonel.
Has Britain become an anti-aviation nation, certainly compared to some of our near neighbours? It seems to me that this started to be the case in the early 1960s. Any thoughts on this?
Staying (loosely..) on the gliding topic, there was the case years ago of a noise complaint against what turned out to be a glider doing aerobatics; complainant turned out to be a stone-deaf retired colonel.
Has Britain become an anti-aviation nation, certainly compared to some of our near neighbours? It seems to me that this started to be the case in the early 1960s. Any thoughts on this?
You're so right Arc,
I once had an idiot walking his kid across the active line of cables who objected to the vehicle that then came 'screaming towards them' (so we could remind him about the dangers and ensure their safety. And get them the hell off the field !!!!
His rationale? "Well my son's in his buggy so he's perfectly safe"
Perhaps it's time for cigarette pack style piccies on the warning signs round the airfield boundary?? A leg removed? A Landie which has been sliced up by a cable? Blood and nasties? Oh, no, that wouldn't be terribly pc would it and might terrify innocent people... Aarghhhhh...
Hmmm, you have to remember that you can't teach stupid..
I once had an idiot walking his kid across the active line of cables who objected to the vehicle that then came 'screaming towards them' (so we could remind him about the dangers and ensure their safety. And get them the hell off the field !!!!
His rationale? "Well my son's in his buggy so he's perfectly safe"
Perhaps it's time for cigarette pack style piccies on the warning signs round the airfield boundary?? A leg removed? A Landie which has been sliced up by a cable? Blood and nasties? Oh, no, that wouldn't be terribly pc would it and might terrify innocent people... Aarghhhhh...
Hmmm, you have to remember that you can't teach stupid..
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Halton one year, we had a Scout Camp on the airfield. It was apparent nobody had bothered to brief the scouts on use of the airfield because all day long on saturday (they had arrived friday pm) we were sending a landrover out to intercept motrobikes being ridden across the airfield and over the cables; once again they had no concept of the damage a steel cable can do.
Ha ha, Slight thread drift Chevron but that reminds me of when our UAS went on summer camp to St Athan and nobody briefed us about using the airfield at night..
After a few beers at the dispersal building, we initially took the direct route, corner to corner, rather than walk all the way round the peri track, to get back to the mess.
This worked splendidly until one of our number came in, visibly shaken, saying "I've just walked across the airfield and met a huge horrible police dog. And it had a policeman attached to it!"
Kenley 'The Future'
I suspect the only solution that will satisfy all the players will be a fence on the 'outside' of the peri-track. As a historic site and one that should be both used, and available for public viewing a heritage lottery grant should pay for it.
We are not talking about a 'security' fence designed to be impregnable as that would not satisfy the 'safety of flying' issue; but as alluded before a structure that clearly defines the limit of public access with suitable notices as to why.
It may be that some sort of overseeing will be required when operations start again, but as flying days get more numerous the situation will settle down and walkers could even be encouraged to visit the 'control' side which would be good for PR and recruitment. As mentioned before this could be a watershed for both Kenley and the ATC use, and if properly handled should be a benefit to all, especially as the ' youth experience' part can only be seen as an ongoing benefit to society. My only concern is the current level of expertise at 2FTS may be below that required to conduct negotiations of such a sensitive nature. and that a 'current' Air Rank with a flying background be designated to oversee the situation. Kenley deserves the best possible solution available and the Air Cadets (and indeed other youth bodies) would benefit greatly from its future use.
We are not talking about a 'security' fence designed to be impregnable as that would not satisfy the 'safety of flying' issue; but as alluded before a structure that clearly defines the limit of public access with suitable notices as to why.
It may be that some sort of overseeing will be required when operations start again, but as flying days get more numerous the situation will settle down and walkers could even be encouraged to visit the 'control' side which would be good for PR and recruitment. As mentioned before this could be a watershed for both Kenley and the ATC use, and if properly handled should be a benefit to all, especially as the ' youth experience' part can only be seen as an ongoing benefit to society. My only concern is the current level of expertise at 2FTS may be below that required to conduct negotiations of such a sensitive nature. and that a 'current' Air Rank with a flying background be designated to oversee the situation. Kenley deserves the best possible solution available and the Air Cadets (and indeed other youth bodies) would benefit greatly from its future use.
I suspect the only solution that will satisfy all the players will be a fence on the 'outside' of the peri-track. As a historic site and one that should be both used, and available for public viewing a heritage lottery grant should pay for it.
As we know, WWII airfield runways were connected by taxiways called a perimeter track (peri-track), of a standard width of 50 feet (15 m). However, certain stations that were designated to be fighter bases sometimes had a narrower perimeter track, such as RAF Coltishall, whose peri-tracks measured 40 feet (12 m) across. Perimeter track gradients could not exceed 1 in 40 in any direction, and no building could be placed closer than 150 feet (46 m)from the edge of the track.
The peri track at Kenley is an important piece of history and should not be carved up to keep the minority NIMBYS quiet! Put the fence on the outside JM, keep the whole of the peri track safe for airfield movements, and have the local tax payers contribute towards a walking/running/dog walking track on the outside, if they want it that badly!
....and whilst you are reading this get the fence built quickly so that the Air Cadets can enjoy that which was taken away from them 4 years ago!
Kenley Peri-track
Looks like the proposal is for a per-track 'split'.
Dreadful solution for an active airfield and also will reduce the historic nature of the per-track which is normally an open space that allows aircraft wings to overlap the tarmac area.
This is the original track that was built when the runways were installed and therefore part of the 'Airfield'.
This will completely alter the visual effect of the wartime area and also reduces the space for emergencies.
Not sure whether this is just the 'proposal' or the final solution so some probing required to see who agreed it all; although 2FTS seems to feature in the information.
Dreadful solution for an active airfield and also will reduce the historic nature of the per-track which is normally an open space that allows aircraft wings to overlap the tarmac area.
This is the original track that was built when the runways were installed and therefore part of the 'Airfield'.
This will completely alter the visual effect of the wartime area and also reduces the space for emergencies.
Not sure whether this is just the 'proposal' or the final solution so some probing required to see who agreed it all; although 2FTS seems to feature in the information.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think any fence anywhere inside the airfield area (by that I mean within 50 yards of the peritrack) is actually a flight safety hazard at Kenley. Anyone who knows the site realises that it is actually fairly small and the DLA is actually close to the peritack itself in some launch/landing directions and also that the trees and undergrowth and buildings actually mean that there is no real undershoot option in a lot of cases. This means you have to land on the airfield - or nowhere at all. Putting up a fence effectively introduces a hazard to the operations. That is why the fence (and it is required IMHO) needs to be set away from the peritrack - hence my earlier comment (slightly tongue in cheek) about the AM boundary blocks being a suitable demarcation line............
A 'viewing area' could be created at one of the ends of the site (say Kenley Common end) and this could allow people to watch the gliding (without risking their or the Pilot's necks) and stay safe.
From a safety perspective the operations are no less hazardous than any other airfield, we wouldn't let people walk over Coningsby or Marham so why Kenley ?
Just my 2 pennyworth............
Arc
A 'viewing area' could be created at one of the ends of the site (say Kenley Common end) and this could allow people to watch the gliding (without risking their or the Pilot's necks) and stay safe.
From a safety perspective the operations are no less hazardous than any other airfield, we wouldn't let people walk over Coningsby or Marham so why Kenley ?
Just my 2 pennyworth............
Arc
Kenley fence
Hi Arc As stated Kenley can be challenging for c-breaks and indeed has a peculiar shape (leg of mutton) that adds to its 'charm'. Someone has to decide if it is an airfield or not, and then start from that point. A fence adds nothing to the historical element and indeed merely destroys another part of the 'structure' that is supposed to be protected. Anyone with a grain of aviation knowledge knows that 'space' is one of the greatest benefits in an emergency and in gliding where every approach and landing has to be a 'full stop' any hazards on the operational area are UNSAFE.
It is nonsense to try to make the flying fit in with people, and especially when you are running a TRAINING ORGANISATION.
I have no confidence that 2FTS has any real handle on all this as it seems the die is cast.
If people visit a 'common' then you expect to walk on a natural surface not tarmac so why the big deal to let anyone near the peri-trac.
I know the area very well and there are plenty of options that give good access to the 'remains' of the listed blast-bays without having to use the peri-track.
Of course not having much activity for 4 years does not help the case, and therefore we are starting from a low point. However there may be a glimmer of hope if the 'fence' needs planning permission as it is not replacing an existing structure and is altering the use of the area. Trying to appease everyone usually pleases nobody so why not make a stand and get the correct solution. If it came to an enquiry the location would be classed as an airfield not a common so that would be a valuable negotiation point to get a better solution.
It is nonsense to try to make the flying fit in with people, and especially when you are running a TRAINING ORGANISATION.
I have no confidence that 2FTS has any real handle on all this as it seems the die is cast.
If people visit a 'common' then you expect to walk on a natural surface not tarmac so why the big deal to let anyone near the peri-trac.
I know the area very well and there are plenty of options that give good access to the 'remains' of the listed blast-bays without having to use the peri-track.
Of course not having much activity for 4 years does not help the case, and therefore we are starting from a low point. However there may be a glimmer of hope if the 'fence' needs planning permission as it is not replacing an existing structure and is altering the use of the area. Trying to appease everyone usually pleases nobody so why not make a stand and get the correct solution. If it came to an enquiry the location would be classed as an airfield not a common so that would be a valuable negotiation point to get a better solution.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Arc As stated Kenley can be challenging for c-breaks and indeed has a peculiar shape (leg of mutton) that adds to its 'charm'. Someone has to decide if it is an airfield or not, and then start from that point. A fence adds nothing to the historical element and indeed merely destroys another part of the 'structure' that is supposed to be protected. Anyone with a grain of aviation knowledge knows that 'space' is one of the greatest benefits in an emergency and in gliding where every approach and landing has to be a 'full stop' any hazards on the operational area are UNSAFE.
It is nonsense to try to make the flying fit in with people, and especially when you are running a TRAINING ORGANISATION.
I have no confidence that 2FTS has any real handle on all this as it seems the die is cast.
If people visit a 'common' then you expect to walk on a natural surface not tarmac so why the big deal to let anyone near the peri-trac.
I know the area very well and there are plenty of options that give good access to the 'remains' of the listed blast-bays without having to use the peri-track.
Of course not having much activity for 4 years does not help the case, and therefore we are starting from a low point. However there may be a glimmer of hope if the 'fence' needs planning permission as it is not replacing an existing structure and is altering the use of the area. Trying to appease everyone usually pleases nobody so why not make a stand and get the correct solution. If it came to an enquiry the location would be classed as an airfield not a common so that would be a valuable negotiation point to get a better solution.
It is nonsense to try to make the flying fit in with people, and especially when you are running a TRAINING ORGANISATION.
I have no confidence that 2FTS has any real handle on all this as it seems the die is cast.
If people visit a 'common' then you expect to walk on a natural surface not tarmac so why the big deal to let anyone near the peri-trac.
I know the area very well and there are plenty of options that give good access to the 'remains' of the listed blast-bays without having to use the peri-track.
Of course not having much activity for 4 years does not help the case, and therefore we are starting from a low point. However there may be a glimmer of hope if the 'fence' needs planning permission as it is not replacing an existing structure and is altering the use of the area. Trying to appease everyone usually pleases nobody so why not make a stand and get the correct solution. If it came to an enquiry the location would be classed as an airfield not a common so that would be a valuable negotiation point to get a better solution.
At the end of the day it's an airfield.. The land being owned by the City of London but requisitioned from them by MoD back in the early 1900s. But with IIRC? a clause built in that if MoD ever wished to return it to CofL it had to first be returned to the state it was in before MoD took it on.. which would make it horribly expensive to give it up.. Oh dear, what a shame!
Heaven forbid that there was an accident at Kenley with a glider going through this new fence placed in the middle of the peri track, you can just imagine the questions being asked at the subsequent Court of Enquiry!
Q: Why was this fence there?
A: Oh, it was to protect the NIMBY dog walkers and runners who have been so vociferous on the RAF Kenley Facebook site!
Q: Who recommended it and who approved it?
A: Well, we did Sir!
Q: Why is it in the middle of the peri track and not on common land?
A: Oh, er, we wanted to give the public somewhere safe to walk on and for them to watch the gliding close up!
Q: Surely, they have thousands and thousands of acres of public land outside of the MOD controlled airfield?
A: Ah, but they did so want to walk on this historic airfield
Q: And does that include spending thousands of pounds building a fence in the middle of the peri track of this historically important airfield. What about flight safety?
A: Oh, the walkers and runners were so angry we thought we would appease them by giving them more of the airfield to enjoy! We will be looking at moving the fence position closer to the grass to give the general public more use of the paved surface and not to follow the yellow line. Users do not also have to stick to the paved surfaces and can walk on the grass, as the grassed area outside of the paved surface (not inside) is also still available for use. Er, flight safety, we have not had time to think of that at Kenley during the four year "pause"!
Q: Was this fence and the damage to the existing peri track ever discussed with English Heritage, who in 2000, identified Kenley as “The most complete fighter airfield associated with the Battle of Britain to have survived”. In 2006, the respective Councils of Croydon and Tandridge designated the airfield site as a Conservation Area.
A: Well, er, er!
You couldn't make it up! Oh, I just did.
Q: Why was this fence there?
A: Oh, it was to protect the NIMBY dog walkers and runners who have been so vociferous on the RAF Kenley Facebook site!
Q: Who recommended it and who approved it?
A: Well, we did Sir!
Q: Why is it in the middle of the peri track and not on common land?
A: Oh, er, we wanted to give the public somewhere safe to walk on and for them to watch the gliding close up!
Q: Surely, they have thousands and thousands of acres of public land outside of the MOD controlled airfield?
A: Ah, but they did so want to walk on this historic airfield
Q: And does that include spending thousands of pounds building a fence in the middle of the peri track of this historically important airfield. What about flight safety?
A: Oh, the walkers and runners were so angry we thought we would appease them by giving them more of the airfield to enjoy! We will be looking at moving the fence position closer to the grass to give the general public more use of the paved surface and not to follow the yellow line. Users do not also have to stick to the paved surfaces and can walk on the grass, as the grassed area outside of the paved surface (not inside) is also still available for use. Er, flight safety, we have not had time to think of that at Kenley during the four year "pause"!
Q: Was this fence and the damage to the existing peri track ever discussed with English Heritage, who in 2000, identified Kenley as “The most complete fighter airfield associated with the Battle of Britain to have survived”. In 2006, the respective Councils of Croydon and Tandridge designated the airfield site as a Conservation Area.
A: Well, er, er!
You couldn't make it up! Oh, I just did.