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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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

Do 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.

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.

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

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.

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

Fence down
 

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

"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.

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

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