F-35 runway vacated...faster than planned
 

Reports coming in that an F-35 has trundled off the end of the runway at Marham. No one hurt but it looks to be pretty well stuck.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cff786e94f.jpg

Surely you just need to crank up the fan and lift it back out and then hover taxy back onto the hard stuff.

I think it is part of a trial. They are looking at putting a turfed edge around the carriers to catch them LOL

At least there isn't a river at the end of the runway. At Yeovilton a Seaharrier ended up in the river YEO.

Indeed it did. The joke at the time was that it was a new ASW variant...
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6fd51fe9ba.jpg

Missed opportunity to earn a tie there.

Barrier ooops!
Looks like no barriers have been installed; not sure if they have hooks but RHAGs are notified for 06/24.
Airfield chart says:-
'2 Caution. Rwy 06/24 and Rwy 01/19 concrete ends only liable to be slippery when wet.'
'6 For normal ops, both cables down'.

I am not sure, but I don't think the f35b has a tailhook. I will try to find out.

Has it been cleared for barrier engagement? Not all aircraft were in the past.

No hook on the B model

maybe he was after a winged boot for a home run?

It's probably because he had to avoid that van and the two people in the hi-viz jackets

Has the tweeter been arrested under section 1 of the Official Secets Act 1911? Given the size of the F-35 fleet communication a photograph of one stuck in the mud 'might be directly or indirectly useful to a potential enemy'. :E

Looks to have been photographed by a drone from outside the wire. As long as the drone was being operated with due regard for air traffic (of which there probably wasn't much on a Friday afternoon!) there is not a lot the MOD can do to stop such photos being taken by the public.

The area immediately round an airfield (or airport etc) is restricted, without permission you can't fly within 1km including the runway end extensions regardless of traffc levels - see the ENR 5.1 map (NATS airspace restrictions). Since the airfield would have been BLACK at the time the pic was taken you would have a job arguing the drone was hazarding other aircraft - for which a 5 year prison term is available - but, barring stand-off via optical zoom etc, this drone flight would have been illegal.

Policing is a Civpol rather than MOD responsibilty (it's outside the wire) but policing is in any case difficult. That does not detract from the illegality of operating near an aerodrome covered by the restrictions, which does not deter those who regularly infringe in the Heathrow area.

The Civpol, or, failed Met Applicants, are usually hanging around Chalk Lane with their speed guns.

On second thoughts, looking at the view on Google Maps, it could well have been photographed from the A1122, and there is precisely nothing the police can do about that!

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....89267e158d.jpg

Don't know where you got '1km' radius; around Marham there is an ATZ and within this, flights by UAVs are not permitted without permission.
In the case of Marham, the restriction is a circle 2.5nm radius centred on the centre of the main runway and from surface to 2,000ft agl and H24 operation.

So assuming they have bowsprings installed I know it's only a matter of pressing one button to raise the overrun cable (did it many times at Farnborough) and had '35b's been fitted with a hook, even one which just drops down, it wouldn't have run off the end.
SUGGESTION to MOD: wouldn't it be a good idea if you retrofitted '35b's with hooks if you have a known 'slippery runway' problem?

Or a Barrier...