Question for spotters
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
Originally Posted by Full Emergency
I think that you might need to re-read my post. The Bye-laws INCLUDE all the Perimeter Roads around LHR. The public roads and parks, you're right, we can not move you on. Inside the LHR boundary we can and normally will.
FE
FE
Each entrance has a No Vehicles sign
with the "Except for Access" rider (whatever that means).I don't remember any of these being present:
, so you'll have to cite the bylaw which prevents pedestrians from entering the roads.You will (hopefully) have a better understanding than I of the trespass, obstruction and loitering offences, although I don't see any being applicable.
Loitering = standing or moving slowly with no apparent purpose. I'm sure you routinely move spotters on and none of them is going to argue the toss, obviously. I am not qualified to comment on whether or not you are legally empowered to do so, but as posted earlier the police can always find something and no punter will go to the trouble of calling your bluff.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Near to Prestwick,Scotland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
So how come the Heathrow Police and / or Security never threw spotters/people watching planes off the Queens Building when it was open ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
"Except for Access" is supposed to mean : No vehicles allowed, unless those vehicles have a legitimate reason to travel over the road, eg. some narrow roads in town centres are barred to traffic unless, say, you live there, or in the case of an airport, to drop off/pick up at a terminal or go to the car parks etc. on airport, yet landside, property. Yet who defines what a legitimate reason is ? Can a spotter drive his car along the perimeter road up to an airport car park, even if he has no intention to travel to a terminal or to fly on an aeroplane, and then become a pedestrian ?
It sounds like the legislation was drafted to be deliberately vague. Typical British vagueness. If you actually had checkpoints on entry to the LHR perimeter roads, you'd have chaos, so of course there has to be some give and take. But why have the No traffic signs, except for access, in the first place. I may add that such signs have been there for 30-odd years - they're not recent.
It sounds like the legislation was drafted to be deliberately vague. Typical British vagueness. If you actually had checkpoints on entry to the LHR perimeter roads, you'd have chaos, so of course there has to be some give and take. But why have the No traffic signs, except for access, in the first place. I may add that such signs have been there for 30-odd years - they're not recent.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
Paper Tiger
Speaking as someone who policed Heathrow or 11 years, FE is correct.
The bye laws say, as he quotes.
You have no right of access unless:
You are flying in or out.
You work there
You are meeting a specific person or dropping someone off.
It is not a matter of loitering etc, it is a matter of it being private propery, with its own bye laws. Just like any private property, you cannot be there unless you have the permission of the owner. How would you feel if your front garden was invaded by people who refused to leave?
There does not have to be a no access for pedestrians sign. Although yes, it may be disirable.
Yes, you can be moved off the property, by force if nessesary. And yes, the Airport includes all the perri roads.
He's also correct in that spotters take up an inordinate amount of police time.
Not only do they climb over fences, they block Emergency Access points with cars and then wander off. How would you feel if your family were killed becuase Fire/Ambulance and Police could not get access to an emegency because some idiot had left his car there and wandered off. Couldn't happen? Oh yes it could! RVP North access gates used to be a mecca for plane spotters.
The sensible approach, which sadly many don't adopt is to stay out of the way, and don't act daft!
Golf Charlie Charlie.
No, you do not fit any of the criteria above, you cannot enter the airport. The perri is on the airport.
Speaking as someone who policed Heathrow or 11 years, FE is correct.
The bye laws say, as he quotes.
You have no right of access unless:
You are flying in or out.
You work there
You are meeting a specific person or dropping someone off.
It is not a matter of loitering etc, it is a matter of it being private propery, with its own bye laws. Just like any private property, you cannot be there unless you have the permission of the owner. How would you feel if your front garden was invaded by people who refused to leave?
There does not have to be a no access for pedestrians sign. Although yes, it may be disirable.
Yes, you can be moved off the property, by force if nessesary. And yes, the Airport includes all the perri roads.
He's also correct in that spotters take up an inordinate amount of police time.
Not only do they climb over fences, they block Emergency Access points with cars and then wander off. How would you feel if your family were killed becuase Fire/Ambulance and Police could not get access to an emegency because some idiot had left his car there and wandered off. Couldn't happen? Oh yes it could! RVP North access gates used to be a mecca for plane spotters.
The sensible approach, which sadly many don't adopt is to stay out of the way, and don't act daft!
Golf Charlie Charlie.
No, you do not fit any of the criteria above, you cannot enter the airport. The perri is on the airport.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
Originally Posted by bjcc
Paper Tiger
Speaking as someone who policed Heathrow or 11 years, FE is correct.
The bye laws say, as he quotes.
You have no right of access unless:
You are flying in or out.
You work there
You are meeting a specific person or dropping someone off.
Speaking as someone who policed Heathrow or 11 years, FE is correct.
The bye laws say, as he quotes.
You have no right of access unless:
You are flying in or out.
You work there
You are meeting a specific person or dropping someone off.
(I think FE is a she BTW)Is this a bylaw prohibiting vehicles or pedestrians, or does it not distinguish ?
Originally Posted by bjcc
How would you feel if your front garden was invaded by people who refused to leave?
Originally Posted by bjcc
Not only do they climb over fences,
Originally Posted by bjcc
No, you do not fit any of the criteria above, you cannot enter the airport. The perri is on the airport.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
Paper Tiger
Q1. Any person. As cars cannot go anywhere without a person connected with it in some way, that answers your point.
Q2. There is no difference between your front Garden and a place of buisness. Except, some places of buiness have bye laws, like Heathrow. That makes straight trespass a criminal not a civil offence.
Q3. I have not worked at Heathrow for 5 years, so I can't answer that question.
Q4. Yes, the Eastern & North Perri are used as cut throughts between the A4 and the A30, it is tollerated by the BAA, mainly because without a check point on each entrance it would be impossible to prevent it being used as such. It does not mean you have a right to do so. I have known the BAA close it. As it's their road, they have that right.
Q1. Any person. As cars cannot go anywhere without a person connected with it in some way, that answers your point.
Q2. There is no difference between your front Garden and a place of buisness. Except, some places of buiness have bye laws, like Heathrow. That makes straight trespass a criminal not a civil offence.
Q3. I have not worked at Heathrow for 5 years, so I can't answer that question.
Q4. Yes, the Eastern & North Perri are used as cut throughts between the A4 and the A30, it is tollerated by the BAA, mainly because without a check point on each entrance it would be impossible to prevent it being used as such. It does not mean you have a right to do so. I have known the BAA close it. As it's their road, they have that right.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
heres a question for the people with knowledge of road traffic law, if the perimeter roads are private, do the vehicles on them need insurance, mot, tax and the drivers a licence ?
A previous poster suggests the BAA tolerate their use, I would suggest that the BAA dont really have much choice in the matter, the closure or restriction would cause chaos for the airport and local economy.
Also being that the road network has been open to the public for so many years is there not some sort of right of way issues ?
A previous poster suggests the BAA tolerate their use, I would suggest that the BAA dont really have much choice in the matter, the closure or restriction would cause chaos for the airport and local economy.
Also being that the road network has been open to the public for so many years is there not some sort of right of way issues ?
Re: Question for spotters
If the BAA actually provided a decent facilities for spotter/enthusiasts/photographers then there would be no need to try and find areas which may bring them into conflict with the authorities. If other major airports such as Manchester, Zurich, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Munich, Dusseldorf & others can provide excellent facilites (including ramp tours) then surely any of the London airports should be able to do the same. People do not mind a) paying for a good facility or b) having to undergo a security bag scan etc. It could be another source of money for BAA and
If spotters etc were in one place then surely it would make the job of policing the airport easier?
If spotters etc were in one place then surely it would make the job of policing the airport easier?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: bedlam
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
This discussion has got very interesting. Some useful exchanges.
I feel that the spotting facilities at LHR need to be improved in many ways. Look at Manchester, how enjoyable that is and how well provided/managed it is (ok its not BAA but a different managment entity). Yes there is an entry fee but it is reasonable and a worthy cause. BAA are a business and into money making, why not charge spotters a small fee for a decent facility. As well they could provide security screening to get into these facilities as well like on top at Frankfurt.
I am glad someone raised the A30/A4 cut thru issue, I thought the same! Som much thru traffic, how much %age of these vehicles are airport related business.
What about the policy of LHR as a world class transportation hub. Are we then not allowed to make a bus or coach/rail connections from Heathrow if we are NOT bona fide air passengers? Technically it would appear not.
Example Kingston on Thames to LHR the National Express to Wolverhampton.
On the subject of signage on the perimieter and entry points, pay attention to the large BAA corporate signs even on the fences and crash gates advising that its "airport business only".
Did anyone answer that last question of "when did someone last jump over the fence"?? Extremely stupid and irresponsible act, certainly bringing the fraternity into disripute and definitely will involve the Police.
I feel that the spotting facilities at LHR need to be improved in many ways. Look at Manchester, how enjoyable that is and how well provided/managed it is (ok its not BAA but a different managment entity). Yes there is an entry fee but it is reasonable and a worthy cause. BAA are a business and into money making, why not charge spotters a small fee for a decent facility. As well they could provide security screening to get into these facilities as well like on top at Frankfurt.
I am glad someone raised the A30/A4 cut thru issue, I thought the same! Som much thru traffic, how much %age of these vehicles are airport related business.
What about the policy of LHR as a world class transportation hub. Are we then not allowed to make a bus or coach/rail connections from Heathrow if we are NOT bona fide air passengers? Technically it would appear not.
Example Kingston on Thames to LHR the National Express to Wolverhampton.
On the subject of signage on the perimieter and entry points, pay attention to the large BAA corporate signs even on the fences and crash gates advising that its "airport business only".
Did anyone answer that last question of "when did someone last jump over the fence"?? Extremely stupid and irresponsible act, certainly bringing the fraternity into disripute and definitely will involve the Police.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
MAN777
Heathrow is covered by the Road Traffic Acts, as it is a road or other public place.
A Public Place is one to which the public have access, on payment, or otherwise.
However, the public access is restricted, to the classes of person already mentioned.
While a foot ball ground is a public place, the management is able to restrict access to those they wish to let in and not to others. I accpet that a fooball ground doesn't have roads, but the part that applies is public and restricted.
Heathrow is the same.
So yes, you need a drivers licence. Yes you need insurance. Yes you need a MOT. When I was there you did not need tax, that was because although it was a road, it was not maintained at the public expense. BAA maintain it. Now, the need for tax may have changed.
The BAA do have a choice in the matter. The road has been closed by them on more than one occation. It's theirs, they can do what they like. Yes when it is closed, it does cause some congestion, although as it became known it was closed people just went up the A30 to the A4 and turned left, or found another route.
paulc
Yes it would be easier if there was one place. But, where would you put it? apart from the central area, which is already congested, the perri would only offer a restricted view. Even if there was a suitable place, would everyone use it, or would those that wanted a different apect do what they do now, and indeed did when QB was open?
Heathrow is covered by the Road Traffic Acts, as it is a road or other public place.
A Public Place is one to which the public have access, on payment, or otherwise.
However, the public access is restricted, to the classes of person already mentioned.
While a foot ball ground is a public place, the management is able to restrict access to those they wish to let in and not to others. I accpet that a fooball ground doesn't have roads, but the part that applies is public and restricted.
Heathrow is the same.
So yes, you need a drivers licence. Yes you need insurance. Yes you need a MOT. When I was there you did not need tax, that was because although it was a road, it was not maintained at the public expense. BAA maintain it. Now, the need for tax may have changed.
The BAA do have a choice in the matter. The road has been closed by them on more than one occation. It's theirs, they can do what they like. Yes when it is closed, it does cause some congestion, although as it became known it was closed people just went up the A30 to the A4 and turned left, or found another route.
paulc
Yes it would be easier if there was one place. But, where would you put it? apart from the central area, which is already congested, the perri would only offer a restricted view. Even if there was a suitable place, would everyone use it, or would those that wanted a different apect do what they do now, and indeed did when QB was open?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: at work
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
Originally Posted by MAN777
heres a question for the people with knowledge of road traffic law, if the perimeter roads are private, do the vehicles on them need insurance, mot, tax and the drivers a licence ?
BUT
As it BAA property they can put bye-law legislation in place, which will prevent them from saying who can and can not be there. Yes I know that people use it as a short cut, but technically they shouldn't.
FE
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: at work
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
Originally Posted by bjcc
Now, the need for tax may have changed.
FE
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: bedlam
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
dont think you do need tax for the roads in the CTA. A few years ago, some of the Green/Grey/White single deck Inter-Terminal buses, operating for BAA, ran around without tax discs as they were "exempt". When they had to go off airport for maintenance or test, they had to wear trade plates.
Re: Question for spotters
3rd time lucky - even though I have been logged (according to toolbar) last 2 attempts to reply have failed.
BAA are spending a considerable amount of money on T5 and some facility for the public could have easily been incorporated into the design. (The same could be said for T4 and security/paranoia was not an issue then) LHR when 09L is used for landings is very poor for those wishing to photograph etc. 27's are ok as there are a few known places that are used. People would probably continue to use these even if a facility were offered, unless it was in such a great position as to be of interest. (the centre of LHR is not that good) The lack of interest from BAA in meeting the needs of enthusiasts/photographers etc is obvious and until such time as this attitude changes the situation is not going to improve. My local airport is the same - the observation area has been closed to increase the size of the departure lounge so locals gather on the car park roof. (BAA owned as well)
The LHR visitor centre is a joke - into the sun, too low and expensive to park (when car park is open!)
Other major airports (Manchester, Zurich, Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Osaka + many others) are able to provide facilities for the enthusiast/photographer and the 'meeter & greeters' - why is it that the UK generally seems to fail so badly. Some of those above have ramp tours to allow people airside in buses to see what goes on and to educate people on how an airport operates. If LHR wants to generate a good public image particularly with any future development then surely this would be a positive step.
Zurich also has a point between 2 runways that you are allowed off the bus for 15-20 mins and this is very close to departing traffic. I appreciate that security is an issue but to use it as an excuse not to have any facilites is a bit ott. The QB at LHR could be re-opened (although is, at best, poor but it is better than nothing) and I am sure people would not mind paying a nominal charge or going through a security check (as per FRA & ZRH) As for LGW - the total lack of facilites there is a real shame and so it is not worth visiting unless flying out.
BAA are spending a considerable amount of money on T5 and some facility for the public could have easily been incorporated into the design. (The same could be said for T4 and security/paranoia was not an issue then) LHR when 09L is used for landings is very poor for those wishing to photograph etc. 27's are ok as there are a few known places that are used. People would probably continue to use these even if a facility were offered, unless it was in such a great position as to be of interest. (the centre of LHR is not that good) The lack of interest from BAA in meeting the needs of enthusiasts/photographers etc is obvious and until such time as this attitude changes the situation is not going to improve. My local airport is the same - the observation area has been closed to increase the size of the departure lounge so locals gather on the car park roof. (BAA owned as well)
The LHR visitor centre is a joke - into the sun, too low and expensive to park (when car park is open!)
Other major airports (Manchester, Zurich, Frankfurt, Munich, Dusseldorf, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Osaka + many others) are able to provide facilities for the enthusiast/photographer and the 'meeter & greeters' - why is it that the UK generally seems to fail so badly. Some of those above have ramp tours to allow people airside in buses to see what goes on and to educate people on how an airport operates. If LHR wants to generate a good public image particularly with any future development then surely this would be a positive step.
Zurich also has a point between 2 runways that you are allowed off the bus for 15-20 mins and this is very close to departing traffic. I appreciate that security is an issue but to use it as an excuse not to have any facilites is a bit ott. The QB at LHR could be re-opened (although is, at best, poor but it is better than nothing) and I am sure people would not mind paying a nominal charge or going through a security check (as per FRA & ZRH) As for LGW - the total lack of facilites there is a real shame and so it is not worth visiting unless flying out.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: bedlam
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
paulc, good points raised. Closest we get is that BAA do T5 bus tours for local residents on Fridays. Guess what, no cameras!!! Cameras are not permitted on these tours, anyone know why the hell not//
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
3rd time lucky - even though I have been logged (according to toolbar) last 2 attempts to reply have failed
ThRedBearOne
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where my heart is.
Posts: 602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Question for spotters
I have twice been approached by the police, in both instances they were in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles, as I was standing on the ARMCO protecting a parking area (outside the fence) adjacent to the met (wx not Police) station (inside the fence) on the south side of the Northern Perimeter road.
I was with a friend (who is Seychellois), hoping to photograph one of the first Air Seychelle landings after the move of the service from LGW.
The officers were non-threatening and polite and asked for identification. Production of passport, driving licence, them making a quick radio call and it was over. It was a very professional interface. They left to go about their business leaving me to go about mine. We were not warned nor asked to move on.
Now, I will admit that it could be argued that we were preventing them from whatever else it is they might have been doing, but so might anybody else walking along the footpath immediately alongside the perimeter fence. I will also admit that should I see anything suspicious, in my eyes, I will report it.
One's rare visits are now,more or less, restricted to Myrtle Avenue. I do not collect registrations, photograph only what is not the norm and have a lifelong fascination with aviation, and the fact that 10s of tons of metal, flesh and fuel behave so beautifully when in the air.
I was with a friend (who is Seychellois), hoping to photograph one of the first Air Seychelle landings after the move of the service from LGW.
The officers were non-threatening and polite and asked for identification. Production of passport, driving licence, them making a quick radio call and it was over. It was a very professional interface. They left to go about their business leaving me to go about mine. We were not warned nor asked to move on.
Now, I will admit that it could be argued that we were preventing them from whatever else it is they might have been doing, but so might anybody else walking along the footpath immediately alongside the perimeter fence. I will also admit that should I see anything suspicious, in my eyes, I will report it.
One's rare visits are now,more or less, restricted to Myrtle Avenue. I do not collect registrations, photograph only what is not the norm and have a lifelong fascination with aviation, and the fact that 10s of tons of metal, flesh and fuel behave so beautifully when in the air.