Red arrows stop training due to photographers

[saaby93]

Linky here
http://www.forces.tv/27326398



Surely the danger of crashing isn't that high?
Has someone over risk assessed it?



There may be a trespass issue
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
But does that apply where youre crossing open countryside without causing damage?
Is the OP there best off starting up a tea and buttie wagon

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 19th January 13:22

[Simpo Two]

So that's how the enemy will stop the RAF in future - get people to stand under their flight path.

Fallout from the Hunter crash no doubt.

[bigandclever]

post said:

On Friday, air traffic control had to stop our pilots performing circuits as there were people on the centreline of each runway, directly under the flight paths of the aircraft taking off and landing.

That's a bit different to people wandering past and taking a shot.

[DamienB]

People have always congregated at runway ends for photos. Yes it's risky but the drive to the airfield is riskier. Must have been a newbie in ATC.

[kurt535]

Was disappointed to read this. Over-reaction by authorities? Lakenheath have had no such issues.

[stablemate]

saaby93 said:

There may be a trespass issue
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
But does that apply where youre crossing open countryside without causing damage?
Is the OP there best off starting up a tea and buttie wagon

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 19th January 13:22

It's not open countryside, it's private land some of which has to remain accessible in case of airfield emergency, hence the lack of gate etc.

[kurt535]

having read other link, fair enough why people have got upset.

[yellowjack]

Ah well. Best I move my bloody house out of the way then, as every two years I have the beggars forming up over my house every day for a week, plus display authorisation flights the week before.

Seriously? They stopped training because a few chimps stood at the outside of the airfield fence, yet they display regularly over towns and villages near airfields. And please, no-one suggest that this is rubbish, because it's impossible for them to put on a display over the Farnborough area without overflying at least some residential areas, and the M3 motorway repeatedly...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2768663,-0.78266...

[saaby93]

stablemate said:

It's not open countryside, it's private land some of which has to remain accessible in case of airfield emergency, hence the lack of gate etc.

open countryside is usually private land

If its possible is there a way you can work with it? (like many other landowners with popular end of runway viewpoints)

thread relating to OP

http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.ph...

[ecsrobin]

yellowjack said:

Ah well. Best I move my bloody house out of the way then, as every two years I have the beggars forming up over my house every day for a week, plus display authorisation flights the week before.

Seriously? They stopped training because a few chimps stood at the outside of the airfield fence, yet they display regularly over towns and villages near airfields. And please, no-one suggest that this is rubbish, because it's impossible for them to put on a display over the Farnborough area without overflying at least some residential areas, and the M3 motorway repeatedly...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2768663,-0.78266...

Probably a new SATCO in the tower trying to make a name for their self.

[anonymous-user]

I believe the issue was amateur photographers with step ladders stood under the approach...

[0000]

yellowjack said:

Seriously? They stopped training because a few chimps stood at the outside of the airfield fence, yet they display regularly over towns and villages near airfields.

I'd imagine the display height is greater than they were planning on landing at.

[yellowjack]

0000 said:

yellowjack said:

Seriously? They stopped training because a few chimps stood at the outside of the airfield fence, yet they display regularly over towns and villages near airfields.

I'd imagine the display height is greater than they were planning on landing at.

Imagine away, but when they do that manoeuvre where they come vertically down as a formation, then peel away in different directions at the bottom, one of the jets passes so low over my house that on one particular occasion, I looked out of the bedroom window and I swear I could read the nametag on his chest. A lot of the individual aircraft displays are kept, as far as is possible, within the limits of the airfield, or at least along the display axis, but fast-jet formation aerobatics, by their nature, require more space and that's when they are low over surrounding houses.

No-one is complaining. Well. I'm not complaining. I love the airport, and the airshow. Hell, I wish the ETPS and RAE were still here. But it IS disconcerting watching a Hawk T1 in gleaming red paint pointing STRAIGHT AT you in your own bedroom window, just before it banks left and pulls up to begin the next phase of it's display. There have been plenty of Hawk losses, a few in Red Arrows service, including a (fairly) recent fatality. Shoreham Air Show is cancelled for this year after the Hunter tragedy. Just a thought, but if/when a Red Arrow falls onto residential Farnborough, or perhaps the busy M3, will there be folk who call for a ban on the Reds? Or will Farnborough Air Show's continued existence be called into question?

Approach height for a Hawk at Scampton shouldn't really be an issue either. It's not as if a T1 needs anywhere near all of the runway to land safely. Barely anything landing at Farnborough gets to use 24 Long because using the short central portion of the runway is enough for most aircraft, and it keeps approaching traffic higher above the ground until it is within the airfield limits. This... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search/farnborough+a... ...is the most often used approach into TAG Farnborough, and it is a fairly high density residential area, and the density is increasing as more large houses get developed and converted into/replaced by new flats.

On the whole, I'm unimpressed by 'Red 10' bhing and whining about some spotters standing outside the fence at the end of the runway. They know what they're getting into, there are warning signs about the place and spotters know what aeroplanes do. So if a pilot had to eject due to a failure on approach, he should do so without thought for anyone standing at the fence. I certainly wouldn't expect a pilot to risk his own safety to safe the life of some idiot who has already been plenty warned about why they ought to not stand directly under the approach path for the runway. Runway fences are where they are for a reason. Because safety agencies have decided that they need not be any further away. If it's not safe for people to stand there, then MOD should requisition the land, and extend the fence line. If they don't feel they need to do that, then I fail to see the problem.

Oh, and I've seen the MOD guidelines for clear areas at the ends of runways. I designed a runway using them in wildest Kenya, FWIW. I forget the specific angles of the approach 'cone' and the specified maximum vegetation heights at various distances from the 'keys', but suffice to say the book is there for anyone who has cause and authority (given by Her Britannic Majesty's Government) to see it. There is almost certainly a similar set of figures and angles for the clear area required for permanent military and licensed civilian airfields, and regular surveys would be undertaken to ensure that vegetation and man-made structures have not encroached on this 'safe area' on a regular basis.

[Chrisgr31]

It doesnt matter whether people standing where they shouldnt know they are were they shouldnt be or not. If it goes pear shaped they or others will say "but no one made us/them move" so we thought it was ok.

Its not that long ago since one of the Red Arrows crashed on landing and they will remember that.

[FourWheelDrift]

Maybe they've actually got a new manoeuvre and don't want to let anyone see if before the display season.

[anonymous-user]

pablo said:

I believe the issue was amateur photographers with step ladders stood under the approach...

But outside the perimeter fence? Seems odd, do they just miss the fence when landing?

I get the trespass issue but the reports all suggest flying was stopped due to a safety issue caused by people taking photos from under the approach path.

Edited by el stovey on Thursday 21st January 23:38

[Rogue86]

yellowjack said:

But it IS disconcerting watching a Hawk T1 in gleaming red paint pointing STRAIGHT AT you in your own bedroom window

You must have a tall house!

[yellowjack]

Rogue86 said:

yellowjack said:

But it IS disconcerting watching a Hawk T1 in gleaming red paint pointing STRAIGHT AT you in your own bedroom window

You must have a tall house!

As I said in my post, they've just gone vertical, in formation, 'over the top' and come down and done the 'burst' thing at the bottom, I don't know they name of the manoeuvre because I pay "The Reds" very little attention at shows. One of the aeroplanes, as it transitions from pointing at the floor to pulling up and to the left, looks like it's pointing straight at my house. Perhaps because it is. And for the record, as we're on a slight hill, only the other side of my street is lower than us, there are three streets behind us higher up the hill. Beyond that is woodland. The comparative low height of my house is irritating at air show time because rooftops and tall trees conspire to obstruct my view of some of the more interesting stuff that doesn't stray so far from the airfield limits.

[I Love Cake]

pablo said:

I believe the issue was amateur photographers with step ladders stood under the approach...

It's a small wooden fence, step ladders are not required.

Quite why the base didn't have a quiet word with them is odd.

[Evanivitch]

Rogue86 said:

You must have a tall house!

Clearly he does as the Arrows fly to a 300 ft min although limit (unless syncro pair).