Tronk 11 wrote:Being devils advocate here. But IF a jet or prop go down on the public hitting a mound full of photographers the implications of watching aircraft at bases doesn't bear thinking about. The flight line south of the base needs to be clear for safety, end of. You can kiss goodbye to most photography if a crash happened.
I'm just grateful to what we can get and I think a lot of people here should have a word with themselves. A bit to much me, me, me, locals, locals, locals. Bigger fences and security aren't meant for us! They are there to protect our assets, crying about bigger fences and access won't get people anywhere. It's a price we have to pay.
Rant over.
and use the soil out of the dug hole to make another moundRatrace wrote:Best way to get rid of the mound would be to dig a big hole and bury it I reckon.....
baz1 wrote:and use the soil out of the dug hole to make another moundRatrace wrote:Best way to get rid of the mound would be to dig a big hole and bury it I reckon.....
filmman wrote:Then there was the "Naughty Field" mound on the south side of Duxford which was brilliant for display photos, and people would walk a long way to it.
With regard to Shoreham, are they going to either (1) close Heathrow, (2) move London or (3) build a third runway? And what happens when a whole plane finally crashes in London; things frequently fall out of planes over central London, hence the name Battersea.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests