Duxford's Naughty Field

[andygolfer]

thanks Paul, I'm obviously not as bright as Angus!

I did a search for 'footpaths in Duxford' and got something similar or maybe the same as Brian's post but on the map tab for it there was nothing. Handy to know and I was surprised when I looked at the OS map how few public footpaths there are in the area,

[tazmin88]

As someone who is happy to pay to go in I have a question just out of interest, but the path 9 info says it is public right of way, so, does that complicate things from the point of view of stopping people walking along said path?

If you look at the original notice posted by andy you will note that this path is legally closed during the day time on the display days

[paullangford]

thanks Paul, I'm obviously not as bright as Angus!

I did a search for 'footpaths in Duxford' and got something similar or maybe the same as Brian's post but on the map tab for it there was nothing. Handy to know and I was surprised when I looked at the OS map how few public footpaths there are in the area,

yes......handy to know, never even knew that existed.....but I do now.
Are you going at all over the weekend ?
I'll go to the school on Saturday, going into the show on Sunday

[andygolfer]

yes......handy to know, never even knew that existed.....but I do now.
Are you going at all over the weekend ?
I'll go to the school on Saturday, going into the show on Sunday

not decided yet, my wife is due home from China on Wednesday so might find she has jobs for me to do (the ones i haven't got round to while she's been away!). I was planning to go over on Friday with my brother and might go in one day or other, I hope I can still get a ticket on Friday if I (and he) decide to , I hope they keep some back for members.
Will pm if I'm going

andy

[colt99]

As someone who is happy to pay to go in I have a question just out of interest, but the path 9 info says it is public right of way, so, does that complicate things from the point of view of stopping people walking along said path?

If you look at the original notice posted by andy you will note that this path is legally closed during the day time on the display days

That's my point, if it is a right of way I presumed that it would not be shut off legally?
A bit like people who want to buy houses on land but have to let ramblers pass through it because it is a right of way. ie they cannot stop it

[tazmin88]

The notice of closure is legal so the path will be closed during the hours stated on the closure notice. If the owners of land get a similar closure they too can prevent people entering their land irrespective of the right of way but it must be a court of law that approves the closure as far as I can see .

[filmman]

Sorry to be awkward but this fixation on the "Naughty Field" is irrelevant if there is a crash elsewhere near the airfield.

As some might be confused about where the Naughty Field is there are 2; one the footpath running from St Johns school to the M11 and the other a mound adjacent to the SW corner of the airfield (opposite the Land Warfare centre).

I have had experience in the drafting of Model Byelaws for use by Local Authorities. Drafting legislation is not as simple as might be thought and if badly executed does not survive attempts to enforce it. Possibly some of the words or phrases used ti the Order are defined elsewhere. Such as "said roads should be restricted by reason of relevant events proposed to be held on or adjacent to the said road." The question is how "adjacent" is defined. Para 4 says "Nothing in this Order shall prevent access or egress from...land adjacent to the roads as mentioned ..." Again is that loophole restricted to tenants and owners. No mention seems to be made about trespass and no doubt access to some areas can be gained from other roads.

Finally, if an airshow is a commercial event can an order entitled "Charitable and Community events" be applied; if not, why not if the concern is safety. And there appears to be no actual direct mention of pedestrians in the repeated title phrases of "Prohibition of driving, waiting and one way"

Unfortunately the impression could be given that it's all about money. If it was about safety of airshows I would have expected a more robust model Byelaws to be drafted so it's imposition was justified and easier to enforce.

I am sorry if this missive upsets some but safety is important and I think this Order could be ineffectual when there is a real safety issue. By the way is the fire truck to be moved from the mound to a "safer position" as it's adjacent to numerous parked aircraft containing fuel.

Filmman

[Amp]

What is it about "closed" that some morons have so much trouble understanding ? The difference between right and wrong is learnt through a long period of education at home and school, the point should not be beyond the grasp of someone carrying several hundred quids worth of snappy snaps gear ! Jeez guys, get a grip.

[andygolfer]

And there appears to be no actual direct mention of pedestrians in the repeated title phrases of "Prohibition of driving, waiting and one way"
Filmman

Filmman - clause 3 on the notice includes pedestrians

HTH

Andy

[filmman]

It's simple, if an Order is properly drafted its clearly enforceable and most people willingly comply which makes enforcement far easier; it's a virtuous circle for "policing by consent". Experience is that Enforcing The Law becomes difficult and counterproductive when cases fail in court because it is badly drafted or used inappropriately. Safety action needs to be proportionate and ignoring the M11 whilst applying a widespread exclusion zone might not be respected locally and the Police might decide they have other priorities. I find politeness the most effective way to argue and protect the Public.

Andy, your correct with regard to 3 but the Orders base Model appears to be originally for vehicles with pedestrians added in. To avoid complicating the message I omitted 3; an Order is made under primary legislation and that may or may not allow the inclusion of pedestrians. Legal mistakes frequently happen, roads across airfields have been closed illegally, years later confusion was caused when permission was sought. Curiously Schedule 1 allows both Grange and Hunts Road to be closed by signs But Schedule 2 only allows prohibiting waiting on Hunts Road by signs. Unfortunately The M11 runs parallel to Hunts Road and is further down the glide slope. So Hunts road can either be shut, or no waiting, or normal. Are planes vehicles? If so they may not be allowed to travel on or park on Hunts Road. But the M11 is available; bit embarrassing if one does park there because display aircraft were allowed too low over it!

[andygolfer]

thanks filmman, it is a bit odd about Hunts Rd being quoted in the closure, it would appear that it is actually just parking restrictions on Hunts Rd but don't quote me on that!

It's a very complicated act and made more complicated when you read the government website, here's a link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/11/section/1

I expect somebody who thinks they have a God given right to be there whatever closures are in effect will before long quote a line or two from it and claim they can go there legally but I don't think they have used this part of the Road Traffic Act for the closure before, it has previously been a normal road closure. I'm sure this has been used for a reason and that is to endeavour to keep the road and thus the accesses on to the fields pedestrian free.

[rdchawk]

Does a rehearsal not count as a display?? - Just wondering as the notices are dated 28-29th May - but not for Friday (practice day) surely the risk is the same as in a normal display???

[filmman]

Andy thanks for your reply.

The situation is even more confusing with regard to footpaths. This Order does not close Right of Way 10 which starts from Hunts Road, almost on the line of the runway and goes east for 0.635 km to Moorfield Road, the last part running at the back of village houses. No doubt that will be used as a viewing point , etc,. Is that a safety or financial problem? The usual time needed to make an Order would not allow one to be made in time to close 10 for this airshow.

Duxford is not unique and the whole issue of airshows and aerobatics needs to be addressed from a purely safety point of view; but perhaps the Duxford organisers might not like that because it might curtail at least aerobatics near the M11. The point above about no closure for rehearsals is very relevant; would serious photographers who use the mound, etc now go on the Friday?

Filmman

[gibson617]

I feel this thread had gone on for long enough ! The bottom line is this as far as I am concerned , pay to go in and stop trying to find loopholes to freeload on airshows which ultimately may well put the future of the shows at risk in the current climate . Some people out there are looking for any excuse to ban airshows so dont give them any ammunition .

[wokka]

One thing is for sure, this thread is going to be interesting reading after the weekend! I have a great deal of sympathy for those who wish to take photographs from a better vantage point. My sympathy ends for those who would wish to enter an area that is deemed unsafe and officially illegal for the period, and that could prevent the show happening.

[markranger]

One thing is for sure, this thread is going to be interesting reading after the weekend! I have a great deal of sympathy for those who wish to take photographs from a better vantage point. My sympathy ends for those who would wish to enter an area that is deemed unsafe and officially illegal for the period, and that could prevent the show happening.

Agreed ,
I have done this the field a few times and enjoyed it but the fact is they are now making it very clear they do not wish us to be there I can't see why people personally still want to push their luck with the Law etc.

Mark.

[Pen Pusher]

I can't see why people personally still want to push their luck with the Law etc.

They will see It as a challenge.

What do all naughty children do when they've been asked not to do something.

Brian

[Goosebumps]

As an avid supporter of school funds and a regular visitor to the "field" I have decided to play the game and pay to go in. However it will be tomorrow(Friday). Hopefully see some arrivals and maybe some practicing. With less crouds I may be able to position myself on either side of that massive great tent that's positioned itself on the centreline for the privileged few.
Unfortunately because of the overpriced Pre booked tickets I will have to go it alone as to take a family and make a 200 mile trip twice over one weekend is out of the question so DUXFORD I hope it's worth it
Naturally enough I will make an observation of the surrounding area
As someone mentioned previously next weeks forum should make interesting reading

[Pen Pusher]

With less crouds I may be able to position myself on either side of that massive great tent that's positioned itself on the centreline for the privileged few.

What privileged few? The smaller of the two tents is for the pilots and ground crews and the other is for Gold and Silver Pass holder, PASSES YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR, so not exactly privileged. Neither of which are on the centre line by the way. With the new rules that's the VC-10 now.

and a regular visitor to the "field" ...........

.... so DUXFORD I hope it's worth it

So you are a freeloader complaining about the content of Duxford air shows that you don't contribute to by buying a ticket. Mmmmmm.

Brian

[Goosebumps]

Please don't call me a freeloader. I've been going to duxford air shows since the year dot, and paid. Like I will tomorrow. Mmmmmmm. Gold and silver pass holders, friends of duxford. How much are they then. Oh yes and you need to stop being so angry