The Mound CLOSED 11.5.17

[filmman]

Yes. The Shoreham crash has resulted in widespread restrictions, some appear permanent (legal restrictions around Duxford Air Shows - and reported Mound demolition be careful what you wish for. Others evaporated (Shuttleworth Air Shows aircraft went back to flying near the crowd after falling attendance fears (MONEY!). Others are temporary for the moment (Coningsby Mound one day restriction). With regard to Heathrow the authorities have no intention of imposing safety restrictions even after a major crash because that would mean shutting it (MONEY!).
However, security is different, Mildenhall recently put up and repaired canvas on fences. The view from inside is different and increased concerns could result in the MOD excluding the public from its land which it never intended to be a spotters perch. Organisationally things have a habit of acquiring momentum once flagged up and Duxford is a worrying precedent as the land was independently owned. You can see where this could go, what about the other end at Coningsby. Perhaps some of you can now see where this could go.
Filmman

[NeilD]

extract from the MAA document RA2335 relating to military display flying.. CAP403 is the civil equivalent. however for the military at a joint event, the most restrictive of the 2 sets of regs are applied...

Third Parties at Flying Displays 29. Third Parties. EOs/FDDs should take all reasonable steps to minimise the risk to third parties. Particular consideration should be given to the following:
a. Congested Areas. EOs should put in place and record appropriate mitigation to reduce the risk to relevant congested areas.
b. Roads and Railways. EOs should put in place and record appropriate mitigation to reduce the risk to non-participating public on busy roads and railways surrounding an event venue.
c. Third Party Spectators. EOs should identify likely third party spectator areas, take all reasonable steps to prevent third party spectators gathering in high risk areas and record the mitigation taken. Prevention will not always be possible; in this case FDDs should take all reasonable steps to inform secondary crowds of the risk to them.
d. Curtailing a Flying Display due to Third Parties. The presence of third party spectators or other third parties may not automatically require a Flying Display to be curtailed or abandoned; an EO/FDD should use their judgement to assess the risk against the mitigations taken above and satisfy themselves that all reasonable steps have been taken

both docs are available online if you have a spare hour or so to wade through the restrictions around events.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ations-fly
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplic ... tail&id=32

[filmman]

Interesting. C and D obviously do not apply to the Red Arrows repeatedly flying over airshow crowds when they open a display by flying from behind the crowd line, across it before complying with the display rules that everyone else has to comply with. Of course, this is a rubbish remark because it's 100% impossible for them to crash.
Filmman

[C24]

...and there is no apparent danger to life when every couple of minutes there is a large aeroplane on the approach to Heatrow?
It must not be dangerous 'cos the Plan is too add another runway and increase the statistical probability of an incident.

[fireman12]

I think the removal of the mound is more to do with Mr Caseys fields suffering soil erosion,and like all farmers he had to replace the soil lost in the recent winds. You all will no doubt recall a few years back half the mound was removed for the same reason.

[NeilD]

just to clarify, 3rd party spectators are those outside the event, which i believe is now a post-shoreham consideration.. note the use of the phrase 'mitigation of risk' - that's legalise for 'arse covering'. Should something happen, then there is every likelyhood that the FDD/organiser would be in court being cross examined as to whether they honestly believed they had made reasonable provision for avoiding harm to 3rd party spectators (in addition to those inside the show!) 'tis the way of the world - do you think the officers running the football match at Hillsborough may've made different decisions of they considered they made be held legally accountable years later?

Ref the reds arrivals.. i believe that they have had a waiver in the past to do so as they are not carrying out aerobatics, just straight and level.. whether this will continue with the consideration of outside spectators then who knows - be interesting to see which displays they don't do this year due to the restrictions within and outside the venues. The mound was also closed for their display practice at CGY last year (?) again because they're aerobating rather than overflying

Ref Shuttleworth and the like.. there are different tiers of displays with different restrictions depending on how 'dynamic' they are, size and speed of aircraft etc.. in the wake of shoreham there did seem a bit of uncertainty around the regs issued at the time, which is why that venue has changed... the 230m from the crowd display line hasn't changed, but note shuttleworth now have restrictions around their venue on 3rd party gatherings..

Heathrow has nothing to do with any of this apart from the fact that they aircraft are carrying out normal arrival/departure procedures rather than aerobatics, so would be covered by the Rules Of The Air rather than either of these 2 docs.

[bizfreeq]

Finally a sensible post, you beat me to it Neil! I really don't understand where all this Heathrow stuff came from as this ruling is purely for displaying aircraft, not those performing ordinary landings and take offs (and that includes those aircraft operating in the normal spectrum from military fields) By the criteria of those posts then every airfield would have had to have been restricted and that is just rediculous.