Could I have member’s thoughts on this scenario. At the end of our runway is a frangible wooden fence (so aircraft do not crash if they accidentally hit it) then a small grass verge and a minor road. When an aircraft comes into land, warning lights close the road to traffic to prevent harm coming to vehicles from jet blast (efflux) and any pieces of broken fence. There are also the standard low flying aircraft road signs on the traffic lights. The problem comes from the aircraft spotters who come close to the fence to watch the aircraft and collect tail numbers(!!). We are spending a lot of money to replace the fence with on that will not shatter and harm the spotters. There will also be signs warning pedestrians of the danger from jet blast. Warning lights cannot be fitted to the fence as they will distract the pilots whilst landing. It has been suggested that loud speakers broadcast a warning when the lights go red, however this is impractical as English is not the main language of the nearby migrant farm workers and by the time that a warning had been broadcast in 3 or 4 different languages, the aircraft would have landed. So finally my question, have we done everything that is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk to the pedestrians/spotters? I already have my opinion, but would like to hear some others.

It generally gets broken 3 to 4 times a year due to damage from the aircraft efflux. There have been no reported injuries to members of the public. The new fence has more resistance to efflux, but will still break if hit by an aircraft. Therefore the only remaining hazard will be the risk of members of the public being blown over as a low aircraft passes over. If the aircraft lands at the correct height the hazard is eliminated, but as pilots are human, occasionally they approach a little low, but not enough to abort the landing.

Would it be possible to provide a 'viewing area' to one side of the runway, so that the public could access it to do their plane spotting safely?

Speak to the airport authorities at St Maarten as to how they manage neighbours safety:

Reading some of the replies, I'm a little confused - I don't actually think there was mention that there was a problem with aircraft hitting the fence - more that efflux from th ejet engines occasionally broke it. Also, the problem appears to be from aircraft landing, rather than take-off (there was no mention of take-off, only landing). I think that if feasible/ practical, the option of a viewing platform for the plane spotters is a good one, especially as hazard/ risk has already been identified. This shoul dremove the spotters to a 'safer' area, thereby reducing the likelihood of harm from either jet efflux, or flying fence pieces. My one concern with this is that should a member of the public be injured whilst in/ on the viewing patform, liability would possibly lie with the airport/ airfield as it coul dbe construed that the public were led to believe that the platform is a safe place? I take it that the spotters are on the public highway (although do stand to be corrected), so the issue of trespass does not occur.

Top quote the person that calls him- or herself Bluenose: "At the end of our runway is a frangible wooden fence (so aircraft do not crash if they accidentally hit it) then a small grass verge and a minor road" I repeat, if an aircraft does hit this fence I'd say it was a crash!

Bluenose, If the concern is that great regarding pedestrian and vehicular safety, then why not look into installing train style crossing gates to temporarily 'physically' close the section of road / verge (proportional to the flight path)? Simon

And if I'm not mistaken, an aircraft cannot be considered to be properly 'under control' if it crashes through a fence!

A plane hitting the fence is not the subject of the topic though, protecting the public is. If I remember correctly, the whole point of having frangible fencing, or whatever, at the end of the runway (apart from creating a barrier to keep the unwanted out) is so that in the unlikely event that a plane were to hit/ clip[/ otherwise come into contact with it; it will dissentegrate, thereby not creating any additional impedence to the p[ilot's ability to (attempt) to land the plane safely.

How selective can you be, to view this perhaps with a Nelsonian eye. The RAF base is protected by a tall chain-link razor-wire topped fence supported by concrete posts. That is apparent from the link given to good old Google maps. There are also many trees to be seen, so I assume that if the RAF have a prang taxes will have go up yet again as they trash another multi-million pound jet. It's surely not the trees, or the concrete posts, or the chain-link fence that will come off worst. Commercial passenger airports of any size, perhaps almost all, are surrounded by high wire fences and have security guards at every entrance. Surely other UK airports are, or should be, protected likewise in these days of heightened concerns over airport and aircraft security. To have an airport surrounded, even just partially, by a somewhat delicate wooden fence, AND operating so badly that it is recognised that their exists a risk of aircraft hitting that fence - and presumably therefore of hitting members of the public standing aside it or otherwise passing by on the adjacent road - IS a cause for considerable concern. Ignore it at your peril.

Ian, using the link I gave, line up the run way approach where it bisects the A15 trunk road (north / south). Then switch to street view. RAF base protected by wooden fence. It is an accepted practice. The viewing area is around 100-200 metres south of the bisection point, on the opposite side of the road.

Bluenose, 'the busy A15 which deters the spotters from loitering' I'd be surprised if a road with a generous verge next to it would really deter spotters. If it's that easy to deter them, stick a national speed limit sign up!

Bluenose, I would get the local plods to tell the spotters that they are not allowed to loiter in the overshoot area of the runway for their own safety. The signage should amplify this. Presumably, EMA has it's own policeforce, or at least security guards who should regularly patrol the perimeter. Get the council to paint double yellow lines along the overshoot length of road, and refer to CAP 168 re the fencing. I don't have access to it at present but I think you can get it online at the CAA website. Anyone found loitering in the area should be slapped with an on the spot fine to deter the rest. Word soon gets round. Have a look at the shielding blankets which Heathrow have installed all around their peri-track. They are attached to the fence at just the right height so that anyone driving has their view obstructed, detering them from stopping apart from a safe designated viewing point.

Let's hope that Waddington's viewing point is a reasonable size, at it's soon to get a whole lot busier http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...lincolnshire/7412074.stm

Bluenose Thanks for that Is that common knowledge across the site as I was only speaking to somebody who is based there about 6 weeks ago who mentioned the move as if it were still on! (which is why I made the post!!) I suppose in these days of constant Govt & MOD cuts, nothing is definite any more

Does "Volenti non fit injuria" apply to members of the public who may not be aware of all of the risks, could you extend the height of the fence on the aircraft approach and screen it, if the spotters cant see through it they'll soon migrate somewhere else.