Airside access at Sywell fly-in

[John Dean]

For the last few years under EU law all aircraft must carry a third party insurance cover as stipulated by their own (EU) standard. This would obviously cover the airport owner / organiser for any accidents with regard to aircraft

Sorry but this is not true. The liability cover you have on your aircraft indemnifies YOU for claims made by third parties. It does NOT give any cover to airport owners or event organisers.

[Brian Hope]

In the past, additional insurance was taken out to cover the issues unique to the rally, no doubt we will need to do likewise if we have a rally in 2010.
What is important is that we do not allow disproportionate concerns to overly degrade the traditional character of an LAA Rally. I could fall A over B on the stairs in a minute when I go up to the bathroom for a pee, now, do I decide not to go because of that and thus wet myself or risk arrest by nipping outside and exposing myself, or do I figure that I haven't fallen down the stairs for nearly 60 years because I have exercised good methodoloogy in carrying out the exercise, so it's a risk I am prepared to take?
Likewise the Rally, our systems have been sufficiently robust over many years of holding the PFA Rally, so we need to be sensible and ensure that we write a risk assesement and method statement, and ensure adherance to those documents at the event. Personally, and also in the view of the LAA Safety committee, airside access along the lines of former events, with perhaps just a little tweaking and the appropriate paperwork in place, is a very reasonable goal for 'our' rally.

[mikehallam]

Seems from the postings that all the onus is being placed on LAA 'guests' & their shepherds and NOT those naughty pilots starting the fan indiscriminately.

Shirley the trained P1 is i/c, not anyone else and he/she is responsible if needed at a fly-in, for ensuring a marshall is there to clear prop etc., during start-up and taxy.

In other words it's the planes and their operators that need to be marshalled, not the paying LAA members, who after all will include all sorts of folk with varied experience & different awareness !

Mike Hallam.

[Bill McCarthy]

At an agricultural show the general public (including children) can mill around quite dangerous bits of kit. For instance, large trailers are displayed in the "tipped up" position. Now to stop people getting chopped in half by a decending trailer body if a hydraulic hose bursts say, the trailer is made safe by the fitment of a locking device to the ram. That is just one instance. How about making it a requirement for pilots to disable an aircraft from starting "in the ranks" by disconecting the battery say, and displaying a "Made Safe" sticker on the propellor to satisfy the H and S brigade.

[CH]

Bill - many LAA a/c don't have a battery, and thus could in theory start when little johnnie pulls on the prop if the p lead had come adrift.

But you have to set this risk in context. I have been involved in hundreds of fly-ins over the years, and I cannot ever recollect an injury, or even a close shave involving spectators. Big airshows and aircraft crashing into the crowd-yes (Ramstien etc), but not an aircraft start/taxi incident v's a pedestrian at a PFA do or similar. Can anyone else?

I suspect the answer is no, and the risk has not changed, even if we are more aware with H&S twaddle the risk is still so low that we ought be able to accept it. A fly-in with no punters isn't a fly-in in my mind. This view is supported by many, and those holding these events have to accept that they will get less interest as a result and less interest = less money.

Thus it's up to the organisers, accept some minimal risk and have an enjoyable event, or risk having no event. I feel the LAA understand this, but Sywell and others may have a different view, it's up to them but they may be surprised how many vote with thier feet.

Charlie Huke

[Nigel Ramsay]

Charlie, I need to take you back to my earlier post....

"1. It's a Sywell run event and NOTHING TO DO WITH US AS FAR AS OPERATIONS ARE CONCERNED.
2. The thorny business of airside access was put to bed, finally, by our own CEO who stated quite categorically that he would not have the LAA linked in any way to the airside operations at Sywell in September. This is so that in the unlikely event of a tragedy, the ambulance chasing lawyers won't be able to point in our direction. "

So, whatever happens at Sywell, the LAA aren't prepared to take these risks.

Personally, I agree with a lot of what has been said about airside access and live prop dangers, it's a reasonable risk and any rally should have unrestricted access airside. It's just that currently the views that actually effect this event and hold the veto don't agree!

[Bill McCarthy]

Charlie, the battery thing was a "for instance" - mine hasn't got a battery either but I wanted to get over a simple method of making an aircraft "safe" somehow just to placate the enemy. I might add that rallies are not the place for disinterested wives, children and dogs. I can imagine the anger if any of them climbed on to a Jodel and put their foot through the wing fabric.
I just don't know how these agricultural shows get by. I used to show pedigree cattle and kids used to wander through the cattle lines with their parents just a couple of feet away from getting a good kicking, kids climb all over tractors and combine harvesters while the father does a deal with the agent. It's one of the most dangerous public events I know. I know I ramble on about ag machinery, but if the "powers that be" haven't got the message on this issue then we (the association) are in deep sharn.

[CH]

Nigel - fair cop;I just feel that other bits of the LAA has this in mind -Devon regional for instance.

Bill - I understand your battery being an example; I'm just saying that even without any pandering to H&s the risk is already acceptably low.

Welshman - yup I too have had enough of this one.

Charlie Huke

[J.C.]

Much has been said on here about the LAA involvement. If you read the LAA mag with the Europa on the cover, (June -I think) it states catagorically that Sywell is a dress rehersal for the 2010 Rally.
Point one) that implies to me that Sywell IS a LAA event .
Point two) that implies to me that there WILL BE a rally in 2010.

GOD HELP US.

The whole thing is a total cockup..IF sywell are so worried by litigation that they feel LAA members need to be escorted airside (unless they have actualy flown in) then surely it follows that those people flying in should be escorted by an instructor ,less they loose control on landing and ground loop into the paying public.

Also, as already alluded to on an earlier thread, all those driving in will be uninsured once they are actually off the main road and so perhaps they need escorting as well!

They are going to need one hell of a lot of escorts!!!
Obviously the only real way to minimise the risk is to cancel the event!

[John Dean]

all those driving in will be uninsured once they are actually off the main road!

Very unlikely to be true unless they are driving airside.