Freeloading at airshows

Since all of our views are our own for people to accept or not your remark “I really don’t understand why so many are getting so hot under the collar about people watching a display from outside of the airfield” is rather irrelevant isn’t it? Some agree with you and some don’t. Those who don’t have given their reasons, which you don’t agree with so there is little more to understand.

You seem to have conveniently ignored the comments posted by several members about freeloaders enjoying the benefits of what those who pay help to provide.

No not ignored, conveniently or otherwise.
The views I express are mine, I’m sorry I don’t go along (or agree) with the views of everyone else.

From Google:

The tragedy of the commons is a term, originally used by Garrett Hardin, to denote a situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each’s self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource.

You seem to have conveniently ignored the comments posted by several members about freeloaders enjoying the benefits of what those who pay help to provide.

No of course that day will never come but surely it’s the principle which is important. A criteria of modern life sadly and widely lost.

I really don’t understand why so many are getting so hot under the collar about people watching a display from outside
of the airfield.
As long as they are not putting themselves or anyone else in danger, does it really matter ?
As Cherry Ripe said, he is not getting the benefits that those who pay to go inside get. Screaming kids, Distorted tannoys, Views obstructed by tented corporate encampments, people using step ladders etc.
Neither does he get the benefit of toilets, expensive food etc. It’s swings and roundabouts.

A scenario where you will eventually get more people outside than inside, is never going to happen is it ?

Or is it just a case of, I’ve paid £40 to come in here, why should people see it for free ?

Anyone who goes to see an airshow but is not prepared to put his hands in his pocket and contribute to the cost of putting on that airshow should be looked upon with contempt in my opinion.

I share the same view as you here, it’s debated long and hard on this forum especially with respect to the Duxford naughty field but if you actively go to watch a display from the outside without contributing at all then contempt is the word. If we all chose to watch outside there would be no airshow ultimately, and if hose who stood outside paid to come in then who knows they might be able to afford one or two displays and aircraft more. Additionally it annoys me immensely to have my photos, I have paid entrance to watch, of aircraft taking off at Duxford with the famous hill backdrop only to be ruined by the freeloaders in the field.

I know Old warden is a rural venue so people go out of their way to view from outside. Sideslip what do you expect the c50,000 inhabitants of Farnborough do next year when most of them will be able to see the airshow from their houses, or from a short walk away? Should we all shield our eyes or stay indoors…

A somewhat different scenario, those around Farnborough etc, live there, they are not actively going there to watch the show and reap the benefits without paying and contributing.

The only ‘experience’ I miss is the static display, butif I wanted to see inert lumps of metal sitting on their undercarriage I’d go to a museum. Aircraft are supposed to fly, something Fairford in particular tends to forget.

That’s one of my main reasons for no longer attending RIAT. Another is their idea of themed shows. When you’ve seen one C-130 you’ve seen the lot if there’s not an AC-130 among them. Given how much of the same there is in their static park it’s just too expensive.

Didn’t a freeloader get upset last year when their airshow photos were used by another party, who had quickly erased the watermarks first? Perhaps I just have a taste for schadenfreude.

I know that many airshows are quite expensive to attend, and that freeloading may be the only way some people can get to see them.

I prefer to use the term ‘stealing’, because that is what the “freeloaders” are doing IMO. Aircraft are expensive to operate.

I have no issue with people standing outside the ground to take pictures with their expensive photography equipment, so long as they contribute at least as much to the show organizers.

Could airshow organisers designate some of the fields as “emergency forced landing zones”, and then get them closed to freeloading spectators on grounds that they are endangering the pilots if they occupy them… but I guess that would require prior agreement of the land owners, who may not wish to pass up the opportunity of charging freeloaders to park/stand on their land.

As Moggy says, if an out of control airframe wipes out a few freeloaders I wouldn’t be too upset, so long as the crew get out safely, but the ramifications on future airshow organisers would probably not bear thinking about… Nor would the long drawn out claims for “compo”, and likely appeals if claims were unsuccesfull, ” by relatives of the freeloaders who got in the way…. How many airshows could bear the cost of fighting those sort of “ambulance chaser”-incited claims in hope of a favourable outcome.

Though it would be interesting to see who the courts felt were responsible (assuming it was a genuine accident, and not down to irresponsiblity or negligence on the part of the display pilot, nor his/her support team, nor the airshow organiser or his/her team). Has anyone asked such a question of a friendly lawyer, and then passed the response around the UK airshow “industry”?

If the landowner has consented to the freeloaders being on his property then presumably he might be deemed responsible, so long as the airshow organisrs have warned him of the risk? If the freeloaders are there without his permission, then presumably he has no liability, so long as the accident is not down to any negligence on his part.

I wish I’d had sufficient lack of morals to freeload in order to buy better lenses…. I could have had a really swanky set by now…. still, nice to know others have benefitted from the unknowing generosity of us paying enthusiasts/airshow goers, and that the freeloaders were happy to know that the money they’d saved would only benefit themslves, rather than help preserve the targets of their swish new lenses for future generations to enjoy.

I think that would be Martin Sargeant back in June 2001? Didn’t he have an engine failure at an air display in France and then found the emergency strip to have spectators on it? It was while he was attempting to re- position that he went in.
Not, I think, freeloaders but poor crowd control. Still, one gets the principle.
On a lighter note I was at Old Warden years and years ago when a Sea Harrier reversed beautifully right over the heads of the rubberneckers on the lane outside the airfield. Boy, did they scatter! And most of them didn’t come back. Would love to think the pilot did it on purpose.

Can’t say it would concern me overmuch if a few were wiped out by an out-of-control airframe (as long as the pilot was watching safely from his chute). It would upset me if a pilot ended up in the morgue because a safe force landing spot was thronged by people with better lenses.

I’m sure I read of such an incident, possibly involving a Spitfire. The pilot was surprised to see people milling around on the stretch of runway they had planned to land on.

I wonder if people feel a sense of guilt, when attending a “free” seaside display 🙂

Saving my money for new lenses. 🙂

Do you ever pay to see an airshow? Or do you ever feel any obligation to pay something, like the ‘uppity parents or rude enthusiasts’, towards the appearance of the aircraft that you like to see in the air, where they are ‘supposed to be’?

At a big aircraft industry event I can have some sympathy but at a charity-run even like at Old Warden I must confess that I have very little; you are freeloading and if more people behaved the way that you do the events that you enjoy would probably cease to exist.

If you bought a ticket to, say, Old Warden and then sat in a farmer’s field because the photography was better I’d have no problem whatsoever.

There will always be those too mean to put money back into the businesses that make their hobby possible, saving it for “new lenses” (How sad is that?)

I doubt there is anything can be done about it, except where they trespass, even then that requires enforcement.

Can’t say it would concern me overmuch if a few were wiped out by an out-of-control airframe (as long as the pilot was watching safely from his chute). It would upset me if a pilot ended up in the morgue because a safe force landing spot was thronged by people with better lenses.

It’s about all that can be said really. You’ll never stop the thoughtless.

Moggy

As I said I certainly do not look across the Duxford runway southwards with any sense of loathing – in fact I don’t really give it any thought at all. But no one has as yet commented on the insurance questions I raised earlier. Picking up on Meddle’s earlier point I should have thought that is a significant consideration.

I did add in an earlier post, that there was no issue as long as there wasn’t a safety concern.

The main concern seems to be from people who have paid to go into an airshow, and not wanting
anyone outside of the perimeter to see anything in the air.

The last one I paid to go into, was Old Warden last year. Brilliant show, and a completely unobstructed display line.
There were people parked outside, it didn’t worry me in the slightest.

I also agree with points made by “Cherry Ripe”.

Is it really such an issue ?

There were a good number of punters in the field Don Bullock crashed that A26 into at Biggin. If a similar scenario presented itself today and, heaven forbid, a spectator were to be struck or killed then you would see more draconian measures at airshows.

As per the comments about freeloader’s cars, a lot of their camera gear looks top dollar as well. The obvious irony being that if everybody freeloaded then aircraft would be displaying to an empty field with everybody squashed up against the perimeter fence, stepladders and telephoto lenses in tow.

When I watch a show from outside the perimeter ( which I have done several times ) it is because, in descending priority:

1. Better views, with aircraft often turning overhead my position. Not just for photography but also the experience being closer than 250 metres from the aircraft. Am I at risk? No more so than any other day standing at the same spot with aircraft passing overhead.

2. Avoiding the uppity parents and their misbehaving progeny.

3. Avoiding the rude elbow-digging ‘enthuasists’ who push past.

4. Avoiding the inane commentary blasted beginning-to-end from speakers placed in my face.

5. Saving my money for new lenses 🙂

The only ‘experience’ I miss is the static display, butif I wanted to see inert lumps of metal sitting on their undercarriage I’d go to a museum. Aircraft are supposed to fly, something Fairford in particular tends to forget.

And I don’t block the roads because I don’t have a car, so the local residents are usually friendly. I’ve had a good chat and a few cups of tea over the years.

Short of imposing a 3 or 4 mile radius sterile “safety zone” no waiting/no parking area around the airfield, open only to legitimate residents or airshow ticket holders, what can you do about it? And how would you close/police the many footpaths and rights of way that would be affected?

Perhaps if freeloaders were aware of the risk they place themselves in (look how close some freeloaders were to the A26 crash at Biggen Hill many years ago, and to the Hurricane accident at Shoreham more recently) then they may think twice, but I suspect it would take a serious accident involving injury to a field full of freeloaders, and a clear ruling of “no liability” for the unfortunate airshow and pilot concerned, to make enterprising farmers more reluctant to entertain freeloaders at the farm’s risk, and for freeloeaders themsleves to realise that they accept full liability if the worst were to happen.

Trouble is, in todays world, the media would still savage the show organisers for “…not protecting innocent spectators from those dangerous rickety old stunt planes…”.

Short of ensuring the organisers and local landowners display “You are here at your own risk and accept full liability for any outcome, however unfortunate (including personal injury or even death)” – perhaps with a graphic shot of the A26 impact at Biggen ? – in all regular freeloading viewpoints then what else can show organisers do? Or to maybe organisers could run a loudspeaker van round them giving verbal warnings of the potential risk.

Maybe airshow organisers should instead concentrate on making the “ground display” very attractive, and better vale for money as a family day out, but that risks ever more blaring funfair music ruining enthusisats video recordings…

And, of course, access to modern social media helps spread the word as to where good freeloading spots can be found….

I fear freeloading is unlikely to be preventable, but perhaps organisers could do more to promote the risks of watchign from unauthorised places. But, even if there is a risk, I suspect that even if a display aircraft did get into trouble, most (all?) pilots might well put the safety of the freeloaders ahead of their own if they possibly can…

Perhaps employing a crop sprayer loaded with harmless, but foul smelling, liquid, and a few spray passes over the well frequented freeloader fields for a few shows might deter the non-payers?