Poor old Shackleton…..

Part of the “problem” may be that people call them “urban explorers” (the name implies legitimacy) instead of vandals and trespasser …which is what they are.

You could brand a lot of aviation preservation societies as vandals, and amateur aviation archaeology is responsible for a fair chunk of vandalism. All these groups that went out in the ’70s and ’80s and asked farmers where aircraft came down, only to crudely hock the remains out the ground. They never found human remains, naturally.

I’m sure there is an element of the urbex community that does jimmy open windows and strip period fittings, but they seem pretty good at self-policing. The bigger crime is letting something of historic or architectural significance get into such a state that a bloke with a tripod can get in and take photos in the first place, surely?

Re post 19. I visited Long Marston last Saturday (Convoy for Heroes event).

Only the Shackleton and the dismantled Meteor are still in the compound. The gates were unlocked/ajar but I resisted the temptation to go in.

The Percival Prince is still ‘gate-guarding’

Roger Smith.

One ‘Urban Explorer’ website documented a visit to another ‘aircraft graveyard’. The ‘explorers’ sneaked onto the site being careful not to be spotted by the site security. Although they didn’t seem to damage anything they attempted to gain access to the interiors of some of the parked aircraft (presumably so they could document them with photographs) but unfortunately these aircraft were locked.

For ‘security reasons’ the ‘explorers’ kept the location of the site secret but they recieved much adulation from others who posted comments on the website, and well they might, for the ‘explorers’ had ‘discovered’…

…an ‘abandoned’ Concorde in almost mint condition!!!

I can now reveal the secret location of this aircraft…..it is at a place called ‘Brooklands Aviation Museum’! :rolleyes:

Yes, that picture is some years out of date. At least 10.

The last info I had is that the Shack is privately owned (not by the site owner), and I believe plans are being made for its removal.

looking at the pic above and from memory, please correct me if i am wrong, the Canberra is now in Malta and most of the others are at East Midlands?

Probably right, as on the video I believe we only saw the Whirlwind, Shackleton and Meteor.

looking at the pic above and from memory, please correct me if i am wrong, the Canberra is now in Malta and most of the others are at East Midlands?

They record the aircraft in pictures for posterity which is more than their owners are doing.
Good on them I say.
I wonder how many old pictures have been obtained in a similar fashion and now appear in books or historical articles.

So who actually owns these aircraft, and what are their intentions ?
Do they think they are going to dramatically appreciate in value ?

There’s a few aircraft there. Or there were.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]236551[/ATTACH]

.after all, as pointed out in post 7, someone can tell themselves the owners are the REAL vandals.

PS . I agree that this would be wrong.

I agree entirely with your post apart from the last paragraph.

It isn’t a tiny mental leap. I have trespassed before (and I bet you have too in your lifetime) but I have never made the ‘tiny’ mental leap to vandalise that property.

I’m not disagreeing with you for the same of it. I agree with most if your last post but it’s not a straightforward mental leap to justify vandalism. Everyone is different. Someone who trespasses frequently and gets up to no good is just as much a trespasser than an aviation enthusiast wandering that extra few yards into a peri track of a disused airfield but they are very different people.

Call urban explorers trespassers (some actually do get permission which muddies things further) but vandals reserve for those who do.

Best to you.

Anyone with an ounce of sense should know better than to touch something that isn’t yours. You might do some damage, however inadvertently.

It’s like parents who see no harm in letting their children climb on my Edwardian-era roadster when it’s at a show. They don’t see the harm because they don’t know what they might be doing.
At the very least it’s bad manners…and it’s also teaching their little darlings that it’s okay to mess around on something that isn’t yours. Setting a very bad example.

Once a person tells him/herself that it’s okay to trespass, it’s a minor mental leap to justify vandalism…after all, as pointed out in post 7, someone can tell themselves the owners are the REAL vandals.

I don’t dispute that binbrook, I’m saying not every trespasser is a vandal but some are. This one might be but I’m saying that you can’t call every urban explorer a vandal on one persons actions. I don’t disagree about this one person opening a panel.

If you watch the you tube video he walks upto the Whirlwind and opens the nose panel up..

Tim S

They may be vandals but they may not. I doubt there are many on this forum who have never trespassed be it a quick walk in an abandoned airfield or whatever. Doesn’t mean you are a vandal
If you have. It just means you are a trespasser!

If they open aircraft inspection panels as suggested in post 5, and don’t close them properly, they’re vandals.
Anyway, there is a huge difference between photographing something and touching it…just ask any museum.

At any rate, the “hobby” has a whole doesn’t seem to care much about property rights, if they’re willing to trespass, I’m sure touching, climbing on, opening up panels is just a mere formality.

Part of the “problem” may be that people call them “urban explorers” (the name implies legitimacy) instead of vandals and trespasser …which is what they are.

Trespassers yes but vandals not necessarily. The point of urban exploration is to gain access, explore and photograph areas not open to the public. Part of the movement is to not steal and vandalise. Some may do but not all. Fair game to call them trespassers but vandals perhaps not so.

Comprehensive old thread on this subject here….http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-69959.html

I assume its been quite a while since anybody has done a survey of it….?

J Boyle you are correct of course.

Tim S

There’s several parts that would fit 963 nicely!

Windhover – the Shack doesn’t belong to Mr Hodges so he’s unlikely to give you access to take parts off.

Regards

Rich