As someone who worked for many years in general aviation on aerodromes in the south of England I can say that most (if not all) airfields have those in the local community who form pressure groups to close or curtail operations. I have no reason to think Old Sarum would be different. When I was at White Waltham in the late ’70s there was a rich man who bought a house overlooking the main gate of the airfield. He got the house cheaply due to the immediate proximity of the airfield. He then started a pressure group to attempt to shut us down. He moved to the village knowing about the airfield and rumour had it he had done the same thing at a motorway (he failed in that attempt). I have come across this sort of mindset on every airport I have worked on or flown from in the west of London area. Most of these airfields now have ‘noise abatement/circuit modification routes’ due to decades of anti-aviation campaigns by these people.
I can understand it from people who live near an airport that grows up into a monster on their doorstep (eg: Stansted) but I feel the real trouble-makers are ‘move-ins’ who knew that the airport was there when the relocated near it. So forgive me if I agree with the ‘hysterical’ pilots at Old Sarum. Pressure on general aviation airports has been a huge issue since the 1960s and the next time you make a 30 degree turn to the left or right directly after takeoff remember why you are having to adhere to this routing, and that these noise-abatement routes are a fairly modern thing that came along with the residents’ pressure groups. I flew in the ’70s and ’80s and I can think of only one airfield back then that had a noise-abatement departure procedure. They are very common now.
I knew a very fat lady. You would be shocked what she ate as a so called normal meal. Her plate was literally piled up. People are fat because they eat too much, and it is a life choice – an unhappy one. Metablism and a stretched belly play a part too.
So yes, they should pay for a bigger seat so they don’t bloat out and take up adjoining pax sears. Political correctness should be banned imho. But if you’re stupidity fat you should take responsibiliy for that. Many of us suffer from low Self esteme and at times, unhappiness but not everyone eats themselves to death because of it. Maybe we find other ways but while fat pax pay the same as thin pax their tickets are being subsidised by rhin pax. If they were born fat it would be discrimination, but they came into the world as thin as you and me. Eating to excess is a choice, usually an unhappy one, and we pay for our choices in this world. Weight is everything with aircraft operation. If that fact upsets fat people then go by ship. Pilots are being forced to take only the barest legal minimum fuel (alternate + 30) risking everyone to circumstance. Fat pax should pay as some fat people are 2 or 3 times my weight but pay the same as me. And if they sit next to me they bloat out and i am unfairly impinged upon. What about my right to enjoy the seat i paid for? I would ban very fat pax altogether because in a crash they would either bw unable ro evacuate or would block up the process and people would die. Not to mention how they may crush pax around them in a crash landing, say an undershoot like that ba 777 at egll, or an aborted takeoff after v1 (it does happen).
The Antonov is a turboprop and they don’t sound like piston engined types, more like C-130s. Sounds like a DC-3 to me. Air Atlanique used to fly newspaper flights out of Luton back in the late 1970s and the engine noise was very noticeble even ten miles away at 8000 feet.
The only thing the airlines are interested in is efficiency. If an aeroplane gets from a to b with good fuel savings against a competitor’s aircraft then it will be successful. The Boeing designs are old but reliable. If Airbus has futher issues with their wing bonding on the A380 that may be a major factor in Boeing getting orders. New technology like bonded wings can be a dangerous thing to build a brand on if things go wrong. Remember the Comet. What seemed like a one-off crash turned into a product recall and the loss of the market.
I guess we just have to hope that the trade off for a carp spring is a stunning summer?
Moggy
Pity it doesn’t work that way. 🙁
We have low (anticyclonic) stratus and wetness down here in Wiltshire, but no snow. We missed it because we pay more council tax in the southwest and our council paid for a warmer airmass for us.
Its a bitch that there is a Siberian high keeping the country cold and snowbound. It could last for weeks but probably will improve by end of week I would guess.
If anyone gets to fly while the snow is around you should grab the chance because its a great view, hard to navigate visually though. I had to use radio navs during a snow flight back in the early 1980s I did to Luton (one of the few airports open at the time due to snow). If anyone takes airborne snow pics I’d love to see them on this site!
So the little perimeter fence was still there in 1974! I passed by Panama in 74 or 75. and
Saw a UTA DC8 at PANAM base.
Nice photos, Peter! Real airliners not like the modern bunch of computer operated tincans. 😉
Having said that, these jet-types replaced even more iconic classics, the 707 replaced the Starliner for Lufthansa, the VC-10 replaced the Comet 4s and Britannias for BOAC, I guess the DC9 replaced the KLM Viscounts and Electras. Even wondered what if KLM had ordered Caravelles rather than DC9-10s? How would they have looked in old-stripe KLM livery? Pretty nice I would imagine.
Peter….Am I in a minority? I find the composition in the photos in this thread generally pleasing whereas I find the photos on Airliners.net over cropped (because of editing software?) and because their idea of ‘centreing’ is to have an equal distance from the photo edge to the nose of the aircraft and the tip of the horizontal tail or wingtip which looks wrong with swept wing types to my eye.
I suspect it is because we are all of the transparency age and we learned how to use a camera and take photos properly, taking into account the movement of the subject before framing it. These modern younger photographers often seem to be snap merchants. The pics they come out with are very good and very sharp but it takes slightly more experience to frame a subject well. We had a maximum of 36 frames each costing quite a lot to get developed so we took more time before pressing the shutter button. I used to buy 100ft of tri-somthing and load my own cassettes which allowed me to put in 40 odd frames of film. I also developed b&w and colour slide film to make photography cheaper to do (How sad is that?). But it also gave you your results the same day which was nice.
Very interesting photos! lots of crazy flying going on. The cloud photos in 1926 are a strange inclusion. The clouds then would not be different from the ones we get today.
Longshot… nice photo of Martinair Fellowship. I think the F28 was a lovely little jetliner. Friendship Union of Burma state is interesting. Is AMS where it was built, is that why it is at AMS?
I like the framing of the 2 guards with the barbed-wire and ElAl 707 tail. It tells the story of the early 1970s! In 1971 or 1972 I flew to a West German airport (Hannover) and was surprised to see soldiers with machine guns and a four-wheeled ‘tank’ on the apron there.
RE 17
VeeOne
All you write is beyond dispute. However, life isn’t like that – neat and tidy. Because of the frailties of human nature there will be someone somewhere who will neglect to visually check their fuel state.
Yes, I agree. Pre-flight walk-around checks are designed to avoid human error, but not to check for deliberate sabotage. If you own your own high-wing aircraft and you know you filled it up (you’d do this especially in winter to avoid condensation contamination) then it seems reasonable not to check the level before flight.
Many non-aviation people consider private pilots as part of the upper-class, loads of money segment of society. I think it makes some people who have nothing very angry. Yes there are fliers who are very well off indeed but in my experience most of us are spend all we have to fly, even aircraft owners often spend their money on flying. You rarely see people turning up in really expensive cars because the money goes on flying the aeroplane. If Popham was attacked because of this then it is a shame as Popham is populated by ultra-lights and light tail-draggers, rather than expensive, touring aircraft. I still feel, given the isolation of Popham, that it was a ‘revenge/jealousy’ attack by a local man. I think the police should use that photo to check out the local farmers (woow, controversial).
I think the VIP status of the Tupolevs was right. This one was on a VIP/Government visit to London. I think the airline operated the Boeings (727 and 747 within Europe on scheduled routes.
…they hadn’t realised the potential seriousness of a/c departing with less fuel than they thought (not everyone bothers to check before flying) and the prop stopping over Salisbury City center. Still, someone should remind the Police of the potential for catastrophe.
No competent pilot will fly without first checking their fuel state visually or at least by gauge. Running out of gas over a city would be one of the most incompetent things a proper pilot could do. It would not be the scumbag’s fault but that of the pilot. Or am I just old-fashioned in this matter? I did learn in the 1970s before the days of easy-going ultralight aviation.
The only time I might not have checked fuel carefully would be on a quick turnaround. Maybe high-wing pilots might ignore the visual check but anyone who would start up and taxi out without once checking the fuel state would be an incompetent idiot, imho.
Back in the late 1970s when I was at White Waltham we rarely had vandelism but most of the aircraft were hangered. Once some punks broke into the old RAF hangers and smashed in a storm window to to steal something inside the aeroplane. Luckily for us these toerags don’t know how easy it is to syphon out a low-wing aircraft’s fuel tanks, or simply open the underwing drain. Hopefully they never will or all aeroplanes will have to be hangered.
Popham has a whole bunch of mogas types as I recall. Anyone stealing 100LL for their car will suffer. I used to know a flying instructor at Blackbushe (back in the 1970s) who used a mix of (old) 80-87 and 100LL fuel for his sports car. eventually the engine blew up.
Popham is far from the average scumbag centre so I would suggest this attack was personal. Maybe someone living nearby doesn’t like the airfield noise? The man in the photo looks at least 50 to me.
In the pprune ATC forum recently a guy mentioned a DC-8-63 gusty landing on 23 when a wind change dropped the aircraft hard on the threshold shoving one main gear into the wing structure, requiring temporary repairs, and as he recalled a gear down ferry back to Europe….did you ever hear of that?
I hadn’t heard about that incident but I did hear from a BA engineer about an African (Nigeria AW I believe) 747 that had an engine failure on takeoff and the pilot came right around and landed overloading the gear hugely. (No fuel dumping procedure took place.) This engineer was one of the people who had to strip the undercarriage down to check and fix the damage.
Nice pictures of the Northwest 707s at London, Longshot.
Especially the zero-five landing – that was a runway that was so rarely used in the latter part of the 1960s. Flights arriving from the east and north (Lamborne and that hold up northeast of the airport) would have to trek downwind to the ten left ils intercept point and then run south over my home and finally back east before being able to get a shot at 05, which didn’t have ILS if memory serves.
So it was usually breezy, fair weather conditions for 05, unlike the windy, bad-weather crosswinds that forced the use of the reciprocal, 23. It was the only time I noticed the colourful yellow Northeast and red Cambrian aircraft overhead.