Airfield Contact Database

Slightly off topic but might be interesting to some.

The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 basically made land owners/occupiers liable for injuries even to trespassers on their land. It requires them to take all practical measures to protect trespassers from dangers that are known about or might occur.

When you consider the size of land an airfield covers, the fact that buildings are temporary in nature, unstable and often dangerous, the amount of underground buildings such as bunkers that may be flooded, etc. it's natural that most farmers don't want anyone on their land, even well meaning researchers such as ourselves. If a farmer does allow you on his land he is 100% liable and is law bound to extend you protection against these dangers.

One very clued up farmer I know quoted this exact reason as to why he tore down, at great expense, almost all the airfield buildings on his land and filled in every shelter he could find. There were many public footpaths across the airfield and too many people were going off piste and exploring the derelict buildings. If someone had climbed the stairs of the control tower, stood on the balcony and it had collapsed he would of be liable for not having bricked up the ground floor doors and windows to keep people out.

Sadly seems there is no protection for landowners from peoples own stupidity and he had at one point bricked up one building only to find persons unknown had smashed their way in again. In the end he had no choice to demolish the entire building to protect himself.

So related to what we've been discussing many landowners simple don't want ANYONE on their land and don't want to be approached for this very reason. Paying to rent the runway for a car-boot sale is pretty risk free but letting people mooch around in the woods is another matter.

Some thoughtful responses here. The vast majority of airfield and related military sites are on 'private land' and it has become very clear over the past few years that land owners are becoming less accommodating to allow access - even to the genuine historical researcher/enthusiast - but who can tell the genuine from the not so? The answer - the genuine type will make enquiries with the relevant owner whilst others will 'trespass' which is the problem and this attitude will affect us all in the long term.

Reference my initial post - Forum Members as Airfield Contacts. As previously stated, this 'database' already exists in the guise of the Forum but without sounding patronising, is it worth just mentioning the need for periodic updates about sites (threads in respect of Folkingham, Chelveston, Kings Cliffe to name but a few) are extremely helpful advising of restricted and 'out of bounds' access. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for all the responses.

Regards,
Mark

Best take them to speakers corner & make a speakers skyscraper with them Peter, maybe the idiots will hear you then.

My interpretation of Mark's posts is that the idea would be for a 'database' of AIX/ARG contacts rather than of the actual land-owners of specific sites. Many people will have local knowledge of the people who can (or won't!) give permission to access sites. This local knowledge gives a primary contact rather than the actual owner and exists now within the forum to some extent.

Spot on Tigger. A recent enquiry to the Binbook thread illustrates the existence of said 'database' of knowledge. My initial post therefore answered.

Regards,
Mark