Read the forum code of contact
By: - 14th January 2019 at 15:34 Permalink
Brainless :(
By: - 14th January 2019 at 16:02 Permalink - Edited 14th January 2019 at 16:18
A post about this vandalism at Dunsfold had already been made - see page 2. Perhaps sensible to combine the two
It would be. Regrettably in the brief time I have today I am unable to locate the 'merge' function in this version of the forum software. I'll take a look tomorrow - Moggy
Posts: 581
By: - 14th January 2019 at 16:08 Permalink
The parents must be so proud of their little Angels.
By: - 14th January 2019 at 21:37 Permalink
According to the team that looks after VC10 ZA150, the damage to the VC10 is limited to stuff having been thrown around the cabin. No broken bits or spraypaint fortunately. The 747 and a locally based twin (airworthy) suffered most of the damage.
By: - 15th January 2019 at 06:45 Permalink
I do have to wonder how they got in: airstairs in situ and doors not locked? None of which excuses this, but maybe measures could have been put in place? Plus if I recall these aircraft are a fair way from the perimeter fence, so again I do wonder.
By: - 15th January 2019 at 11:07 Permalink
I would like to stress that, to the best of my knowledge this matter is entirely unconnected with any attempt to discredit the use of Dunsfold as an airfield thus rendering it more acceptable as a housing estate.
By: - 16th January 2019 at 00:47 Permalink
Housing estate built over a Battle-of-Britain airfield, no problem.....housing estate built over the Top Gear test track? NEVER!
By: - 16th January 2019 at 08:23 Permalink
Well I wouldn’t want to move to live on an estate in an area with a known vandalism problem.
As an observation, I did wonder what use the security man at Dunsfold actually did as I drove in and out unmolested the week before last when I collected an Islander tail plane from Aces High. And before anyone suggests it, NO I didn’t vandalise the VC10 or Jumbo - although we did have a good look.
By: - 16th January 2019 at 14:53 Permalink
As A former Worker in the Security industry( 10 years, Guard/Dog Handler/ Management) I feel I should share my Experiences.
For a Start the bigger the non retail industrial area to protect, Less staff, Probably one,Staff cost Money that landlords do not like spending. I have worked at former Military airfields now redundant and they are a nightmare to try and protect because of the size, ie perimeter several square miles plus various buildings. Criminals will use any violence they think needed to get away .Police response times due to cuts are poor.
Most owners only have you as a condition of insurance/Lower premiums. On a large sight it is not unusual to employ multiple clock patrol points that have to be visited and swiped to prove they have been checked.
Add to that other tasks you are given including cleaning, moving rubbish etc with no say in the matter.
Add to that no self defense equipment allowed and the minimum wage making trying to get quality motivated staff difficult and subsequent staff turnover high, glad I am retired.
By: - 16th January 2019 at 17:38 Permalink
I can understand the reluctance to commit scarce resources to guard large open areas complete with isolated buildings and artefacts but, there is another perhaps more cost effective way; drones.
Drones, fitted with either infra red cameras for night patrolling and day cameras for other times. One operator only, would easily be capable of launching half a dozen route programed drones able to track real and potential offenders anywhere across open space. Once Plod, however reluctantly, attends and puts numbers in front of the local Beak and word gets around the local prep school for burglars and provided - this is the biggy - that the Judiciary do their job and award a few deterrent sentences, then the problem might just disappear.
By: - 23rd January 2019 at 09:20 Permalink
Has anyone seen any photos of the vandalism? I have been told by someone on the inside that this story is 100% fake.
By: - 23rd January 2019 at 09:42 Permalink
Has anyone seen any photos of the vandalism? I have been told by someone on the inside that this story is 100% fake.
Funny you should say that - I had also found no real proof that it had happened and was beginning to wonder. I now wonder what purpose it served if it was a fake news item?
By: - 23rd January 2019 at 10:12 Permalink
I think the journalists just wanted to get the keywords "Top Gear", "Jeremy Clarkson" and "James May" associated with their names and needed to make up a story.
These Sun journalistsare Nick Pisa and John Lucas, so you can add them to your list of people not to trust. They even used a photo of Jeremy Clarkson and James May in the article. They really are desperate. It took two journalists to write 191 words!
The idea is it lures people to the web page, they then click on the adverts and money changes hands. They get their mortgages paid. From their point of view, this is a success.
By: - 23rd January 2019 at 11:57 Permalink
The aircraft involved are privately owned and on private property. If there are no photos around then perhaps the owners have chosen not to distribute these. I understand, from several people who look after the local VC10, that two aircraft were significantly damaged, with the bill running into thousands of pounds for the airworthy twin.
My impression is that this incident was not supposed to get all that much media coverage, perhaps so that copycats are not encouraged, or to ensure that any details about how this was done do not spread around the internet. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
By: - 23rd January 2019 at 14:23 Permalink
Not saying these guys are responsible, but just making folk aware that Urbex sites post this sort of thing. Mainly just about thrills and photos. Worth keeping an occasional eye on in case somewhere you have responsibility shows up.
https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/threads/broadmead-cottage-dunsfold-airfield.90289/
By: - 24th January 2019 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 8th February 2019 at 12:24
I'm in two minds about these 'URBEX' websites. On the one hand most of them seem pretty 'respectful' of the property they trespass onto (the one above has a nice bit of history about the construction of Dunsfold Airfield during the war) but, on the other hand, publishing details of other people's property (and the ease of acces) on an open website must surely annoy the owners of the property and could easily encourage far less desirable 'explorers' to come and visit.
I remember reading an amazing report on one 'URBEX' website about the discovery of an abandoned Concorde near London...
...unfortunately they gave no hint that the 'abandoned' Concorde was actually on very public display in Brooklands Museum!
By: - 24th January 2019 at 22:02 Permalink
Problem is that once a fascinating site gets flagged up, then everyone else wants to copycat it. Generally they are all about visiting and only taking photos. If this latest group were true urbexers, then I am surprised that security did not see them doing their trademark light-painting from several miles away. I wonder if that the 747 was used as a prop in a Bond film was the reason that it was the main target, by souvenir hunters ( thieves). They could possibly be therefore completely uninterested in the rest? I see the 747 was visited with consent on another trip. That could have help flag it up. Other side of this hobby is that often the explorers become the guardians and restorers of some sites.
By: - 24th January 2019 at 23:15 Permalink
'Light painting'? Do you mean camera flashes? I'm not blaming the 'URBEX' people with direct vandalism, far from it; I understand that their motivation is quite different (sort of un-vandalism)! My guess why the 747 and VC10 were vandalised because, even to the 'mindless' vandal, they probably looked like 'common' commercial aircraft (of which there are thousands and thousands all over the place) and they didn't look old or like something that should be in a museum (like a Spitfire)? Not sure what the other aircraft that was damaged was, the 'twin'? Anyway, it's a shame that anybody thinks that vandalising anything that belongs to somebody else is in any way whatsoever acceptable behaviour.
By: - 25th January 2019 at 00:42 Permalink
Speaking as someone who in the past had an aircraft vandalised when in my hangar, my heart goes out to the private owner, I wasn't the only one, at the same time a twin was vandalised on another airfield some 30 miles south of me. One of the worst I know of was the front end of a single literally being cut off and the complete engine stolen, but that was theft, another I know had a radio fit stolen and it turned out at the annual to be fitted in another aircraft on the field, that one had actual had its fit stolen and replaced by the other aircrafts, so for several months the wrong items were being looked for serial number wise while the actual stolen ones were disposed off. But the worst in my eyes are the scum that steal fuel, that can kill if the owner flys thinking he has xyz when in fact he is quite a few litres short of that figure
By: - 25th January 2019 at 08:48 Permalink
Forum glitch? None of the 'buttons' on the forum seem to be working for me at the moment; can't edit or like posts, and couldn't even start a new thread to highlight this problem to the Webmaster! Posts on existing threads also seem to be crushed into the smallest block of text taking out any new paragraph formatting? Doesn't seem to matter if I use my ancient PC or my iPad.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 14th January 2019 at 13:49 - Edited 15th January 2019 at 13:52
From elsewhere
Moggy