Rallying. How would you respond to this?

[Thingy]

I was looking through some old photos and came upon some from one of the very very few rallies I went on. These date from 2003 and were with the CC Derbyshire Centre, the location was the Hurt Arms on the A6 at Ambergate Derbyshire. As I recall this place used to be a CL.

We duly arrived on Friday, set up and adjourned to the bar to witness one hell of an argument going on with the Landlord and another chap. None of our business so we ignored it. The reason became apparent later on in the rally as the field was sometimes used by a hot air balloon club, and they were not happy about the presence of the rally. On Saturday afternoon we returned to the rally to find the following.

 

[Martin24]

Shotgun to all hot air balloonerists from now on then.

 

[Gabsgrandad]

We had exactly the same problem/experience, rallying with the Lincs. centre CC. same field same pub. they obviously didn't learn as 'ours' was September 1995!

 

[Thingy]

Yeah, apparently this guy is known for "attitude". Given the number of caravans, and the price of both those and the tugs, the proximity to said units and the fact that a gust of wind would drag the heavy basket skittering in to the units, I would have though health and safety should have been a factor. Naked flames on the balloons, caravans with gas bottles. Elderly people milling around, bang out of order. However, the landlord/CL owner must share the blame. Thankfully no damage was done but there was an awful lot of anger being passed around that day.
Arent balloons governed by the CAA regs?

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hot air balloons are subject to the CAA just as any other aircraft. , But I don't know if that has any regulation about take off sites.

Whilst I know your comment about naked flames and caravans with gas bottles was a casual link, in practice, the presence of the balloon's is immaterial, as there are plenty of naked flames in use in or around caravans, such as the open flame on a hob or in an oven, the number of BBQs in use and of course any smokers, so the addition risk of a HAB is not especially significant. If none of these have caused a problem, the presence of an HAB is not likely to increase the risk of a caravan gas bottle fire from a naked flame.

Of course there is the risk if the balloon its self catches fire, and it affects the caravans near by, but also don't forget that HAB's use Propane LPG to maintain the flight. These bottles are much closer to the balloons burner and would be at much greater risk than the caravan bottles.

All in all, and not withstanding my comment above, I don't think it is sensible mixing caravans and hot air balloons in such close proximity, not so much from the fire risk, but the possibility of a balloon envelope or support system snagging and becoming damaged. I'd suggest the site owner would be liable if any damage to caravans had occurred as well as the balloon operator, as the caravans were present before the balloons were inflated.

I was at a NFOL meet at Ipswich, and a flight of balloons flew overhead, and a couple defended very low over the festival, and one touched down at the far end of the site several hundred yards from the gathering.

 

[emmerson]

I've also rallied at the Hurt Arms and had balloons on site, but only two, so not too scary, as they were at the bottom of the field.
I was not happy, however, about having to tip our toilets in the public conveniences across the A6 road!
The Chinese restaurant across the roads was very good though!
I believe the site is now closed.

 

[Parksy]

I'm sure that the points made with photographic evidence are perfectly valid and an accurate reflection of what took place.
I do however have to remind forum users of our agreement to adhere to the rules set out in Forum Etiquette
Rule 4 states that : 'You may not transmit complaints about named companies or caravan parks'

 

[JonnyG]

Hi Steve , Forum rules are indeed important and indeed should be followed . but unusually for me, cough cough i have a dilemma, personally i do not wish to share a field with balloons, and now i know that the campsite in question in the past at least is a site where this could happen... so is it against forum rules etiquette to inform people of potential hazards? ruined breaks ect ect.. this isn't a case of somebody slating a site, because of poor facilities, merely pointing out you may have to share a field with balloons landing on you!! surely this does not break forum etiquette? heck i am confused ,again .

 

[Thingy]

Parksy, it is no longer a caravan park, hasnt been for some time, otherwise I wouldnt have named it. If this still contravenes the rules, I apologise profusely. However, if this were a current site and a foum user were to have his car or caravan damaged, or even worse his BBQ spilled, would it not be remiss of me to forewarn people. This is an unusual situation at best.

I would also like to say that I am not complaining about the site, indeed the landlord was trying to sort the issue out as I understood it. The fact then that other people have had the same experience on the site suggests I was wrong. Phileas Fogg on the other hand was the receiver of some choice words that afternoon from a large number of the genteel folk that normally attend rallies.

I have a habit of saying the wrong thing, the worst one was "I do". B)

 

[Parksy]

I stated in my earlier moderators comment that the photographs prove that the point being made is a perfectly valid one. It's quite right and proper that caravanners should be aware of any hazards or potential for damage, and the hot air balloons could certainly cause damage.
I have neither edited or removed any picture, accompanying comment or subsequent comment with regard to this named establishment, in fact the topic (which I saw straight away) had appeared some days before my moderators comment with no interference from me.
Experience has taught me however that often a topic quite naturally 'expands' when additional comments are submitted, so please treat my intervention as a reminder that when dealing with named businesses who have no right of reply we have to be careful what we say.
My point was not meant to chastise anyone or to stifle an important safety issue, I'm merely asking forum users to consider the rules of the forum when we see a description of a person as being 'known for attitude' in case others who may have had untoward experiences at the same place decide to take things a step further.
Think of me in this instance as that annoying police patrol car, not nicking anybody but cruising down the motorway at 65mph