I was part of the Met Team at three of the early IATs (1977/79/81 all at Greenham).
I think that as part of the planning the organisers were (and I think Tim Prince will back me up!) basically “making some aspects of it up” as they went along. Greenham was 381 ft AMSL and on a chalk subsoil. Flooding was not a realistic problem. Fairford is 260 ft AMSL and only a few feet above the river level – and thus practically on the dreaded Flood Plain!! A “once in 30 yrs” or “once in 50 yrs” rainfall event could – as has been exposed – give them problems. It would have been interesting to know what the state of the airfield was after the 2007 summer rainfall event.
Also – for those grizzling about the met forecasts – they should be aware that, in UK, the basic forecast data for both civilian and military uses derives from the same source. The outputs are technically tailored in different ways.
And for those on this (or other threads) complaining that in the USA 5 – 9 day forecasts are very accurate. What they fail to state is that applies only in some areas. I’ve worked in areas of the world where the forecast for a month ahead could be issued with some confidence (and that was before computer forecasts!!). However, I’ve talked to forecasters at Portland, Oregon, USA. They are placed, geographically, in the same relative place as the UK – i.e. on the west side of a huge land-mass with a vast ocean to the west of them. They have exactly the same problems as the UK forecasters (I was welcomed with open arms as a life-time fellow sufferer!).
It’s not always as easy as it looks.
HTH
Resmoroh

There were a very large number of wild ideas, at the time, as to how the Falklands Unpleasantness should be sorted out.
Many emanated from within MoD (like the projected parachute assault on Stanley mounted from S Georgia) which were, initially, “blue sky thinking” but which were classified as TFD after minute examination.
There were those that emanated from the pubs round MoD HQ which were said to have emanated from within MoD.
There were those that emanated from various (Tri-Service) Messes around the country – which were variations of the two paras above.
I only know, and saw, what I was involved in. Some of what has been alluded to in this thread actually took place. Much of it, I suspect, didn’t.
Pointless Postulation – unless there is a significant chance of Actuality to prove it – is a somewhat nugatory occupation.
HTH
Resmoroh

I have heard stories (in the mid-50’s) of Beverley Flt Engs topping up engine oil in flight. Perhaps they were the smaller size of Bev Flt Engs?!! It must (if it actually occurred) have been fairly noisy!!! But as one tended to get a fair amount of oil in even a cup of coffee in a Bev it’s not suprising it had to be topped up – especially on that leg from Malta to UK heading into a Mistral up the Rhone valley when (certainly) trains and (possibly) even cars were observed to be overtaking this flying block of flats!
HTH
Resmoroh

Most airshow’s (and associated events) will continue as long as they make a profit for the organisers. Some may be able to continue to hold/fund such events even when there might be a small loss when all the sums are added up. At some point, howwever, increased entry fees (and the increased price of a Magna Burger – or whatever) will deter attendance to a level at which putting on any event becomes a financial “No Go” area.
Airshows are only VITAL for the committed enthusiasts – and there are not a significant number of those (on a national scale). In short, airshows are not vital to the national economy. And even those hardy souls who now attend may be subsequently dissuaded by the spiralling costs of travel, entry, and associated expenditure.
Airshows will continue provided there are those willing to put them on, and provided that the attendees have sufficient disposable income to ensure those who put the shows on at least make a small profit. It will be (if it is not already in that class) a luxury item. No profit, no show – end of story.
HTH
Resmoroh

As one of those who was “In Theatre” before the Task Force even left UK I would like to offer some observations.
We did not win the Falklands Conflict – they lost it. They made bigger and better ****-ups than we did (and we made a fair few!).
Pebble Island as a base, while the rest of the Falklands was under Argy control, is a total non-starter. Just look at Google Earth (where it’s listed as Peeble Island!). If it looks inhospitable then that’s because it is!!
South Africa had (and still may have?) a Defence Agreement with Argentina. S Africa is one of the major Met Forecast centres in the S Hemisphere. Shortly after the Argentine invasion of the Falklands the S Africans experienced some extraordinary computer/transmitter problems!! No charts of the S Atlantic, it seems, could be transmitted!! Until the UK Met managed (basically) to turn its N Hemisphere Met computer model “upsidedown” to deal with the S Hemisphere we, in theatre, were reduced to trying to receive transmissions from Darwin, Oz. Chilean/Peruvian Met were most co-operative, but would have been more than happy for that not to have been made public – local, “backyard” politics!! I leave those of you with H/F comms experience to know what aerial arrays were needed to even hear Darwin radiofacsimile transmissions on 22 M/cs – let alone interpret the charts on which much of the met advice to Commanders was based! In UK almost all met comms at that time were by landline. In Argentina it was by H/F radio. We listened!! They sent their forecasts for the Malvinas in plain-language Spanish. We listened!! We got to the stage when we could tell when their forecasters had got it right – and when they’d cocked it up!!
The Royal Navy (god bless their cotton socks) were prepared to give us the met observations made by RN ships. They were not, however, prepared to give us the position(s) of those ships!! Talk about farcical! But they got panic-stricken when, given the observation and with our limited actual data, we could guess the position of the ship to within 50 nm!!
See what I mean about “they” making more errors than “we” did? Let alone the projected Parachute assault on Port Stanley mounted from South Georgia!!
HTH
Resmoroh

Saying all that, it must be pointed out, that actual historic sites, where there is still some important information to be gained, should, like actual archaeological sites, be left untouched by amateurs.

Well said Mondariz!
Much valuable archaeological evidence can be destroyed by amateur – though well-intentioned – diggers. But, at the end of the day, ALL archaeological excavation, however meticulously carried out, is destruction. You can’t un-excavate anything!!
HTH
Resmoroh