sorry to disagree with you Ian but the way the papers reported the story

As the old adage goes, don’t belive everything you read in the papers! Seriously though, the reason given was the main on, but not the only one. The airshow normally uses Leuchars, Newcastle, Glenrothes and anywhere else necessary. I have no involvement in organising the airshow, but you can rest assured that the decision to cancel wasn’t taken without good reason. And don’t forget there are going to be other flying events at East Fortune this year, so I personally don’t see what the big problem is.

I must say that I take personal exception to your comment that the museum staff have a lack of enthusiasm. On what basis do you make this comment? I find it highly offensive and would strongly encourage you to withdraw it and apologise. 😡

why cant they operate out of somewhere other than Edinburgh?

Where would you suggest, bearing in mind there may be restrictions on air movements in the Edinburgh area, ie East Fortune area? It’s not just about parking aircraft, but operating them as well.

Bear in mind that this is not a decision that has been taken lightly. The museum wants to run the airshow – the staff enjoy it as much, if not more, than anyone else – but physically cannot get aircraft in the area and in the air that day because of the restrictions imposed as a result of the G8 summit. The museum staff are as disappointed as you are, but we have no choice. They will be other flying events at East Fortune this year which will be very good, if not quite on the same scale, and the airshow will be back, bigger and better, next year.

I think the important part of this story is that “as a child I remember my parents telling me …”

Almost always real incidents become distored in the memory, and in a secon generation the likelihood of error is much greater. This is an interesting account which I have no reason to doubt relates to a genuine incidence where the Germans used duppel (or perhaps a British training exercise where Window was dropped) and would therefore date to probably 1944. However, the use of duppel was, as has been mentioned before, purely for radar jamming purposes and had no role whatsoever in target illumination. I suspect what has happened is that British searchlights have reflected off the dropping duppel, creating the impression to a civilian that this was deliberate use of light for bombing purposes.

It is not possible to fly-in to the museum site itself. Neither do we own any of the wartime runways of the airfield – these belong to various local farmers any permission to land on the runways would need to be obtained from them.

Your best bet would be to contact East of Scotland Microlights who fly from part of one of the runways. They may be able to accommodate larger aircraft, although I doubt their landing area is large enough.

Hi Jonathan,

The headman is a guy called Dougy Robb, ex WO. He’s fighting a rear-guard action to keep the place going but chances are if it becomes untenable he’d be the one to talk to – he scrounged a lot of the stuff there himself. Another chap that’s been involved is Rab Bullers who just about pre-dates radar himself!

That should be Roy Bullers.

The instruments were not in the nose section and were not on display, because they were so hazardous. The aircraft was a British WW2 aircraft on loan from another museum, so I don’t have a lot of details about it. The item was loaned, and then returned, before I started and the instruments stored and returned separately. Whether they were originally fitted to the nose section when it arrived, I do not know.

You all seem to be missing the point.

If I have to pay for that “education” or “information” in order to be able to excercise my right to freely determine what I can or cannot do, then sobeit. If I am required to pass a test of some kind in order to etc…, then again, sobeit. But to throw a blanket over my right to determine what I can or cannot do is wrong in, and of, itself.

No, I’m afraid you’re missing the point. I wasn’t referring to the cost of getting the information, but merely the fact that despite much of the legislation being available on the web, how many participating in this discussion have actually bothered to look for it and read it? Don’t whine on about how you should be allowed access if you are knowledgeable about the risks, when it’s clear you haven’t bothered to inform yourself. Much of this thread could have been avoided if some of the people who have posted here actually read the legislation that they think they are opposed to.