[joe-fbs]

Slightly OT but a big well done to Dan Snow who just now on the BBC demonstrated the correct action when a Spitfire flies over, stop talking and listen. Good man.

Also BBC Look East did half of their show tonight from Duxford. It was not all about the Dakotas but it was a good piece. I have been interviewed twice (but the pieces were never aired) by the reporter concerned, Louise Hubble, and she does a good job.

[Rob P]

I have been interviewed twice (but the pieces were never aired) by the reporter concerned, Louise Hubble, and she does a good job.

Obviously so

Rob P

[Kittyhawk]

From FR24 yesterday

[plus7g]

Obviously fake as he was unable to navigate himself back to his starting point

[Kittyhawk]

Obviously fake as he was unable to navigate himself back to his starting point

How do you know what he did after I took the screenshot?

[ratman]

[quote="Stampe"]In the end the very loose formation operated outside the notamed period which does call into question why an RA(T) was considered necessary and the safety judgement of operating the flight without the protection so afforded .Lots of disruption to GA and businesses along the route for nothing.Regards Stampe[/quote]


When the initial plan was made, many months ago and the airspace solution was worked up, the formation was due to be in excess of 30 airframes; that size formation should be afforded some protection through the establishment of a RA(T). Two periods were assigned to cater for a weather delay; for reasons various the formation was over an hour late getting airborne. I stand by my decision to support and establish a RA(T); it passed the appropriate level of scrutiny along the process. Not one GA pilot or business contacted me to discuss the restrictions. I was however, contacted my many supportive individuals wanting to know more details so they could observe the formation.

In aviation things change at the last minute; for those who know the process for establishing and notifying of a RA(T) will realise its not just possible to 'slip' it by a period of time at the 11th+ hour.

A memorable occasion surely is something to embrace with a bit of positivity.

[CloudHound]

75 years plus a couple more hours wasn't an imposition.

I count myself lucky to have been able to witness the spectacle.

[ratman]

[quote="CloudHound"]75 years plus a couple more hours wasn't an imposition.

I count myself lucky to have been able to witness the spectacle.[/quote]


Indeed CloudHound; I also count myself lucky that 75 years ago those brave men at Normandy paid the ultimate sacrifice to allow us the freedom that we enjoy today.

I guess some people just want it all....

[Stampe]

Ratman I take no issue with the two pre notified RA(T) periods disruptive though they were to the UKs most congested class G airspace.However by operating outside the published times and the protection so offered the flight was put into direct conflict with the inevitable surge of GA flights having delayed their essential transport ,training and aerial work flights to accommodate the RA(T).This was clearly recognised by someone in authority as my local AFISO unit was instructed (“asked”) not to allow movements until well after the last RA(T) expired.By which time many aircraft were legitimately going about their essential business in the open FIR.A whole afternoons business lost.As for your lack of input from from GA operators I think we have all given up dialogue with the authority too difficult and the same old line aggressively trotted out if you are lucky enough to get a reply.Many years ago I sat on the CAA standing advisory group on Pilot Licensing as the BALPA representative. I observed the authority change from consultation and input to the current no worthwhile dialogue allowed.However on a positive note thank you for coming on here and engaging with your customers.The current highly aggressive stance by the current CAA GA unit and NATS is making operating in the South East much more stressful than it was in the past and far less safe.Worthwhile dialogue with the authority has ceased and not helped by the ineffective alphabet organisations of which I am a member.
I would ask how can we break this decline and return to sensible dialogue between regulator and regulated?Regards Stampe

[joe-fbs]

Finally, found video of the drop, very impressive and deserves more views than it has:

There were official drops earlier and later by the military including a couple of tandem drops by veterans.

[joe-fbs]

and a nice BBC local bit here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-48540407

[Iron Chicken]

Finally, found video of the drop, very impressive and deserves more views than it has:

There were official drops earlier and later by the military including a couple of tandem drops by veterans.

Many thanks to Andy Cody for posting the video clip and to joe-fbs for the link.
Last minute family commitments scuppered my plans to get to the drop zone and to Eastbourne so I missed out on this long anticipated opportunity. The main media seem to have substantially ignored this event, but I lived in hope that somebody would have posted a youtube video and so they have. Thanks again chaps
I hope that a professional documentary video has been made and comes on the market in due course.

IC

[ozplane]

Yes indeed,that was very impressive. Does anybody know how many Dakotas actually dropped parachutists and how many canopies there were?

[rats404]

I was next to the DZ and reckon around 7 Daks dropped well over 100 guys. This is the Daks over Normandy drop, not the "official" one that took place earlier in the day.

The earlier one used 1 Dak (BBMF), 3 x C-130 and I think one C-27 plus something else I couldn't identify. I'd say around 200 guys dropped on that one.

[GonzoEGLL]

Ratman I take no issue with the two pre notified RA(T) periods disruptive though they were to the UKs most congested class G airspace.However by operating outside the published times and the protection so offered the flight was put into direct conflict with the inevitable surge of GA flights having delayed their essential transport ,training and aerial work flights to accommodate the RA(T).This was clearly recognised by someone in authority as my local AFISO unit was instructed (“asked”) not to allow movements until well after the last RA(T) expired.By which time many aircraft were legitimately going about their essential business in the open FIR.A whole afternoons business lost.As for your lack of input from from GA operators I think we have all given up dialogue with the authority too difficult and the same old line aggressively trotted out if you are lucky enough to get a reply.Many years ago I sat on the CAA standing advisory group on Pilot Licensing as the BALPA representative. I observed the authority change from consultation and input to the current no worthwhile dialogue allowed.However on a positive note thank you for coming on here and engaging with your customers.The current highly aggressive stance by the current CAA GA unit and NATS is making operating in the South East much more stressful than it was in the past and far less safe.Worthwhile dialogue with the authority has ceased and not helped by the ineffective alphabet organisations of which I am a member.
I would ask how can we break this decline and return to sensible dialogue between regulator and regulated?Regards Stampe

Sadly, a handful of those pilots you mention seemed to have urgent business in a specific area on a narrow line NNE/SSW over Beachy Head. This caused quite a few issues to both the radar unit and the Daks that were being worked by it. It’s a shame that the delay was seen by some as an opportunity to get close, rather than to respect the intention behind the establishment of the RA(T).