I was sooooo gutted :o(

A media liaison spokesman for the air tattoo said the charitable arm of the air tattoo had made contingency plans for the loss of revenue. One of the main criticisms seems to be the lack of National Media coverage, which meant that people still turned up.

A GLASTONBURY-like quagmire

Hehehe. Sorry, just makes me giggle and think of Family Guy.

RAF Fairford. What a sham !!!!

Why was there no 'wet weather contingency plan' ???

How about clearing a large proportion of the 'static' area and use this for parking. Surely that would have been better than cancelling the entire event (and I'm sure that they would have done this if the queen’s visit depended on it !!!!!).

I for one am £300 out of pocket (hotel accommodation that will not get refunded) because of the event organizers 'woefully inadequate' wet weather planning.

It's ok for the RIAT organisers to say that the air tatto have made contingency plans for the loss of revenue, but what about my losses ???

Surely the organisers had an obligation (to all those people that had paid to support the event, and travelled incredible distances, at considerable expense) to ensure that there was somewhere decent enough to park !!!! I know for a fact that several enthusiasts had travelled from Germany, some from even as far as Japan !!!

Planning for the entire event should start with 'car parking'. Afterall, if you can't get people through the door, you can't have an event in the first place.

Forget 'RAF Fair-Weather' in future, bring back 'RAF Mildenhall'.

Why can't I get my refund from Swindon Tourist Office as they have my £65.

2008 one assumes because they have already banked it directly with the IAT.

A lot has already been said about the cancellation of the Tattoo, but, there's a couple more things that have not.

Sunday was a perfect day for flying, and therefor, those of us with Sunday tickets and planning to use the bus shuttle service should have been allowed to attend.

RIAT could have put on a smaller display concentrating on the more exotic planes such as the S22 Raptor and the Avro Vulcan to name only two. Visitors could have made their own minds up as to venturing on to the grass areas.

Had RIAT mounted such a damage limitation exercise, I suspect a lot less people would have applied for a refund.

Some years ago, the RAF were celebrating something or other at the Tattoo, and after the flyby at Fairford, then continued to fly in formation over Swindon. And what a wonderful sight it was!. Which brings me to the question, why did RIAT keep the Queens flyby on Friday to themselves?. That huge formation of RAF planes could easily have continued over the town. In doing so, the taxpayers of this town and surrounding villages could have been treated to a truly awesome sight of so many and varied types of plane operated by the RAF, all flying at the same time.

What a missed opportunity to bolster the currently sagging British pride. Shame!!.

By the the way, if you search "Youtube" for RIAT you will find some amature footage of practice sessions, and of course, one of some mud!

Yes it was disappointing for everyone but having to pay for repairs to your car would have been more so. Parts of RAF Fairford are still under almost a foot of water and dangerous and sticky. I don't believe it was a decision taken lightly. Even the pilots themselves were working to try and make the ground suitable so the show could go on.

swindon2008 wrote:
Why can't I get my refund from Swindon Tourist Office as they have my £65.

as you would not get a refund if the event had taken place, so you are no worse off, why not donate your refund to charity?
I call on all you jolly plane spotters to do likewise.

madamspud169 wrote:
Yes it was disappointing for everyone but having to pay for repairs to your car would have been more so. Parts of RAF Fairford are still under almost a foot of water and dangerous and sticky. I don't believe it was a decision taken lightly. Even the pilots themselves were working to try and make the ground suitable so the show could go on.

but my point is this..why leave the entire parking arrangements to chance. who in their right minds would assume that the weather (even though we are in July) would be fit enough. This is Britain don't forget !!!

Besides, it started raining from Wednesday onwards (and they would have had a forecast for the remainder of the week). That should have prompted them (and they would have had sufficient time) to start making alternate arrangements i.e. clearing a large proporation of the static display.

As I have said before, planning for the entire event should start with 'car parking'. why not dedicate a large area of the static display for parking in the first place. At least then, the only thing left to worry about is the weather on the day.

look at the photos in todays paper.
everybody is gutted it didn't happen,from the organisers,volountee
rs,and many people who wanted to attend.
it is just an unfortunate one off.
i blame nobody for the decision to cancel, which was the right one.

yeti wrote:
look at the photos in todays paper. everybody is gutted it didn't happen,from the organisers,volountee rs,and many people who wanted to attend. it is just an unfortunate one off. i blame nobody for the decision to cancel, which was the right one.

Yeti - you're also missing the point.

The decision to cancel was indeed correct based on the fact that grass fields were the only areas dedicated for car parking, and that these were waterlogged. accepted.

My point however is this. Start the planning of your event with 'car parking' first. After all, if you can't get people through the door, then there is no event.

As such, the orgainizers should have dedicated a large 'all weather' area (i.e.sections previously reserved for the 'static' display) for this specific function. At least then, the only thing left to worry about would be the weather on the day.

If on the other hand, you take the lottery approach, leave the entire parking arrangements to chance (which you are doing by dedicating only 'grassed' areas for parking), then at least have a 'contingency' plan should the weather condititions begin to deteriorate (in this instance, 3/4 days before the event itself).

As I said in a previous post, organisers had an obligation (to all those people that had paid to support the event, and travelled incredible distances, at considerable expense) to ensure that there was somewhere decent to park. I know for a fact that several enthusiasts had travelled from Germany, some from even as far as Japan !!!

Having organised the Swindon Sport Relief Mile I know all about the issues that come with wet weather, and there really is very little that you can do when the heavens open.
If they hadn't called it off there would've been loads of complaints about peoples cars getting stuck etc and when they do call it off, people complain about their money and how RIAT organisers had "no contingency plan for wet weather"
As Yeti has said above, it was just an unfortunate one off and the decision to cancel the event was the right one.

Futures wrote:
Having organised the Swindon Sport Relief Mile I know all about the issues that come with wet weather, and there really is very little that you can do when the heavens open. If they hadn't called it off there would've been loads of complaints about peoples cars getting stuck etc and when they do call it off, people complain about their money and how RIAT organisers had "no contingency plan for wet weather" As Yeti has said above, it was just an unfortunate one off and the decision to cancel the event was the right one.

another person to miss the point completely.
its no wonder events like this get cancelled !!

markb2908 wrote:

yeti wrote: look at the photos in todays paper. everybody is gutted it didn't happen,from the organisers,volountee rs,and many people who wanted to attend. it is just an unfortunate one off. i blame nobody for the decision to cancel, which was the right one.

Yeti - you're also missing the point. The decision to cancel was indeed correct based on the fact that grass fields were the only areas dedicated for car parking, and that these were waterlogged. accepted. My point however is this. Start the planning of your event with 'car parking' first. After all, if you can't get people through the door, then there is no event. As such, the orgainizers should have dedicated a large 'all weather' area (i.e.sections previously reserved for the 'static' display) for this specific function. At least then, the only thing left to worry about would be the weather on the day. If on the other hand, you take the lottery approach, leave the entire parking arrangements to chance (which you are doing by dedicating only 'grassed' areas for parking), then at least have a 'contingency' plan should the weather condititions begin to deteriorate (in this instance, 3/4 days before the event itself). As I said in a previous post, organisers had an obligation (to all those people that had paid to support the event, and travelled incredible distances, at considerable expense) to ensure that there was somewhere decent to park. I know for a fact that several enthusiasts had travelled from Germany, some from even as far as Japan !!!

what point am i missing?
as for the parking where could that many cars park on hard standing near to the event itself?
i read some ridiculous post yesterday about putting everybody on buses.
it simply would not be logical, because there are 160,000 people on any one day,so there simply wouldn't be enough buses to get everybody to and from the event.the fields used for parking are farm land for the rest of the year i think so tarmcing them doesn't seem a solution either.
it is just bad luck this year.

Was'nt nice and quiet in the skys tho, just the usual Hercules

Yes, disappointed by the cancellation, however I fully understand the reasons why.

Not sure where some of the posters get the idea that Fairford has all this hard standing that could be used for parking - maybe they think that long concrete strip shown on Google Earth is a great place to park?

Am annoyed by the refund policy though. Transactions made by card (debit or credit) should only be refunded by way of a credit back to the card. Anything else is in breach of the vendor’s terms and conditions. TICs should be able to refund. I bought my ticket in good faith from them - I should have my refund from them. Same when you buy something from any other high street store - matters not to whom the money is ultimately transferred.

I suspect the 8 weeks is because the organisers (being a charity) are run on shoestring staffing levels (no argument there) and so it will take a long time to process all transactions. Return the money to the TICs, allow them to make the refunds. Other outlets (Barclays etc) should have the resources to refund and then reclaim from the charity.

As a point of note. I smugly chuckled at the £3 saving I made by buying from Swindon TIC compared to wife's Ticketmaster purchase. Shoe is on other foot now. Just a couple of hours after the notification of Sunday's cancellation, Ticketmaster called her - apologised for the cancellation and advised her that her money would be refunded within 15 days - no action on her behalf required. Now THAT is service and an example of the way that things could be handled.

So Andy / Yeti,

What are you saying about lessons to be learned from this weekends fiasco ? that there are none, that it was just all bad luck, that nothing can be done to mitigate the risk of this type of thing happening again ? or at the very least reduce the impact ?

As for the amount of 'hard standing' at Fairford, I'm assuming (based on your comments) that the aircraft used in the static display are all in farmers fields also !!!

the aircraft in the static displays are on hard ground,the same ground you say should be for parking markb2908.what do you want them to do.disappear into thin air so cars can park there.
has it not occurred to you that there are security issues that would arise with bringing cars onto an air base?

yeti wrote:
the aircraft in the static displays are on hard ground,the same ground you say should be for parking markb2908.what do you want them to do.disappear into thin air so cars can park there. has it not occurred to you that there are security issues that would arise with bringing cars onto an air base?

jesus h christ..this kind of attitude is part of the problem. Sometimes you need to think outside of the box in order to solve a problem.

Yes, (and if you chose to read my previous posts you would understand why I continually refer to you missing the point), I would make them disappear (but not literally). I would simply provide a limited / restricted 'static' display and use the remaining areas for parking.

In terms of security issues, what security issues ? I am free to walk around most of the displays / base unchecked. and if I really really wanted to do something unsavoury, I would find a way to do it with or without my car.

To simply throw your hands in the air and say "its just bad luck", without accepting that there may be some lessons to learn from this fiasco, is just nonsense.

for god's sake get over it it's one of those thing's.Let's face it if your cars would have been ruined you would soon be moaning.

RIAT can't control the weather and for your safety they took the right action.

Safety and security are paramount in this day and age.

Posted by: Russ STFC, swindon on 5:37pm today

Safety and security are paramount in this day and age.

And that, exactly is the problem. Nannyism.

i think the RIAT organisers need to speak to Michael Eavis who runs glanstonbury festival .

because he has double the amount of people go to his shows than the RIAT has and he never seems to have a problem rain or shine .

all the festival goers LOVE IT and come back year after year, they cant get enough of it .

we need to see show organisers "go to town!" on things rather than skimp and save for maximum profit .

this country is allways the same YOU GET LESS FOR MORE , all the time everywhere you go .

I was so disappointed that I got a real tattoo. It's a picture of a waterproof aeroplane.

The cancellation was nothing to do with the weather - that was just a smoke screen! The real reason was because Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiichard, Pye, Ondes, Rollo,
Chamberlin, Clover and Yodelling Slim Clarke were having an inpromptu jamming session at Chamberlin's pad in Kempsford! The local police were so concerned about the effects it would have on the local populus and all the visitors to the airshow, that they cancelled it for everyone's safety!!! Far out man!!!

Russ STFC wrote:
for god's sake get over it it's one of those thing's.Let's face it if your cars would have been ruined you would soon be moaning. RIAT can't control the weather and for your safety they took the right action. Safety and security are paramount in this day and age.

jesus - another person to miss the point entirely !!!!!

Although you can't control the weather, you can plan for it.

Lets face it, the event organizer's had been receiving forecasts for at least a week beforehand and so should have been prepared. After all, it started to tip it down from Wednesday.

Notwithstanding events that unfolded last week, when you plan an event like this, you should always start with 'car parking'. If you can't get people through the door, you can't put on a show.

I for one would have been happy to sacrifice a large proportion of the static display in exchange for adequate parking.

If that's not an option in this instance, pick a more appropriate venue like RAF Mildenhall.

Its not rocket science !!!

Heavy bread man!

markb2908 wrote:

yeti wrote: the aircraft in the static displays are on hard ground,the same ground you say should be for parking markb2908.what do you want them to do.disappear into thin air so cars can park there. has it not occurred to you that there are security issues that would arise with bringing cars onto an air base?

jesus h christ..this kind of attitude is part of the problem. Sometimes you need to think outside of the box in order to solve a problem. Yes, (and if you chose to read my previous posts you would understand why I continually refer to you missing the point), I would make them disappear (but not literally). I would simply provide a limited / restricted 'static' display and use the remaining areas for parking. In terms of security issues, what security issues ? I am free to walk around most of the displays / base unchecked. and if I really really wanted to do something unsavoury, I would find a way to do it with or without my car. To simply throw your hands in the air and say "its just bad luck", without accepting that there may be some lessons to learn from this fiasco, is just nonsense.

so do you suggest the planes taking part in static displays,and the stalls etc,etc simply up sticks if it rains and go back to where they came?
LAUGHABLE!

even if they did there would still not be enough room for all the cars in that area.
and the security issue is an important one.it is an active us air base remember.

your solution falls flat on its arse.and i didn't miss your point at all.i saw it for what it was.an unworkable,ill thought out and selfish brainwave.
not logical at all

yeti wrote:

markb2908 wrote:

yeti wrote: the aircraft in the static displays are on hard ground,the same ground you say should be for parking markb2908.what do you want them to do.disappear into thin air so cars can park there. has it not occurred to you that there are security issues that would arise with bringing cars onto an air base?

jesus h christ..this kind of attitude is part of the problem. Sometimes you need to think outside of the box in order to solve a problem. Yes, (and if you chose to read my previous posts you would understand why I continually refer to you missing the point), I would make them disappear (but not literally). I would simply provide a limited / restricted 'static' display and use the remaining areas for parking. In terms of security issues, what security issues ? I am free to walk around most of the displays / base unchecked. and if I really really wanted to do something unsavoury, I would find a way to do it with or without my car. To simply throw your hands in the air and say "its just bad luck", without accepting that there may be some lessons to learn from this fiasco, is just nonsense.

so do you suggest the planes taking part in static displays,and the stalls etc,etc simply up sticks if it rains and go back to where they came? LAUGHABLE! even if they did there would still not be enough room for all the cars in that area. and the security issue is an important one.it is an active us air base remember. your solution falls flat on its arse.and i didn't miss your point at all.i saw it for what it was.an unworkable,ill thought out and selfish brainwave. not logical at all

I think you did miss my point. Completely. Again.

I'm not suggesting that the 'static' display should "up sticks if it rains", I am saying that you would provide a limited / restricted 'static' display in the first instance, assuming of course that you are allowed to park on the base, which leads me on to my next point.

Planning an event should begin with 'Car Parking'. As such, during the initial 'planning phase' a decision should be made regarding where to stage the event. If a risk assessment concludes that car parking arrangements are not 'fit for purpose' during poor weather (and a quick look at the Eniroment Agency Flood Map of the area certainly points you in that direction - google it and have a look), an alternative location should be considered (assuming that hard standing areas within the base cannot be used).

On the other hand, if you insist on staging the event in the same location, then a comprehensive 'wet weather contingency plan' should be drawn up well in advance (rather than on the day).

A final point, it's interesting that you haven't responded with any suggestions to my earlier question regarding lessons to be learned from this weekends fiasco ? what are you saying, that there are none, that it was just all bad luck, that nothing can be done to mitigate the risk of this type of thing happening again ? or at the very least reduce the impact ?

Next you'll be telling people to stop moaning. well how about saying that to those people that flew in from Japan !!! and Germany !!! or in fact anyone that travelled a considerable distance at considerable expense !!!

just because people disagee with you,you keep saying they miss your point.that is not the case.

your suggestions would have an impact on a number of things.
1.a resticted static display from the outset each year would reduce the stuff on show. 2.the area is not big enough to cater for the amount of cars attending anyway.3.you solutions would mean drastically reducing the numbers allowed to attend regardless of the weather.meaning people would miss out every year.so forget the idea it is not logical.
dont you think people would have discussed this before?

as for what have they learned.they have learned that the site couldn't cope with over a months worth of rain in a couple of days.the same as anywhere wouldn't have coped.(unless a totally new venue with enough room for parking was found)
this is the forst ever time it has had to be called off.hopefully a one off.but the weather was totally unseasonal and nobody could have done more in my humble opinion.
even if they resticted numbers and took part of the static site.people would still have missed out as they wouldn't all get in.
how and who would they have decided who to let in?

Maybe they should hold this event somewhere sunny. Like Spain. Then plane enthusiasts could have double the fun and fly to the event.

yeti wrote:
just because people disagee with you,you keep saying they miss your point.that is not the case. your suggestions would have an impact on a number of things. 1.a resticted static display from the outset each year would reduce the stuff on show. 2.the area is not big enough to cater for the amount of cars attending anyway.3.you solutions would mean drastically reducing the numbers allowed to attend regardless of the weather.meaning people would miss out every year.so forget the idea it is not logical. dont you think people would have discussed this before? as for what have they learned.they have learned that the site couldn't cope with over a months worth of rain in a couple of days.the same as anywhere wouldn't have coped.(unless a totally new venue with enough room for parking was found) this is the forst ever time it has had to be called off.hopefully a one off.but the weather was totally unseasonal and nobody could have done more in my humble opinion. even if they resticted numbers and took part of the static site.people would still have missed out as they wouldn't all get in. how and who would they have decided who to let in?

i said that you missed the point because you implied that I had suggested that the static display should 'up sticks if it started raining' whereas I actually implied that you could start by planning a smaller static display from the outset.

In relation to your specific points 1) Yes it would reduce the 'stuff' on show. 2) It would be interesting to see how many cars you could park in these dedicated areas. Your opinion would then be 'fact based' rather than simply a guess. 3) My suggestion may reduce the number of people that could attend, but by how many. Again you are guessing that the affect would be drastic. Even if you couLd only get 75% of the normal volume through, at least you would always rest assured in the knowledge that the event would never get cancelled because of waterlogged fields (that you were incapable of planning / preparing for).

In terms of lessons learned, again you respond with nothing. I can only hope that you are not part of the RIAT organisational team. To stand up and say 'there is not one single thing that I would do differently' is in my mind completely unacceptable (and I don't think even the RIAT team would do that).

in every response to somebodys post that differed from yours,you said they missed your point.
this was if they were posting in response to you, or not.

most people will see this as an unfortunate weather incurred cancelation.
and i'd say most would like to keep the airshow what it is rather than reduce it and gamble on the amoutn of cars they can get on a section of the hardstanding.
although i cannot state it as fact it seems pretty obvious to me that your suggestion is totally unworkable due to the space being alot smaller than the total current car parking space arrangements.that is obvious!
also another massive flaw in you idea is that there are different routes into,and different parking areas for cars coming from different directions.your suggestion will have them in one space so even if there was room which blatantly there isn't.all the cars would struggle to get in and out with massive queues.

i'll settle for one cancellation and hope for bettert weather next year.
keeping the displays and parking as they are now.
i can see no other alternative unless the location is changed completly.

yeti wrote:
in every response to somebodys post that differed from yours,you said they missed your point. this was if they were posting in response to you, or not. most people will see this as an unfortunate weather incurred cancelation. and i'd say most would like to keep the airshow what it is rather than reduce it and gamble on the amoutn of cars they can get on a section of the hardstanding. although i cannot state it as fact it seems pretty obvious to me that your suggestion is totally unworkable due to the space being alot smaller than the total current car parking space arrangements.that is obvious! also another massive flaw in you idea is that there are different routes into,and different parking areas for cars coming from different directions.your suggestion will have them in one space so even if there was room which blatantly there isn't.all the cars would struggle to get in and out with massive queues. i'll settle for one cancellation and hope for bettert weather next year. keeping the displays and parking as they are now. i can see no other alternative unless the location is changed completly.

Simply not true.
I have stated that someone had missed the point when they made a ridiculous remark along the lines of "RIAT can't control the weather", when I never suggested that they could.

and once again, you talk from a position of 'fact' when you have no facts. How do you know that most people see this as an unfortunate weather incurred cancellation. If they do it's probably because they are in the "you can't control the weather" camp.

So lets extend this weather debate further. Imagine that I drive to Wimbledon to watch tennis, and I sit on centre court waiting for Andy Murray to appear, all of a sudden the heavens open and they can’t play. In this situation I accept that there is not a great deal that anyone (not even RIAT - lol) can do to influence proceedings. However, lets assume that I drive to Wimbeldon, the weather is perfect for Tennis, but it gets cancelled because I am unable to park my car. In this scenario I believe that I have a right to be hacked off (especially when it's cost me £300), and someone could have told me before I set off.

In terms of the airshow and the size of the 'static' display, you again talk from a position of 'fact' when you have no facts. How do you know that 'most' people would rather keep the airshow what it is rather than reduce the size of the 'static' display in order to introduce a parking area which is 'fit for purpose' regardless of the weather. I for one, would rather see a dedicated all weather parking area at the expense of a smaller 'static' display. I'm sure that if you had asked that question to 160,000 people at the weekend the answer would have been the same.