Belgrano
 

Here's a daft question but one which puzzles me when I'm bored: Why is the CAA office referred to as "The Belgrano"?

Large, grey, a nuisance, needs sinking.

As in another object of that description circa 1982.

G

Cheers Genghis sounds like a good description :ok:

Had to look up what G was on about. (Didn't live in the UK in those days).

Found this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2480241.stm

More to the point the Admiral Belgrano was observed off the Fawklands going around in circles!

A certain building has been described as:

a. looking like a battleship
b. going around in circles
c. in need of sinking

not unlike the Admiral Belgrano

"The Death Star" would have been more apt :E

Sorry to be boring, but the Belgrano was erected about the time that the Belgrano was sunk (I remember both well) and when it was clear to everyone it looked like a battleship, the Belgrano was just the battleship most in the news.

The name stuck.

It's most unfair, because the people who regulate our aviation do a much better job than would a bunch of Argentinian sailors.

I'm sure they do. :p

£120 (or so) to get a little book that could have been made by a 5yr old with a printer.

Yeah they definetely are worth every penny.

By the way the CAA have a very nice, big office on Kingsway (Holborn, central London), seems very odd to me why they need so much of such expensive office space.

Incidentally, if I remember correctly the Royal Navy deliberately sunk the Belgrano just when there was another big Argentinian warship alongside who would be in a position to pick up as many survivors as possible. A very British approach.

The other warship promptly cleared off as quickly as possible leaving their colleague to the South Atlantic. Not, I hope, what the Royal Navy would have done.

G

What are you talking about? The Belgrano was being escorted by two destroyers. The Conqueror did not time the attack for when there was another ship close by. The escorts were always close by the Belgrano -- that was their job, after all. And they did not stop to recover survivors, but ran off instead. See http://www.margaretthatcher.org/spee...p?docid=109118
Actually, that was standard procedure during WWII for both the US and UK navies. Stopping to pick up survivors just gives the sub an easy target.

I stand corrected, my source of reference was tenuous (i.e. a bad memory).

G

It was the General Belgrano not the Admiral, and it was near the Falklands

Depends upon how you define "near". It was just outside the 200 mile "exclusion zone" declared by the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2480241.stm

Note, I am in no way criticizing the sinking of the Belgrano. Argentina committed an act of war against the UK and the sinking was a legitimate attack against a legitimate military target. I'm just a bit disappointed the Conqueror didn't get the Belgrano's escorts as well.

In response to Double Echo's comment regarding the "Death Star" being a more apt name for the building in question, I regret to inform you that the real "Death Star" is already in service (see the link below).

http://easa.eu.int/home/index.html

Regards

Stan

Deaf Stan - thanks for the link, very interesting blurb about spending taxpayers money. Tried a search on "general aviation". Any one care to guess how many hits I got?................................................ yep; zero.

Ther is one difference - the UK military managed to sink the original Belgrano...............