responsible journalism

[formationfoto]

An East Anglian Newspaper is campaigning for greater restrictions on flying after hiring an aircraft and flying within the exclusion zone at Sizewell power station. In a front page article they claimed that they had smuggled a bag of sugar on board and flew within 750 ft of the reactor. They aregued that they could easilly have blown the building up had they been a terrorist.

Should we be concerned about the potential danger of a cessna 150 (or similar) causing nuclear destruction with a small bag of explosives or that a flying school or hire operation was prepared to contravene the ANO by ignoring a restricted area? at the same time contributing to further anti GA press coverage.

[FlyingForFun]

If there is a restricted zone around the power station (you suggest in your post that there is), what does this "journalist" suggest we do to prevent anyone with access to a light aircraft from ignoring it? Expand the zone so that it's big enough that the RAF can get to anyone who busts it before they get to the power station? :rolleyes:

FFF
-------------

[Who has control?]

It beggars belief that any pilot would risk their licence and/or prosecution to pull off a stunt like this.

Such deliberate flouting of the law only reflects badly on the rest of us.

[Grim Reaper 14]

Why don't they just put fences up?

Easy....;)

Also, how do you 'smuggle' a bag of sugar on board? You could strap it to your head and no one would give you a second look.:rolleyes:

[big.al]

And given that reactors are built to withstand massive temperatures and pressures, not to mention contain radiation, meaning that they are incredibly strong structures, how much damage would an explosive device of that size cause? It might dent the bumpers of a few cars in the car park, but it certainly would not burst the reactor or expose the core.

What a complete and utter waste of journalism time - all they 'succeed' in doing with stunts like this is scare-mongering the unknowing public into thinking that GA is inherantly dangerous.

I'd like to see the CAA prosecute for the airspace bust, as it was clearly a deliberate action and not a nav. error.

[Cahlibahn]

How ridiculous. I do hope the CAA enforcement branch hear of this and prosecute operator and pilot. Further I trust that the CPS will prosecute the newspaper and reporter for conspiracy to commit a breach of the ANO (if there is any such offence). I cannot see a 'public interest' defence working here....

[Evo]

I thought that the Florida student who tried to recreate September 11th with a Cessna did a good job of demonstrating that a light aeroplane was about as useful to a terrorist as a chocolate teapot. If all you can do is break the window of a tower block you aren't going to do much to a reactor, are you? Sugar or no sugar. :rolleyes:

And yes, I hope the CAA get involved too - or are they only interested if you fly 499 feet over old Mrs Miggins on a sunday afternoon?

[G SXTY]

FF

Have you got a link to this article?

[Grim Reaper 14]

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2002/07july/020730nuc.shtml

[formationfoto]

I am waiting for someone to work out a link in relation to this story which is slightly embarrassing for certain parties.

After seeding this I will sit back and wait......... I know there are people on this list who can work it out..... and who would relish the opportunity to embarass said parties.

I am prevented from being any more specific by reasons which might become clear.....

Whodunnit?

[FlyingForFun]

Having read the article, I think there may actually be genuine cause for concern.

FF, from your summary, I understood that a pilot had hired an aircraft and flown it into a restricted zone. However, now I've read the article, it seems that it was actually a non-pilot who hired the aircraft, presumably paying to hire a pilot. The pilot then flew the journalist into the restricted zone, possibly without even being asked to do so. It seems that the pilot may have been unaware of the restricted area, or decided to ignore it in order to obtain photo opportunities (are there any "coastal landmarks" close to the power station which the journalist could have asked to photograph?) It seems like a lack of knowledge of the local area by the pilot. I can certainly recognise all the restricted/danger areas in my local flying area. If I'm general-handling outside of my local flying area, I'll try to keep well clear of any such areas.

Or, an alternative way of looking at it: since it seems the journalist was not a pilot, would he have known what altitude they were flying at? Could it be that they were well above any restricted area? In which case, this isn't just a case of dodgy reporting, it's an outright lie.

FFF
-------------

[Piper Warrior Pilot]

I think someone should write a strongly worded letter to the Evening Star, possibly the CAA, and tell them what a damm disgrace this report was. What a bunch of arse holes they are.

If the reporter is on this forum sometime, someone tell him he's a PRICK.

[Paul Boath]

I had a look at both the article and the latest VFR chart updates on the CAA website. The zone extends to 2000' agl and 2NM from the positions of both Sizewell power stations, elevations 15' and 35' respectively.
Overhead at 2050' QNH is therefore legal as is 2.1NM laterally. These are close in boundaries and to the untrained an aircraft may appear closer than it is.
I cannot believe a professional pilot - must be he was getting paid for the flight - would risk all close to an obviously restricted landmark. More like the journalist did not understand where he was in three dimensions and assumed the worst.

[niknak]

And I assume the journo' also had a tape measure with him to measure the exact distance from the site.:rolleyes:

Quite apart from the restricted zone, I would openly question the common sense of overflying any facility like this at any height below 3000ft, the risk of turbulance from the site must be very high.
Probably a flight the pliot is now wishing he hadn't logged.
:rolleyes:

[Flap40]

Niknak,

What, in a nuclear PS produces (air) turbulence????????

[LowNSlow]

Having worked in Sizewell A I can assure you that a C150 would barely scratch the paint. A 747 would damage the buildings but the reactor core and the waste handling facilities would be intact after the impact.

At least 10 years ago there was a safety review of the Sizewell plant. Any pipework that might cause a leak of radioactive gases to atmosphere if ruptured was buried (at great expense). This was specifically to prevent an aircraft accident causing a radioactive incident.

Flaps is right regarding the turbulence. All the heat is inside and long may it stay so. :D COnventional station swith their cooling towers and hot exhausts can cause turbulence though. Also beware of flying over refineries as they occasionally vent excess process gases through the flares which can produce quite spectacular flames.

As an aside, it is reckoned that when the Israelis bombed the Iraqi reactors it was a diversion to cover the fact that they were blown up from inside. It is virtually impossible for a bomb to hit the spherical reactor core at a sufficiently steep angle to penetrate it. The wall of the core is rather thick plus the whole shebang is surrounded by an extremely thick "biological shield" ie reinforced high density concrete.

[sharpshot]

It's also a sad fact of life that pilots don't always read Notams and AIC's etc. I have plenty of experience of the professionals trying to blow workmen over on airfields, totally oblivious of WIP:p

I was in a rear seat recently going down the severn estuary when it became apparent that the persons upfront - which included an instructor, were not aware of the exclusions around our power stations.

However, it strikes me that an air exclusion zone without the teeth to enforce it is a bit like...........:confused: :confused:

So how do we protect these installations if we value them or believe them to be serious targets?

[skydriller]

Before anyone gets too keen on nailing the pilot, just imagine this....

Reporter rings flying organisation and says we need some arial photos of Sizewell for an anti-nuclear story, can you help? Why yes, of course they can they need the cash, right? Pilot takes up reporter and photographer – who have identifired themselves & used a company credit card etc for payment - complete with camera bag and numerous lenses etc so they look the part too. At this point I take it there is now an exclusion zone around Sizewell (my old 2001 map has it marked but no zone of any discription), but how high and what diameter. Here in France most Nuclear power stations are marked on the map and are marked ‘do not fly below 1000ft, 600m radius’. We all know that to non-pilots heights are deceptive, 1500ft seems low to alot of poeple. Am I the only one here that can imagine the pilot actually kept to all the rules but the reporter exagerated about the height? Or asked if they could go lower for that extra shot? So pilot complied but out over the sea away from the site. Maybe they even pressured the pilot to go lower etc.

I think a little more needs to be told before we judge here, and about the bag of sugar....well
:rolleyes:

[englishal]

Typical newspaper article. They were probably 3000' but to justify the story, this became 750 feet. As mentioned before, how does the Journalist know their distance from the reactor? Or even what altimeter setting the pilot had set?

Now some poor pilot will be facing questioning by the CAA becasue of some journalist decides to possibly falsify this crap story.

I would also quite like to know how a 1Kg bag of sugar (couldn't find the 7Kg bags in Safeway ;)) could equate to 7Kg of semtex? Surely a 1Kg bag of sugar = 1Kg of Semtex? Or are they saying that 7Kg of Semtex has the explosive capacity of 1Kg of sugar? Seems like they don't even know what they're on about...

:mad:

Cheers
EA:)

[Edited to remove some of my rantings and foul language :)! Hey, its 4am, I'm floating around on a boat in the Caspian sea in 50 kts of wind and 7m waves.....]

[IanSeager]

Formationfoto...you wrote...

"I am waiting for someone to work out a link in relation to this story which is slightly embarrassing for certain parties.

After seeding this I will sit back and wait......... I know there are people on this list who can work it out"

I don't know if you had me in mind or not, but as you've 'seeded' it, I'll help you out :-)

The Evening Star is a daily paper published by Archant Regional, Pilot magazine is published by Archant Specialist - there's the link, although to be fair to Pilot, I'm sure that there's no contact between their regional newspapers and specialist magazines. Perhaps there should be?

Ian

[Aerohack]

Well spotted, Ian! And as some of us know, 'formation photo' is an Archant executive. In the immortal words of 'Flight International's Uncle Roger, WTHIHH? (What The Hell Is Happening Here? for those who weren't devotees of FI's 'Straight-and-Level' column in its heyday.)

[P.Pilcher]

Many years ago, the T.V. spy series entitled "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." devoted an episode to the idea of using a model aircraft for delivering explosives and other noxious substances to sensitive places. So who needs an airport? Who needs a man carrying aircraft? Electronics are incredibly more sophisticated now than they were when The Man from U.N.C.L.E was made so all you need is model making skills, and a suitable explosives carrier can be made in your garage or basement. No problem to a determined terrorist! Also, will you get a primary radar return from a model?

Food for thought!

[BRL]

Now this is getting veeeeeeeeery interesting..........

[jumpseater]

Having done some air to ground pictures this thread caught my eye. Reading the article it is indeed interesting to wonder how they came so close as 750ft to sizewell and how they measured it, having dealt with low flying complaints in a previous life I am only to aware how inaccurate guesimates of heights and speeds are. At 750ft one would have thought that a fixed wing a/c might have been seen and reported by someone at Sizewell, particularly in view of 'todays' concerns.
And another thought, from 2,000ft a 35mm camera and a 200m lens you can almost fill the frame with a decent size building, thats before you 'selectively' crop the image in the darkroom, or more probably PC. Journo's eh? tsk tsk!:cool:

PS I've just realised i've done some freelance work for Archant too! It must be a conspirrysea!
(edited to admit having 'previous' with Archant) :eek:

[formationfoto]

Ian S
No-one in paricular in mind to work out the link but well done.

I thought the general principle with internal whistle blowing is that the whistle blower is afforded a degree of anonymity. Aerohack - in drawing attention to my identity you reduce the chance that I will continue to draw attention to things which I believe to be wrong whilst hiding behind your own anonymity. Shame.

My comments on this site remain my private comments and not those of my employer - my original post on this is a clear demonstration that this is the case.

I have no 'internal' knowledge of the details of this story but remain concerned about stories in the media which damage the reputation of the activity which I am so immersed in and to which I dedicate so much of my time.

No agenda other than that implied in the previous paragraph.

Is this an embarrasment for PILOT magazine?. Some might suggest that it can't help its reputation. I am in a difficult position to do anything other than draw attention to the facts I have spotted from public sources. Ian Seager, as publisher of one of the competing titles also points to the facts and allows others to take a view. Responsible Publisher!

IF the reported facts in the newspaper story are true I would still like to know the identity of the pilot and the organisation from whom the aircraft was hired. Thedre are two issues here. Firstly irresponsible scare mongering journalism (my personal view). Secondly (if the 750 ft is true) an organisation or individual in our industry has carried out an illegal act and in so doing has contributed to damaging the reputation of our activity. This is the long term might also have a damaging impact on their own business.

[EKKL]

I thought the general principle with internal whistle blowing is that the whistle blower is afforded a degree of anonymity. Aerohack - in drawing attention to my identity you reduce the chance that I will continue to draw attention to things which I believe to be wrong whilst hiding behind your own anonymity. Shame.
Interesting. Your name, phone number, what and where you fly from are splashed all over this thread Info- click here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50127&highlight=formationfoto) You also state in your profile this Media executive so i think the anominity thing you are on about goes right out of the window there don't you. One could cynicly suggest that you are doing it for free advertising for your company whether it be a local newspaper or well read magazine, and whats to say you are not behind this story as the journo is pretty clued into what he shoudl know. Insider information perhaps. You also say in this thread Click here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50127&highlight=formationfoto) the following AA We have been doing this on and off for about a couple of years but have ramped up the exercise recently on request from 'a leading aviation magazine' just happens to be one of yours too eh. - a few things:
Firstly we are trying to offer something of value to members of this list at a cost to ourselves (albeit a value to the Pilot website - but we don't charge them for the pictures). Jeez, you have some front. You being the executive of the company behind the mag and all. Is there anything else you want a free plug for while we are here.......... :rolleyes:

[Aerohack]

formationfoto: If you're so keen on whistle-blowing, it's a pity you didn't take more interest in some of the things that when on within your own orgainsation after it got its hands on 'Pilot'. Haven't you ever wondered why you lost so many long-serving staff and key contributors a few months ago? Never mind about responsible journalism, what about responsible management? And since I've 'outed' you, I'm happy for you and all to know that I am one of those who 'voted with his feet' -- Pilot's' former deputy editor.

[formationfoto]

Mike
I'm sorry about my sensitivity but my post is critical of the hand that feeds and whilst I chose not to hide behing a veil of anonymity nor did I want to draw any more attention to my relationship with the parties in this tale of embarrassment by association. As for the other issues you mention you know that this is not the place...

EKKL
I may be mad, a fool, and a total axxehole but pretty odd behaviour to create publicity in such a negative way. I wish you luck in trying to prove that I am in some way involved in this apparent contravension of the ANO and attempt to bring disrepute to the general aviation sector - you will be wasting your time. As for previous mentions of my association with the parent of PILOT I am damned if I mention it and damned if I don't so I guess I just have to learn to live with it. If this had been one of the other magazines and I had mentioned it in the same way I would no doubt be accused of being critical of the other mag!. What I am strugging with is accepting the criticism of free plugs etc. in relation to the provision of free air to air photography. I am one of a team who, as previously mentioned, provide a free service. None of the people who have taken up this service have felt taken advantage of nor that we were in some way exploiting them.

Obviously I am unhappy about the posts which suggest some sort of hidden agenda here partly because I think they are unfair (but my reputation appears to be beyond saving) but also because this obscures the real point which is that (irrespective of the publisher) we should be aware of media coverage which misrepresents our activity or seeks to generate additional restriction. Putting journalists right when they are wrong is something we should all do. Helping journalists create a scaremongering story is something none of us should do (particularly if it involves breaking the law to create the story). Of course it is easier to fight 'internal' battles rather than deal with the real enemy.

So let me admit to devouring small children, ripping the heads of fluffy bunnies, damaging the steering on the car in which Diana died, and being the primary mover in devil worshipping circles. Now that is out in the open we can start to concentrate on real issues which might impact the freedom we all enjoy in the private pilot community.

[stiknruda]

"So let me admit to devouring small children, ripping the heads of fluffy bunnies, damaging the steering on the car in which Diana died, and being the primary mover in devil worshipping circles."

FF - not too concerned about the kids, rabbits or demon-****, but I feel that I have to tell you that you've not been invited back for supper since I found out about you tampering with the steering of that car in Paris!

Seriously though - when I first saw this post, I wondered whether any good would come of it or whether Archant and its attendant employees would receive a flaming, I guess I wasn't too far from the mark.

Yours,

Stik

[formationfoto]

I had noticed the lack of a follow up invite - thought it was because I didn't bring suitable attendant! - but obviously concerned about villification by association.
Actually nearly 700 views and 30 posts with only 3 choosing to flame, the pain is worth it if the topic has been given a broader stage.
I wish I was sensible and intelligent like the majority of posters but we cant all be perfect.

[stiknruda]

Perhaps it is time that all the journos campaign for their own forum where back-biting and second-guessing will be positively encouraged!

FF, you will be invited back - have no fear! Just need to ensure that we have enough peanut smugglers on duty that day!

Stik

[Evo]

Perhaps it is time that all the journos campaign for their own forum where back-biting and second-guessing will be positively encouraged!


What, like the Pilot magazine forums... ;)

[RotorHorn]

I seem to recall seeing crash footage of a phantom jet being flown at full thrust along a set of rails into the side of a nuclear reactor concrete containment wall. The plane just disintegrated into dust! :eek: :eek: The only things to survive the impact where the edges of the wings that stuck out past the width of the concrete wall. It was amazing to watch. (Keep your eye out on the Bravo channel and such like on Sky as I think it was on there I saw it). Anyway, dont think a Cessna and 7kg of semtex would be much to worry about!!!

As for flying over powerstations, I regularly fly an R22 over Heysham near Morecambe at 2000 feet on my way to the Lake District. But since I haven't got a mode C transponder whose to know what height I'm really at?

Even still, I wouldn't expect to see a pair of Harriers turning up just to check everytime I went that way.

The ATCO's do a good job of reminding pilots of the no-go areas. e.g. this week, there is a new temporary no-go zone centred on the middle of Blackpool prom whilst the Labour party Conference is in town....

:rolleyes:

[Dave Gittins]

Hmmmm....... what's the point ??? who'd waste a perfectly good aeroplane on that lot ???

[formationfoto]

Personally I think a forum for the public washing of dirty linen, personal attacks, conspiracy theory, and constant sniping would be a hit!.

[LowNSlow]

ff it's called JetBlast :D :D :D

[James Gilbert]

Would 'formationfoto' care to tell us whuch East Anglian newspaper published the story, and whether he is a director of the parent comany?

I'm sorry, but as a lifetime journalist I like the full story.

James Gilbert
ex-PILOT magazi

[Coke611]

What an IDIOT of a reporter!

Why do they do this? Just as aviation as a whole is getting back together after sept. 11, these idiots go and pull a stunt like this.

Absolutely damn stupid. Totally agree that the CAA should prosecute whomever flew into the restricted area, (if in fact, they did) and that the CAA should, as as already been said, write a strongly worded letter to the Evening Star.

Did the pilot of the aircraft know that he was taking part in this article or was he told something like it was a photoshoot or something? If he did know what he was doing, then the license should be taken away for good.

(rant over now!)

[str12]

I have to agree with LowNSlow, JetBlast is full of drivel at the moment and needs spicing up. How about some contentious issues, ravings and general vitriol.

Who cares what your favourite songs are...