responsible journalism
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
responsible journalism
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.
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.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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? 
FFF
-------------
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Weald, UK
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Such deliberate flouting of the law only reflects badly on the rest of us.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: N.E. Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chichester, UK
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
-------------
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
-------------
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
If the reporter is on this forum sometime, someone tell him he's a PRICK.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aboyne
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I assume the journo' also had a tape measure with him to measure the exact distance from the site.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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...........
So how do we protect these installations if we value them or believe them to be serious targets?
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...........
So how do we protect these installations if we value them or believe them to be serious targets?
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.....]
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... 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.....]
Last edited by englishal; 19th Sep 2002 at 23:35.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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