Iranian indigenous aircraft and micro-drones: Mach 2.5 stealth plane and scale models (with no military significance) February 11, 2012
Posted by Richard Clements in Drones, Iran.Tags: Aviation, Iran, Iranian Air Force, Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel, military avaitiom, Shafagh-2, UAV, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
7 comments
It is no secret that the sanctions held against Iran are crippling the influx of military equipment forcing Iran to make its own aircraft to replace ageing U.S. types as the F-4 and the F-14 recently seen escorting the Russian Knights display team.
In 2002, the idea of a light weight stealth fighter came to light when a model surfaced during an air industry exhibition. It showed a single seat, single engine fighter with outward canted twin vertical stabilisers. It took Iranian news footage in 2004 for the first full size and seemingly working example to reach the public domain.
Although there are rumours Russian experts from both Sukoi and Mikoyan and possibly Yakolev were also involved in its development, which would explain its striking resemblance to the forward fuselage of the Yak-130, it had been developed by the Students and scientists of the Aviation department of the Malek Ashtar University and reported to have made its maiden flight some time in 2004 using an Iranian version of the Klimov RD-33 engine.
The news footage showed a twin seat example with a semi-matt black fuselage suggesting that it could have been made from Radar Absorbing Materials, and from certain angles, the aircraft looks like a two seat F-35. Even if it has never been ratified, the use of radar absorbing materials are said to significantly reduce the Radar Cross Section.
The light fighter bomber has been named “Shafagh-2″ or “Aurora” and is said to have a special twisting ability that gives it better manoeuvrability and roll rate. This may be one of those times where things get lost in translation and the twisting might refer to thrust vectoring (!) rather than roll rate.
The Shafagh is designed as a single seat or twin seat multi role fighter; it has seven hard points, three under each wing and one centreline station and can carry a mixed Air-to-Air load or Air-to-Ground weapons. The use of pylons under the wings would surely hinder any stealth capability the aircraft has, although the level of stealthiness in comparison to that of the F-22 Raptor or B-2 Spirit should be somewhat less.
The aircraft is certainly real and has flown; it’s unknown in what capacity it has flown but certainly has never entered service. Its last known activity was in 2008 and it should have remained an unfinished project.
Even if some performance data seem to be quite strange or at least hopeful, its reported figures are of a climb rate of 21650 fpm, a service ceiling of 55,000ft and a top speed of Mach 2.5.
Image credit: iranmilitaryforum.com
Micro-drones
Since the U.S. stealthy RQ-170 drone was captured, Tehran has been using the media to display its capability to reverse engineer or build its own drones.
However, some of them seems to be modified radiocontrolled models rather than real UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems). Anyway, those made by the students at the Nasr Toosi Technical University, are believed to give a hint at where Iranians are in their Micro-UAV development.
For instance, one of the University’s micro-drones is a model helicopter modified to carry a small video camera. As the images show, the tail boom and the landing skids have the word “ALIGN” written on them in English. A quick visit to Google brings up the manufacturer as ALIGN-TREX, a British Radio controlled helicopter specialist with an online shop, while the camera set up suspiciously looks like a ‘SONY’ handycam again commercially available.
The intended use of this device is quite hard to understand. The camera must have an internal memory as the model does not look to have a transmitter to send the real time images back to a receiver/base station (that would also need a power supply which is not visible). This discounts a urban battlespace ‘eye in the sky’ for a normal drone used to record images to view at a later date.
The second model has a twin tail boom, a size that would suggest a greater payload capacity and perhaps a real time video transmission capability.
The third model (UAV) looks more like a classical drone. Grey in colour, a rounded nose and what looks like a moveable nose area with a small camera able to move up and down in the slot giving a 180 degree field of view, the drone seems to be powered by an electric motor powering a push propeller.
Image credit: www.yjcphotos.ir
As said, just technology demonstrators that don’t really show anything of military significance.
Written with The Aviationist’s Editor David Cenciotti.
Related articles
- Another day, another Iranian drone. Tehran reveals the new “A1″ UAV. (theaviationist.com)
- China: does it need to copy the RQ-170 “Beast of Kandahar” captured in Iran? (theaviationist.com)
- The Era of Robotic Warfare Has Arrived – 30% of All US Military Aircraft are Drones (singularityhub.com)
- CIA Fears Drone Failed to Dump Data (myfoxny.com)
Iranian space program update: rats, turtles and worms already launched. Manned spacecraft expected in 2019. February 6, 2012
Posted by Richard Clements in Space.Tags: Aviation, Aviation News, Iran, satellite, Tehran, weather satellite
2 comments
Sea, Air and Space: Iran is quite active these days.
Local media have been reporting that Tehran has launched a new satellite on Feb. 5, to celebrate the 33rd anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in the country.
According to PressTV the new satellite called Navid-e Elm-o Sanat was launched using a Safir satellite carrier. Its purpose is weather observation and data collection through high resolution photos. PressTV also reported that Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi had said on Jan. 16 that Iran planned to launch a new Satellite during the 10-day Dawn celebrations and kick off some other military projects. News of those “other” projects has not been reported as yet.
The FARS news agency gave a few more details about the satellite: it weighs 50kg, suggesting it’s not that large, and was launched with a 55 degree orbital angle. This is not Iran’s first satellite launch (first one took place in 2009) but does suggest an ambitious space program that is making advances despite UN sanctions. In 2010 Iran has launched animals into space: a rat, some turtles and some worms aboard a capsule carried aloft by the Kavoshgar-3 rocket, another indigenous design. Iran has plans to put a manned flight into space in the 2019 time frame; time will tell if this indeed takes place.
Surely, Iran is very eager to join the manned space race; whether it achieves that, is another story. For the moment, its activity is limited to satellites whose purposes could be much more than weather observation. Articles seem to suggest that the high-resolution photos will not be confined to the Persian Gulf area and Iran specifically but will include other areas of the globe. Which does pose the question: which bits of the globe does the weather interest Iran? The U.S. or Israel?
You never know but it would be very interesting to find out.
Richard Clements for TheAviationist.com
Image credit: PressTV
Global Hawk: Northrop Grumman launches campaign to save program. On Twitter. January 29, 2012
Posted by Richard Clements in Drones, Military Aviation.Tags: Aviation, Global Hawk, Military avaition news, Northrop Grumman, Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk, Pentagon, Rq-4
add a comment
The Aviationist wrote a post the other day relating to the fact that industry insiders had leaked that the Pentagon was planning on cancelling the whole Global Hawk program not only not buying any further aircraft but to retire the fleet they already have.
This would actually appear to be true going by some of the unusual tweets posted by Northrop Grumman itself. In one, the company announced that they had been loaning parts for the U-2 program surveillance sensors to keep those aircraft in the air. They have also tweeted a link to a website urging visitors to lobby their member of congress, even having a box for the visitor to fill in their zip code so they could work out who that person is. If you would like to take a look at this website please look here.
All very unusual actvities, suggesting that this isn’t the last we have heard of this.
Northrop Grumman did release the following media statement on the Jan.26:
“The Pentagon announced today that it is planning to cancel the Global Hawk Block 30 program and plans to perform this mission with the U-2 aircraft. Northrop Grumman is disappointed with the Pentagon’s decision, and plans to work with the Pentagon to assess alternatives to program termination.
“The Global Hawk program has demonstrated its utility in U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as well as its utility in humanitarian operations in Japan and Haiti. Just a few months ago, the Pentagon published an acquisition decision memorandum regarding Global Hawk Block 30 that stated: ‘The continuation of the program is essential to the national security… there are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost.’
“Global Hawk is the modern solution to providing surveillance. It provides long duration persistent surveillance, and collects information using multiple sensors on the platform. In contrast, the aging U-2 program, first introduced in the 1950s, places pilots in danger, has limited flight duration, and provides limited sensor capacity. Extending the U-2′s service life also represents additional investment requirements for that program.
“Northrop Grumman is committed to working with our customers to provide the best solutions for our country and our allies. We are pleased with the continuing support for the Global Hawk Block 40 system, as well as for the Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system and our other unmanned systems.”
It’s looking like North Grumman is going to fight this tooth and nail to try and reverse this decision.
Richard Clements for TheAviationist.com
RQ-4 Global Hawk in shock cancellation news: old planes better than new? January 27, 2012
Posted by Richard Clements in Military Aviation, Drones.Tags: Aviation, Airbus, Military Aviation, Airbus 380, US Air Force, Pentagon, United States Air Force, U-2, Dragon Lady, drone, Global Hawk, Northrop Grumman, Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk
1 comment so far
Is new better than old?
It would seem not. Industry insiders have leaked that the Pentagon is to cancel the RQ-4 Global Hawk program not just stopping buying new aircraft but to retire the Air Force active fleet, in favor of keeping the U-2 flying into 2020.
Air force times writer Dave Majumdar wrote: “The Air Force had been planning to buy 42 Block 30 aircraft. According to 2011 budget documents, the cost of each aircraft was around $215 million. It was not immediately clear how many Global Hawks the Air Force has.”
The aircraft is being killed off due to its high cost to buy and to maintain; also the program hasn’t lived up to its early promise. A knowledgeable industry insider confirmed the project cancellation and said “Yes, this is accurate — been a lot of discussion on the possibility of this a long while,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak to the media. “There is a high probability it will come to pass now unless Congress takes a major exception.”
The industry source also said “I don’t think that’s likely in the economic environment of this year’s DoD budget, and there are no real ‘hawks’ in Congress from California,” he said. The aircraft is both built and based in the Golden State.
Majumdar said that Northrop Grumman declined to comment whilst Air Force officials would neither deny nor confirm the reports.
Oddly the US Navy is going to keep its version of the aircraft therefore keeping the option open that it could, if needed, be used by the air force.
Surely, Global Hawk has not enjoyed the best of safety records with three prototypes lost and a failure rate much higher than many manned planes facing lethal threats in combat.
However, the U.S. RQ-4Bs belonging to the 9th Operations Group/Detachment 4th of the U.S. Air Force, based at NAS Sigonella, in Sicily, the base of the NATO AGS (Air Ground Surveillance) Global Hawk program were the first drones to operate in the Libyan airspace where they performed high altitude Battle Damage Assessment sorties.
Anyway, all of this is good news for the U-2, a 50 year old program that has ironed out all its techncal issues many years ago.
Affectionately known as “Dragon Lady”, the U-2 entered service in 1957. Since then, it has undergone many upgrades and has become a relatively cheap viable platform during these harsh economic times. In what would normally be the types twilight years, a breath of fresh air has been breathed over the majestic old ‘Lady’ which will see the type in service for more years to come.
Actually, it has been a bad week for other new or recent aircraft types too.
Another rather embarrasing news (this time for Airbus) is that further cracks have been found in the wings of its much lauded A380 “Superjumbo”, after the famous uncontained engine failure of Nov. 4, 2010. Airbus did tweet “For those following reports on A380 wing rib findings we confirm inspection & repair process underway and aircraft are safe to fly”: a damage limitation message by the company’s PR rather than a reassuring statement.
The apparent win of obsolete technology on newer, supposed to replace it, does pose the usual question: are modern aircraft too complex?
One thing is sure: you can’t compare new planes with older types. Even if there can be programs free from major problems during their whole lifetime and much troubled ones, facing myriad issues since their birth, generally speaking, those that have survived for 3, 4 or 5 decades and are still flying today, were probably properly designed, maintained, fixed and upgraded during their career. So they are today much more reliable than those integrating cutting edge experimental technologies.
Written with The Aviationist’s Editor David Cenciotti
Above image: U.S. Air Force
China’s J-18 Snowy Owl: Myth or Reality? January 26, 2012
Posted by Richard Clements in China, Military Aviation.Tags: aircraft carrier, Aviation, China, F-35, J-15, J-18, J-20, Snowy Owl, Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, stealth, STOVL
5 comments
Over the past year or so, rumours on the Internet have persisted that China has been building a stealthy STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) aircraft in a similar vein to the F-35 Lightning II. Pictures of said aircraft are non existant but the rumour mill still persists that it’s either real or will be at some point in the future.
It doesn’t take long looking on the chinese defense forums and websites to see the odd snippet of information, although there is a lot of miss information out there also, of which some could be started by the Chinese government to hide what they are really up to.
The common theme does seem to favour an engine set up similar to the F-35B which in itself wasn’t a new design. Take a look at the Russian Yak 141 and you will see the lift fan at the front and the swivelling jet nozzel at the rear. There is even talk that the engine will be a modified version of what is planned to go into the well documented J-20 when it reaches production. Is this definite? of course not, it doesn’t even appear to be off the drawing board yet and probably will remain so for quite a while (if not indefinately).
Above image of a Russian Yak-141: Chinese Internet
So what will the fabled J-18 Snowy Owl look like if it were to take to the skies?
Well, many analysts favour the canted twin vertical stabilisers high wing design in a similar vein to the F-35 with some sort of lift fan at the front just behind the cockpit. It’s interesting to note that the Yak141 had two lift fans one behind the other and it’s suspected that the J-18 would be the same. The big question is: would it sport one or two engines at the rear? The rendering below seems to favour two engines both with the swivelling nozzels and a smooth low RCS (Radar Cross Section) fuselage internal weapons bays and other stealthy features.
Above render source: Tiexue.net
Assuming for a moment the aircraft is real and it’s near to flight testing how would China use it?
It has been widely reported that China’s first Aircraft Carrier has been under going sea trials. Again it has been widely reported that China has a navalised version of the J-15, itself a copy of the Sukhoi SU-30, which is real and is flying so it is hard to see the need unless there is some sort of unknown plan to build smaller carriers in the vein of the USS Wasp to provide maritime support of amphibious forces.
The STOVL project is going to be a huge technological exercise and that is going to take time. The J-18 is likely to remain rumours and internet chatter for a long time to come, and in true Mythbusters style, this Myth is busted at least for now.
Richard Clements for TheAviationist.com
London Olympics security: Major Exercise takes place in the skies of the UK January 23, 2012
Posted by Richard Clements in Military Aviation.Tags: Aviation, E-3D, London, Ministry of Defence, Olympic Games, RAF, RAF Northolt, Royal Air Force, Typhoon
add a comment
On Jan. 18 reports started filtering in from local newspapers in Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, UK, of aircraft flying in circles over their locations and urged visitors to their website to comment on what this could be. The southern half of the UK was, on that day enjoying cold cloudless blue skies and the spectacle could be clearly seen. Twitter became alive with reports of other circles in the sky (contrails) viewed from central London and as far north and west as Birmingham, soon after photo’s started appearing on the local newspaper websites.
It was at this point it all became clear what was indeed going on.
The one taking place was a dry run for the Olympic games and the circles in the sky were indeed the contrails of a RAF E-3D AWACS flying racetrack patterns along with a Sentinel R1 aircraft (one of those saved from cuts after performing extremely well during the recent Air War in Libya) and, according to rumours, even a USAF E-8 Joint Stars.
The AWACS were positioned to give total coverage of the southern part of the UK: along with other surveillance assets, nothing would have escaped their gaze.
A practice scramble of a pair of Typhoons out of RAF Northolt on the evening of Saturday Jan. 21 at around 8.30pm LT, was used to give pilots the opportunity to give a first look to the surroundings they will find themselves in for the duration of the Olympic games. The pair of Typhoons had originated from their home base at RAF Coningsby where they returned once their taskings were complete.
It certainly looks like the London Olympics organisers are taking no risks with security. The London sites are already on lock down with the casual observers being questioned if they look out of place, on top of the widely reported facts that the London sites will have SAM sites dotted around the area and some 13,000 UK military personnel involved.
There were also media reports of the Royal Marines and UK Police taking part in an exercise in the river Thames (London) last week. Although still unconfirmed, Army Lynx helicopters operating out of RAF Northolt, were reported to have attended the drills.
Thanks to the London Evening Standard it also emerged that the British Ministry of Defense were to lease several helicopters from the US Department of Defense for use in confined spaces. The paper coined the term “Killer Eggs” due to their egg-like appeareance but these ‘little birds’ are based on the Hughes 500 defender and are used extensively by US special forces. This obviously has not been confirmed as of writing.
Richard Clements for TheAviationist.com
Related articles
- Typhoon fighter planes to be deployed during London 2012 Olympics (mirror.co.uk)
- London Olympics security to be boosted by 13,500 troops (guardian.co.uk)
Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi March 19, 2011
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Libyan Uprising, Military Aviation.Tags: AEW, Airborne Early Warning, Aviation, AWACS, Benghazi, FLAF, Free Libya Air Force, LARAF, Libya, Libyan Government, Libyan uprising, Military Aviation, NFZ, No Fly Zone
15 comments
A Mig-23 initially thought of as belonging to the Gaddafi’s Libyan Arab Republic Air Force (LARAF) but later officially confirmed as flown by the Free Libyan Air Force (FLAF) was shot down over the outskirts of Benghazi, eastern Libya, in the morning of Mar. 19, 2011. Explosions shook the Libyan city of Benghazi early on Saturday while what could have been the downed Mig was heard flying overhead, and residents said the eastern rebel stronghold was under attack from Gaddafi’s forces in a clear violation of the ceasefire announced on Mar.18 . A No-Fly Zone will be established in the next few hours over Libya to prevent LARAF from attacking rebels (Pictures by AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus and AFP)

In case of loss of cabin pressure (time to change in-flight safety briefings?) January 26, 2011
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: Aviation, Aviation Safety, depressurization, in-flight safety, in-flight safety briefing, in-flight safety video, loss of cabin pressure, Meridiana, pressurization, Qantas, Qantas emergency, Ryanair
add a comment
Yesterday, flying from Paris Charles De Gaulle to Rome Fiumicino with an Alitalia A321, watching the ceiling, I suddenly thought about a brief discussion I had with Monica, a friend of mine, who’s a bit scared about flying and was even more worried about her next flight after reading about the frightening experience of a Meridiana flight that, late in 2010, plunged some thousands feets, after experiencing a pressurization failure.
She had just read an article in which interviewed passengers recalled the moments when the masks had been released and the subsequent unexpected dive of the plane. What I explained to her is that the plunge is the most obvious manoeuvre the pilot will perform if a loss of cabin pressure occurs. An emergency descent is an entirely controlled manoeuvre that is performed to bring the aircraft to a safe altitude as soon as possible: the masks have a limited endurance hence, the sooner the plane reaches a lower altitude, the better. 10.000 feet is an altitude that can be tolerated without supplemental oxygen.
Almost all the in-flight safety briefing say more or less that:
“In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will automatically descend from the ceiling. Grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have childs travelling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs”.
Since pressurization problems seem to be less rare than in the past (yesterday a Qantas flight flying from Adelaide to Melbourne dropped 26.000 ft after cabin became depressurized; a few weeks ago a similar thing happened to a Ryanair flight; etc), I think that is time to change the briefing and to add something clarifying that “In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure…..the aircraft will probably perform a sudden controlled emergency descent to a safe altitude” or something like that. This message would probably spread the idea that there’s no need to worry if the plane plunge after the masks have come down!
The mysterious end of Air France flight 447 (AF447) June 3, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: A330, ADIRU, AF447, Air Data Inertial Reference Unit, Air France, Air France crash, Airbus, aircraft, airspeed, altitute, Aviation, Aviation Safety, CAT, civil aviation, Clear Air Turbulence, ELT, Emergency Locator Transmitter, FDR, Flight Data Recorder, in flight emergency, jetstream, plane, Qantas, QF72, turbulence
24 comments
As everybody knows, on Jun 1, 2009, an Airbus 330 of the Air France, flying as AF447 from Rio de Janeiro (SBGL) to Paris (LFPG) was reported missing while overflying the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. Although the pilot did not radio any kind of alert message, since the news was reported by the mass media, the first speculations suggested that the plane may have flown into a thunderstorm and break up as a consequence of the severe turbulence it may have encountered or because it was hit by a lightning. Even if in-flight break up is not unprecedented, as I’ve explained many times in this blog (make a quick search using the word “turbulence” in the search box located on the upper right hand coloumn of the site), if not impossible, a catastrophic impact of turbulence on a civilian plane is at least extremely rare. Explosions caused by a lightning strike (search for “lightning”) are rare as well. So which was the root cause of the loss of the Air France 447 that cost the lives of 228 people on board? It is extremely hard to say for many reasons. Unlike the previous crashes I’ve analysed on this site, the AF447 is much more mysterious. There are just a few details available, there are no witnesses, there are no radar logs, there are no communications by the pilots reporting an emergency or a failure. And, most important, it will be very hard to find the FDR (Flight Data Recorder), as the few aircraft’s remains surfaced on the Atlantic Ocean, 650 chilometers from the Brasil’s coastline, in an area where the sea is some 9.000 feet deep.
For sure, what can be said is that the pilots, most probably, did not have time to radio a “Mayday”. This can be caused by a quick event (an explosion, an airframe collapse, a sudden illness) or by a concurrent radio failure. In my opinion, the radio failure is unlikely, as the A330 has plenty of communication equipments (VHF and HF radios, INMARSAT, ACARS, etc.) and also because this would imply that there were two failures more or less at the same time: a catastrophic failure and a radio or electric failure (of both the 3 generators and the Ram Air Turbine?). A sudden loss of pressurization could have been a cause, if the pilots did not react quickly and did not wear the masks before loss of consciousness occurred. But, if this is what happened on AF447 the aircraft would have not exploded, but fly under autopilot until it had fuel in its tanks.
What could have caused a catastrophic collapse (bomb explosion aside) could have been something similar to what other two Airbus 330 of Qantas experienced in the last months. As I wrote on this site on Oct. 7, 2008:
“On Oct. 7, an A330-330 “VH-QPA”, flying from Singapore to Perth as Qantas 72 with 303 passengers and 10 crew members on board, made an emergency landing in Learmonth Western Australia after it suffered a sudden change in altitude that caused 33 (still unconfirmed figure) injuries”. Then, on Oct. 20, 2008, I explained: “Even if it is too early to have a full explaination of the causes of the Qantas flight QF72 plunge that caused many injuries (see also: “Qantas flight forced to land: is turbulence dangerous?”) the preliminary review of the data recorded by the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) made by the ATSB indicated that the event developed in three steps:
the aircraft was levelled at FL370 when initiated an uncommanded climb of about 200 ft, before returning back (autonomously to 37.000 feet). About 1 minute later, the aircraft pitched nose-down, to a maximum pitch angle of about 8.4 degrees, and plunged about 650 feet in about 20 seconds, before returning again to FL370. Finally, about 70 seconds after returning to the cruising level, it pitched again nose-down, to a maximum angle of about 3.5 degrees, and descended about 400 feet in about 16 seconds, before returning once again to FL370. Such a “behaviour” seems to rule out the hypothesis of a CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) and the ATSB is in fact focusing on the faulty data in Air Data Intertial Reference Unit (ADIRU) 1 that “deceived” the aircraft’s flight control system. The ADIRU is an aircraft’s vital system. It feeds other on board key systems (autopilot, engine control system, flight control system, etc) with information about speed, altitude, position and attitude of the plane. On board the Qantas 72 flight, the ADIRU generated false warnings (stall, over-speed, etc) that the flight control’s computer faced with incorrect aircraft movements. The reason for the faulty data is still unclear. Someone pointed to the possible corruption caused by an electronic interference from an onboard portable device (laptop, PDA, tablet pc, etc.). Following the event, the ATSB initial report, Airbus issued recommendations to A330 and A340 operators that are equipped with the same ADIRU, including guidance and checklists for crew response in case of a similar inertial reference system failure“.
Another similar event, involving the Airbus 330 ADIRU, occurred a few weeks later when, on Dec. 27, 2008 a Qantas Airbus A330-300 cruising at FL360 (36,000 ft) enroute from Perth to Singapore, at about 1729 Local Time, experienced an autopilot disconnection followed by an ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) message (NAV IR 1 Fault) indicating a problem with ADIRU Number 1. The crew actioned the Airbus Operations Engineering Bulletin (OEB) procedure by selecting the IR 1 push-button to OFF and the ADR 1 push-button to OFF. Both OFF lights illuminated. The crew elected to return to Perth and an uneventful overweight landing was conducted. At the time that the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft was approximately 260 nautical miles (NM) North-West of Perth airport and approximately 350 NM South of Learmonth airport.
Even if someone speculated the area around Perth was a sort of “Perth Triangle” interested by strong radio signals (by some sort of secret naval station), the above two Qantas safety events show that there were some problems with the ADIRU of the Airbus 330 in the recent past. What if the AF447 experienced an uncommanded flight controls input at high speed, high altitude (in severe turbulence/thunderstorm conditions) like Qantas 72?










My friend opened the instrument in order to clean it and when he used the counter again to detect radiation, to his surprise, he heard multiple frequent clicks, meaning that the portable device was next to “something” emitting either radioactive particles or rays. Since he previously hadn’t detected anything (when the instrument was closed) he was sure that alpha particles were causing that large amout of “clicks”, since alpha particles may be completely stopped by a sheet of paper (in his case, by the glass of the instruments), beta particles by aluminum shielding while gamma rays can’t be stopped and can penetrate deeply unless stopped by a thick layer of lead.
at a 70 years old instrument is still well active and will be for the next thousands years. The radiation can be sufficiently penetrating to break chemical bonds which are essential to the structure and function of living tissue possibly causing (depending on the intensity and duration of the exposure) serious health problems. The danger is actually less in radiation than in the ingestion of the contaminated dust that accumulates behind the instrument’s glass as the intensity decreases with the square of the distance from the source.
For what concerns the internal radiation, if all the Radium in the instrument remains behind the glass (and this one is sealed and intact) alpha particles will not be able to penetrate the glass and Radium dust will have little chances of being inhaled or ingested. Instead, if you want to repair or restore the instrument, you must be aware that you are going to handle Radium powder that could spread in your room for you to breath or that you can have on your gloves and cloths and thus easy to be ingested. Just to understand how dangerous alpha particles could be for our body, read the following statement taken from Wikipedia: “Because of this high mass and strong absorption, if alpha emitting radionuclides do enter the body (if the radioactive material has been inhaled or ingested), alpha radiation is the most destructive form of ionizing radiation. It is the most strongly ionizing, and with large enough doses can cause any or all of the symptoms of radiation poisoning. It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is about 100 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of other radiation”.

































