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?
A Cessna 650 crashes after take off from Rome Ciampino February 7, 2009
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: air crash, Aviation, Aviation Safety, Cessna, Cessna Citation, CIA, Ciampino, Citation III, civil aviation, lightning, lightning strike, LIRA, thunderstorm
2 comments
On Feb 7, some minutes after 6.00LT, a privately-owned Cessna 650 Citation III (similar to the one in the pictures below that is a Cessna 650 Citation IV), with registration I-FEEV, in air ambulance service crashed in the Trigoria suburb, to the Southwest of Rome, causing the death of the two pilots. The aircraft had departed from Ciampino airport to Bologna, where it was expected to embark a medical team and to carry it to Cagliari. According to the first reports, the aircraft encountered a bad thunderstorm during the initial climb and some witnesses saw a lightning before hearing a loud bang caused by the impact of the Citation.
To read more about the risk posed to the aviation by lightnings click here: http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/a-lightning-strike-causes-the-loss-of-an-italian-f-16-are-lightnings-a-risk-for-aviation-safety/
Podcast: Contrails or Chemtrails? November 4, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Military Aviation, non-military aviation, Podcast.Tags: airway, atmosphere, Aviation, chemical trails, chemtrails, condensation trail, contrail, contrails, humidity, Military Aviation, non-military aviation, pressure, temperature, vertical temperature gradient, water vapour
2 comments
Virgin staff criticises safety standards on Facebook October 27, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, non-military aviation.Tags: Aviation, Aviation Safety, B747-400, Facebook, London Gatwick, London Heathrow, non-military aviation, passenger, safety, Virgin Atlantic
add a comment
In my opinion, Facebook is funny and useful. I use it often to keep me in touch with all of my relatives and friends, to share pictures and news even if they live or work on the other side of the World. The social network has also plenty of groups, were you can discuss, share pictures and information with people that is not strictly a “friend” (someone that is directly connected to you). One of the groups I recently subscribed is the official Virgin Atlantic airline one. A couple of days before I joined the group, something strange happened on that page. A small group of airline’ staff posted some comments about the company’ safety standard and wrote also some malicious comments about passengers. Unfortunately I could not read what those employees wrote, since the staff admins deleted all the “bad comments” and started a disciplinary action. According to the information I obtained, the removed posts regarded the 13 B747-400 that the airline operates from London Gatwick and London Heathrow airports. Some of the crew members referred to the Jumbo as old, dirty “deathtraps” (even if they are quite new, since they entered service in 2001!) and criticised the Virgin Atlantic’s will to comply with the safety regulations and recommendations. Other comments regarded the type of passenger on the typical route flown from Gatwick. In particular, some of the employees referred to the passengers flying from London to Orlando as “chavs” (from Wiki: a slang term in the UK for a person whose lifestyle, branded casual clothing, speech and/or behaviour are perceived to be common, proletarian and vulgar) even if it must be said that flying to leisure destinations, it is quite normal to find Economy classes seats crowded with school childs and young people. Crew members operating on those routes should be used to “manage” such kinds of passengers.
A VS spokesman explained to the BBC that all the malicious comments were removed because “Virgin Atlantic does not tolerate any criticism of its passengers or industry-leading safety standards and is taking this matter very seriously. Safety is the airline’s top priority..”. I’m pretty sure such comments could be useful, but most probably they should be done elsewhere: I don’t think an airline public fans club is the right place to write such things (especially when they are wrong). Just think to a “nervous flyers” who reads an aircraft being called deathtrap by a qualified crew member. The impact could be devastating for both the passenger and airline.
About Aviation Safety: what’s the most safe seat? August 29, 2008
Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.Tags: Aviation, Aviation Safety, Aviation seat, first class, non-military aviation, transportation, travelling
add a comment
Each time a mishap occurs in the World of aviation, one of the side effects is that people ask me if flying is dangerous (or more dangerous than before). I think that I have explained my point of view many times before. Just talking about Italy, 152 lost their lives on the roads during the four August’s weekends: I feel more comfortable when seated inside the fuselage of an aircraft (either military or civilian) than driving a few miles with my car.
A far more interesting question was asked by some friends who read an article about the safety of commercial aircraft’ seats. Obviously, all this kind of articles on Aviation Safety are published after major emergencies and accidents occur. According to that article, the Greenwich University has determined that the most safe seats on a burning aircraft are those in the forward part of the fuselage, and those within 5 rows from an emergency exit. Basing on 105 crashes and 2000 witnesses, the passengers sitting next to the nose have 65% probability to escape, compared to the 53% of those in the back. Then, aisle seats are better then windows ones, 64% vs 58%.
That said, I think that is quite obvious that the nearer you are to an emergency exit, the better; I think that the study adds not so much to what a normal people could autonomously guess.
Adding something more, I could affirm that the seat that guarantees the 100% possibility to escape a burning aircraft is….the one on another aircraft (or your room’s couch)….
Anyway, that study deals with one particular emergency (fire). If the aircraft experiences another kind of catastrophic event, maybe (but I don’t really know), that standing elsewhere (inside the aircraft obviously), could be better than sitting in the first class next to the exits.
In order to understand my attitude towards seat arrangements just think that the only thing I tell to my wife (that is the most important thing of my life) when she flies without me is: “keep your seat belt always fastened”.
But, when I fly with her I struggle to:
- reserve two seats next to the emergency exit
- give her the aisle seat
Why? Am I scared of something?
No, I just want to enjoy the flight from my window seat taking as much picture as possible with my digital camera and:
- reserve two seats next to the emergency exit = so she can rest better and stretch her legs without complaining each time because the airplanes are uncomfortable and long haul flights (the ones that I like the most) are boring
- give her the aisle seat = because if she takes the windows’ one she would wake me up each time she needs to go to the rest rooms
BTW: the most detailed guide to the seats arrangements on board any airline is provided by SeatGuru http://www.seatguru.com/.
Many happy landings.


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”.


































