jump to navigation

London Olympics security: Major Exercise takes place in the skies of the UK January 23, 2012

Posted by Richard Clements in Military Aviation.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
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

Mig-23 shot down over Benghazi March 19, 2011

Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Libyan Uprising, Military Aviation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , , , , , , ,
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!

Beware of some old flight and navigation instruments! October 7, 2009

Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation, Swiss Air Force.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

This post is addressed to the many visitors of this site who repair, restore or simply collect old instruments like altimeters, turn and slip indicator, compasses, etc. However, former pilots and current airliners crew and frequent flyers could find something interesting in this article. Here’s the reason why.
A friend of mine, who’s keen on aviation, recently bought on eBay an old ADI (Attitude Indicator). This friend has also a small Geiger counter that he uses to inspect all the items he receives from abroad because he was taught nuclear physics at school. His Geiger counter is able to detect alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. He neared the counter to the glass of the instrument and got no audible tone (the Geiger counter has a gas-filled tube that conducts electricity when a particle or photon of radiation makes the gas conductive. The tube amplifies this conduction and outputs a current pulse, which is heard as a “click”; if you hear a click every now and then, you should not worry but if clicks become frequent it means you are near a radioactive source). RadioactivityMy 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.
With the same procedure, but without removing any glass, the Geiger counter found gamma radiation being emitted by another instrumment.
Following the discovery of radiactivity in normal flight instruments we started an extensive search on the Internet and found that most instruments made up until 1960s had the luminous paint, needed to read them at night, based on Radium. The Radium is one of the most radioactive chemical elements (symbol Ra and atomic number 88), 1000 times more radioactive than Uranium. Its most stable isotope, Ra-226, has a half-life of 1602 years and decays into radon gas. This means thGeiger Counterat 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.
The risks associated with radiations is in fact divided into those from internal radiation, that results from radioactive particles becoming absorbed or into a person’s body, and those from external radiations from people being next to the source of radiations. Gmetro
Dealing with the external radiations, if the amount of Radium used to create fluorescent dials is small, the radiation should not be so intense. Consequently if you keep the object far enough (some meters) from where you live, sleep and spend most of the day, you should not have serious problems in the long term because of that nice instrument you have on your bookcase. However, as said, that depends from the amount of radioactive material contained in the instrument and the distance between you and the source. Obviously, if you collect WWII compasses and altimeters, it is better to check the intensity of radiation and to keep them away from your bed! Various sources available on the Internet can provide much more details on the gamma radiation risk. You can find interesting websites where the dose of radiation absorbed by some of these instruments (especially compasses) was measured at different distances (on contact, at 30 cm, at 1 meter, etc.).
1For 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”.
If you want to open the instruments (for example, to restore them and put them in a cockpit) you should adhere to the following precautions:
You can work safely around radiation and/or contamination by following a few simple precautions:

1. Use time, distance, shielding, and containment to reduce exposure.
2. Wear dosimeters.
3. Avoid contact with the contamination.
4. Wear protective clothing that, if contaminated, can be removed.
5. Wash with nonabrasive soap and water any part of the body that may have come in contact with the contamination.
6. Assume that all materials, equipment, and personnel that came in contact with the contamination are contaminated. Radiological monitoring is recommended before leaving the scene.Radium

The Swiss Armed Forces issued an interesting document (in Italian language) explaining the risk associated with Radium and providing a list of the historical military equipment that could contain Radium:
http://www.labor-spiez.ch/de/the/st/Radioattivita_materiale.pdf
Beware, Radium can still be found on many consumer product as explained in the following Health Physics Society document: http://www.hps.org/documents/consumerproducts.pdf

After explaining the risk of handling radioactive material, let’s explain some other things that may help to you fully understand the actual entity of the problem.
The absorbed radiation dose is measure in millirem, mrem.
Consider that (taken from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality website: http://www.deq.state.id.us/inl_oversight/radiation/radiation_guide.cfm):
- Average Dose to US public from all sources 360 mrem/year
- total dose limit: Public continuos exposure: 100 mrem, infrequent: 500 mrem

Foods that are rich in potassium, like fruits, beans and lentils, vegetables, and some whole grains, expose us to radiation as potassium decays. The food we eat exposes us to about 40 millirem of radiation each year.
If you live near a nuclear power plant, you’ll receive about .009 millirem of radiation each year.
An x-ray machine uses radiation to look inside your body. Your dose depends on what part of your body is x-rayed, how many are taken, and the condition of the x-ray machine. A dental x-ray can expose you to levels as low as 2 to 3 millirem or as high as 25-35 millirem.
Smoking 1½ packs a day can result in exposure to 1,300 millirem of radiation per year. Tobacco has a high concentration of polonium-210, a naturally occurring radioactive element.
Flying in an airplane reduces the thickness of atmosphere shielding you from cosmic sources of radiation, including our sun and cosmic rays. You receive about 1 millirem of radiation for each 1,000 miles you fly. A member of an airline crew receives about 200 millirem a year on the job. According to the Health Physics Society: “Pilots flying high-altitude, high-latitude routes do receive exposures that put them in the top five percent of all radiation workers when ranked by dose.”Gamma radiation
Not only the flight instruments produced in the first half of the 20th Century have Radium dials. Many clocks had dials made visible at night with Radium. The dose of gamma radiation generated by these clocks (worn as up as 16 hours per day) is estimated on the whole body to be around 7 to 9 mrem/year. This is a value that should be comparable to the dose received by gamma radiation emitted by a turn and bank indicator (not in contact with the body). Thus the radiation caused by an instrument could be less than the dose of radiation absorbed by the food we eat.
At the following address (if you live in the US) you can calculate your average annual exposure: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/calculate.html.

I’m not an expert of this matter but I’m sure you now have at least more details to understand the risk associated with handling an instrument containing Radium and choose what to do with it.

The mysterious end of Air France flight 447 (AF447) June 3, 2009

Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, Aviation Safety, non-military aviation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

Podcast 2: Contrails or Chemtrails?

Virgin staff criticises safety standards on Facebook October 27, 2008

Posted by David Cenciotti in Aviation, non-military aviation.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
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: , , , , , ,
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:

  1. reserve two seats next to the emergency exit
  2. 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:

  1. 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
  2. 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.