Sheriff Responds to AOPA

[JP Stewart]

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from-glider-arrest.html

JP

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 18, 8:17*am, Jp Stewart > wrote:
> http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from...
>
> JP

There is a bit of a worry in all this. Like the sheriff here, it's
likely that 99% of the public believes that airspace above nuclear
plants is restricted. My non-aviation friends are always very
surprised to know that 100% of airspace is not directly controlled,
that there are no control towers at the vast majority of small
airports where I fly. They're even more surprised to learn that the
typical airliner approach into Midway airport blasts through about 30
miles of class E (about 4 miles north of my glider club) and the only
thing standing between them and a flaming wreck is the pilot's keen
eyes looking out the window. OK, TCAS, and the fact that most planes
are carrying transponders around here helps a lot, but you know what I
mean. Most airline passengers think they're in something approaching
class A or B all the time.

We know all this works fine. The public does not. And we live in a
democracy much more sensitive to John Q Public's perceptions of safety
issues than to reality.

So, long story short, one could rightly worry that too much attention
to all this leads to, "why isn't airspace above nuclear plants off
limits?" (to anyone except real terrorists!) and more rather than less
restrictions on what we do.

We're about at the optimal level of publicity now, where it has the
attention of local law enforcement, and they are learning that it's ok
for light planes to overfly nuclear plants. I'm not sure writing
congressmen and women is such a great idea. They might come to the
opposite conclusion!

John Cochrane

[James Lee]

On Jan 18, 10:01*am, John Cochrane > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 8:17*am, Jp Stewart > wrote:
>
> >http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from...
>
> > JP
>
> There is a bit of a worry in all this. Like the sheriff here, it's
> likely that 99% of the public believes that airspace above nuclear
> plants is restricted. My non-aviation friends are always very
> surprised to know that 100% of airspace is not directly controlled,
> that there are no control towers at the vast *majority of small
> airports where I fly. They're even more surprised to learn that the
> typical airliner approach into Midway airport blasts through about 30
> miles of class E (about 4 miles north of my glider club) and the only
> thing standing between them and a flaming wreck is the pilot's keen
> eyes looking out the window. OK, TCAS, and the fact that most planes
> are carrying transponders around here helps a lot, but you know what I
> mean. Most airline passengers think they're in something approaching
> class A or B all the time.
>
> We know all this works fine. The public does not. And we live in a
> democracy much more sensitive to John Q Public's perceptions of safety
> issues than to reality.
>
> So, long story short, one could rightly worry that too much attention
> to all this leads to, "why isn't airspace above nuclear plants off
> limits?" (to anyone except real terrorists!) and more rather than less
> restrictions on what we do.
>
> We're about at the optimal level of publicity now, where it has the
> attention of local law enforcement, and they are learning that it's ok
> for light planes to overfly nuclear plants. I'm not sure writing
> congressmen and women is such a great idea. They might come to the
> opposite conclusion!
>
> John Cochrane

I agree with John.

[CLewis95]

On Friday, January 18, 2013 9:01:22 AM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Jan 18, 8:17*am, Jp Stewart > wrote:
>
> > http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2013/130117lessons-learned-from....
>
> >
>
> > JP
>
>
>
> There is a bit of a worry in all this. Like the sheriff here, it's
>
> likely that 99% of the public believes that airspace above nuclear
>
> plants is restricted. My non-aviation friends are always very
>
> surprised to know that 100% of airspace is not directly controlled,
>
> that there are no control towers at the vast majority of small
>
> airports where I fly. They're even more surprised to learn that the
>
> typical airliner approach into Midway airport blasts through about 30
>
> miles of class E (about 4 miles north of my glider club) and the only
>
> thing standing between them and a flaming wreck is the pilot's keen
>
> eyes looking out the window. OK, TCAS, and the fact that most planes
>
> are carrying transponders around here helps a lot, but you know what I
>
> mean. Most airline passengers think they're in something approaching
>
> class A or B all the time.
>
>
>
> We know all this works fine. The public does not. And we live in a
>
> democracy much more sensitive to John Q Public's perceptions of safety
>
> issues than to reality.
>
>
>
> So, long story short, one could rightly worry that too much attention
>
> to all this leads to, "why isn't airspace above nuclear plants off
>
> limits?" (to anyone except real terrorists!) and more rather than less
>
> restrictions on what we do.
>
>
>
> We're about at the optimal level of publicity now, where it has the
>
> attention of local law enforcement, and they are learning that it's ok
>
> for light planes to overfly nuclear plants. I'm not sure writing
>
> congressmen and women is such a great idea. They might come to the
>
> opposite conclusion!
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I agree with John also .. we may suffer unintended consequences from the attention.

[bill palmer]

The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed.
The public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe, and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as pelting it with eggs.

[KS]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 7:46:28 PM UTC-5, Bill Palmer wrote:
> The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed.
>
> The public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe, and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as pelting it with eggs.

Search: "Aircraft vs Concrete Wall wmv"

[GC[_2_]]

On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:
> The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually
> impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they
> ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the
> airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The
> public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,
> and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as
> pelting it with eggs.
>

Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers
can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings
look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to
be dealt with.

GC

[Peter Higgs]

At 05:38 21 January 2013, GC wrote:
>On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:
>> The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually
>> impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they
>> ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the
>> airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The
>> public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,
>> and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as
>> pelting it with eggs.
>>
>
>Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers
>can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings
>look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to
>be dealt with.
>
>GC


I think two facts remain...

Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it is a
100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the
lee side.

In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2
mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.

You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.

phiggs

[dbrunone]

Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it is a
100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the
lee side.

In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2
mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.

You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.

phiggs

66%?? Thats WAY high. Most heat engines (nuclear power, cars, coal, etc) are around 20-25%. Which means more thermals for us! But also lots of sink if you don't hit it right

[soartech[_2_]]

>Darlington County, S.C., Sheriff J. Wayne Byrd


Interesting.
News of the Weird has an entire section devoted to people with the
middle name of Wayne.

[Mike the Strike]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:15:54 AM UTC-7, Peter Higgs wrote:
> At 05:38 21 January 2013, GC wrote:
>
> >On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:
>
> >> The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually
>
> >> impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they
>
> >> ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the
>
> >> airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The
>
> >> public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,
>
> >> and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as
>
> >> pelting it with eggs.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers
>
> >can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings
>
> >look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to
>
> >be dealt with.
>
> >
>
> >GC
>
>
>
>
>
> I think two facts remain...
>
>
>
> Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it is a
>
> 100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the
>
> lee side.
>
>
>
> In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2
>
> mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.
>
>
>
> You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.
>
>
>
> phiggs

A typical power plant these days is between 1,500 and 5,000 MW. Those powered by fossil-fuel are less than 40% efficient, so you may have 1,000 to 3,000 MW of heat available for your thermal.

Our local nuke here in Arizona is 3,000 MW and probably has 1,000 MW going up the cooling towers. I've never been low enough over it to really check it out, however.

Mike

Mike

[Wayne Paul]

> "soartech" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >Darlington County, S.C., Sheriff J. Wayne Byrd
>
>
> Interesting.
> News of the Weird has an entire section devoted to people with the
> middle name of Wayne.

I'm one of them!!!

H Wayne Paul
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[folken]

We have two nuclear power plants within gliding distance of each other. One has as cooling tower. I regularly use it as a thermal.

The thermal is extremely narrow.. so banks of 90 Degrees are not uncommon. Additionaly you need a lot of speed around a 130 KM/h since the thing is so rough. An additional difficulty is that the downdraft around the outside is around the same as in the updraft.. so if you stick the tail out, expect to see just blue sky. Done right it takes you up a km in under a minute.

What is interesting is that it isn't always the same. Sometimes it doesn't work at all.. sometimes its narrow as described, sometimes you get moderate climb values from several Km away.

The thermal source is well known.. and its not uncommon to find the fields of entire competitions circling over that powerplant.

- Folken

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 5:45:28 AM UTC-5, folken wrote:
> We have two nuclear power plants within gliding distance of each other. One has as cooling tower. I regularly use it as a thermal.

Anyone have a report on the quality of thermals coming off of solar panel arrays? The panels are black and tilted to the sun.

[Bart[_4_]]

On Jan 22, 6:35*am, son_of_flubber > wrote:
> Anyone have a report on the quality of thermals coming off of solar panel arrays? * The panels are black and tilted to the sun.

I had high hopes when they installed solar panels approximately a mile
away from the Avenal airport. Sadly, they do not seem to generate any
more thermals than the fields that used to be there did; possibly
less.

Bart

[Tony[_5_]]

Just dont try to land there with the gapa

[sisu1a]

> The thermal is extremely narrow.. so banks of 90 Degrees are not uncommon.

False.

http://www.rainierflightservice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/load-factor-chart.gif

[folken]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:47:48 PM UTC+1, sisu1a wrote:
> > The thermal is extremely narrow.. so banks of 90 Degrees are not uncommon.
>
>
>
> False.
>
>
>
> http://www.rainierflightservice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/load-factor-chart.gif

Thermaling is not a coordinated turn.

[kirk.stant]

90 degree bank is a lot steeper than most pilots imagine. Unless you are current in acro anything over 60 degrees will feel like 90. And unless its a transient condition caused by turbulence any intentional 90 degree bank for more than a few seconds would result in an impressive sink rate regardless of the strength of the thermal. But it makes for a good hangar story: "There I was at 300 ft over the nuke cooling tower, banked to 90 degrees and barely climbing..."

Kirk
66

[Bart[_4_]]

On Jan 22, 9:55*am, Tony > wrote:
> Just dont try to land there with the gapa

Which part of "approximately a mile away" is confusing you? ;-) The
mighty Geezer might be capable of such an epic cross-country flight
(except the landing, of course). I am just a sidekick.

Bart

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:40:11 -0800, kirk.stant wrote:

> 90 degree bank is a lot steeper than most pilots imagine. Unless you are
> current in acro anything over 60 degrees will feel like 90. And unless
> its a transient condition caused by turbulence any intentional 90 degree
> bank for more than a few seconds would result in an impressive sink rate
> regardless of the strength of the thermal. But it makes for a good
> hangar story: "There I was at 300 ft over the nuke cooling tower,
> banked to 90 degrees and barely climbing..."
>
It stands to reason that you can't climb in a 90 degree bank because
there's no vertical lift vector unless, of course, you so much top rudder
fed in that you're climbing on lift generated by the fin and fuselage
sides.

However, a couple of times I've certainly been using around 70 degrees
bank and still going up like the clappers:

- once on a Pegase 90 when I was climbing in the chimney plume from the
Stewartby Brick works just west of Bedford. That was odd: there was
nothing (not even sink) outside the plume and in it you could center
nicely by maximising the smell of furnace oil fumes. It was very narrow:
I had the stick almost fully back to turn tightly enough and needed to
extreme bank to turn that tight, bit I got 6-7 kts out of it

- a similarly tight thermal with no apparent reason for it being too
tight, over our airfield. This time solo in the club's Puchacz and again
cranked over at least at least 70 degrees and with the stick well back to
turn as tight as possible. Any wider turn left me out in the surrounding
turbulence and sink. Again I got a strong climb to cloud base directly
under a nice street.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:35:45 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> It stands to reason that you can't climb in a 90 degree bank because
>
> there's no vertical lift vector unless, of course, you so much top rudder
>
> fed in that you're climbing on lift generated by the fin and fuselage
>
> sides.
>
>
>
> However, a couple of times I've certainly been using around 70 degrees
>
> bank and still going up like the clappers:

Precisely. 70 degrees is about 3 Gs, would give you a turn diameter of a little less than 200 ft (!) at 55 knots. But I doubt many pilots actually practice constant 70 degree banked turns, it's not as easy as it looks. Hard enough to get a lot of pilots to bank over 30 degrees - grrrr!

It sure is fun to rack it up when you find the right thermal - the harder you pull, the faster you go up! Do it with someone you know across the thermal and it gets really interesting...

Kirk
66

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

kirk.stant wrote:

> Precisely. 70 degrees is about 3 Gs, would give you a turn diameter of a little less than 200 ft (!) at 55 knots. But I doubt many pilots actually practice constant 70 degree banked turns, it's not as easy as it looks. Hard enough to get a lot of pilots to bank over 30 degrees - grrrr!
>
> It sure is fun to rack it up when you find the right thermal - the harder you pull, the faster you go up! Do it with someone you know across the thermal and it gets really interesting...

When I was pre-solo, on a very unprepossessing March day
in the UK (solid stratus at 3400ft), my very experienced
instructor "found"[1] something. Given the conditions,
it can't have been a thermal.

We were flying at 70kt in a K13 and noticing the G force,
but we were rising at >=10kt until we abandoned the climb
at cloudbase.

There was a glider opposite us sharing the thermal, so
we kept an eye on each other's position by looking at
the top of our heads.

Glorious, and a good anecdote for indicating why
flying in gliders is almost entirely unlike flying
in spamcans.

[1] I hesitate to say "blundered into" :)

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
"kirk.stant" > wrote:

>
> Precisely. 70 degrees is about 3 Gs, would give you a turn diameter of a
> little less than 200 ft (!) at 55 knots. But I doubt many pilots actually
> practice constant 70 degree banked turns, it's not as easy as it looks. Hard
> enough to get a lot of pilots to bank over 30 degrees - grrrr!
>
> It sure is fun to rack it up when you find the right thermal - the harder you
> pull, the faster you go up! Do it with someone you know across the thermal
> and it gets really interesting...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Have had pretty much that experience a few times. Banked very steeply,
pulling hard, watching the guy across the thermal nearly through the top
of my canopy. After a bit, it seems like the gliders are stationary and
the world becomes a blurred, whirling cylinder.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:30:58 AM UTC-6, Bart wrote:
> On Jan 22, 9:55*am, Tony > wrote: > Just dont try to land there with the gapa Which part of "approximately a mile away" is confusing you? ;-) The mighty Geezer might be capable of such an epic cross-country flight (except the landing, of course). I am just a sidekick. Bart

good point, that is a long ways away

[Ramy]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:18:26 AM UTC-8, WB wrote:
> In article >,
>
> "kirk.stant" > wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Precisely. 70 degrees is about 3 Gs, would give you a turn diameter of a
>
> > little less than 200 ft (!) at 55 knots. But I doubt many pilots actually
>
> > practice constant 70 degree banked turns, it's not as easy as it looks. Hard
>
> > enough to get a lot of pilots to bank over 30 degrees - grrrr!
>
> >
>
> > It sure is fun to rack it up when you find the right thermal - the harder you
>
> > pull, the faster you go up! Do it with someone you know across the thermal
>
> > and it gets really interesting...
>
> >
>
> > Kirk
>
> > 66
>
>
>
> Have had pretty much that experience a few times. Banked very steeply,
>
> pulling hard, watching the guy across the thermal nearly through the top
>
> of my canopy. After a bit, it seems like the gliders are stationary and
>
> the world becomes a blurred, whirling cylinder.
>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Since this thread drifted into discussion about bank angels, I'll add my 2 cents - next time you feel you are banking steeply, look at the screws in your panel and compare to the horizon. It will tell you if you are banking more or less than 45 degrees.

Ramy

[John Firth[_4_]]

If there is a fire at a nuclear facility, can the fire service legally
fly a surveillance draone (or helicopter) over the
zone below 2000ft??
Who can authorise this?

John F



At 11:15 21 January 2013, Peter Higgs wrote:
>At 05:38 21 January 2013, GC wrote:
>>On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:
>>> The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually
>>> impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they
>>> ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the
>>> airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The
>>> public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,
>>> and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as
>>> pelting it with eggs.
>>>
>>
>>Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers
>>can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings
>>look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to
>>be dealt with.
>>
>>GC
>
>
>I think two facts remain...
>
>Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it is
a
>100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the
>lee side.
>
>In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2
>mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.
>
>You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.
>
>phiggs
>
>
>

[Peter Higgs]

Hi, that would probably come under the same 'law of common sense' that
allows Police vehicles to exceed the national speed limit, and Ambulances
to go through red traffic lights.

Just wondering... Does any country still use 'Fire Bells' on their
fire-engines. A friend of mine had a pair of 4 foot long air horns on
his Fiat Uno... Sounded really good, even half a mile away.


At 14:55 27 January 2013, John Firth wrote:
>If there is a fire at a nuclear facility, can the fire service legally
>fly a surveillance draone (or helicopter) over the
>zone below 2000ft??
>Who can authorise this?
>
>John F
>
>
>
>At 11:15 21 January 2013, Peter Higgs wrote:
>>At 05:38 21 January 2013, GC wrote:
>>>On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:
>>>> The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually
>>>> impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they
>>>> ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the
>>>> airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The
>>>> public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,
>>>> and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as
>>>> pelting it with eggs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers

>>>can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings
>>>look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to
>>>be dealt with.
>>>
>>>GC
>>
>>
>>I think two facts remain...
>>
>>Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it
is
>a
>>100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the
>>lee side.
>>
>>In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2
>>mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.
>>
>>You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.
>>
>>phiggs
>>
>>
>>
>
>