Sheriff Responds to AOPA

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...er-arrest.html

JP

On Jan 18, 8:17*am, Jp Stewart wrote:
http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...s-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

On Jan 18, 10:01*am, John Cochrane wrote:
On Jan 18, 8:17*am, Jp Stewart wrote:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/article...s-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.

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/article...s-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.

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.

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"

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

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

Originally Posted by Peter Higgs

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

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