Sheriff Responds to AOPA

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

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

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.

"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/

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

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.

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

Just dont try to land there with the gapa

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

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

False.

http://www.rainierflightservice.com/...ctor-chart.gif