Edinburgh Tattoo flypasts to be banned??
Navigating your ship into Victoria Dock, whether foggy or not, would be rather career-limiting.
The following users liked this post:
Lived South of Edinburgh many years ago right in the heart of the Low Flying Zone. Very close to a very obvious IP for the Otterburn ranges.
The locals used to rage at the low flying wheras in my case, I loved it. Especially during Mallet Blow Exercises.
One of the lousiest reasons why they wanted it banned, was due to the fear that a low flyer could crash into the then recently constructed Torness Nuke.
!
The locals used to rage at the low flying wheras in my case, I loved it. Especially during Mallet Blow Exercises.
One of the lousiest reasons why they wanted it banned, was due to the fear that a low flyer could crash into the then recently constructed Torness Nuke.
!
Tabs please !
The following users liked this post:
Also interesting is that a couple of the more informed members here advise me that Torness was constructed to withstand exactly such an impact.
Doubly interesting that one contributer went as far as to say Torness Nuclear Power Station could withstand a direct impact from a 747 airliner.
Not sure if the residents of Sherwood Crescent would be convinced !
The critical items are the two reactors within the reactor building and the actual pressure vessels themselves withstanding this impact load and thus any radiation escape etc. This is where the Phantom and 747 scenario's were designed for.
In the case of the 747, as I already mentioned, while the pressure vessels are designed to survive in terms of radiation containment, the rest of the station buildings etc would be pretty much totally destroyed, especially with regard fuel load, as per WTC 1 & 2 in 9/11, and as you mentioned, Sherwood Crescent.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,897
Received 480 Likes
on
271 Posts
Did somebody mention F-4s and Nuclear Power Station construction? Test in 1988...
Sort of like the tests that colleagues of mine used to conduct at Spadeadam only they used explosives and they weren't designing nuclear power stations!
Sort of like the tests that colleagues of mine used to conduct at Spadeadam only they used explosives and they weren't designing nuclear power stations!
I think you're miss understanding the design criteria and what was designed to survive and what wasn't designed to survive impact.
The critical items are the two reactors within the reactor building and the actual pressure vessels themselves withstanding this impact load and thus any radiation escape etc. This is where the Phantom and 747 scenario's were designed for.
In the case of the 747, as I already mentioned, while the pressure vessels are designed to survive in terms of radiation containment, the rest of the station buildings etc would be pretty much totally destroyed, especially with regard fuel load, as per WTC 1 & 2 in 9/11, and as you mentioned, Sherwood Crescent.
The critical items are the two reactors within the reactor building and the actual pressure vessels themselves withstanding this impact load and thus any radiation escape etc. This is where the Phantom and 747 scenario's were designed for.
In the case of the 747, as I already mentioned, while the pressure vessels are designed to survive in terms of radiation containment, the rest of the station buildings etc would be pretty much totally destroyed, especially with regard fuel load, as per WTC 1 & 2 in 9/11, and as you mentioned, Sherwood Crescent.
I do believe however that the main concern was radiation leak due to damage to the pressure vessel, cooling systems and ancillary components.
Can you clarify if that fear was totally unfounded ?
Think of it in relativistic terms, If the 747 was stationary and the specially reinforced concrete casing of a reactor containment vessel, weighing way, way more than a 747 ran into it, where would you place your bet?
The pressure vessel etc is inside the containment, they are not one and the same.
The pressure vessel etc is inside the containment, they are not one and the same.
Think of it in relativistic terms, If the 747 was stationary and the specially reinforced concrete casing of a reactor containment vessel, weighing way, way more than a 747 ran into it, where would you place your bet?
The pressure vessel etc is inside the containment, they are not one and the same.
The pressure vessel etc is inside the containment, they are not one and the same.
Nobody really worried too much about 747's
The area was a designated military low fly zone !
This is where my part in the discussion started !
Thank you for your input however !
747 or Tornado , the same principle applies. Tornado not designed for impact with a solid object and weighs less than a 747, containment vessel design for this express purpose amongst other things, All the nasties are hidden away inside the containment vessel inside the primary loop. Prime purpose of the containment vessel is to contain a failure of the primary loop. To release serious nasties you would have to breech the containment vessel and then the breech primary loop - ideally the reactor pressure vessel, which in itself is a pretty solid piece of kit.
Thanks Ninthace !
Very interesting !
As part of the Regional Disaster and Emergency Commitee we were treated to a full tour of Torness not long after it opened !
Very interesting !
As part of the Regional Disaster and Emergency Commitee we were treated to a full tour of Torness not long after it opened !
Last edited by El Grifo; 2nd Jul 2024 at 18:26.
The only thing that ought to be radioactive in a nuclear power plant should be the core and its components and all that should be inside the containment vessel.
The following users liked this post:
Everything outside of that was effectively sacrificial, as long as the containment design could survive a direct impact, which is what it was designed for.
As point of interest, the Chief Engineer responsible for the external superstructure, so all the buildings outside of the containment, such as the Reactor Building, Turbine Hall, and all other ancillary superstructures, was ex-RAF wartime Bomber Command, and had completed a tour as a Lancaster Nav, which included the Dresden rail.
How come a Tsunami, not of the greatest magnitude, cause so much trouble at Fukishima !
Different system to the Torness AGR ?
How come a failure of the cooling system at Chernobyl caused so much damage and distress ?
Different system ?
How come there is so much concern over the loss of electrical power in the Ukranian Nuclear Plant ?
What happened exactly at 3 Mile Island ?
Struggling to accept the concept of a 747 directly hitting a Nuclear Power Station with zero knock on effect !
Forgive my cynicism !
Different system to the Torness AGR ?
How come a failure of the cooling system at Chernobyl caused so much damage and distress ?
Different system ?
How come there is so much concern over the loss of electrical power in the Ukranian Nuclear Plant ?
What happened exactly at 3 Mile Island ?
Struggling to accept the concept of a 747 directly hitting a Nuclear Power Station with zero knock on effect !
Forgive my cynicism !
