Health and Safety strikes again…

Thanks for the constructive and helpful comments

😮 Not so, Rocketeer!

A “*” after the Mk. No. on the Mk.IX series of A.S.I.s merely indicates that it is calibrated in knots. There may well then be a version with a luminised face and another with the fluorescent finish.

Example….

Mk. IXA Airspeed Indicator 20 to 240 m.p.h.
6A/1541 Luminous finish
6A/1542 Non-luminous finish
6A/1615 Fluorescent finish

Mk. IXA* Airspeed Indicator 20 to 210 knots
6A/1543 Luminous finish
6A/1544 Non-luminous finish
6A/1616 Fluorescent finish

Similarly, the “*” after a wartime Mk. III boost gauge indicates that it has a different mechanism which does not require a fuel trap, unlike the earlier Mk. IIIs. There are then luminous and fluorescent versions of each Mk.

The “*” version of the Mk. IB Rate of Climb Indicator also comes in luminous and fluorescent finishes, the “*” indicates something else entirely.

I stand corrected…thanx.
BTW did you get my message about the CF100?

Gauges that are luminous tend to have a * next to the serial or Mk (for instance ASIs are typically a Mk IX……so if it is Mk IXe* it will be luminous.

😮 Not so, Rocketeer!

A “*” after the Mk. No. on the Mk.IX series of A.S.I.s merely indicates that it is calibrated in knots. There may well then be a version with a luminised face and another with the fluorescent finish.

Example….

Mk. IXA Airspeed Indicator 20 to 240 m.p.h.
6A/1541 Luminous finish
6A/1542 Non-luminous finish
6A/1615 Fluorescent finish

Mk. IXA* Airspeed Indicator 20 to 210 knots
6A/1543 Luminous finish
6A/1544 Non-luminous finish
6A/1616 Fluorescent finish

Similarly, the “*” after a wartime Mk. III boost gauge indicates that it has a different mechanism which does not require a fuel trap, unlike the earlier Mk. IIIs. There are then luminous and fluorescent versions of each Mk.

The “*” version of the Mk. IB Rate of Climb Indicator also comes in luminous and fluorescent finishes, the “*” indicates something else entirely.

Any thoughts about how those people with aircraft instruments in a cockpit, a panel or just in boxes can get them checked out?

A local school or university may be able to let you borrow a counter. However, just ‘cos it makes lots of clicking noises does not necessarily make it ‘bad’. Need to convert it to microsieverts etc. Like all such things, it needs knowledge to assess the readings.

A rule of thumb tends to be that UK post 1952 made instruments are generally ok (but like all things there are exceptions so do not take my word for it)….however, there are some G4’s that have a bit of dodgy radium on an exposed button. Unfortunately the one on my Hunter did (it cost me £50) and has now been removed and disposed of through proper channels. Also the ASI on my Pucara was well dodgy (that too has gone). In a JP there are one or two places in the cockpit. As Dave pointed out some engines (notably Viper and some Avons) have thorium in them. Also, some microscopes have thoriated lenses…….

here’s the rub…..some gauges with decent glass and paint in good condition….do not radiate (or do not appear to) above background. This is either because they are not luminous, or the glass is stopping it well or the paint is not too thick (or a combination of these). Many WW2 German gauges are like this. I suppose if you take the glass out (DO NOT DO THAT!) they would/may register more…but that is daft….leave well alone. Similarly some UK gauges of WW2 are not luminous (i.e. no radium paint). Gauges that are luminous tend to have a * next to the serial or Mk (for instance ASIs are typically a Mk IX……so if it is Mk IXe* it will be luminous. Thoriated lenses are a pain because they are only a problem if broken or damaged (I believe….that is not my area of expertise).

It is a big subject…..I am not a world expert on it. All I would say is Please do not tinker/remove glasses off gauges and steer clear of any that are like this. Similarly, it is silly to try and prove a gauge is dodgy by doing that. Also we do not want to see people getting scared and disposing of instruments in a foolhardy and environmentally bad way.

As I said earlier, individuals do not have all the regs applied to them (yet), but being aware of them and knowing the facts is a very good idea. If you are worried, chat to your nearest aviation museum. As a child I used to take glass off and blow the dust…..I shudder about that now….heaven knows what may lurk in my future. 🙁

Any thoughts about how those people with aircraft instruments in a cockpit, a panel or just in boxes can get them checked out?

The instruments were not in the nose section and were not on display, because they were so hazardous. The aircraft was a British WW2 aircraft on loan from another museum, so I don’t have a lot of details about it. The item was loaned, and then returned, before I started and the instruments stored and returned separately. Whether they were originally fitted to the nose section when it arrived, I do not know.

Whilst I agree with most of what you say on this matter, those instruments must have been particularly bad!! That said, concentrating them does have more than a simple cumulative affect. Even so, the precautions taken, should have, in my opinion, rendered them below limits quite nicely.

The worst instruments are WW1 German.

Have you ever noticed that the people who say “let’s end the argument” always make sure that it’s their point of view they finish with?

mmmmm

Radararchive- the aircraft you are refering to must be the RAFM Beaufighter cockpit.
The ruling for the transportation of the instruments in question is indeed abiding by the relevant legislation. However it’s difficult to concieve the possibility of a serious accident happening to a cockpit section such as the Beaufighter which would put the public at risk whilst in transit. I don’t dispute the law on it just that if more practical
consultation had occurred in the first place between the BAPC and government we could have more sensible measures in place.
In the case of the Beaufighter cockpit there is more risk to the person who is taking the instrument out of the panel and then putting it back in again at the other
end. Simply put you have both close handling of it and the possibility of breaking the glass with a screwdriver exceeds the risk of leaving it alone.
This isn’t a case of disagreeing with the rules but one of recognising that the current regulations need refinement. On the point of depleted uranium I need to point out that the mass weights and indeed A-10 ammunition isn’t made from depleted
uranium but is bombarded with it . The Mod has pointed out that they believe there is no risk from it’s use in the first Gulf War – however in conversation with someone in the know they pointed out that the effects of exposure to it could take up to fifty years to be noticable.

The instruments were not in the nose section and were not on display, because they were so hazardous. The aircraft was a British WW2 aircraft on loan from another museum, so I don’t have a lot of details about it. The item was loaned, and then returned, before I started and the instruments stored and returned separately. Whether they were originally fitted to the nose section when it arrived, I do not know.

These instruments which were already individually bagged, had two sheets of lead taped in front of the dials and, in a steel ammunition-type box, were placed in a lead-lined wooden crate, with extra sheets of lead added to the crate. Despite this, the readings were three times the maximum legally-acceptable dosage levels outside these crates! Needless to say they were re-packaged with extra lead and brought within the limits.

I must confess that I didn’t read this thread properly before my first post, I stand by most of what I said though.
If what you are saying here is true, then surely these instruments would pose a threat, once installed, to anybody near the aircraft or cockpit section. After all the thin sheet of alluminium that is the fuselage, is not going to offer much protection.
How old were the instruments, or aircraft, in question?

But my argument isn’t about specific legislation. It is about whether or not I have the right to determine for myself what “acceptable risk” is.

Yes, and you have quite clearly demonstrated here your ability to listen and understand medical and legal facts and take advice on subjects about which you are not an expert … :rolleyes:

Have you ever noticed that the people who say “let’s end the argument” always make sure that it’s their point of view they finish with?

I agree that we do not agree on this matter, but whether you like it or not Rob, the legislation is in place and you, just like the rest of us, have to abide by it. Whether this is an infrigement of your divinely endowed human rights or whatever else you want to claim, is irrelevant. You either abide by the law or you face the legal consequences. Simple as that.

But my argument isn’t about specific legislation. It is about whether or not I have the right to determine for myself what “acceptable risk” is.

I couldn’t give a fig about the specifics of radiation – or any other hazard for that matter. What I care about is that I should not have my rights deminished because someone else things that I can’t make up my own mind if I am properly educated in the risk I intend to undertake, where that risk affects no-one but me, or is of such a theoritcally low value that I can reasonably ignore it and indemnify anyone who thinks they may otherwise be accountable.

but merely the fact that despite much of the legislation being available on the web

That is irrelevant. If I am to go into a hazardous area I may need to be educated there and then – not engage in researching the matter before hand – hell I might not even know there is potential danger unless I’m told (as seen from a laypersons POV).

Enough. End of Subject. We’re going round and round in circles and getting nowhere.

You all seem to be missing the point.

If I have to pay for that “education” or “information” in order to be able to excercise my right to freely determine what I can or cannot do, then sobeit. If I am required to pass a test of some kind in order to etc…, then again, sobeit. But to throw a blanket over my right to determine what I can or cannot do is wrong in, and of, itself.

No, I’m afraid you’re missing the point. I wasn’t referring to the cost of getting the information, but merely the fact that despite much of the legislation being available on the web, how many participating in this discussion have actually bothered to look for it and read it? Don’t whine on about how you should be allowed access if you are knowledgeable about the risks, when it’s clear you haven’t bothered to inform yourself. Much of this thread could have been avoided if some of the people who have posted here actually read the legislation that they think they are opposed to.

However, what happens when someone can’t afford to pay or aren’t bright enough to learn it? Are we to assume they just have to go without?

Yes, I do agree with the point of view you’re trying to get across with these questions. It isn’t an easy question to answer. And not one I wish to dwell on right now. It is a matter of balance, and on balance I believe that given a road down which I can progress to reach my goal – I should not be impeded by law.

You all seem to be missing the point.

If I have to pay for that “education” or “information” in order to be able to excercise my right to freely determine what I can or cannot do, then sobeit. If I am required to pass a test of some kind in order to etc…, then again, sobeit. But to throw a blanket over my right to determine what I can or cannot do is wrong in, and of, itself.

Now, I understand that this cannot always be the case, for logistical and many other reason, so I accept the status quo on those grounds, and those grounds alone. But please, saying that we all need to be nannied because we cannot, even with proper information and education, be held responsible for our own decisions is utter nonsense IMV.

Yes Rob I’m willing to leave the argument.
However, you too miss a point. You may be able to afford to pay for this training you refer to.
However, what happens when someone can’t afford to pay or aren’t bright enough to learn it?
Are we to assume they just have to go without?
Another can of worms opening there I feel.
Later
A…

Anyway, so far as I’m concerned, that is the end of the matter. I suggest we all agree to disagree. Shake hands, and not raise the subject again (for a little while at least).

If people can’t be bothered to educate themselves (when the information is freely available), why expect others to do it for them?

You all seem to be missing the point.

If I have to pay for that “education” or “information” in order to be able to excercise my right to freely determine what I can or cannot do, then sobeit. If I am required to pass a test of some kind in order to etc…, then again, sobeit. But to throw a blanket over my right to determine what I can or cannot do is wrong in, and of, itself.

Now, I understand that this cannot always be the case, for logistical and many other reason, so I accept the status quo on those grounds, and those grounds alone. But please, saying that we all need to be nannied because we cannot, even with proper information and education, be held responsible for our own decisions is utter nonsense IMV.

This is certainly a subject to get my blood pressure up. I would like to see the actual risk assessment results that have determined that old aircraft instruments pose a significant risk.
I except that if you allow lots of people access to an aircraft there will be some damage, but the Concordes have been open for years & certainly the Duxford example doesn’t seem to have suffered too badly. The Comet 2 at Duxford was scrapped long before public access would have caused significant problems.
I am amazed by Cosfords refusal to allow prearranged access to the Hastings, it’s the size of an airliner so screening off the cockpit would be possible, if they are that worried about instrument dust!!!
General public access to most bombers or fighters is not practicable, but small groups who make arrangements in advance is a different matter. I had a very interesting crawl around Cosfords Liberator in the 80’s, with a small group from Duxford.
A great deal of money is often spent on the interior of exhibits, especially bombers (the B29 at Duxford comes to mind), what is the point if only museum staff are ever going to see it? Before someone points out that you can see a lot of the B29 interior from the outside, I was thinking particularly of the turrets, which as I remember were actually wired up & workable. WHY!!

Whilst I have great respect and admiration for what has been acheived at Cosford, this does strike me as ridiculous. It does rather beg the question, WILL THE ‘FUTURE GENERATIONS’ REFERRED TO BE ALLOWED TO INSPECT THE INTERIOR IN YEARS TO COME, IF NOT, WHY BOTHER PRESERVING IT?

Ok, calm down, caps lock off, but this sort of thing does wind me up. Aircraft are objects whose history has been experienced from both inside and out. If you just get to look at a shiny exterior it may as well be a fibreglass replica or airfix kit. To even begin to understand the full story of an aircraft a visitor surely needs to explore inside, sit on seats, carefully inspect the cockpit, smell the smells.

Having taken a back seat and then read the responses to the thread I now feel less sure about the comments I made earler on. Whilst threads such as these can get a little heated and uncomfortable, the overall effect is educational and do serve as an ‘eye opener’. Having fairly recently gone through the trial of A-level physics I do have an appreciation of how ‘radiation’, particularly in its containment, is not a level playing field and so the explanation of the type of radiation invoved by those with a better understanding is very useful.

This said I stand by my statement that the exploration of the inside of an aircraft is vital to ‘understanding’ it, but I was probably a little wide of the mark GOING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS and whining before fully understanding the facts.

Conscience clear now, cheers, carry on the debate 🙂

Its nice to see we’re talking about Heath & Saftey, radium or whatever you want to call it. What do we have stored at the good old USAF airbase in Suffolk – probably the largest collection of buckets of sunshine for miles around.
We have more pieces of depleted uranium flying around as ballast and mass ballancs weights than we can shake a stick at and all these arse wipe H&S experts seem to worry about is old clock faces – jeees,

keep on talking, its entertaining if nothing else………

have a nice day – now f%&k £$f

I’ll put this in ‘the more knee jerk and unthought out reaction’ category if you don’t mind AF.

You make the assumption somehow, that two (or in this case three) wrongs make a right. Which of course they don’t.

To describe people that work in H&S as bunch of a*se Wipes is quite frankly puerile (look it up if you don’t know what it means).

I’d be interested to know where you get your apparent strong dislike of H&S people from.
Is it the gutter press perhaps?
A press run predominantly by people who staunchly supported the industrialists who opposed all H&S laws originally because it harmed profits. After all what if few members of the lower orders get wiped out for a bit of profit?
There’s always plenty more where they came from.

I’m quite happy to argue this one all weekend.
What I’d really like are some reasoned arguments not just the sameold cr*p.
Later
A…