exmpaTan = Opposite/Adjacent
Opposite = Assumed height of target (35K ft)
Adjacent = Ground Dist
therefore
Adjacent (ground dist) = Assumed target Height/Tan Observed angle
exmpa
exmpaAAIB website has all the information you require on the “About us” pages.
exmpa
exmpa“However, as any ban would potentially affect collectors including museums, the government will first consult with enthusiasts.
Ms Smith said the government would seek to balance protection for the public with the rights of responsible collectors.
Don’t hold your breath Nick!
In view of the interest that this thread has generated, here is a link to The Home Office website where you may download a copy of Firearms Law Guidance to the Police 2002. I must stress that this is not the Firearms Act itself, that along with its amendments is a truly dreadful document, The Guidance is at least written in recognisable English!
For more general guidance on firearms and the law, the best source is probably BASC website. A good one to bookmark as it does provide up to date links to the Home Office website.
Nick alluded to the EOD aspects of recovery operations. This is another area that can be a minefield 😉 , not least because of the “turf wars” between some of the agencies involved.
Good luck, stay safe and avoid prosecution in 2008!
exmpa
exmpaNick you wrote:
And all that doesnt even take into account the “catch 22” position you put yourself in when finding such a weapon, as you technically have no right to touch it or move it from the crash site, let alone transport it to a section 5 certified gunsmith to work on! I know, as I was threatened with arrest after having reported a find (as we are obliged to do) to the police – As the senior officer said when he eventually put his foot down and stopped the whole silly mess – If we spend our time and efforts treating genuine law abiding citizens like this, how on earth can we hope to win public confidence and catch those who are the real threat!
This is precisely the kind of situation I had in mind when I recommended at post #7 of this thread that a working knowledge of the Home Office Guidance document is important. In the case you described the following provisions would probably apply:
2.16 Section 8 of the 1988 Act is an
evidential provision and does not preclude
the possibility that a firearm which has
been de-activated in some other manner
may also have ceased to be a firearm within
the meaning of the 1968 Act. For example,
guns held by museums that were recovered
from wrecked ships and aircraft may be
corroded to the point that they cannot be
fired. This should not be confused with
wear or missing parts that can be replaced.
The final arbiter of whether the article fulfils
the definition of a firearm at section 57(1)
is a Court.
Part of the problem is that the police themselves are not very good on firearms law!. The reaction you experienced is ample evidence of this.
I would suggest that if you are carrying out an excavation that may result in the recovery of weapons or ammunition you write to the Firearms Licensing Department of the police force responsible for the area and advise them of your activity. You may also wish to include an outline of the procedures that you will follow if you do recover any item that may be subject to the Firearms Act (this would of course include advising the police) and ask that they approve your proposals. Whatever is finally agreed, insist on it being confirmed in writing. If they are tardy in doing this then confirm it yourself, along the lines of…….. Further to the telephone conversation between myself and Firearms Enquiry Officer XXXX on [date] I understand that you agree to the following:…….
Keep a copy of all correspondence and a meticulous record of all your dealings with Firearms Department. The reason this is so important is that offences under the Firearms Act are criminal offences, just like theft and assault.
exmpa
exmpaDe-Activation of Firearms
FWIW below is the relevant extract from the HO publication “Firearms Law – Guidance to the Police” If you have anything to do with firearms in any respect it is well worth having a knowledge of the relevant sections of this document. Firearms Licensing Departments do have a tendency to “gold plate” the regulations.
De-activated firearms
2.12 Section 8 of the 1988 Act provides that,
unless it can be shown otherwise, a firearm
which has been de-activated to a standard
approved by the Secretary of State so that it
is incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or
other missile, is presumed not to be a firearm
within the meaning of the 1968 Act and
therefore is not subject to control if it bears
a mark approved by the Secretary of State for
denoting that fact. The 1988 Act requires that
one of the two Proof Houses or some other
person approved by the Secretary of State has
marked the firearm and certified in writing
(that is, provided a certificate) that it has
been de-activated to the approved standard.
No other person has been approved for
this purpose.2.13 De-activation specifications were first
set by the Home Office in 1989. New
specifications came into force on 1 October
1995 but are not retrospective. Therefore, a
gun de-activated prior to 1 October 1995 to
the old specifications remains de-activated for
legal purposes.2.14 The 1995 specifications encompassed a
substantially greater range of firearms design,
and are generally more stringent than the
preceding (1989) standards.2.15 The revised specifications enable
alternative standards to be agreed on a caseby-
case basis for the class of weapons listed
in the Home Office publication “Firearms
Law – Specifications for the Adaptation of
Shot Gun Magazines and the De-activation of
Firearms”. Any alternative standards will be
equally stringent but will allow the weapons
to retain some of the essential features
required by collectors. The new specifications
allow for agreement on alternative standards
to be an on-going process.2.16 Section 8 of the 1988 Act is an
evidential provision and does not preclude
the possibility that a firearm which has
been de-activated in some other manner
may also have ceased to be a firearm within
the meaning of the 1968 Act. For example,
guns held by museums that were recovered
from wrecked ships and aircraft may be
corroded to the point that they cannot be
fired. This should not be confused with
wear or missing parts that can be replaced.
The final arbiter of whether the article fulfils
the definition of a firearm at section 57(1)
is a Court.
exmpa
exmpaexmpaLeeds-London
I first operated the LBA-LHR service nearly 20 years ago on the DC9. I said then that when the competition was the train we really shouldn’t stand a chance. I believed that when the railways got their act together we would quickly pull off the likes of BHX,EMA,LPL,LBA,MME, MAN and perhaps eventually GLA and EDI. I felt at the time it would be about 10 years before LBA ended.
LPL was pulled about 5 years later, but this had more to do with low yield and withdrawl of subsidy by Liverpool City Council than the trains becoming competitive. BHX and EMA didn’t last much longer, there just wasn’t the money to be made on either of those routes.
I was wrong about timing on the other routes because it has taken longer than anticipated or the train companies to get their act together, but it is happening now. MAN-LHR might hang on for a while because of the higher volumes, but that to cannot be judged to have a long term future.
The only question that really remains is which goes first, MME or LBA? Whichever it is, the other will follow fairly quickly.
exmpa
exmpaOr just strap two of the engines on a pickup so the exhausts are facing forwards and put them up to full power. That should move the snow
Sorry, 40 years too late. Been there and done that. The RAF had a wonderful contraption called the Machine Runway Deicing (MRD). It was a pair of Nene engines (IIRC) on a chassis with a wooden cabin in between that housed the luckless operator. The MRD was then coupled up to a fuel bowser that pushed it along (or vice-versa if you got the revs too high!). The height of the nozzles above the surface was adjusted by a large bottle jack in the control cabin, this entailed a lot of hard pumping as when you tried to lower them a bit you invariably ended up with the nozzles at their lowest position. you then had to pump furiously to get them up before the concrete started to break up!
The idea was that the jet efflux melted the snow and ice, blew the water away and dried the surface. Unfortunately it also had a tendency to melt the tarmac while it was at it and the drying process was none too certain, so you could quickly turn a bit of snow into a nice smooth sheet of ice. There was an even scarier version that was a single engine blowing sideways and towed behind the bowser. These had an unfortunate tendency to slide and rotate at anything above idle revs. I cannot recall when the MRDs were withdrawn from service but I suspect that it was the late 1970s.
exmpa
exmpaKen,
Thank you for the link to Burnell’s website. It is very good indeed. You are right about Wynn, he is difficult to read, but it should be remembered that his work was originally purely for internal distribution. Publication was not the intention. That probably is not an apology for his turgidity, just a reason!
As an aside, a friend of mine had a copy of Wynn in his office at work. It was kept in the safe as it was a classified document. A few years after he retired his wife bought him a copy as a Christmas present. How the world moves on.
I expect that you have read Lorna Arnold’s “Britain and the H Bomb”. It does cast some light in unexpected corners.
exmpa
exmpaBomber Command Memorial
There should be a Bomber Command memorial. It is an omission that must be corrected, whatever the chosen location. As to that location, I flew from those old bomber airfields in the 1960s and ’70s. Our aircraft bore no squadron markings in those days on centralised servicing, but we did have the badge of the City and County of Lincoln on the fin.
It was also a significant period as by 1970 the war had been over 25 years. Many of those who had served at those airfields had gone home and picked up their lives again and now with the family off their hands they came back. We had a steady stream of Australians, Canadians and many others turning up at the guardroom asking if they could come and see the old places once more. After a few quick checks a duty crew from one of the squadrons would be despatched to pick them up and escort them around. They turned up not only at the active stations but at the other ones, I met a couple in Metheringham, where I lived at the time.
It was a privilege to meet these men, to be there as they remembered, perhaps to help them lay their ghosts. To have one’s wife tell me that he had never spoken of his time in Bomber Command before. To see the visible emotion that followed when they were taken into the hangar to see
PA474, then based at Waddington. I know that this occurred at other stations outside Lincolnshire, I recall the Canadian reunions at Middleton St George. However my point is that it was to the airfields that they returned, not London, not Runnymede.
Lincolnshire is synonymous with the RAF and the links still exist today. It is there that the memorial should be situated.
exmpa
exmpaAs for the ‘bicycle key’. It was the woman interviewer of the so-called expert that said it looked like a bicycle key. The key looks like this . . .
Don’t tell them what the other bit on the keyring is for Les! That’s the real secret;)
exmpa
exmpaAt the village war memorial where they still read out the names inscribed upon it. Remembering the crew of Nimrod XV230 and in particular Flight Sergeant Adrian Davies my former flight engineer.
Still on task.
exmpa
exmpaRO radio or radar operator
There was a post war “RO” brevet issued for a brief period. This was a result of a perceived requirement for an aircrew branch dedicated to radar operation in for example the night and all weather fighters or the V-bombers. The experiment was brief and a failure and the few graduates of the scheme were subsequently given entitlement to wear the “N” brevet.
I only ever met one “RO” and he told me that one member of his course had arrived having failed both pilot and navigator training. This chap said the had been told “You might as well give this new branch a go”. If that was the case it is not really surprising that the experiment was short lived!
exmpa
exmpaIn WW2 the same ‘boxed’ secrecy would probably have prevailed with night fighter intruder sqns being told only minimal information about the bomber force attacks.
I now have the answer to the supplementary questions I asked about the briefing of Mosquito crews on intruder operations. My informant tells me that he recalls being fully briefed on the routes, timings and targets of the main force operations they were supporting. He also told me that the tactical brief they received varied considerably. On some occaisions they would be assigned to what could be compared to an escort role for the bomber stream, on others they might be tasked with interdicting specified night fighter airfields or sometimes given a free ranging role of operating up to 150 miles either side of the bomber tracks.
exmpa
exmpaIn my limited legal knowledge he probably has a strong case because he was relief crew and wasn’t required for duty for some time after departure. How can the authorities tell exactly what his blood alcohol level would be at that time.
Not the case, the offence is to Report for duty with a Blood Alcohol Count (BAC) above the minimum specified in the act. It is not necessary to arrive on the aircraft or even to have played any part in the preparation for the flight.
While I don’t condone flying while drunk,
The BAC for aviation is 25% of the limit for driving. This limit was set because it is the lowest level at which reliable detection is possible. The limit was not set with reference to any perceptible degree of impairment that occurs at that BAC. Setting the limit at such a level accounts for the high number of false positives that have occurred.
exmpa
Sign In
