Yes, I’ve got it on now. The synchronisation between narration and footage was way out, but almost logically; you see an aircraft 30sec-1min before hearing about it, although they missed some out entirely. The screen was full of Spits when they were talking about the Hurricanes! It gets back on track after the point you switched off with the Mossie funnily enough.

I rest my case!

“Help, help, I’m being repressed!” “Come and see the violence inherent in the system!”

So you don’t accept that there are those who would want to take the risk without fully understanding it, and you expect that understanding to be assessed on trust? Where else in the modern world does this occur? You could present lists of dosages, the half-life of radium etc etc, but how do you know that this has been fully understood. I’m not calling anyone stupid here, you must see the point surely? If you take the view that everyone is capable of assimilating the information and taking their own risk, this will still take time. How much time? 5mins for an A-level science student? 30mins for my old mum (rather more than that I feel)? Who is on hand before, during and after this time? To prepare the information in a digestable way?Museums do not have the staff to administer what you propose, and under current and forseeable law even such a disclaimer system would be irrelevant. I suggest you use the online sources given to research your case, and then talk to the relevant advisory bodies and those in government for their reasoning, because this argument is going nowhere.

Why in the year 2005 is the perceived danger arisen, 2 years ago I sat in the Sunderland cockpit at Duxford for approx 20 minutes but at Seletar I spent hours in the cockpits of Sunderlands listening to test matches and news from home. I am still here and as far as health is concerned I am one of the biggest ‘Jonahs’ on record because if there is something doing the rounds then I get it despite flu jabs and the like! Perhaps it is those very instruments that have messed up my immune system, that I shall never know.

Where is this law, is it on the statute books. If it is law there is nothing anyone can do about it apart from abide by it. I think that some motorways in the UK could have their speed limits raised as some roads are safer than others but I accept that 70 MPH is the law, many others don’t observe this limit.

There are armed guards around Lakenheath Air Base but people still cut through the wire fences and ride their bikes up and down the runway when aircraft are active, they take that chance of being shot or flattened, their choice.

There is danger everytime you go out of your house, you know the risks, some are low risks some are much greater, YOU have the choice of taking that risk. Some laws are good, some are bad, no one stopped Ellen MacArthur from taking on her recent VERY hazardous journey, I haven’t heard of the HSE attempting to tell her to avoid the dangers or even banning her. Not only did she put her own life at risk but she MAY have put other lives at risk if her vessel had floundered. I’m sure we all admired her fantastic achievement, I did for one.

I think this rule or ‘law’ on cockpit instruments would be necessary if it were proven that it caused danger or death, if it has could someone please quote the Board of Inquiry case or the Inquest where this has happened. Perhaps then I, and presumably others, would be more convinced of its need.

Right, so the issue is now that you’d like to spend more than the established safe amount of time in a given aircraft because you are (or expect someone to make you) fully aware of the risk? Just to check what’s on the table as it were.

I would suggest that your perceived susceptibility to minor viral infection has very little to do with your likelihood of developing a cancerous growth for any reason. As to Ellen McArthur and the argument of ‘they take risks’ why can’t I, is that no-one is directly responsible for the various oceans that she traversed, and that none of them are a workplace or owned/operated by a public body.

Given hypothetical museum is not your property, and given that an aircraft within it is not your individual property, then I can’t see that you can reasonably expect the right to risk your health/life in that aircraft on that property, nor as Ian has pointed out to expect the right to cause damage to that property in the process, no matter how slight (as its cumulative, takes away from the historical nature of the object, takes resources to measure, conserve etc).

I suppose there is room for argument you do somehow have that right. However, another point is this. We assume from your assertions that you have a full grasp of the risks involved from the empirical research available, but how would you propose museums should bring other visitors up to the same standard of informed decision-making, such that their decision to risk the given activity was soundly based and thus absolved the museum of all responsibility? By your requisite of understanding and self-assessment of risk, we would have to provide night school classes complete with examinations to ensure a complete standard of comprehension on the part of everyone that wanted to access an aircraft with identified risks.

I myself am in favour of limited access to collections but would eventually like museums to possess ‘handling’ cockpits that are not accessioned, are not historical, yet provide people with the feelings they seek and helps them understand what its like to ‘work’ in that cockpit. They can be genuine or replica. Some accessioned objects like the Halifax and Lancaster sections in IWM London are suitably prepared to allow movement through them whilst mitigating damage to the interior with perspex etc. This is another measure that can be taken. More controversially, and again just my opinion, is that collections could be reviewed, certain airframes and cockpits deaccessioned, made safe with replacement equipment, and used for these purposes. This would be a difficult step for any museum to take, as once an item is accessioned, its museum standard care should only be downgraded or discarded under very specific circumstances.

Whilst those that gave service in the aircraft museums hold are still alive, I personally would wish to give them every courtesy. But even they cannot put themselves at unnecessary risk for the legal and moral reasons outlined in this thread. Is ten minutes really not enough? Please know that everything museum workers today do is geared around both preservation and interpretation. Interpretation can involve access to aircraft, but we must take every precaution to ensure that both object and visitor survives X number of encounters with each other. I don’t know whether the private owners allow routine cockpit access, but if even they (as working and maintained airframes) do not, then that should help explain the museum situation to an extent.

The situation is that a clock can be as luminous as you like but there is no requirement for any special monitoring of them as old clocks are considered
that common that it would be impossible to enfore any serious legislation.
The BAPC was in a position to lobby the government for a dispensation to exclude
aircraft instruments from legislation to a similar degree. This would most likely have taken the form of a voluntary declaration from the museums concerned basically
listing what they have and how they are kept. However this wasn’t carried out and we are now in a position where museums have to be very wary about how and where they display items. If the instruments are kept behind glass and the sealing of the instrument is effective the heath risks are quite low. The instances of people getting radium poisoning during and post war exhibited themselves in their teeth and hair falling out . I would suggest if sensible precautions are taken the risk is an acceptable one if you wish to examine the inside of an aircraft . It could be argued that few aircraft in museums are actually airtight anyway so if there was an appreciable risk
of radium dust inhabiting aircraft cockpits well it’s just as likely to get into the air surrounding it.

That’s true, I may have overstated the dust problem; that doesn’t affect exhibited items. Exhibits with readings that high would be quarantined, its ‘ambient’ radiation that’s a concern but as I say, all it does is limit the time that a member of the public can spend in an aircraft. In other words, its a non-issue unless you feel the need to kip in aircraft. And no, you can’t kip in the aircraft. Although HMS Belfast has sleepovers…

This is all a case of “covering the arse in the event of a totally unexpected and unlikely occurance” or, as has been stated, the backlash of an overly-litigious society. If there was a significant risk we would be hearing more about long-time airline pilots (who would have had most exposure) having a higher cancer risk than we lesser mortals. I am not aware of this being the case.

There were cases of workers who made the instruments having radiation sickness and dying. However, they were told to LICK the ends of their paintbrushes to keep them pointed and so they ingested a lot of material over a given time.

Radium has a half-life. Does anyone know what this is? This would mean the danger is significantly reduced (to a quarter of the original after 2 times half-life) as time goes on. Would WW1 instruments (for example) have a lower risk? Does anyone actually have any date on what constitutes a risk and what does not or are these decisions made on the basis of rumour and fear? I don’t know but I find it hard to believe anyone has made a sensible and documented study of the dangers of aircraft instruments.

Apparently living in Edinburgh puts you over the acceptable levels of long term radiation exposure just from the rock it is built on. Let’s make access t Edinburgh impossible on health grounds.

I am not against putting reasonable controls on numbers of people going in and out of historic aircraft nor am I against safety in any form but access should not be prevented on poor excuses and unresearched ‘science’.

MH

Google is your friend as they say. Radium’s halflife is apparently 1622 +/-13 years.

Ref http://pubs.acs.org/cen/80th/print/radiumprint.html

Added to this the factors of deterioration of the container and the paint itself = radioactive dust in the lungs. Also, I think you’ll find that such studies have indeed been made and that the radiation risk can be proven to be appreciable (measured in micro-sieverts I believe). If I get the time and opportunity I will expand but work beckons for now.

The situation as I understand it (having had some experience of working in a/c interiors) is that each aircraft is treated on its merits regarding various health and safety factors. Then of course there’s staff time, the vulnerability of the object to wear and damage, and so on. In terms of radiation there are areas identified as greater risk (cockpits usually for obvious reasons) in which non-staff can only spend a certain amount of time (eg ten minutes). Staff can work longer but must wear radiation dosimeters, these being regularly monitored. When the various factors are added up, many museums find themselves unable to realistically offer access to certain aircraft. This is not a definitive assessment of Duxford’s or anywhere elses methods, just my understanding as of now. You can of course write to the person in charge of radiation supervision at any museum for their definitive policies.

[edit] – a note on radium paint is that at the time, the paint was solid and well sealed in, hence the radiation risk was lower. As time goes on, the sealing of an instrument becomes less effective, the paint starts to crumble, and you start to get a fine radioactive dust. If this gets into your respiratory system, then you could be in for serious health problems.

Despite what you see at paintball sites etc, as far as I know it’s simply not possible for a member of the public to simply ‘sign your life’ away as I imagine many aviation fans would if for example the activity in question was standing under a Spitfire flying 20ft off the deck. At least, not when you’re dealing with a public body (like a museum) its not. It comes back to the culture of ligitation to an extent, but it is all rooted in making sure no-one dies or develops health problems on the ‘watch’ of a given public body. Just look at the (justified) litigation surrounding asbestos related illness.

so who was there and didnt say hi??? Becka had an excuse i know that but who else went shy 😀

By the time I had a break to dig out the camera, it was all over. I did have a look on my way between buildings. I nipped up the steps when the Spit rolled out. Still, your pics are pretty impressive. Did the sun come out at all? It was pretty gloomy when I was outside.