I’m afraid that some of your comments, Mark Pilkington, are factually incorrect or otherwise flawed.

I do not believe anybody has ever suggested that the aircraft should have been left where it was ‘until the pilot’s remains are located’. Instead, we had a number of informed professionals from such disciplines as forensic osteology, pathology and archaeology stating that the immediate crash site should have been subject to minute examination before ‘release’ of the site to the recovery team.

We do not know that the pilot ‘tried to get the radio working on the ground’. That is just a theory and (apparently) remains unproven. Neither do we know that he walked out, although I accept you say this ‘seems likely’. However, we simply do not know.

I would suggest we would know for sure one way or the other, if his body had been found inside the cockpit, or alternatively found to be the ARIDO remains some 8km to the south?

but as you say – I did say “seems likely”.

Responsibility for the remains rests, initially, with the Egyptian authorities. The British MOD have no role in this, save for dealing with issues arising out of the discovery, recovery and identification of the remains should those of the pilot be found.

Strangely I thought I gave primary responsibility for the investigation of human remains to the Egyptian authorities too?, but that doesn’t stop the MOD and Foreign Affairs encouraging the Egyptians diplomatically?

I, and others on this forum, have travelled to Ireland to meet with the family and have been in subsequent contact with them. How they have been treated is shameful, quite frankly. I am quite sure they have drawn some measure of comfort from this ‘confected outrage’.

So if investigation and recovery of human remains is an Egyptian “authorities” Responsibility, how does it become an MOD and RAFM issue? if information coming from Egypt is unreliable and perhaps incomplete in terms of the ARIDO remains being studied?

The P40 has been recovered into storage, assumed to be with Egyptian “authorities” permission, the investigation of the ARIDO remains seems to be still to be done, provision of inaccurate earlier information to the family is disappointing, but the MOD apparently passed on the information at the time in good faith, again I would have thought this is exactly the role Veterans-UK was there to manage?

There are, of course, two issues in this matter; the P40 itself and the pilot.

In your post I am drawn to the conclusion that you probably follow the view that the P40 itself is the primary consideration. Certainly, others have formed the view that the importance of the P40 itself and completing the arrangements to ship it to the UK, and the risk to such arrangements over the ‘difficult’ matter of the pilot, transcends any other consideration – including how the family is treated. That the P40 is out of the desert is to be applauded and Tim Manna’s team obviously did a good job in that respect. However, it remains stuck in Egypt it seems, and we have yet to see the final outcome of those salvage efforts and any transaction completed ‘twixt the RAFM and contractor for its salvage. That said, there are distinct protocols on a world-wide basis for the protection of archaeological artefacts (of which the P40 is one) within the country they were found. Egypt is a country that is particularly sensitive to these protocols, of course, and David Burke is quite right in his #1909.

We seem to both agree there are two issues, the aircraft and the pilots remains, and that they quickly diverge.

I don’t think the two are reliant on one another in anyway.

I thought my earlier posts made that clear?

I don’t think I have made any comments on how the family should be treated or the importance of the P40 over any human remains and I would agree you are simply drawing conclusions without any basis of fact as to my views on those matters.

I note there was a proposal for a film documentary and full site forensic investigation, and given you seem to be the source of that information (post #1527) I assume that you may well have been part of that proposal?, but for what ever reason it was not taken up? (costs?).

As for confected outrage, – that’s the impression I gain from reading a number of comments over the last 10 pages.

If you and other individuals are doing things “behind” the scenes, then good for you, but they don’t seem detailed greatly either?

If my view of things has a flaw or is factually incorrect, its based on the publicly presented information, as far as I can see?

In regards to protocols world wide, I assume you are referring to the Burra Charter,

– are you somehow suggesting that Egypt has not approved the aircrafts recovery from site?

I would have thought international diplomacy would require any recovery project undertaken with even arms length involvement by a UK agency
– would first require permission from the Egyptian “authorities”?
– are you suggesting it wasn’t?

Again if you know for sure – you would seem not to be disclosing it, or are you simply making assumptions, as you do so in regards to my view of “whats important”.

I do think it was important to recover the P40 wreck from its crash-site before its eventually destroyed.

Its quite possible the recovery into relative secure storage is the only thing so far agreed between British and Egyptian “authorities”.

Its quite possible the aircraft might remain in Egypt to be preserved there, although that doesn’t appear to have been Tim Hanna’s intent?

I do think it is important to determine “what /who” ARIDO did discover 8km south of the wreck site.

Beyond that, if the pilots remains cannot be found, they share the fate of many of MIA’s around the world, and all the discovery and recovery of the P40 has done is to at least resolve his fate for the family, and provide a very tangible evidence and memorial of that.

It seems by many posts, that the UK government’s official policy is not to go out simply searching for MIA’s?, the recovery of the P40 is clearly a tangible project in terms of costs and effort, the search for remains in the desert can become very costly, and obviously create precedents.

So it would seem the P40 recovery to secure storage has been achieved, but investigation of the ARIDO remains has not?

Why “not”, and “not” by “whom” -seems still undefined, and even the details of who has been told of their locations seems rather unclear?

“Who” should be interested in seeing these remains investigated – clearly the UK “authorities”

“Who” has legal jurisdiction over them? – clearly the Egyptian “authorities”

As I said earlier, it would seem to be MOD’s and Veterans-UK’s role, and the Defence Ministers “interest” to see that was resolved one way or the other, but in the end, unless the Burra Charter is not also applied to human remains (let alone International Diplomacy), I would assume any formal investigation by the UK MOD would need the authority and probably support of the Egyptian Government?, even under simple diplomatic courtesy.

Of course, as ARIDO has shown, there is nothing to stop private individuals (with apparent Egyptian police escorts) to investigate such remains in the Desert?, I don’t know the Egyptian laws for “interfering with”, or “recovering” human remains, even for local testing, and I assume it would be far better for such action to be undertaken under the authority of the Egyptians themselves.

Perhaps you are solving all of this behind the scenes too?, or writing to the Media and the UK PM and UK Defence Minister urging that they do?

and good on you if you are, as I don’t think simply suggesting it here in this forum, or re-stating it as unsatisfactory, is going to achieve it? – as was my point in any case.

We seem to agree on some things, and disagree on others, including your conclusions as to my own views.

As I said to David, we are all welcome to our opinions, even to agree to dis-agree.

I am pleased, and remain so, to see the P40 has been recovered as stated at the beginning of my post, and consider it an important battlefield relic that should be preserved, either in Egypt, or back in the UK.

My preference in this case, would be to see it back in the UK, but if it remained in Cairo, and was preserved locally, (like the rare P40L has been in Italy), then that’s better than it simply being left to be stripped clean.

I am disappointed if the ARIDO remains have not been investigated, but it seems even from Qattra in February 2013 that the “authorities” in Egypt had not requested their location details, and so far it doesn’t seem confirmed that anyone other than ARIDO still know where they are, other than the general description of 8km south of the wreck.

Above are my stated opinions, and right or wrong, they are mine, based on the facts, or publicly known information, as perceived by me.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I’m very pleased to see that this rare surviving battle field artefact has been recovered before it could be further looted and vandalised, following it disclosure on youtube.

I hope it is eventually secured by a UK museum (IWM / RAFM, as it appears likely) and preserved and conserved in its current state rather than to a factory fresh restoration, and worse still airworthy warbird outcome.

I do not support the arguments that the aircraft should have been left there until the pilot remains are located – the desert is a rather large and deep sandpit, ignoring the possibility of burial by indiginous travellers over the last 70 years.

It seems clear the pilot survived the crash, apparently well enough to try and get the radio working on the ground, and it seems likely an attempt was made to “walk out” with the predicable results.

The crash site GPS co-ordinates are known, as supposedly those of the remains previously located.

I would see that the responsibility for investigating those sits with MOD and probably the Veterans-UK unit rather than a museum or its contractors or third party go- between?

Its clear that Egypt was, has been, and still is a difficult political and physical environment.

Clearly the resources and skills to recover a P40 from one site, are significantly different from those required to examine and recover human remains from another site 8km away, even if you do have the co-ordinates.

It would make sense to “try” to combine the trips, and to take such expertise to the crash site, but we have no evidence that didnt happen, or was considered, or that the “authorities” havent examined the crash site for remains in the period since the discovery, to put it bluntly we dont know what the Egyptian military and government has done within their own country. We certainly saw images of Egyptian Military on site in this forum a long time ago.

It seems “someone” is pursuing and investigating remains with reports of carbon dating 400yo remains from a second site.

We read of claim and counter claim regarding the original remains and as to if their location has been provided to the “authorities” or not? and given this is all being played out in Egypt, a sovereign state clearly in turmoil?, I would wonder who some consider the “authorities” to be?, I would have thought the Egyptians have primary jurisdiction in this matter?

I’m not sure the constant repeating of the same confected outrage on public forums such as these achieves much to progress those outcomes?

Surely if there is some great controversy of this, the UK media could be briefed and a few well placed articles to stir public interest and opinion could cause the “truth” to come to light?, along with some personal letters to the UK PM and Defence Minister?,

Strangely there is no mention of either efforts being made?, by those vocal about this issue, and apparently capable of making such efforts?

Well done to Tim Manna and hopefully the RAF Museum is the final recipient, the specific arrangements are their business and best kept confidential while the process remains “in progress” and within Egyptian borders, and in the same way the search for human remains ( if actively underway) may also require some diplomacy given the political environment there?, to avoid damaging any progress and access /support that is being given.

The missing pilot has probably not ever received the public awareness of his loss, as has happened since the discovery of his P40.

I would have thought its return and preservation and ongoing display in the UK as a battlefield artefact would be a very fitting memorial to his service and sacrifice for his nation.

Hopefully if his remains can be found, that they too will be recovered, but I do not see both items dependant on each other, beyond providing the impetus and location to start such a search, once “one” is located, it need not wait for the “other” to be located/recovered first?

The two issues and recoveries seperate into different expertise, and resources/time on the ground, and apparantly different places on the ground?

There would be many other MIA UK servicemen in the same sandpit, and many other locations around the world, and MOD/Veterans-UK would appear to be a far more appropriate resourced entity and process to investigate and pursue them, than to delegate to a technology museum and its team of airframe dismantlers?

A UK campaign to “bring them home” as occurs in the USA, would seem to have some resonance as we approach the Centenary of WW1, the war to end all wars, but it needs media and wider public opinion to support investment in that activity, over flying Vulcans, or hosting the Olympics etc

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I guess the Sopwith Snipe we borrowed from Canada in the late 1960’/early 1970s would count for that and I seem to recall a certain Wright Flyer being at the Science museum
for a while before it got more recognition back home!

Well there are the Seagull V and Hudson on very long loan to the RAFM from Australia too, although we would like them to come home now please.

Smiles
Mark Pilkington

Just for the record, the Anson Mk I has a steel tube fuselage with a fabric covering and one piece wooden wings.

The Anson Mk V has a moulded wood fuselage and 3 piece wooden wings.

I suspect that the Mark V was still tied electrically together by all that plated copper earthing strips tacked all over the wooden parts and that would have bonded the external metal parts to the radio rack, and of course conducted 1 Billion Volts and 80KA for a little while smiles. (a very little while).

Regards

Mark Pilkington

In view of that, Mark and Beermat, are you able to express an opinion as to what height might have been “sufficiently close to the ground” for the Anson to serve as a conductor for lightning to an extent such that “traces that the aeroplane had been struck were found” and that “these traces were ….. round the wireless operator’s seat and table”? Furthermore is there likely to be substance in the assertion, made at the inquest into the deaths caused by the crash of the Anson, that “the lightning probably came up into the trailing aerial through the aerial winch and then discharged itself in the cabin”?

Like a bird sitting on a High Voltage Powerline, you don’t get electrocuted if there is no current flow, hence the images above of a metal airliner seemingly suffering a strike and the passengers inside happily surviving it.

I would suspect that airliner may still have suffered some skin damage, but the currents were conducted on the external monocoque structure, and everything in side would have been lifted to the same potential and so no current flowed between passengers and the skin of the aircraft.

Once the leader from the airplane meets a leader from the cloud, a strike to the ground can continue and the airplane becomes part of the event. At this point, passengers and crew may see a flash and hear a loud noise when lightning strikes the airplane. Significant events are rare because of the lightning protection engineered into the airplane and its sensitive electronic components.

After attachment, the airplane flies through the lightning event. As the strike pulses, the leader reattaches itself to the fuselage or other structure at other locations while the airplane is in the electric circuit between the cloud regions of opposite polarity. Current travels through the airplane’s conductive exterior skin and structure and exits out another extremity, such as the tail, seeking the opposite polarity or ground. Pilots may occasionally report temporary flickering of lights or short-lived interference with instruments.

Airplane components made of ferromagnetic material may become strongly magnetized when subjected to lightning currents. Large current flowing from the lightning strike in the airplane structure can cause this magnetization.

While the electrical system in an airplane is designed to be resistant to lightning strikes, a strike of unusually high intensity can damage components such as electrically controlled fuel valves, generators, power feeders, and electrical distribution systems.

Most of the external parts of legacy airplanes are metal structure with sufficient thickness to be resistant to a lightning strike. This metal assembly is their basic protection. The thickness of the metal surface is sufficient to protect the airplane’s internal spaces from a lightning strike. The metal skin also protects against the entrance of electromagnetic energy into the electrical wires of the airplane. While the metal skin does not prevent all electromagnetic energy from entering the electrical wiring, it can keep the energy to a satisfactory level.

By understanding nature and the effects of lightning strikes, Boeing works to design and test its commercial airplanes for lightning-strike protection to ensure protection is provided throughout their service lives. Material selection, finish selection, installation, and application of protective features are important methods of lightning-strike damage reduction.

Areas that have the greatest likelihood of a direct lightning attachment incorporate some type of lightning protection. Boeing performs testing that ensures the adequacy of lightning protection. Composite parts that are in lightning-strike prone areas must have appropriate lightning protection.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]223383[/ATTACH]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2012_q4/4/

But clearly the Anson didn’t survive, something was different?

The Anson is a wooden frame with all of its metal parts tied together via metal flat ribbons nailed to the structure, and therefore a severe lightning strike could well lift some parts to different potentials than others, creating arcing between them, ie fuel tanks and lines could be at risk on an Anson in my view, as they are sitting there in a wooden structure, a poor conductor, (unless its moist).

I don’t see any faraday cage effect occurring in the Anson, the steel tube frame is just a network of large pipes to conduct the discharge through, a Faraday Cage works on the principle of an earthed screen stopping radio waves getting through it, no such role for the Anson steel tube in that role?

For the wireless operators seat and table to show arcing marks and there to be evidence of strikes on the aeroplane my view is:

The aircraft was at a greater height than the end of the trailing aerial, it will undoubtably be dangling at some angle below the aircraft and the horizontal slip stream, and we can calculate the likely worst case angle of the dangle ignoring the effect of drag to pull it back up into the slip stream.

I therefore think the airframe got hit by the Lightning, the steel fuselage frame would be the main item to become charged, and then the EHV have lept via the frame and radio mounts into the aerial, (clearances inside the radio equipment would not be sufficient to stop the lightning jumping across and into the aerial).

The Aerial being extended out and below the aircraft, would be much closer to the ground and ground potential, especially if the air was damp, (which is the typical environment for lightning) and hence the charged aerial weights would discharge into the moist air trying to reach the ground, and even if not physically seen to hit the ground, there would be a current flow to ground sufficient to have high currents flowing through the steeltube frame, the radio and aerial, and of course any humans sitting on metal seats and touching the radio, or otherwise providing parallel paths.

I would imagine the storm clouds might be at say 1000 to 2000 ft, the Anson might have been at 1000 ft to 500 ft to 300ft? to maintain VFR, and if the 200 ft of aerial was say dangling at 50 ft, then the ground may have still been 150 to 200 feet below the weights, and if there was drizzle the lightning could easily still jump that gap.

At anything below 50 feet in moist air, and at a lightning strike voltage in the MegaVolts, (and 10,000kV per inch in free air) I don’t think it wouldn’t be greatly different to the aerial dragging along on the top of the soil. (1MV is 100 x 10kV and in dry air will jump 100 inches or 15 feet, and that’s in dry free air).

But I suspect it could still discharge over the 150 to 200 feet I mentioned above.

When we see lightning strike a bolt half way to the ground, the fact we don’t see it “hit” the ground, doesn’t mean current isn’t flowing to the rest of the way to the ground.

It just means its no longer a large enough flashover voltage to create visible light. – Electricity is normally invisible, that’s why it bites so many people undertaking DIY in their homes.

A typical cloud to ground lightning flash culminates in the formation of an electrically conducting plasma channel through the air in excess of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) tall, from within the cloud to the ground’s surface. The actual discharge is the final stage of a very complex process.[2] At its peak, a typical thunderstorm produces three or more strikes to the Earth per minute.

The electrical current of the return stroke averages 30 kiloamperes for a typical negative CG flash, often referred to as “negative CG” lightning. In some cases, a positive ground to cloud (GC) lightning flash may originate from a positively charged region on the ground below a storm. These discharges normally originate from the tops of very tall structures, such as communications antennas. The rate at which the return stroke current travels has been found to be around 1×108 m/s[27])

The massive flow of electrical current occurring during the return stroke combined with the rate at which it occurs (measured in microseconds) rapidly superheats the completed leader channel, forming a highly electrically-conductive plasma channel. The core temperature of the plasma during the return stroke may exceed 50,000 K, causing it to brilliantly radiate with a blue-white color. Once the electrical current stops flowing, the channel cools and dissipates over 10’s or hundreds of milliseconds, often disappearing as fragmented patches of glowing gas. The nearly instantaneous heating during the return stroke causes the air to explosively expand, producing a powerful shock wave that is heard as thunder.

CG lightning can occur with both positive and negative polarity. The polarity refers to the polarity of the charge in the region that originated the lightning leaders. An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of 30,000 amperes (30 kA), and transfers 15 coulombs of electric charge and 500 megajoules of energy. Large bolts of lightning can carry up to 120 kA and 350 coulombs.[32]

Unlike the far more common “negative” lightning, positive lightning originates from the positively charged top of the clouds (generally anvil clouds) rather than the lower portion of the storm. Leaders form in the anvil of the cumulonimbus and may travel horizontally for several miles before veering towards the ground. A positive lightning bolt can strike anywhere within several miles of the anvil of the thunderstorm.

Because of the much greater distance to ground, the positively-charged region can develop considerably larger levels of charge levels and voltages than the negative charge regions in the lower part of the cloud. Positive lightning bolts are considerably hotter and longer than negative lightning. They can develop six to ten times the amount of charge and voltage of a negative bolt and the discharge current may last ten times longer.[34] A bolt of positive lightning may carry an electric current of 300 kA and the potential at the top of the cloud may exceed a billion volts — about 10 times that of negative lightning.[35] During a positive lightning strike, huge quantities of extremely low frequency (ELF) and very low frequency (VLF) radio waves are generated.[

As a result of their greater power, as well as lack of warning, positive lightning strikes are considerably more dangerous. At the present time, aircraft are not designed to withstand such strikes, since their existence was unknown at the time standards were set, and the dangers unappreciated until the destruction of a glider in 1999.[37] The standard in force at the time of the crash, Advisory Circular AC 20-53A, was replaced by Advisory Circular AC 20-53B in 2006,[38] however it is unclear whether adequate protection against positive lightning was incorporated.[39][40]Positive lightning is also now believed to have been responsible for the 1963 in-flight explosion and subsequent crash of Pan Am Flight 214, a Boeing 707.[citation needed] Aircraft operating in U.S. airspace have been required to be equipped with static discharge wicks. Although their primary function is to mitigate radio interference due to static buildup through friction with the air, in the event of a lightning strike, a plane is designed to conduct the excess electricity through its skin and structure to the wicks to be safely discharged back into the atmosphere. These measures, however, may be insufficient for positive lightning.[41]Positive lightning has also been shown to trigger the occurrence of upper atmosphere lightning between the tops of clouds and the ionosphere. Positive lightning tends to occur more frequently in winter storms, as with thundersnow, and in the dissipation stage of a thunderstorm.[42]

When the local electric field exceeds the dielectric strength of damp air (about 3 million volts per meter), electrical discharge results in a strike, often followed by commensurate discharges branching from the same path. (See image, right.) Mechanisms that cause the charges to build up to lightning are still a matter of scientific investigation.[66][67] Lightning may be caused by the circulation of warm moisture-filled air through electric fields.[68] Ice or water particles then accumulate charge as in a Van de Graaff generator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning

Powerful stuff, Nature at work, very few things we build, can survive a zap of 3 Million Volts or 300,000 Amperes, let alone 1 Billion volts or the plasma and high temperatures referred to above, and certainly a wooden Anson or its crew are not going to safely conduct the excess electricity safely out of the airframe, especially if the trailing 200 feet of aerial cable simply brings the path to ground/earth just that much electrically closer that the top of the charged cloud, resulting in those heavy currents passing through the airframe and into the trailing aerial cable.

As referred to in the wiki article, there are instances of aircraft losses due to lightning strike where clearly the aircraft itself was not a direct connection to earth, but just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

1 BV = 100000x 10,000V

10kV will jump an inch in dry air, 1Billion Volts will therefore jump 8,300 Feet in dry air, the distance between the end of the trailing aerial and the ground need not concern a discharge of 1BV too much, it will jump into the Anson, out the end of the trailing aerial, jump the rest of the way to ground, and for a very small period of time unleash massive current and energy along its path from the cloud to the ground, the Anson is a high resistance conductor in some wooden parts, but still a dead short compared to the moist air, and the damage will be significant.

I will still try and dig out one of my trailing aerial reels and measure the cross sectional area of the cable and the 50 weights, but I’m still of the view that a first order answer of the worst case angle of the dangle can be easily constructed from the length in M, and the forward velocity of the aircraft and the downward gravitational force, the vector of those should create a triangle slope which would reflect the ideal angle of the trailing aerial ignoring the force that we know existing in the other direction in the form of drag.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Interesting stuff. A couple of observations, though. The horizontal component of the vector diagram is not the speed of the aircraft, it is the drag upon the wire. Gravity acts at 9.8m/s2 , ie squared, it is an accelerative force not a velocity and so you cannot convert a velocity to ‘match’.Also, hf wavelengths were in the range 10 to 100m, not mm..

Yes I would agree in regards to both points, the HF wave length is longe than mm (I’m working current in a UHF project and simply stabbed in the dark to make the point that the frequency would not in itself fix the length, other than improving reception at multiples of the wavelength.

In regards to the vector diagram, the aircraft speed and gravity as a force (yes m/s sqd) will give the worst case dangle trajectory, a drag force acting in the opposite direction will tend to drag the cable back into the slipstream so the dangle will not be as bad as the simple equation above.

While gravity is an acceleration, the cable cannot accelerate beyond the limit of its length, so its reasonable to use the 9.8 as a static velocity and therefore constant force applied, and ignore any acceleration/increase implied by the units.

I still consider the aircraft speed, gravity, weight and length will give the basic worst case dangle angle.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Im not sure the length varied with frequency – we are talking about HF radio frequencies here with wave lengths less than mm, the aerial is tuned to be at multiples of the wave length hence it goes in and out of tuning with each metre reeled out, but the longer the aerial – the better the signal and the stronger the reception.

I have over the years collected intact examples for various projects and I believe the trailing aerial reel was identical (in the RAAF at least) for the Wirraway and the Anson, and any variation in “length” would have been specified by the number of turns of the reel to determine the amount of aerial actually trailed.

I suspect this was largely word of mouth at the WAGS schools not due to limitations of the aircraft to drag the wire but simply whst was sufficient to endure adequate aerial length for the radio set, as the radio sets were often common between these two types in Australia I would expect the same minimum length was recommended by the instructors although perhaps in practise a Wooden Anson could get away with less aerial length than a metal Wirraway but I suspect if the details survive they will exist in WAGS training notes and not in the aircrafts manuals or in a different specified reel for each type.

The WAG would then adjust the final length by mm to best tune the reception, and clearly that would then reflect the specific frequency then in use.

Regards

Mark Pilkington