CUBANEWS FROM RADIO HAVANA CUBA July 1st, 1997 E-mail: rhc@radiohc.org The following is a special from RADIO HAVANA CUBA's International Shortwave Service in English for Tuesday, July 1st 1997. Cuba has issued a report with technical considerations that further sustain charges that a US plane overflying the island's territory, was indeed responsible for the spread of the Thrips Palmi Plague. The report was published in Tuesday's edition of Granma. It follows in its entirety: TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT'S STATEMENTS ON THE ACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE U.S. S2R AIRCRAFT WHILE FLYING OVER CUBAN NATIONAL TERRITORY ON OCTOBER 21st, 1996. On May 5th this year, the U.N. Secretary General distributed as a U.N. General Assembly official document (A/52/128, dated 4/29/1997) a Report on the appearance in Cuba of the Thrips Palmi plague. The above report makes a thorough description of the facts of the overflight along the "Giron" corridor, within Cuban territory, by the S2R aircraft, with registration No. N3093M of the U.S. Civil Aircraft Registry operated by the U.S. State Department. The findings of the research, just as concluded by the above mentioned report, permit to sustain with a high degree of certainty, that the appearance of the Thrips Palmi in Cuba is related to the spewing of unknown substances over the national territory by the afore- mentioned U.S. aircraft. On May 6, the U.S. State Department made statements on the Report presented by Cuba. In those statements, trying to justify the spraying of substances over Cuba, it was expressed that the pilot followed prudential air safety measure to mark his location with smoke and that all small aircraft of this kind used by the United States are equipped with smoke-generating systems. It was also stated that during long flights, the sprinkling system are not operational because the tanks normally used for the pesticides are used in the case to store the fuel necessary for the journey. Such arguments prove thoughtless and unprofessional, as unquestionably evidenced by the following technical considerations: Questions relating to the use of the smoke generator as an air traffic procedure: - The norms and regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) do no make any reference whatsoever to any regulation establishing the use of smoke generators to signal the position of flying aircraft and it is not a known practice. - The aircraft was flying under an IFR (Instrumental Flight Rules) flight plan, where the responsibility for the mutual separation of aircraft during the flight is assumed by the Air Traffic Controller leading them, and not by the pilots, as the U.S. smoke generator version argues. - It is absurd for the pilot to have been unsettled to such an extent by the approach of a Cubana de Aviacion aircraft that he decided to activate the alleged smoke generator without ever reporting this to the Air Traffic Controller who was leading him and who was responsible for his separation, which certainly is a set procedure. - Also significant is the fact that the approach made him turn on the alleged smoke generator and there was no related report from the aircraft captain on arriving at his destination airport, which also certainly is a set procedure. - Nor did the pilot report in-flight that he had any technical problem on board. Cuba has the radio recordings between the aircraft and the air traffic controller. On the use of the smoke generator: - In the consulted official publications (Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1992-1993, Aviation Week & Space Technology of 3/16/92), the smoke generator does not appear as S2R-T65 aircraft standard equipment. - Small, mid-size, and large commercial aircraft, as well as crop duster planes manufactured and operated all over the world, are not equipped with the smoke generator and it is not required by ICAO. - The only ordinary practice is the installation of smoke generators in aerobatic aircraft in exhibition flights and other related activities. On the use of the herbicide tank for carrying fuel: It is known that this kind of aircraft, as well as other similar ones, can use the tank normally used for carrying herbicides or other elements, as fuel tank during long flights. In the case of the N3093M flight on October 21, 1996, there are elements that show the non-use of the herbicide tank to carry fuel. These can be summarized as follows: - The flight request submitted to the relevant Cuban authorities says that it is a ferry flight, which, according to the aeronautical phraseology, means that this aircraft was carrying no load or, which is the same, the herbicide tank was empty, since it is the only compartment where this aircraft carries cargo. - This aircraft has a usable capacity of 228 gallons (863 liters) in its fuel tanks, which allows it to fly for approximately 6:30 hours, covering an approximate distance of 1,300 km, depending on the wind's direction and strength. That day, according to the forecast, the wind was favorable to the flight. From its takeoff to the moment it left the Havana FIR through the Atuvi checkpoint, the aircraft flew 5:15, with 15 minutes to go from Atuvi to Grand Cayman and totalled 5:30 hours for 1,100 km (600 nautical miles). From the above data one can figure out that the aircraft could fly as planned from Cocoa Beach to Grand Cayman on the fuel in its main tanks, without using the herbicide deposit as fuel tank. - Even if it is accepted that the herbicide deposit was used as fuel tank, it would be absurd to accept that it was filled to the top. This deposit has an approximate capacity of 1,900 liters (500 gallons), a volume almost twice greater than that of the aircraft's fuel tanks. To have filled this tank with fuel not necessary for the flight would have entailed additional weight with the resulting increase of fuel consumption. If despite all this logical reasoning, it was decided to fill the herbicide deposit with fuel for this flight, it is doubtful that it was filled with more than 100 gallons. Technically, it is possible to prepare that deposit to fill part of it with fuel and the rest with some other substance or element, thus ensuring the initial consumption of fuel, and then the use of the substance or element to be sprayed or dusted. The above technical considerations we have brought forward show how frivolous the U.S. State Department's statements have been. All of this goes to show that the U.S. government does not have other elements that justify the spewing of unknown substances over the Cuban territory. Cuba reiterates once again its concern for the use of this authorized U.S. aircarft's overflight of Cuban territory for activities that run counter to and violate, inter alia, the provisions of the Convention on Biological Weapons and the Chicago Convention and the annexed documents for the purpose of causing damage to Cuban agriculture and the population -end- Radio Havana Cuba Special Report P.O.Box 6240 Havana, Cuba Telephone: (53) (7) 791053 Fax: (53) (7) 795007 E-mail: rhc@radiohc.org WWW: http://www.radiohc.org