Airline Mechanic Speaks Out - Chemtrails

This particular story may be a hoax. But if you think geo-engineering is then you are deluding yourself. The evidence is overwhelming.

Originally posted by Namaste1001
This particular story may be a hoax. But if you think geo-engineering is then you are deluding yourself. The evidence is overwhelming.

If the evidence for geoengineering was overwhelming, then everyone would believe it was happening.

But they don't, so it isn't.

reply to post by Namaste1001


i am more against your source then the topic.
I am openminded to the thought...just not the source.
They suck.

reply to post by Namaste1001

But if you think geo-engineering is....

....a "hoax"....

.... then you are deluding yourself. The evidence is overwhelming.

Unfortunately, the only evidence is in the many research areas being done....."thinking" about geo-engineering.

On paper, and using computer modelling programs. This, as it applies to any wide-scale prospects that are purely atmospheric- or space-based in concept.

There are many examples of the sort of "climate engineering" ideas that are also implemented, on smaller scale, and can be primarily land-based ideas. The nascent "science" in this field is still not well defined....is rather broad in scope, but there will be emerging sub-sets of expertise and focus, ongoing:

1. Climate Change
2. Ocean acidification
3. Stratospheric ozone depletion
4. Nitrogen & Phosphorus Cycles
5. Global freshwater use
6. Change in land use
7. Biodiversity loss
8. Atmospheric aerosol loading .
9. Chemical pollution

Out of those nine, number 8 has a minor relation specifically to the potential for airborne, in-atmosphere techniques. BUT, it also relates to naturally-occurring instances of aerosols in the atmosphere. And, NOT always from anthropomorphic sources!

Geo-engineering is the study and implementation of technical ways to change (and arguably improve) things like weather patterns, river paths, soils, climates and sea currents on Earth.

The above ^ ^ ^ is just one source, a scientific-geared blog that posts many diverse articles, with some illustrations and explanations.

In any case, the popular "meme" of "chemtrails" being jettisoned from normal, everyday modern passenger airliners has no bearing, whatsoever, in any of the real studies and proposals being "brain-stormed".

In fact, any high-altitude atmospheric releases would be far more efficient with dedicated technology, newly designed...as opposed to some sort of "retro-fitted" aircraft.

reply to post by Namaste1001


I'm not getting why this story is a hoax. The story seems more credible than all the 'evidence' put up against it. Who had it declared a hoax? Is there some kind of an official sort of 'hoax' list that I can go to or is this a sort of inside thing?

A lot of things get tried and a lot get dumped. Maybe this one got dumped along the way as too obvious or maybe it didn't.

reply to post by luxordelphi

I'm not getting why this story is a hoax.

Because, anyone with any actual knowledge of aviation and the airline business can see it for the garbage and baloney it is.

Not every airline pilot is a mechanic (although, many do have the licenses....it's called an "A & P" in the U.S.), and not every airline mechanic is a pilot (though, many are).

However, we pilots (and they) understand each other well, and have to be knowledgeable about each others' fields in order to communicate effectively, by necessity. They have to know some of our "lingo", and vice-versa.

Because.....we have to be able to tell them when some component or system is not working properly, or there is some other maintenance issue to deal with. AND, they have to be able to communicate to us when they perform the work, to reassure us as to what they did. Whether it is verbal, or written and there for us to review later in the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook.

Also, every pilot is intimately familiar with every aspect of his/her airplane, once trained on it, and especially after a time of experience with it. I would wager that even the average Private Pilot knows more about the airplane he/she flies than their own car.

reply to post by ProudBird


abcnews.go.com...

Care to comment?

reply to post by luxordelphi


That article is a bit old, and of course I have known of this "problem" for any years. The entire airline industry has known, and have been pro-active about combating it.

I say "entire" airline industry.....I mean most of the Western developed nations. Note, the photo in the story? Turkish Airlines. Now, yes Turkey is "Westernized", but still....the protocols developed and used by each individual airline, and their hiring and training standards, vary greatly. All around the World.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that the occasional accident, when fully investigated after-the-fact, could have been prevented if the "lessons" learned from it had been implemented beforehand.

To give a bit of history in the USA, and the mind-set that changed: In the long Maritime tradition at sea, where the Captain was a "dictator" of sorts, that carried in to aviation, for a very long time. It was entrenched as a "norm".

But, that began to change in the mid-1980s. Even before the era of very advanced automation had become prevalent. There were many, many instances of the autocratic aspect of the Captain as sole decision maker leading to terrible accidents, that research led eventually to a "new" idea and concept -- "Crew Resource Management". Or, just shortened to "CRM".

In the 1980s the FAA in the United States mandated that every airline adopt the training and philosophy of this program.

Several well-known accidents in the USA involving US carriers are thought to be "iconic" in this being pushed forward, as well. The Wiki article mentions them.

The United DC-8 (United 173) near Portland, Oregon. Engines flamed out from fuel starvation. Why? Well, there was an unsafe landing gear indication, and they were unsure whether one landing gear would collapse, on landing. SO, the crew decided to fly and exhaust as much fuel as possible, down to bare minimums, to lower the possibility of fires should the worst occur.

However, the Captain ran rough-shod over the the two pilots, and they both deferred to the perception of his "superior" judgement. The Captain was very "old-school" era, and happened to be mistaken on his perception of accuracy of the fuel quantity system and the gauges. His mis-judgement wasn't challenged forcefully by the other two, and the result is the disaster.

This case was SO preventable and unnecessary, it adds to the lore of many before, and some since.

AS TO the "problem" of automation? That lies squarely on the general and basic skill and ability of any pilot to mange and comprehend it, in the first place. Goes to the initial training standards and competence as well.

Finally --- it is also a function of the individual airline's written procedures and protocols. It is a complex issue, and cannot be explained in this limited Forum setting. Either you "just do it", and learn that way, or by some specific examples, such as comparing one airline's procedures to another's, and then pointing out the flaws that exist, and can lead to over-reliance on automation, at the expense of common sense and compromised safety standards.

reply to post by ProudBird


This 'old' article is from Aug. 31, 2011.

abcnews.go.com...

And the parts of the article I was hoping for comment on as they relate to your comments on the OP are:

Automated flight systems and auto-pilot features on commercial aircraft are causing "automation addiction" among today's airline pilots and weakening their response time to mechanical failures and emergencies, according to a new study by safety officials.

Rory Kay, an airline captain and co-chairman of a Federal Aviation Administration committee on pilot training, told the Associated Press that pilots are now experiencing "automation addiction."

The technology behind the auto-pilot on commercial aircrafts only requires pilots to do approximately three minutes of flying -- during take-off and landing – which has contributed heavily to the number of "loss of control" accidents, such as the crashing of Air France flight 447, which nosedived 38,000 feet into the Atlantic in June of 2009.

The new draft study by the FAA says that pilots often "abdicate too much responsibility to automated systems." It also found that in more than 60 percent of accidents pilots had trouble manually flying the plane or made mistakes with automated flight controls.

I want to know all about how pilots and flight crews know all about the automated systems on the craft they fly. I particularly want to know how they know all about the fully autonomous systems when there seems to be a problem in the first automated link.

reply to post by luxordelphi

This 'old' article is from Aug. 31, 2011.

That ONE article....but, t just re-hashes the same story that gets resurrected every now and then, dating back many years.

Like, that Turkish Airliner crashes. "Intrepid Reporter *A*" digs into it, and finds older articles about the "problem" with automation.

"Reporter *A*" then writes a NEW take on the old story, specific to this latest incident.

Thus, "Reporter *A*" meets a deadline, and makes the Editor happy. Or, the News Program Director, if its a visual media story.

So now you're arguing with the FAA and changing dates to suit your needs?

www.denvernewsresource.com...

That's a shorter version of the same story from August 31, 2011 - that's 3 months ago and it says:

This week, the Federal Aviation Administration released a report on the increasing reliance on automated flight operations.

A Co-Chair of a FAA committee on pilot training stated, “We’re seeing a new breed of accident with these state-of-the art planes. We’re forgetting how to fly.”

The report warns that pilots, airlines, and regulators “abdicate too much responsibility to automated systems.” Furthermore, the report suggests that pilots need greater access to training and practice in manual operations.

Still waiting to hear your explanation on how pilots know all about the automated systems and particularly how they would know about the completely autonomous systems as they relate to the OP.

reply to post by luxordelphi

I want to know all about how pilots and flight crews know all about the automated systems on the craft they fly. I particularly want to know how they know all about the fully autonomous systems when there seems to be a problem in the first automated link.

I could probably write a book on it.....but, in a nutshell, what they are referring to here, mostly, is all about the auto pilot systems. That is the crux of it, plain and simple.

As I alluded to earlier, the standards and practices (procedurally) that are written and instituted by each airline in their Operating Manuals (FOMs, or Flight Operations Manuals....aviation is loaded to the neck with acronyms!).

Take a Boeing....any Boeing..

The manufacturer writes their recommended procedures, but each airline must then use those as a guide, to write their own. There is a vast amount of "wriggle-room" in how to achieve any maneuver, or operate some controls, in terms of which order you decide to do it in. AND, in some circles of discussion, there are vast differences of opinion as to the "proper" way. I have seen this, over the years.

We are doing something the "same way" for five years, then a management change occurs, and the new Director of Flight Standards has his/her way to "think" about it and pretty soon the books are re-written, edited ever so slightly, and the new pages are issued, to revise the manuals, and in the initial training syllabuses the new procedures are implemented, and the working pilots are exposed to them at each annual Flight Check in the simulators.....eventually, everyone is then accustomed to the new policies.....until something happens in the Industry, and they are re-evaluated....and five years later, more changes are made.

One example: At my airline, (as at all) there are of course many checklists to accomplish....even "how" to do that is a bone of contention!! (Save that for another explanation....).

I was going to point out one way we used to do it, for decades....it was called the "Taxi Checklist". This was done after leaving the gate, at some time on the way to the runway, and of course before the "Takeoff Checklist"....which is accomplished only after ATC gives the clearance for takeoff, or to take position on the runway (**)
_____
(**) ..side track, bear with me....even THAT terminology has changed, in the USA recently. To conform to the rest of the World, actually. USA, the old terminology was "United XXX, Runway XX, taxi into position and hold".

Now, it is "American XXX, Runway XX - Line up and wait." This is the phrase everywhere else, and we in the USA had to adjust and get used to it.
_____


Anyway....the "Taxi Checklist". It was decided, in the era of the two-person Flight Deck, that maybe that checklist was too distracting....this idea was prompted by...you guessed it! An accident. Northwest 255, in Detroit

Not all airlines did away with it, but ours did. They managed to add some of the items from the "Taxi" list to the "Before Start" checklist, and accomplish those at the gate. Such as control checks, and stabilizer trim setting, etc. Then, there was always the "After Engine Start" checklist, so some items from the "Taxi" were moved to there...such as setting the flaps. Etc....

The above has nothing to do specifically with automation of course, but is one way to show how procedures can be devised to lessen distractions, when they are done properly.

There are specific examples of how we are supposed to utilize all the automation, and these are called out in some of the checklists used in flight, as well as laid out in the FOMs and the text and verbiage there. It is a discipline thing, about adhering to procedure.

It can also be, when referring to ANY activity undertaken when a pilot interacts with the automation....and this is also emphasized.....the motto "Trust, but Verify". We are directed to ALWAYS pay attention to inputs that alter the automation programming, and some more critical features require the attention, and verbal acknowledge of BOTH pilots. Things like verifying the proper new altitude assignment is entered into the Altitude Set window, and that the AutoPilot mode is appropriate, to ensure the automatic "capture" of the new altitude.....things like that, there are many, many, many .....


Want to add: Speaking of Boeings, above: Much of the real "problem" that has shown up, in terms of the automation, has to do with many aspects of how modern Airbus airliners are programmed, and the "logic" used. Not just in the autoflight systems, but in the hierarchy of the Flight Control computers themselves.

Boeing does not yet "interfere" as much in those systems, by layering on too much computer autonomy....Airbus, though, long ago went the full "Fly By Wire" (FBW) route for Flight Controls, and that "logic" gets very complicated. Of course, as always, it boils down to proper training....but, the reality also is, the computer programmers are usually not pilots, and there are some "weird" quirks as a result, just due to that difference in experience and understanding about how to accomplish a task.

Also, one more --- most pilots I know LIKE to hand-fly as much as possible. But again, there are some airline companies that have mandates as to when they may, or may not, do so. At those companies, those policies could end up degrading that "skill". There are times when the automation is preferable, since it unburdens the attention of just basic controlling....other times, it is NOT preferred, because it might cause both pilots to be too "heads down", and not as situationally aware, or being alert to potential hazards, such as birds, severe weather, or potential collisions with other airplanes. (**)

(**)Although, we also have systems to help alert to those, in most cases.....

reply to post by ProudBird


Still the OP described a completely automated side bar to the waste disposal system. What I want to know is how a pilot or co-pilot or auto-pilot (just to be inclusive) would know all about this system. Now that the impossibilities of knowing all about the automated systems directly relating to flight are becoming clearer, let's tackle the toilets.

answers.google.com...
Here's a little Google question and answer that talks about how airliners dump toilet waste. Interested? Well apparently they went from buckets that were chucked out of non-pressurized doors and windows to a more sophisticated holding tank which is emptied by ground service trucks. There is some pumping back in that goes on as well with chemical stuff. The chemical stuff can also come pre-packaged for direct onboard delivery.

www.navair.navy.mil...
Here's a little bit about technical support for the Navy's Warfighter. In between catapult fine tuning and sharing of technical information with other ships via optical disc and hands on and test fine tuning, there is a paragraph devoted to the Portafoamer. And a new program: Pollution Prevention Equipment Program.

p2pays.org...
This describes quite an involved program and several training sites where one can go to learn all about this innovation. Just to be clear...we're talking about sanitation.

So I still have to ask...how would a pilot know all about this? How would a maintenance crew member know all about this without specific certification? It's a complicated world, this high tech world and even though I may not be a fan, I am definitely able to embrace the logistical complexities of being everywhere at once and knowing everything.

reply to post by defcon5


Thankyou for the link and I appreciate that this is old technology and that things have moved on and that what was possibly a smoking gun at one time is now just a collection of snipped tubes going nowhere and wires without connections. Still, smoking guns don't really change from generation to generation. The same sorts of series of accidental happenings that brought that one to the fore are still available today. There's just more camouflage in the guise of instruction manuals and pre-packaged drop-in product. Going to take a good-looker to see it.

reply to post by defcon5


There are those on ATS who refuse to accept anything outside of their own intensely held beliefs. Any facts, evidence, etc. presented that contradicts that belief are tossed aside as OPINIONS and not proof of anything. You can keep at it and overwhelm them with the facts and evidence, but eventually they'll resort to the "I saw it with my own eyes, you weren't there" line of reasoning which makes threads like this eventually pointless.

You can go so far as produce the actual pilot of an aircraft accused of chemtrailing who disputes the charge, and they'll say "he/she didn't know" or "he/she is lying." You produce the owner of the aircraft, and they'll say the same thing. It is endless.

You will never convince them that they are wrong. Never. That is what you're dealing with here.

Do you know what YATOCT means?

YET ANOTHER THREAD ON CHEMTRAILS

Come on people, we can do better than that to keep ATS tidy!

reply to post by defcon5


The e-mail in question is from April 17, 2005.

In Feb. of 2003 this position paper was adopted and funding provided.

www.fas.org...

From that point it was on as it was before that point. Only now there was a public face and funding.

en.wikipedia.org...

So in the wake of 9/11 nothing is transparent but there is still a public face for funding to be approved. Bills for the protection of commercial airliners are ongoing year after year. Yet have you ever actually come across one of these on a commercial aircraft?

www.usatoday.com...

Drop-in or on or alongside fully automated systems are the future and that future is here. With a vengeance. In the late '90's the technology was in its' infancy and hampered by a clear way to get funded. 9/11 solved that and gave a common basket to put everything in.

Don't think for a minute that anyone on this site has claim to authority in any area. Anyone of us are free to speak with mechanics, maintenance, crews and pilots...and do and have and will.

It's a clever idea, very clever...to fiddle with the waste disposal system because there is a pecking order and that's traditionally one of the jobs in our society that we don't want nor do we want to know anything about it.