It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Don't look for truth from someone that is currently flying and has a reason to protect his license and families future, that just doesn't make sense...
Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Do you not think that maybe someone has tried this and that the PTB would be just waiting for someone off the street to say ' Can I get some jet fuel? It's for my X plane that I'm putting together in the garage.' Ya.. like that sounds like the everyday typical story....
In generic use, an experimental aircraft is an aircraft that has not yet been fully proven in flight. Often, this implies that new aerospace technologies are being tested on the aircraft, though the label is more broad. Experimental aircraft is also a specific term referring to an aircraft flown with an experimental category Airworthiness Certificate. The term experimental aircraft is often erroneously used to mean homebuilt aircraft. While most homebuilt aircraft are registered as experimental category aircraft in the U.S., there are many types of experimental aircraft that are not homebuilt.
In the United States, Australia and New Zealand, homebuilt aircraft may be licensed Experimental under FAA or similar local regulations. Provided that the owner has done at least 51% of the construction work themselves they can also apply for a repairman's certificate for that airframe. The repairman's certificate allows the holder to perform and sign off on most of the maintenance, repairs, and inspections themselves.
The first aircraft to be offered for sale as plans, rather than a completed airframe, was the Baby Ace in the late 1920s.
Homebuilt aircraft gained in popularity in the US in the 1950s with the formation of the Experimental Aircraft Association and with a large demand for light aircraft created by ex-military pilots after World War II.
Homebuilt aircraft are generally small, one to four-seat sportsplanes which employ simple methods of construction. Fabric-covered wood or metal frames and plywood are common in the aircraft structure, but increasingly, fiberglass and other composites as well as full aluminum construction techniques are being used. Engines are most often the same as, or similar to, the engines used in certified aircraft (such as Lycoming, Continental, Rotax, and Jabiru). A minority of homebuilts use converted automobile engines, with Volkswagen air-cooled flat-4s, Subaru-based liquid-cooled engines, Mazda Wankel and Chevrolet Corvair six-cylinder engines being common. The use of automotive engines helps to reduce costs, but many builders prefer dedicated aircraft engines, which are perceived to have better performance and reliability. Other engines that have been used include chainsaw and motorcycle engines.
Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by gerktron01
Please do. But make sure you get it from the same tank as the regular aircraft do. Make sure you see it pumped from the truck or ground and have it put inside a container that you bring. Don't come back and tell me that you lost sight of the fuel being taken from the ground and going to the lab. Just like any piece of evidence to be used the chain of custody must not be broken for this to be valid. This is what is preventing some from proving this already.
Do you not think that maybe someone has tried this and that the PTB would be just waiting for someone off the street to say ' Can I get some jet fuel? It's for my X plane that I'm putting together in the garage.' Ya.. like that sounds like the everyday typical story....
And here's a question for those that say biologicals or chemicals or whatever won't survive after going through the engine...here. It talks about how BOEING is going to look into putting ALGAE as a fuel additive that will absorb CO2 (nanotechnologies little helper) in the atmosphere in a FLYING aircraft. Early tests may be done with biofuel from either soya beans or rapeseed, which is a carcinogen. Are we to believe that BOEING is lying and that nothing can be put into the fuel because our ground crews would know?
What happens to a person that tries to speak in the aviation industry... Here, here, and here. This last one has a former airport worker involved and I'm thinking maybe he found out stuff I'm saying and decided to take things to a new level for humanity.
IMHO of Course
Rgds
Originally posted by firepilot
Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by gerktron01
Please do. But make sure you get it from the same tank as the regular aircraft do. Make sure you see it pumped from the truck or ground and have it put inside a container that you bring. Don't come back and tell me that you lost sight of the fuel being taken from the ground and going to the lab. Just like any piece of evidence to be used the chain of custody must not be broken for this to be valid. This is what is preventing some from
And here's a question for those that say biologicals or chemicals or whatever won't survive after going through the engine...here. It talks about how BOEING is going to look into putting ALGAE as a fuel additive that will absorb CO2 (nanotechnologies little helper) in the atmosphere in a FLYING aircraft. Early tests may be done with biofuel from either soya beans or rapeseed, which is a carcinogen. Are we to believe that BOEING is lying and that nothing can be put into the fuel because our ground crews would know?
Do you even read your articles you post? There not talking about adding algae to jet fuel there talking about making jet fuel out of algae. Its called bio fuel and once they cook the algae to make the fuel its dead even before it gets to the plane.But here is the trend i noticed find something you think proves your case without bothering to understand science. Bio fuel lowers co2 in the atmosphere because its cleaner burning than diesel fuel,However there is co2 produced when you grow the algae so i have a feeling it will wind up being about the same environmental impact. Now my question how can you argue something exists when you cant even get you own fact right?
Why jeopardise a career that pays so obscenely well for sitting on your arse most of the time while george holds the wheel for you ?
They will say something like "well im not at liberty to say if I have or not but I know a lot of pilots who have and who's judgement I trust "
What happens to a person that tries to speak in the aviation industry... Here, here, and here. This last one has a former airport worker involved and I'm thinking maybe he found out stuff I'm saying and decided to take things to a new level for humanity.
Originally posted by C0bzz
though officially reporting and talking to the media about it might. There is no official secrets act.
Originally posted by C0bzz
a third was. However, Boeing one was good, but been discussed and the issue is complex. Personally, I think it's unsafe to be in any kind of a crash, and would recommend avoiding it. That's why they are designed not to crash.
Originally posted by firepilot
People think aviation pays obscenely well? Airline pay has gone down since 2001, many airline pilots have lost pension funds, and well thousands have completely lost their jobs. Look at how many airlines even since 2001 do not exist anymore.
Its probably worse right now in the US since the airlines here are so competitive. Airline hiriing here has stopped with more furloughs coming, but most of the hiring was at regional airlines with start at barely over 20k a year in pay, and to even get enough ratings and experience to get hired could easily cost someone 100,000.
Originally posted by HiAliens
My Dad was fairly high up in civil aviation and he would get very twitchy whenever I mentioned chemtrails to him. I used to bring it up from time to time, and tell him there was a massive difference in contrails starting about 1997. He would flatly deny it and even get irritable, which I thought was pretty strange considering he loved to talk about other aspects of the industry. Maybe he knew something was up.
He used to dislike the highest manager types, thought they were corrupt. And I remember once he made an offhand comment about some of them being involved with Mi5, but never mentioned it again.
Just one of those random, proofless stories.
Originally posted by HiAliens
My Dad was fairly high up in civil aviation and he would get very twitchy whenever I mentioned chemtrails to him. I used to bring it up from time to time, and tell him there was a massive difference in contrails starting about 1997. He would flatly deny it and even get irritable, which I thought was pretty strange considering he loved to talk about other aspects of the industry.