Busting a hoax before it happens... - Fake ash cloud created for new plane equipment tests

reply to post by neformore


Snap. I thought exactly the same thing. Somebody somehere (probably here) will take that photo attach it to a a novelette about chemtrails and post it as "proof Chemtrails exist by BBC, debunk this naysayers"

Do not be suprised if your thread is hijacked instead.......

Aloysius the Gaul

Metaphysique
gee zaph,
why bring up FADEC and not explain what it is

Obviously to give you an opportunity to learn something factual

Please post warnings before replying like this. I nearly choked on my coffee! I suspect somebody is a little agitated at the attack on their religion....oops sorry belief.

Metaphysique
the op is [re]setting the goalposts and defining the terms.

I'm setting the goalposts and defining the terms for this event.

I'm sure we've all seen the hoax german chaff video, the pictures of the ballast test aircraft and the pictures of the aerosol sampling sniffer plane that are put forward as "proof" of chemtrails, so I'm laying a marker here and saying that this, documented and very public event is nothing to do with chemtrails or geoengineering at all.

This was an event to test a detection camera system on airliners to stop them flying into ash clouds. Nothing more.

reply to post by neformore


Funny that you should put up a thread about a sanctioned perilous practice and make a chemtrail joke about it.

The ash from Eyjafjallajokull came as a surprise to many. This was because Eyjafjallajokull was not previously considered to be an explosive volcano. The silica content was not previously thought to be high enough to produce explosion. Explosion produced extremely tiny ash with jagged edges and these edges remained jagged through all kinds of "weather." Even when the particles got together and fell to earth, they again broke into the same fine ash again.

Very specialized equipment is required to "view" this ash. Deliberately releasing ash like this in order to fine-tune instrument detection needs to be done, imo, in a contained environment...not in the atmosphere where it can fall and wind up in water or breathable air. It is, as another poster said, an act of eco-terrorism.

Don't let the following title on this study fool you. The "rapid risk assessment" is for planes, not persons.

Characterization of Eyjafjallajokull volcanic ash particles and a protocol for rapid risk assessment

The particles of explosive ash that reached Europe in the jet stream were especially sharp and abrasive over their entire size range, from submillimeter to tens of nanometers. Edges remained sharp even after a couple of weeks of abrasion in stirred water suspensions.

Ash ingestion and inhalation were also concerns in Iceland and across Europe. Airborne particles and toxic gases (e.g., SO2, HF) pose respiratory hazards (3, 4). Particles < 10 nm diameter cause irritation on the short term and cancer on the long term. Silicosis is a chronic, often fatal, condition caused by micro- and nanoscale particles (3, 5). Health risk from the physical nature of the particles is augmented by condensed salts, acids, and trace elements and these also threaten surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems (6–10). In Iceland, extensive public education and assistance minimized danger for people and animals. Across Europe, there were discussions about the consequence of ash fallout on health and on climate.

reply to post by luxordelphi


And you don't think testing under real conditions is necessary? You don't see a problem with the word "controlled"? If it works in a lab on a test rig it'll work on a plane being bounced around in flight, right?

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

And you don't think testing under real conditions is necessary? You don't see a problem with the word "controlled"? If it works in a lab on a test rig it'll work on a plane being bounced around in flight, right?

So basically you're saying that the future health of the populace bordering the Bay of Biscay is ok to sacrifice for this test? Aquatic life in that bay is also good to die? Were expected fall-out rates published? Days of danger posted and masks issued?

Fine-tuning the measuring of a particle in an ash cloud can be done in a lab. Particularly since the measurements were already accurately done during the time of the volcanic explosion. This risky business was done so that pathways for planes could be found within the ash. So that conglomerate pocket books would not have to suffer.

reply to post by luxordelphi


This system is designed to be mounted on a plane, which means it had to be tested on a plane. I guess you're ok with a few hundred people dying too because a plane flew into an ash cloud no one knew was there until the plane was crashing.

Or maybe we should just get rid of planes altogether.

luxordelphi
reply to post by neformore

 

Funny that you should put up a thread about a sanctioned perilous practice and make a chemtrail joke about it.

I'm not making a "joke" about anything. If I wanted to make a joke, I'd start it with "a horse walks into a bar...."

Seriously, I don't get whats wrong with some people here.

What I've highlighted is an article and a video of a real world event, at the time it happened, and explained what it is so that hoaxers and fearmongers don't make use of it

Simple as that. No jokes. No obfuscation. Just facts. End of story.

neformore
[
What I've highlighted is an article and a video of a real world event, at the time it happened, and explained what it is so that hoaxers and fearmongers don't make use of it

Yes but you are not allowed to do that if it suggests that something might not be a chemtrail - that is how "it" works

luxordelphi

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

And you don't think testing under real conditions is necessary? You don't see a problem with the word "controlled"? If it works in a lab on a test rig it'll work on a plane being bounced around in flight, right?

So basically you're saying that the future health of the populace bordering the Bay of Biscay is ok to sacrifice for this test? Aquatic life in that bay is also good to die? Were expected fall-out rates published? Days of danger posted and masks issued?

Any actual evidence that any of that is happening or going to happen?

Fine-tuning the measuring of a particle in an ash cloud can be done in a lab. Particularly since the measurements were already accurately done during the time of the volcanic explosion.

and it has been done as you say. this test is not about "the measuring of a particle in an ash cloud" - it is about ensuring aircraft do not pas through ash clouds.

This risky business

Is not particularly risky

was done so that pathways for planes could be found within the ash.

No - that is just a silly thing to say - this is so aircraft can AVOID ash!

So that conglomerate pocket books would not have to suffer.

Dose het concept of ensuring safe flight for passengers mean nothing to you then, that you can only see this as an issue of money?

Zaphod58
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

This system is designed to be mounted on a plane, which means it had to be tested on a plane. I guess you're ok with a few hundred people dying too because a plane flew into an ash cloud no one knew was there until the plane was crashing.

Or maybe we should just get rid of planes altogether.

This dangerous test was not about the safety of planes and passengers. During the eruption of E., airspace was closed. The ash was determined to be the kind that will sandpaper a windshield and melt and coat the inside of an engine. Nobody crashed. No one was endangered. Because the air space containing this fine ash was closed.

Conglomerates objected to the closing of air space. They want to find pathways within this ash where planes can fly. Because they lost money even though lives were saved. They don't care about anything except profit. This is the mentality that future pilots and passengers will risk their lives for. When they fly into "safe" pathways within this ash. "Safe" pathways that lives on the ground have been endangered to find. Sounds like a win win situation to me. How about you?

luxordelphi

This dangerous test was not about the safety of planes and passengers. During the eruption of E., airspace was closed. The ash was determined to be the kind that will sandpaper a windshield and melt and coat the inside of an engine. Nobody crashed. No one was endangered. Because the air space containing this fine ash was closed.

That is not the only case of volcanic ash - recently eruptions in Chile have caused ash to travel around the southern hemisphere recently. Dense concentrations of ash can be spotted easily enough, but lesser concentrations can still cause damage - I personally know of a couple of cases where aircraft arrived at destinations and reported ash erosion on wings and propellors when they had thought they were flying in "clear" air.

There have been many incidents when safety was compromised because ash was not detected

Conglomerates objected to the closing of air space. They want to find pathways within this ash where planes can fly. Because they lost money even though lives were saved. They don't care about anything except profit. This is the mentality that future pilots and passengers will risk their lives for. When they fly into "safe" pathways within this ash. "Safe" pathways that lives on the ground have been endangered to find. Sounds like a win win situation to me. How about you?

sounds to me like you have no idea at all what you are talking about....still.

Fortunately aviation professionals make a point of not being as ignorant as you.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Really? It has nothing to do with safety?

There have been 90 aircraft damaged in 30 years due to volcanic ash. Including a British Airways 747 that lost all four engines after going through an ash cloud. Ash clouds don't show up on radar, and to the eye they can appear to be normal clouds.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Your attempt to make this a humanitarian effort is false. This is about profit.

easyJet, Airbus and Nicarnica Aviation successfully create first ever significant artificial ash cloud for test purposes.

easyJet plans to continue development with a view to mounting stand-alone units on some of its current fleet of aircraft by the end of 2014 thereby providing a solution which would mean we should not encounter the widespread air space closures of 2010 again.

"The threat from Icelandic volcanoes continues and so we are delighted with the outcome of this unique and innovative experiment. Finding a solution is as crucial now as ever to ensure we never again see the scenes of spring 2010 when all flying ceased across Europe for several days.

Between 15 and 21 April 2010 Europe experienced an unprecedented closure of airspace. During this time 80% less flights operated with more than 100,000 flights cancelled in total. The gross losses of the global aviation industry was an estimated $2.6bn as a result of the air space closures.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I am unsurprised that you do not see any connection between profit and safety, and that one cannot be in support of the other.

I will try to explain it to you: in the real world an airline that does not make a profit is considered potentially unsafe, since it might lack the resources to properly maintain and operate its aircraft - there are always temptations to "cut corners", and these might be magnified if there is more financial pressure than usual.

Conversely airlines with a reputation for poor safety are often highlighted by the travel industry or even banned from operating in profitable areas altogether, and an airline with a poor reputation will often spend a great deal of effort to restore it.

Even countries can receive bad safety ratings leading to reduced access to lucrative markets.

I know this is not a simple single-point-issue and therefore might tax your thinking - nonetheless it is actuall real.

And of course your own post contains nothing at all to support your contention!!

reply to post by luxordelphi


Profit does NOT mean that safety has to be thrown out.

Look at how much money Asiana is going to have to pay out for the accident in San Francisco, where only three people died. Of course airlines are going to try to make money, but they have to be safe too. Would you fly on a plane that had an unsafe reputation? Would you let your family? So of course airlines are going to do all they an to be safe as well as make a profit. More safety, means more profit. The two go hand in hand.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


A convoluted approach, liberally peppered with semantical twists - not really worthy of you.

I think I've made my point. $2.6 billion was lost because airspace over Europe was shut down for 3 days. The motto "Never Again!!" prompted eco-terrorism tests and will in future "OKAY" flights through volcanic ash. There's really not much more to it than that.

And per the OP they were just testing cameras. And what we really need to fear is the dumping of a ton of ash being used in a chemtrail thread.

You all are seriously messed up, imho.

reply to post by luxordelphi


They are not going to fly through the ash. Ash changes too fast for them to fly through "channels" like you claim. They are going to fly around it, which means more safety for passengers, as well as profit for the airlines.

But hey, let's just get rid of planes. Solve all the problems of it.

luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

A convoluted approach, liberally peppered with semantical twists - not really worthy of you.

I think I've made my point. $2.6 billion was lost because airspace over Europe was shut down for 3 days. The motto "Never Again!!" prompted eco-terrorism tests and will in future "OKAY" flights through volcanic ash. There's really not much more to it than that.

I get it - you think that they should not do anything about losing a lot of money, and because they lost money therefore there cannot also be a safety aspect.

It's stupid - but I get it.

And per the OP they were just testing cameras. And what we really need to fear is the dumping of a ton of ash being used in a chemtrail thread.

And wasn't that exactly the point he OP was making?

You all are seriously messed up, imho.

the irony - it burns!!

Almost as much as volcanic ash!