Debunked: Look-Up.org.uk Alleged "spray pipes" on A-320 are Pylon Drains

The following is the prototype Airbus A320, registration F-WWAI, back in 1988.



A quick crop and shadow lighten brings up the pylon drain tubes.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/66890928@N07/10746170183/sizes/o/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66890928@N07/tags/fwwai/

This is the reality rather than the brazen claims made by the people peddling the myth that the pipes have recently been fitted. The pylon drains on the A320 have been there since the prototype back in the late 1980s. The only difference is the pipe length.

An example of the claim in the following video.

@1:08



..I have checked drawings and this is not an original kind of modification or equipment for a new aircraft.
Content from External Source
 
is it me, or does that 'preview' say they have had no proof at all prior to this mysterious missing link?
 
Ian, writing to Airbus won't get you far as the pylon is designed by the engine manufacturer to match each particular model of engine.

Have you asked yourself, if these pipes are "retrofitted" for a common purpose of spraying, why are they different on different types of engines?

Airbus do assembly line tours. Go book yourself on one, take a telephoto lens and check out the engine pylons at the end of the assembly line. Get a US acolyte to do the same at Boeing. Write to Rolls Royce and ask them about the pylon drains. I am sure they will answer your questions.

Then remove this easily debunked premise.
 
While you are at it, go talk to your mate Max about the contents of the hoax he fell for, and why you are making yourself look equally foolish by promulgating this particular line.
 
I had my first post on their page. I don't expect them to last long. Actually there are several people calling them out on the pylon drains.
 
Pylon drains?

I can't smack myself in the face hard enough.....I might pass out......

A five to (at most) ten centimeter diameter little pipe can do THIS????
data:
 
It seems ridiculous, and almost not worth addressing. However if these things are not clearly addressed, then they will end up getting repeated at public meetings like the one yesterday. Maybe they still will, but at least we can save them a little time.
 
Mick West said:
It seems ridiculous, and almost not worth addressing. However if these things are not clearly addressed, then they will end up getting repeated at public meetings like the one yesterday. Maybe they still will, but at least we can save them a little time.
Click to expand...

I just think about if they actually got serious and took their case to court, and presented these pictures as "evidence", and the defense countered with an actual Airbus or Pratt & Whitney rep to refute. I think they'd rather keep their "info" to their Facebook page..that way they can control what comments are viewed, blocking any kind of real evidence, while trying to attract a larger following. I am also quite positive they know they do not have a clear cut case, let alone any kind of solid evidence to offer in a court of law.
 
Mick West said:
It seems ridiculous, and almost not worth addressing. However if these things are not clearly addressed, then they will end up getting repeated at public meetings like the one yesterday. Maybe they still will, but at least we can save them a little time.
Click to expand...

Yes. And "NO", these lies and misconceptions must be addressed.

Abraham Lincoln said: "A lie can travel half-way 'round the world before the truth is putting on its shoes"


EXCEPT!! Abe Lincoln didn't say that, it was "Mark Twain".....(or, was it???)
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/76-a-lie-can-travel-half-way-around-the-world-while
 
KC-10FE said:
I think they'd rather keep their "info" to their Facebook page..that way they can control what comments are viewed, blocking any kind of real evidence, while trying to attract a larger following.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Insular....this is the method of a "cult"....
 
Mick West said:
It seems ridiculous, and almost not worth addressing. However if these things are not clearly addressed, then they will end up getting repeated at public meetings like the one yesterday. Maybe they still will, but at least we can save them a little time.
Click to expand...

That other guy- Jack Baran- is also saying that's where the "spray" comes from and that the tubes are "retro-fitted". Not sure who started it all.
 
Last edited:
I have had my first ever ban and blocking from a Facebook page, the lucky winner being Look-Up.org! I wanted to share it with you all!! The wonderful people running the site had this stunning revelation: Pylon drains..they don't exist! And of course followed by the usual "confirmed by _______ engineer at ________ airport"

Screen Shot 2014-07-18 at 12.56.15 AM.png

Oops:

pylon drains.png
 
Last edited:
I assume that is Ian Simpson who is making all the comments and deleting people he doesn't like?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keep it polite please chaps.

Here's a reference actually on the boeing site. Although I'm not sure it will help, as it does not show the protruding tubes. At least it shows and explains the need for drains:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2010_q4/3/

Flammable fluid drainage. The engine nacelle and APU installations are designed to drain flammable fluids overboard. These drainage provisions include drain holes, hoses, and tubing for capturing and safely discharging flammable fluid leakage overboard.
Content from External Source
 
Mick West said:
Keep it polite please chaps.

Here's a reference actually on the boeing site. Although I'm not sure it will help, as it does not show the protruding tubes. At least it shows and explains the need for drains:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2010_q4/3/

Flammable fluid drainage. The engine nacelle and APU installations are designed to drain flammable fluids overboard. These drainage provisions include drain holes, hoses, and tubing for capturing and safely discharging flammable fluid leakage overboard.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...


YES, it does.

I am sorry about an earlier post, but AS A PILOT familiar with how airliners are designed....when I see claims that are not substantiated, I wish to "call them out".
 
One of the main enemies of flight is fire. Aircraft systems are certainly not designed to leak - but sooner or later they do leak, and it is basic fire prevention to get rid of any accumulation of fluid - that is what these drains are for.
 
KC-10FE said:
I have had my first ever ban and blocking from a Facebook page, the lucky winner being Look-Up.org! I wanted to share it with you all!! The wonderful people running the site had this stunning revelation: Pylon drains..they don't exist! And of course followed by the usual "confirmed by _______ engineer at ________ airport"

Screen Shot 2014-07-18 at 12.56.15 AM.png

Oops:

pylon drains.png
Click to expand...

I too seem to have been banned from lookup - all i did was post a link to this page, which apparently makes me a "shill" ... however they have now provided the link themselves, with the following comment -

"A shill posted the link to the Metabunk article that claims to debunk this image and others like it, and we banned them obviously, but in the interests of balance we have posted the same link. We are completely confident that this is very real and have nothing to hide. We also feel that the claims made by Metabunk are ludicrous to say the least and the documents they have faked are very obviously not real. Planes costing $100m do not leak anything, especially hydraulic fluid which powers all the safety systems on the pane. We invite you to look and have a good laugh. Anyone with basic knowledge of Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat can create or alter any .pdf they chose and insert pipes or flying pigs as they see fit. Once again we see the increasingly desperate attempts by Metabunk to try and cover up what we find."
Content from External Source
 
MikeC said:
One of the main enemies of flight is fire. Aircraft systems are certainly not designed to leak - but sooner or later they do leak, and it is basic fire prevention to get rid of any accumulation of fluid - that is what these drains are for.
Click to expand...

It's the same concept as having a drain pan and drain in the floor under your washer. You don't actually expect your washer to leak, but if it does, then you'd prefer it'd didn't flood the house.
 
keefe said:
I too seem to have been banned from lookup - all i did was post a link to this page, which apparently makes me a "shill" ... however they have now provided the link themselves, with the following comment -

"A shill posted the link to the Metabunk article that claims to debunk this image and others like it, and we banned them obviously, but in the interests of balance we have posted the same link. We are completely confident that this is very real and have nothing to hide. We also feel that the claims made by Metabunk are ludicrous to say the least and the documents they have faked are very obviously not real. Planes costing $100m do not leak anything, especially hydraulic fluid which powers all the safety systems on the pane. We invite you to look and have a good laugh. Anyone with basic knowledge of Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat can create or alter any .pdf they chose and insert pipes or flying pigs as they see fit. Once again we see the increasingly desperate attempts by Metabunk to try and cover up what we find."
Content from External Source
Click to expand...

It is their only comfort, to convince everyone, including themselves that any evidence presented is by a paid government agent. They ask for evidence, and when it is presented they claim it is fake, photoshopped etc, and delete it before any of their "followers" might be enlightened. They have no interest in finding out what the drains actually are, they conveniently resemble the phantom "aerosol spraying devices" they claim exist, so that is what they are, facts be damned.
 
they say the plans shown on this page are photoshopped, so can i assume the links above are really to a fake website that looks like the boeing website?
very clever of you to get the www.boeing.com domain name!
 
TWCobra said:
"100m dollar aircraft don't leak anything".
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a claim on a "chem"trail website. Of course, anyone who works around jets knows this to be untrue.

Found a video that clearly shows a Southwest Airlines B-737 parked at the gate, and the accumulation of stains underneath the engine nacelles clearly visible (Time index 1:30):

 
Gridlock said:
So using the patented UVA/B levels formula from the chemtrail guys, $12m pays for leak proofing?
Click to expand...
Speaking of patents, I assume there's a patent somewhere for these types of pylon drains. Using CTer logic, this would be 100% PROOF THAT PYLON DRAINS EXIST!, wouldn't it?
 
MikeC said:
One of the main enemies of flight is fire. Aircraft systems are certainly not designed to leak - but sooner or later they do leak, and it is basic fire prevention to get rid of any accumulation of fluid - that is what these drains are for.
Click to expand...

Except for the C-130... Rule of thumb for a C-130 is if it ISNT leaking.. dont get on board :p

Otherwise, yes absolutely I agree and thats spot on Mike.
 
hemi said:
Speaking of patents, I assume there's a patent somewhere for these types of pylon drains. Using CTer logic, this would be 100% PROOF THAT PYLON DRAINS EXIST!, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Ask and you shall receive

1. Patent for drains

Website:

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20131212ptan20130327059.php

Screen Shot 2014-07-19 at 12.01.53 PM.png

Link to the PDF

http://images3.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20130327059A1.pdf



2. A patent applied for by Airbus themselves

Website:

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20130829ptan20130221157.php

Screen Shot 2014-07-19 at 12.03.13 PM.png

Link to the PDF

http://images3.freshpatents.com/pdf/US20130221157A1.pdf

Subsections 0006 and 0009 on Page 1 describe the drains and routing of wiring and plumbing

On Page 2, Subsection 0035 it talks about the drains specifically

And here is the final proof:

Screen Shot 2014-07-19 at 12.15.44 PM.png

Screen Shot 2014-07-19 at 12.14.09 PM.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Trailblazer
Debunked: Ian Simpson's Presentation at the 2015 Cambridge SRM Conference
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
31K
Pete Tar
Pete Tar

Latest posts

Back
Top