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

The latest from Ian Simpson.

upload_2015-3-30_3-22-57.png



https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1616700231894046&id=1410029482561123

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Look-Uporguk/1410029482561123?fref=ts
 
I think Ian has simply heard what he wanted to hear from Airbus.

Airbus don't manufacture the pylon. The pylon is proprietary to the engine used, so the engine maker builds it. There is ample photographic evidence of aircraft leaving the factory with installed pylons.
 
His website still says:

External Quote:
NB: For legal reasons, and also so as to not divulge the full extent of what we know, we are not willing to publish records of the communications with Airbus or EASA at this stage.
- doesn't look like it's been changed for a while.

Given that "what he knows" is in emails from Airbus or EASA it isn't going to be a secret to them!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
MikeC said:
His website still says:

External Quote:
NB: For legal reasons, and also so as to not divulge the full extent of what we know, we are not willing to publish records of the communications with Airbus or EASA at this stage.
- doesn't look like it's been changed for a while.

Given that "what he knows" is in emails from Airbus or EASA it isn't going to be a secret to them!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He did publish the emails from easyJet which confirmed what the pipes were. He seems to have removed them now though.
 
Would those be in the way back machine?? No...it isn't alas. It has snapshots from August last year and 2 March this year - neither have anything actually substantive.
 
MikeC said:
Would those be in the way back machine?? No...it isn't alas. It has snapshots from August last year and 2 March this year - neither have anything actually substantive.
Click to expand...

Quoted here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-320-are-pylon-drains.2855/page-4#post-123230

Original URL is dead: http://www.look-up.org.uk/easyjet-response/

but archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20140826031240/http://www.look-up.org.uk/easyjet-response/


As far as I know he never published the response from Airbus, or from Robert Crew of British Airways maintenance division, whom he mentioned having spoken to in his Cambridge talk.
 
MikeC said:
His website still says:^

External Quote:
NB: For legal reasons, and also so as to not divulge the full extent of what we know, we are not willing to publish records of the communications with Airbus or EASA at this stage.
- doesn't look like it's been changed for a while.

Given that "what he knows" is in emails from Airbus or EASA it isn't going to be a secret to them!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

ae7bc9df916afa9e2af3982505903037.jpg

bb7855184cd73311ece8328ae0254487.jpg

4908ddf358fcfd7ad3432b29a240b94e.jpg

884cdcf9af77e71f5c79c860edf33b9f.jpg

97f7dfdd3b08641d146368ea20a3a0a2.jpg

df7f034563301971862be2fdd96e5a1d.jpg


These were visible on Look-up's website but now the page seems to have gone.

I suspect Ian's first email to Airbus, were it available, would go some way to explaining the answer he got. Clearly he'd mentioned "spray pipes".

Ray Von
 
Thanks - looks to me like he got a full and complete answer, doesn't belive it, insists they provide him with more evidence, and they say - no, you've got enough with a subtext of "we don't want to waste any more of our time on your nonsense"

I'd forgotten the aspect that the pipes can be "indicators" - a leak may occur somewhere not visible, they put in a pipe to drain THAT location - so if there is a leak it becomes visible.
 
MikeC said:
Thanks - looks to me like he got a full and complete answer, doesn't belive it, insists they provide him with more evidence, and they say - no, you've got enough with a subtext of "we don't want to waste any more of our time on your nonsense"

I'd forgotten the aspect that the pipes can be "indicators" - a leak may occur somewhere not visible, they put in a pipe to drain THAT location - so if there is a leak it becomes visible.
Click to expand...
Read it again. The Airbus guy wrote that there were no drains on the pylon.
 
Oops - you are right - I was readins "nacelle drain mast" as a pylon drain.

It still doesn't say what he says it says tho of course - there are certainly no fuel drain masts on the pylons - but that doesn't mean there are no drains!

I also still think the final refusal to engage probably indicates "don't feed the trolls".
 
I'm not sure if somebody already linked this, but here's Chapter 54 of the A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual which describes the pylon and the nacelle on Scribd (an 1027-page document!).

It describes the pylon drain system, the various inspection procedures, and even how to replace the drain pipes, with a number of detailed drawings.
Unfortunately this huge document is difficult to handle, but if you enter "drain" into the text search on Scribd, it will find all pages where drain is mentioned.

For example:

a019d3c8a47eae0edccaf5d532f2d7ff.jpg
 
To be fair to Ian Simpson here, if these emails are genuine, then (although it would certainly be helpful to know What email he actually sent them in the first place) they did tell him that as standard they are fitted with a drain in the nacelle but none in the pylons. I can understand someone with a conspiracy mindset also thinking it suspicious that they suddenly clammed up when asked for more information.
I suspect that they found out WHO he was and how he would spin anything they told him anyway and decided it was no further use to keep communicating.

If these extra pipes seen on Easy jet planes etc ARE added by the engine manufacturer, I am surprised they didn't say so. they are fitted like this as standard, however different engine manufacturers may add more pipes in the pylon to suit their specifications.
 
Last edited:
skephu said:
I'm not sure if somebody already linked this, but here's Chapter 54 of the A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual which describes the pylon and the nacelle on Scribd (an 1027-page document!).

It describes the pylon drain system, the various inspection procedures, and even how to replace the drain pipes, with a number of detailed drawings.
Unfortunately this huge document is difficult to handle, but if you enter "drain" into the text search on Scribd, it will find all pages where drain is mentioned.

For example:

a019d3c8a47eae0edccaf5d532f2d7ff.jpg
Click to expand...
thanks for this. I was searching for something along these lines as I wasn't sure where Jay got his original pic from (the link in the OP doesn't seem to work)

This is of course the problem of a "communications person 2 who is not an engineer answering questions. to be thorough, he could have pointed out there were many drains all over the aircraft. There is a good video on youtube showing how to drain water from a little thing on the underside of the wing, for example.

As the hydraulic systems are also in there, is it possible some of these pipes are draining hydraulic fluid, should it leak?
 
Last edited:
Having looked at all these schematics available it certainly appears to be hydraulics.
Page 41 of the pdf Skephu linked shows different compartments in the pylon separated from the main engine components with a fireproof wall. looking at what is in them and where the drains apparently are, it appears they will be drains for hydraulics.
 
Efftup said:
To be fair to Ian Simpson here, if these emails are genuine, then (although it would certainly be helpful to know What email he actually sent them in the first place) they did tell him that as standard they are fitted with a drain in the nacelle but none in the pylons. I can understand someone with a conspiracy mindset also thinking it suspicious that they suddenly clammed up when asked fro more information.
I suspect that they found out WHO he was and how he would spin anything they told him anyway and decided it was no further use to keep communicating.

If these extra pipes seen on Easy jet planes etc ARE added by the engine manufacturer, I am surprised they didn't say so. they are fitted like this as standard, however different engine manufacturers may add more pipes in the pylon to suit their specifications.
Click to expand...
I agree on the face of it, but I think Ian's 1st email is the key.

Notice how focused the first reply is on leaking fuel and not other fluids, as if the responder is trying to reassure Ian, and that the response doesn't say there are no pylon drains, just that there are no fuel pylon drains. I would hazard a guess that what was actually asked was along these lines:-

"We've seen some pipes on the pylons on A320s that we suspect are used for spraying something. People have tried telling us they're for releasing fuel in the case of a leak, but surely releasing fuel into a hot engine exhaust would be extremely dangerous?"

Ian has raised that point several times, and clearly he didn't send one of his "smoking gun" pipe pictures, otherwise why would the response not reference them directly?

In his next reply he's off talking about using their emails in a court case so they were bound to run a mile, even if they hadn't "looked-up" what he was about.

The other option is as was said above, something was lost in translation between the PR guy and engineering. At the end of the day the pylon drains are clearly visible in Airbus' own construction videos, so they're definitely there when the planes are built.

Ray Von
 
I completely agree. The first reply very specifically mentions having no spray capacity and only discusses fuel.
Without seeing what he actually sent them it's very hard to tell. Of course, i am sure that is deliberate too.

I might just send them an email myself. but more general on the lines of, what are all those funny little pipes for? I'm sure they can't be exhaust pipes.
 
Efftup said:
I'm sure they can't be exhaust pipes.
Click to expand...

They vent....that's all...that is their sole function. They don't 'spray' of course....I mean....just look at the diameter!!!

Ian Simpson seems to be lacking a bit in many areas of knowledge, including the science of fluid dynamics....and of course, basic aviation knowledge, which include simple Weight & Balance considerations, not to also mention Performance and Limitations that ALL aircraft must abide by, merely because they operate here ON EARTH! Gravity!!! Yeah....gravity....that is the final 'arbiter' for us all.
 
WeedWhacker said:
They vent....that's all...that is their sole function. They don't 'spray' of course....I mean....just look at the diameter!!!

Ian Simpson seems to be lacking a bit in many areas of knowledge, including the science of fluid dynamics....and of course, basic aviation knowledge, which include simple Weight & Balance considerations, not to also mention Performance and Limitations that ALL aircraft must abide by, merely because they operate here ON EARTH! Gravity!!! Yeah....gravity....that is the final 'arbiter' for us all.
Click to expand...
well we know that. I was just wondering what Airbus would tell me if i just asked a question like that and didn;t mention spraying or anything nefarious
 
TEEJ said:
The latest from Ian Simpson. He is still working on the court case!
Click to expand...


AND yet? No explanation from Ian Simpson as to how those tiny tubes (perhaps 1 cm in diameter...if that?) can produce such "huge" 'emissions'?

Further...."where" is the required tankage and associated plumbing ON any airliner to accomplish this "nefarious" so-called "spraying"? AND why is it not possible to check EACH and EVERY airlines' loading manifests for the proper Weight and Balance documentation? I mean...in order for EACH airliner to be dispatched for a flight...it MUST have proper manifests, including 'W & B' documentation. THIS IS IMPORTANT for elevator trim settings, just as a start.

Methinks that a better understanding of how airplanes operate might lead to a better understanding of why "chem"trails (as proposed by various persons) simply do not exist.
 
At least Terry is trying to 'prove' ... something. I hope he isn't too proud to admit defeat when it comes. I do say good on him for trying it is better than just pointing at the clouds and saying 'they are killing us'. Also by going to the climate conferences and talking to the scientists etc. he may eventually see things clearer. I may not have faith in a god but I do have great faith in mankind.
I found this statement from Terry regarding his presentation to the scientists interesting
External Quote:
'We also described the task as similar to going to a meeting at the Vatican and trying to convince the pope and his assembled cardinals that not only did God not exist, but that religion was harmful.'
I thought it should be Terry is trying to convince atheists that a god exists. If that is impolite please remove it.
 
Lisa P said:
At least Terry is trying to 'prove' ... something. I hope he isn't too proud to admit defeat when it comes. I do say good on him for trying it is better than just pointing at the clouds and saying 'they are killing us'. Also by going to the climate conferences and talking to the scientists etc. he may eventually see things clearer. I may not have faith in a god but I do have great faith in mankind.
I found this statement from Terry regarding his presentation to the scientists interesting
External Quote:
'We also described the task as similar to going to a meeting at the Vatican and trying to convince the pope and his assembled cardinals that not only did God not exist, but that religion was harmful.'
I thought it should be Terry is trying to convince atheists that a god exists. If that is impolite please remove it.
Click to expand...
i think Ian said the Vatican quote. ?

not that it really matters in regards to your post, except that at the end of the page (it seems) Ian says ""If you can't see what's going on you are being paid too much"

So he might be a ways away from 'seeing the light' as it were. But you never know, a lot of things in life come as 'an epiphany'.
 
Saw this related post on reddit at /r/aviation, by someone who says that he's an A320 mechanic. He makes the distinction that the pipes do not drain the pylon, but rather they drain from the engine and are routed through the pylon:
External Quote:

Now, the crazies who have no experience in the aviation industry will claim that these drains are retrofitted and do not come from the factory with them. False. They do. I have worked on brand new A320s from the factory...and there are the drains

Quick Edit: Depending on the type of engine being used on the aircraft, you can have 2 or 3 drain pipes, because the engines are designed a little differently. The airframe can support either the IAE V2500, which has two drain tubes (this is the version I'm most familiar with), or the CFM56, which is a slightly more advanced engine, and has 3 drain tubes, and shown in the picture..

See, here's a quote from crazy people:

Anyone with ANY technical knowledge will realise immediately that the pylon of a large passenger jet does not have any active systems in it

This is mostly true. There is an active fire suppression system in the pylon...but there are no moving parts or anything there, so I'll let that quote go...However, as the drawing shows, and as I can personally attest to witnessing the routing of these drain pipes, the drains do not originate IN the pylon. They connect somewhere else (a different part of the engine), and merely go THROUGH the pylon
 
Pylons however DO have piping going through them - fuel and hydraulic (assuming there are hydraulic pumps on the engine - AFAIK there always are) - and the connectors can leak!

ETA: Also on some engine/wing combinations (those where part of the engine is directly under the wing - ie the whole engine is not forward of it) you have "dry bays" just above the engine.

These are sections of the wing that are potentially in line to be hit by bits of a disintigrating engine, so are kept empty of fuel tankage - these probably also drain through the pylons.

Eg see a bunch of results from a google search for wing dry bay

This image shows one such arrangement:

5f64d42a8518fce9ffe9cde9cb7ec49b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well done Ian!! When you can't handle the truth, just bury it so you can keep your followers in the dark.
Glad to see you are still keeping up your usual rigorous standard.
 
skephu said:
BINGO! Someone posted the link to the manual today on the Look-up.org.uk facebook page. Ian Simpson simply deleted it.
Click to expand...

Maybe the key is to just post something like that without implying that it shows him wrong. Maybe just say: "MORE PROOF" on it and let him puzzle out what it really shows.:D
 
Yes well remember on his website he says that the image he got from EASA was supplied to them by Metabunk, so this is just a continuation of demonising Metabunk as the source of all evil and the driving force behind chemtrails......


Untitled.jpg
 
Last edited:
I emailed Airbus, initially through their info@airbus.com address, then directly to Jason Impey after I didn't receive a reply. I enclosed one of Ian's pictures as an example.

External Quote:
From: Dean Tyler
Sent: 31 March 2015 14:33
To: 'info@airbus.com'
Subject: Technical query

Hi,

I wonder if you can help me please?

I've kept seeing things on Facebook saying that UK airlines are using modified planes to release some unknown chemical, and that Airbus UK has confirmed that these pipes are not normally fitted to their planes. I've attached a typical example. Obviously this is quite concerning.

Can you tell me whether this is correct, or what these pipes could be please?

If this isn't the correct contact I'd really appreciate it if you can put me in touch with the right department.


Thanks,

Dean

pipes-jpg.12257



Here's the reply I got back from Robert Gage:
External Quote:
Dear Mr Tyler,

Thank you for your query to Jason Impey which has been passed to me to respond.

We are aware of the discussion on social media and I am happy to provide the exact information which has been used to respond to requests about this, and which some of these sites identify as being confirmation from Airbus UK that the equipment is not fitted originally.

Specification and design of our aircraft comply with certification requirements and safety practices to ensure that any potential draining need, linked or not to failure cases, will be adequately performed. As such, Airbus A320 family aircraft have a fuel drain mast fitted as standard in the lower parts of the nacelle (and none for the pylons).

It is an airworthiness requirement that any fuel leak must not pool within the aircraft structure to create a fire risk, must be drained away from the aircraft structure, and must be able to be visibly identified during the pre-flight safety walk around checks. The nacelle fuel drain mast only serves to identify the very rare occasion of a failure where a fuel leak has occurred and, in the case of such detected failure, then the aircraft would be repaired before its next flight.

The mast has no spraying capability, and is only used to drain aviation fuel, in the very rare case of a fuel leak.

Also, it is clear that there is some confusion between nacelles and pylons. In order to assist you, here is a link to a diagram which indicates what is meant by a nacelle (please note that this site is from an internet search and not affiliated to Airbus).

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/97724d96aa3a35e3cf666f6b48965f09.png

As you can see it clearly refers to the same area indicated in the screenshot you included with your original email.

I hope this clarifies this issue.

With best regards

Robert

Robert GAGE
Head of Media Relations, UK
Communications - GDIU

AIRBUS
97724d96aa3a35e3cf666f6b48965f09.png

The image Robert attached is from Aircraft Maintenance Engineering-Mechanical and dated February 1st 2011.

Ian's confusion seems to stem from Airbus using the technical definitions of nacelle and pylon, the difference appearing to be that the pylon is what supports the engine, the nacelle is just the covering around it.

Regardless, this does make it clear that the replies Ian received were explaining the same pipes that he referred (and continues to refer) to as "spray pipes".

Ray Von
 

Attachments

  • pipes.jpg
    pipes.jpg
    112.6 KB · Views: 711
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
35K
Pete Tar
Pete Tar

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top