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

Ray Von Geezer said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is kinda confusing, as the A320 maintenance manual shows this image:
2c17ef6f4c5942f383e66578ef9529f0.jpg

And those tubes are called "pylon drains" throughout the document. Besides, they are not primarily for fuel leaks.
So I think Airbus should revise this "stock answer" that they give.
 
Also, I can't find any documentation for a "nacelle fuel drain mast". Google has zero hits for this. And the A320 maintenance manual has no hits for the search terms "fuel drain", "nacelle drain", "drain mast" either. So I really don't understand what Robert Gage is talking about. What he says is incompatible with the manuals I see.
 
TEEJ said:
The latest from Ian Simpson. He is still working on the court case!

View attachment 12208

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1623158117914924&id=1410029482561123
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but if there was a subject that I was unfamiliar with - in Ian's case civil aviation - I would get an expert opinion and AT LEAST, inspect an aircraft close up, preferably with a member of the ground crew explaining what the parts do and how they function. I certainly would not be making statements with such confidence about something I have limited knowledge of.

Secondly, how is he funding his legal advice? Lawyers are blooming expensive and he is on track for a humiliating debacle....

Seriously, as an act of decency, can no-one explain to him the folly of this, or is he simply too far down the rabbit hole...?>
 
BombDr said:
Seriously, as an act of decency, can no-one explain to him the folly of this, or is he simply too far down the rabbit hole...?>
Click to expand...

I tried some time ago via his Facebook mail. It was around the time that I found the images of the prototype A320 with pylon drains at Farnborough during 1988. Sadly he is too far down the rabbit hole. He is of the mindset that anyone contacting him to explain is part of the problem. Sadly it only emboldens him as he believes that he is dealing with people sent to derail his "research". I would suggest that people refrain from contacting him as it only encourages him.
 
TEEJ said:
Sadly he is too far down the rabbit hole. He is of the mindset that anyone contacting him to explain is part of the problem. Sadly it only emboldens him as he believes that he is dealing with people sent to derail his "research".
Click to expand...


So even if he was given access to an Airbus, with someone from the groundcrew explaining things, he would still see them as part of the larger conspiracy? I ask as I have a friend that works for Ryanair. I'm not suggesting that he should be given access to a plane in reality, its just a thought exercise.
 
BombDr said:
I don't know about you, but if there was a subject that I was unfamiliar with - in Ian's case civil aviation - I would get an expert opinion and AT LEAST, inspect an aircraft close up, preferably with a member of the ground crew explaining what the parts do and how they function.
Click to expand...

This group that believe in the "retrofitted spraying pipes" are lacking in aviation knowledge. They need to be directed to contact aircraft storage and re-cycling centres. For example Kemble Cotswold Airport in the UK. The media have recently used Kemble for Airbus filming opportunities in relation to the cockpit door procedures. I'm sure that if they contacted Kemble for a small fee they could gain access to inspect an Airbus, Boeing, etc.

http://www.airportspotting.com/storage-lists/kemble-uk/

Apparently Kemble also has an open day.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=103211

The likes of Terry Lawton and Harry Rhodes do go on field trips. Harry was at Farnborough Trade Airshow last year and he has been on an RAF Mildenhall Group Tour to investigate the "chemtrail tankers".

Sadly they will only think that they are being "set-up" if you directed them to use such facilities as Kemble for research. It is a mindset I feel that you can't crack. I can just imagine them armed with test and swab kits to take samples from the pipes! :)
 
Balance said:
Could it be Robert is simply clarifying that the engine fuel drain mast is housed within the nacelle and not the pylon?
Click to expand...
i really do think they need to reword their "STOCK" reply. it is not clear and in some places misleading.
The picture accompanying Robert Gage's email labels as the nacelle, the entire engine enclosure AND the thing that is NORMALLY labelled the pylon on the other pictures.
 
Obviously I am not an aircraft angineer, but I am wondering if Airbus Uk are referring to the light grey bit in this photo:
77756c8f8f4f974fd728ecfef7aa6220.jpg

as the pylon where the dark grey bit is classed as part of the engine Nacelle hence the explanation given.
 
Efftup said:
i really do think they need to reword their "STOCK" reply. it is not clear and in some places misleading.
The picture accompanying Robert Gage's email labels as the nacelle, the entire engine enclosure AND the thing that is NORMALLY labelled the pylon on the other pictures.
Click to expand...

I get the impression, without seeing Ian's original and full enquiry, we're just guessing what Robert's trying to clarify.
 
Well not entirely, because Ray Von got the exact same stock reply, only with the picture attached.

Ithink I have it.
This:
6ecda5dafa75ba1a110544bf2b9b4c3f.jpg

is a mock up of the A320 NEO engine nacelle. it INCLUDES the bit at the back where the "pylon drains" are.

Edit: I reread Robert's email to Ray Von and indeed, he is definitely clarifying that the part that corresponds to the pipes in the picture claiming spray nozzles is part of the NACELLE. It's a pity he didn't clarify this so clearly to Ian Simpson.
 
Last edited:
Efftup said:
he is definitely clarifying that the part that corresponds to the pipes in the picture claiming spray nozzles is part of the NACELLE. It's a pity he didn't clarify this so clearly to Ian Simpson.
Click to expand...
Who cares whether you call it nacelle or pylon. That is completely beside the point. The question was: what are these pipes? The answer should be: Those pipes are this and this.
Instead, the Airbus guy started some lengthy confusing explanation with lots of irrelevant information and no clear answer.
These big companies are horrible at communication.
 
Well yes, of course he is. he is reading what he wants to read i the email, but Skephu is totally right. These big companies really are horrible at communication. they always put out the exact same stock answer (possible fear of being sued or called inconsistent.) and this was is simply not good enough to explain things properly.

Yes those pipes are drains. They ARE in there from the factory but WE call that bit the Nacelle. they have no spray capacity. how hard was that?
 
It may be that the "pylon" is the high strength structure that actually connects the engine to the wing, and the nacelle is the skin around it for aerodynamic smoothness. Similarly, there is a nacelle around the engine for the same reason.
 
No - the Nacelle is the aerdynamic fairing around the engine, the pylon includes its own aerodynamic fairing.

Just where they change from one to the other is not hard and fast and is defined by the manufacturer to suit their own preferences or requirements.
 
Last edited:
Ian is off again! He is generating a bit of discussion on his Facebook page with the claims. He is claiming that none of the aircraft that he filmed appeared on Flight Radar 24.

External Quote:

We also worked out that the individual puffs in the bracelet pattern persistent trails are as a result of the pulse ejection system that is linked to the 3 and lower pipes on the 3-pipe systems on Airbus A320. We presented this evidence at Cambridge University recently. It is important to note that many of these aircraft are being routed deliberately out of their direct route to their destination so they pass over London. We talked about this in another recent article Smogs Caused by Aicrarft Emmissions. This is a big clue as to what is really going on here, and further evidence that this is no incidental air pollution, this is a deliberate strategy to fill our skies with 'something'.
External Quote:
Most obvious aerial spraying over London this year ....


There were, however, 2 important differences on Sunday 12th.
1. The air was dry and so there was no induced-cumulus to hide the trails. The day started off sunny and was slowly covered with a lattice of spreading trails from transient international flights from Europe using Airbus A320 family aircraft. Several days earlier we had counted 37 aircraft in one hour, and the 12th April was no different, just that the trails were much more visible.

2. unusually none of the aircraft we saw spraying were listed on Flightradar24.com. We have screenshots to prove that all of these aircraft were flying over London and not broadcasting any flight data. We believe this is contrary to flight regulations and will be speaking to the CAA about this.
http://www.look-up.org.uk/obvious-aerial-spraying-london-year/

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1624566307774105&id=1410029482561123
 
TEEJ said:
Ian is off again! He is generating a bit of discussion on his Facebook page with the claims. He is claiming that none of the aircraft that he filmed appeared on Flight Radar 24.

External Quote:


2. unusually none of the aircraft we saw spraying were listed on Flightradar24.com. We have screenshots to prove that all of these aircraft were flying over London and not broadcasting any flight data. We believe this is contrary to flight regulations and will be speaking to the CAA about this.
http://www.look-up.org.uk/obvious-aerial-spraying-london-year/

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1624566307774105&id=1410029482561123
Click to expand...

I have a post in the works responding to this. The photos he shows of one of these "unlisted" flights appears to be a KLM Boeing 777 flying over London to Amsterdam. And Sunday April 12 had totally water saturated air at cruising height.
 
sharpnfuzzy said:
Pylon drains are mentioned in this instructional video for an A340 walk around check. It appears that the images were shot an an Airbus facility as the plane is wearing Airbus house colours so the drains wouldn't be an "after-market" addition.

@10:53
Click to expand...


Notice the upload date, too. More than two years before Look-up first made their claims about the pylon drains.

upload_2015-4-28_10-35-8.png
 
Breaking News. http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/12...16997358316983&fb_action_types=news.publishes (http://archive.is/4lCHg)
External Quote:
Why would an oil drain tube be installed uphill from the source of the leak?

Debunkers provide disinformation that these nozzles are designed to drain oil leaks away from the engine area as a safety measure.

A close look shows the retro-fitted "chemtrail" tubes are installed high above the level of the engine, making it impossible for these nozzles to provide gravity drainage of any fluids.
Well, I'm pretty sure there are fluids (hyraulic as well as fuel) above the drain, even if the engine isn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Balance said:
Breaking News. http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/12...16997358316983&fb_action_types=news.publishes
External Quote:
Why would an oil drain tube be installed uphill from the source of the leak?

Debunkers provide disinformation that these nozzles are designed to drain oil leaks away from the engine area as a safety measure.

A close look shows the retro-fitted "chemtrail" tubes are installed high above the level of the engine, making it impossible for these nozzles to provide gravity drainage of any fluids.
Well, I'm pretty sure there are fluids (hyraulic as well as fuel) above the drain, even if the engine isn't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you'd think the logic of preventing the flammable fluids above the very hot thing from actually running into the very hot thing would speak for itself. Having the only drain below the very hot thing seems a little pointless.

Ray Von
 
M Bornong you have solved it, thank-you for your effort. I thought maybe the tubes would be for condensation, but they are for various fluids, mainly fuel and hydraulics. And the reason for the 3 tubes is now obvious with drain lines going forward to take care of the various fairings.
 
Dan Page said:
M Bornong you have solved it, thank-you for your effort. I thought maybe the tubes would be for condensation, but they are for various fluids, mainly fuel and hydraulics. And the reason for the 3 tubes is now obvious with drain lines going forward to take care of the various fairings.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but going back through the thread, I see the manual was already linked in the OP and some of the same images covered on the first page.
 
Balance said:
Breaking News. http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/12...16997358316983&fb_action_types=news.publishes
Click to expand...
Saive has conceded - in a way - that the drain outlets are not suitable for spraying. See his comment.
External Quote:
Although a drawing on paper does no necessarily rule-out aerosol spraying, this takes me back to suspecting aerosol releases inside the bypass duct. This has always made more sense than external pipes that are vulnerable to contrail distortion by vortices and detection by camera. Concealment of a system inside the bypass duct is always out of public view and is not directly attached to the turbofan when the engine is pulled for maintenance ...
 
JFDee said:
Saive has conceded - in a way - that the drain outlets are not suitable for spraying. See his comment.
External Quote:
Although a drawing on paper does no necessarily rule-out aerosol spraying, this takes me back to suspecting aerosol releases inside the bypass duct. This has always made more sense than external pipes that are vulnerable to contrail distortion by vortices and detection by camera. Concealment of a system inside the bypass duct is always out of public view and is not directly attached to the turbofan when the engine is pulled for maintenance ...
Click to expand...

Thanks. I should have screencapped/archived - I think the article's been re-written since I linked it. This is the opening of his facebook post which was verbatim from the start of the article on c't'planet.net

External Quote:

Why would an oil drain tube be installed uphill from the source of the leak? Debunkers provide disinformation that these nozzles are designed to drain oil leaks away from the engine area as a safety measure. A close look shows the retro-fitted "chemtrail" tubes are installed high above the level of the engine, making it impossible for these nozzles to provide gravity drainage. [ 325 more words. ]

http://chemtrailsplanet.net/…/proof-chemtrail-nozzles-mount…
 
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
35K
Pete Tar
Pete Tar

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top