Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
They think NASA is part of the conspiracy.
Debunked: Pilot Forgets To Turn Off CHEMTRAILS while landing [Aerodynamic Contrail, Wake Vortex]
- Thread starter Balance
- Start date
[Edit I mean Yes, see how confusing this is
]. I'm referring to its position relative to the 60% and 90% lines. It's a confusing diagram:
cloudspotter
Senior Member.
[Edit I mean Yes, see how confusing this is
Not me losing me marbles then. Pleased about that.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
While that is true, many still want an explanation that is logical and based on scientific principles at the same time. If the authorities can give them that in a way they can understand, it will begin IMO to crumble the foundations of the charlatans.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
M Bornong
Senior Member.
Is this similar to what you are looking for? http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html
Somewhat. Although I doubt you could use that to explain things to people.
I recall that in the late 80s, a 727 was following a heavy jet in front (I believe it was a DC-10) and the -10's wake turbulence caused the smaller 727 to flip and crash prior to landing. This was one of the incidents which pushed the FAA to really study wake vortices.
I also recall reading recently that claim made by Airbus that the A380's larger capacity would relieve congestion at today's airports was at least partially refuted by the finding that the A380's wake vortices extend almost twice as far back as even the largest competing heavies. This extra following distance at least partially negates the A380's huge passenger capacity.
Note that both of these assertions are sans citation, so they could be quite wrong. I'll look up the citations if I have time later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence#Incidents_involving_wake_turbulence
probably you were thinking of this:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=64937&key=0
- 30 May 1972 - A DC-9 crashed at the Greater Southwest International Airport while performing "touch and go" landings behind a DC-10. This crash prompted the FAA to create new rules for minimum following separation from "heavy" aircraft.
Full report:
http://aviation-safety.net/go.php?h...t/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR73-03.pdf
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Well, if you can cite the specifics, please.
Because I was flying the "big jets" in the early 1980s, and wake turbulence procedures were well known, and in place by then.
EDIT: Looks like Mick West might have found the specific incident
That's a possibility. I seem to recall it having occurred in Denver, but that's probably the haze of 40 years of memory overload talking.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Just to clarify, I have found this DC-9 accident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Air_Lines_Flight_9570
As noted in the article, this was a training flight (back in that era, simulators were not "Landing certified" as they are today, with our more modern technology, so pilots HAD to actually fly the airplane, to receive the requisite minimum of 3 landings every 90 days, in "type").
Now debunked by Infowars. I guess that makes it official.
http://www.infowars.com/pilot-forgets-to-turn-off-chemtrails-debunked/
Note he uses a screenshot from this thread at 0:30
http://www.infowars.com/pilot-forgets-to-turn-off-chemtrails-debunked/
Note he uses a screenshot from this thread at 0:30
Congratulations on becoming a source for Infowars!!
Yes, rather amusing - although they were really just quoting the Wikipedia page I'd excerpted.
The comments there are interesting - a lot of people still think it's chemtrail, and that Alex Jones is a shill.
69Phuket
2 hours ago
You can't convince me that they aren't spraying chemicals in our skies!
Maybe this was a foggy night vortex. But i'm seeing too many foggy days.
Revoltmetal420
2 hours ago
All I know chemtrail attack planes are real, the vortex excuse does NOT explain why the trail lingers in the air the way it did.
Buster9
1 hour ago
where the hell are those stupid ass deranged fan's who rioted over a game of men in shorts dunking a ball.???? yet they can't cause an uproar over their own HEALTH or LIVES.?????? those cave people have it ass backwards, that's why when this satanic Government starts the massacre, they will be the first in line bending over with a smile in their face, dumb shit-tards.!!
Reverend Fryers
2 hours ago
But your leader, Alex, used to frequently post about chemtrails being real. 10 seconds of research could have proven that.
Keith Fox
2 hours ago
I can't believe you're calling this debunked and classifying it the same under wingtip vortex. This is not the same thing.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
THAT ( ^^^ ) indeed is an hilarious turn of events.
Am interested in seeing how this latest "brou-ha-ha" will play out!
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Lulz!!!
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Interestingly, this winter saw some very extreme conditions right down here at 1000 feet asl, where I live at about the 50 degree lat. I got in my small truck one morning, started it up and sat, letting it idle for a bit. My breath was condensing and creating a fog. Not unusual, but, I then noticed that it wasn't just water vapour this time. It was tiny ice crystals floating in front of me, which, as I had the interior fan on low, just hung there and persisted for several minutes. Now, my own body heat would have been warming the cab up slightly, my breathing would be increasing the RH in that closed environment as well, and as the engine warmed so did the air from the defroster. My point, not so sure that contrails have to be limited to high altitude. I do recall a C130 taking off in the Arctic ( from a strip a dozen or two feet asl) and leaving a "contrail" behind it, along at least the length of the runway. I recall that because it obscured our view of the aircraft until it rotated. I don't recall how long it persisted beyond that though.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes indeed.
I was reminded also from an unrelated documentary (one about Human genetics) when the film crew were well above the Arctic Circle (northern Russia, IIRC) and the Soviet-era diesel powered tanks they were using for transportation were making rather significant contrails from the vertical exhausts.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Exhaust fog clouds from the tailpipe of the car in front of ones vehicle at a stoplight , on particularly cold days around here(-40 C and thereabouts) can cause one to wait a few seconds for it to expand enough so that you can see the road, before taking a foot off the brake pedal, and ground fog at airports in cold weather can be a real problem at busy airports.
When I worked at the Winnipeg Int'l airport in the 80s I would get there about 7:45 am and on some clear cold days, coming up to the airport was surreal as beyond the terminal would be a fog bank several stories high. This was a busy time of day for arrivals and departures.
On another note, on those cold days , sound traveled better as well. I lived only about two miles, as the crow flies, from the terminal. On those cold days, when I went out to my car at home, you'd swear the tarmac was on the next street over. In the summer you'd be hard pressed to hear any turbine whine other than as aircraft flew overhead.
When I worked at the Winnipeg Int'l airport in the 80s I would get there about 7:45 am and on some clear cold days, coming up to the airport was surreal as beyond the terminal would be a fog bank several stories high. This was a busy time of day for arrivals and departures.
On another note, on those cold days , sound traveled better as well. I lived only about two miles, as the crow flies, from the terminal. On those cold days, when I went out to my car at home, you'd swear the tarmac was on the next street over. In the summer you'd be hard pressed to hear any turbine whine other than as aircraft flew overhead.
Last edited:
Note though that this video is in Los Angeles, and so the temperature would not even be below freezing. Probably around 45°F/7°C. This is in fog, so the humidity is around 100%. What is condensing out is just liquid water, not ice. It's radically different to an exhaust contrail at -40°.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Understood,
My post was in response to the above PS page you posted in which its attributed solely to cold temps at high altitude. Though I suppose that would apply even in southern Britain as it does in L.A.
ETA: and in rereading it, it doesn't say it must be only high and cold. I claim dyslexia since none of you actually know if I have it or not
My post was in response to the above PS page you posted in which its attributed solely to cold temps at high altitude. Though I suppose that would apply even in southern Britain as it does in L.A.
ETA: and in rereading it, it doesn't say it must be only high and cold. I claim dyslexia since none of you actually know if I have it or not
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes indeed, but this involves aerodynamic forces. Compression/expansion.
(Sidebar: Have you seen this PDF?: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...odeling/accri/media/Contrail Microphysics.pdf)
Moving on. The thread's OP does show a phenomenon unrelated to engine contrails, as described by the burning of fossil fuels in ultra-below freezing temperatures, and in certain atmospheric moisture and Ph levels.
Although, in one way, the compression/expansion aspects of the physics are related. Just slightly more complicated, hence the reason many laypersons confuse the two.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Compression/expansion/humidity/temperature would cover it all.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Chemtrail adherents obviously cannot comprehend that there is a difference between the water vapour trails in the video of the aircraft at LAX, and the ice crystal cloud of a high altitude contrail. To them its all white trails and therefore all the same.
Debunker explanations of the physics is just too confusing and complex and thus must be disinformation.
Debunker explanations of the physics is just too confusing and complex and thus must be disinformation.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Well again, this video as evidence of a "chemtrail" that wasn't "turned off" is thoroughly debunked.
And yes, the science that is behind many such Conspiracy Theories can be off-putting, when it is complex. Though, I think this concept is covered in another thread, which tackles the idea (of complex CTs), and discusses it.
And yes, the science that is behind many such Conspiracy Theories can be off-putting, when it is complex. Though, I think this concept is covered in another thread, which tackles the idea (of complex CTs), and discusses it.
Then we need to make the explanations easier to understand.
They are not really trying to understand, but we are trying to explain. So arguably we are the ones failing here.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes. Maybe it isn't so much the "message", as it is the limitations of the "medium", in the ability to explain?
Considering how very much easier it usually is when in a one-on-one personal situation (whether tutoring, or in a traditional classroom setting), compared to the Internet? Quite a few more hurdles, here.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
For many, perhaps even most, persons, a good explanation works. As WW says , often a face to face conversation does the trick.
However it truly appears that a hard core are true believers who will simply not accept any evidence contrary to that belief.
One aspect of face to face conversation that many theorists find easier to accept is the notion that anonymous internet postings are suspicious. Perhapsitsa low grade xenophobia in that strangers cannot be trusted. Being there in the flesh is less disturbing.
However it truly appears that a hard core are true believers who will simply not accept any evidence contrary to that belief.
One aspect of face to face conversation that many theorists find easier to accept is the notion that anonymous internet postings are suspicious. Perhapsitsa low grade xenophobia in that strangers cannot be trusted. Being there in the flesh is less disturbing.
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Part of the problem is that while many here have gathered knowledge that allows relatively easy understanding of the processes in play, most of those who latch onto theories such as chemtrails are operating from a very small appropriate knowledge set. If all you have in physics or chemistry, comes from skimming wikipedia there's going to be a problem I n comprehension.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
The problem comes from skimming Youtube vids and conspiracy sites like geoengineeringwatch. Wiki is waay above those in viable content.
deirdre
Senior Member.
it's either too much explanation, confusing the issue or they just don't want to know.
wake vortex stuff is weird. that's not so easy to grasp, the why. I don't even try to grasp the why, I can see it in multiple videos here so just like a rainbow, I don't need to know the exact science. I can accept it.
that's why I cant believe Infowars can grasp wake vortices but not contrails. I call bunk to that.
but contrails are as easy as ABC. They're man made clouds. they do what clouds do. Its not complicated. So people there just don't want to understand.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I can help explain...
. After all, I learned it many Moons ago, and taught many a Primary student to understand and be aware.But also, yes....it does seem counter-intuitive. Maybe this will help(?):
Although hydro-dynamics on the water's surface ("2-dimensions") are a bit different that aerodynamics in 3-dimensions, just consider the wake of a boat, especially a very fast boat. The water (since it's visible, unlike clear air) is an analogy because it's easier to actually observe it, without needing added "smoke", as seen in airplane wing wake vortice videos. Again, not perfect, but just a hint of what's going on, when a solid moves through a fluid.
Of course, we all know that air is a fluid....much, much less dense than water, obviously, but it still behaves with fluid properties when disturbed.
AND, the "why" is this:
That's partly why I'm focussing on showing the old books that say contrails persist. If they can accept that, maybe combined with the photos, then the "relative humidity" stuff is irrelevant.
"We" may know that - but to the average person that's gobbledygookish doublespeak. To most people in the common tongue "a fluid" means "a liquid". So any explanation that starts out with "air is a fluid" is going to have problems.
Perhaps it would be better, if technically less correct, to say: "air is like a fluid".
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes....Again, writing without using "exact" terminology, trending more conversationally....
Air (and of course, other gasses) can behave as a fluid. They can interact with solid objects in scientifically defined manners that can be calculated, using equations that also can define the science of "fluid dynamics".
Temperature is also vitally important, depending on the gaseous element, or molecular compound that you wish to consider, in this science.
Again...outside the scope of the atmospheric pressures and temperature ranges on OUR planet, but something to keep in mind in astronomy....which strays from the topic, as I am wont to do....the gaseous atmospheres on other planets will likely behave in different ways, than our common experience here. But, as gasses, they will still conform to scientific equations that have been established for centuries.
ETA: What he said -- (next post, #80). Arrggh...too many years since a CFI, now can't help myself, and over-explain, over-complicate. I know too darned much stuff, it wants to jump out of my head!
(Hmmm...seemed a bit over-indulgent....ah, well....)
Last edited:
Or maybe
"Air behaves like a fluid, it flows around an object like water does, leaving a swirling wake a bit like a boat does. Most of the time you can't see it, but if it's damp out the wake is sometimes visible, like in these examples...".
Similar threads
- Sticky
