Explained: Search plane in MH370 filmed spraying over Indian Ocean [Fuel dump]

[David Fraser]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...065.1073741827.328240720622120&type=1&theater

Max claims this is proof of chemtrailing during the search for MH370. It is taken from a BBC news article here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26782637

Max claims that this is flight JA500A, which is the aircraft shown at the beginning of the piece and is a Gulfstream of the Japanese Coastguard http://aegwaspotters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/japan-coast-guard-gulfstream-g550.html

The uniforms are Australian in the piece and the aircraft shown at the end is an AP3C-Orion as this article clearly states

1 of 50 photos
Next

1. previous

Excess fuel is dumped from a nozzle protruding from the left wing of a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion aircraft before landing, after their mission searching for missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 over the southern Indian Ocean was aborted, March 27, 2014. Severe weather on Thursday halted the air search for a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet presumed crashed in the southern Indian Ocean, frustrating hopes of finding what new satellite images showed could be a large debris field. REUTERS/Michael Martina (MID-SEA - Tags: MILITARY TRANSPORT)

Content from external source

https://my.news.yahoo.com/photos/ma...otruding-left-wing-royal-photo-103245271.html

So all in all a fuel dump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dumping

Aircraft have two major types of weight limits: the maximum takeoff weight and the maximum structural landing weight, with the maximum structural landing weight almost always being the lower of the two. This allows an aircraft on a normal, routine flight to take off at the higher weight, consume fuel en route, and arrive at a lower weight. There are other variables involving takeoff and landing weights, but they are omitted from this article for the sake of simplicity.

It is the abnormal, non-routine flight where landing weight can be an problem. If a flight takes off at the maximum takeoff weight and then faces a situation where it must return to the departure airport (due to certain mechanical problems, or a passenger medical problems), there will not be time to consume the fuel meant for getting to the original destination, and the aircraft may exceed the maximum landing weight to land at the departure point. If an aircraft lands at more than its maximum allowable weight it might suffer structural damage, or even break apart on landing. At the very least, an overweight landing would require a thorough inspection for damage.

Content from external source

 

[hemi]

This one's got the inhabitants over at Chemtrails Global Skywatch a bit excited.

Video is accessible here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26782637?SThisFB Relevant bits is from about 0:29 - 0:32.

My initial thought was that it was the exhaust from the Australian Orion P-3 that the news crew has presumably jumped a ride with, but looking at some photos of Orions on the web it doesn't quite match up.

Thoughts?

 

[WeedWhacker]

View attachment 6655
This one's got the inhabitants over at Chemtrails Global Skywatch a bit excited.

Video is accessible here. Relevant bits is from about 0:29 - 0:32.

My initial thought was that it was the exhaust from the Australian Orion P-3 that the news crew has presumably jumped a ride with, but looking at some photos of Orions on the web it doesn't quite match up.

Video's here...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26782637?SThisFB

And a still is attached.

Thoughts?

A fuel dump in progress. Was covered in another thread.

(May I suggest a search, and link to help alleviate misinformation about the non-existent "chem"trail hoax?)

(ETA)...here is a MB thread link:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-debates-chemtrails.1648/page-10#post-97931

 

[Pete Tar]

David's post is probably worth being added to the first of this one, it's a good debunk.

 

[Mick West]

David's post is probably worth being added to the first of this one, it's a good debunk.

I've copied it over. Because of the earlier date it's become the OP.

Also added the Wiki explanation of why planes sometimes dump fuel.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Also added the Wiki explanation of why planes sometimes dump fuel.

Excellent!

 

[M Bornong]

In September of 1989, a NOAA hurricane hunter airplane intercepted Hurricane Hugo as it approached the Caribbean islands, just before Hugo's destructive rampage through the Caribbean and South Carolina. The crew of the airplane were the first people to encounter the mighty hurricane--and very nearly became its first victims. The mission remains the most harrowing flight ever conducted by the NOAA hurricane hunters. I served as flight meteorologist on that flight, and feel fortunate indeed to be able to tell the story.

Dr. Jeff Masters
Chief Meteorologist
Weather Underground, Inc.

Content from external source

"Lowell, we're ready back here for fuel dumping," says Alan over the intercom. "Everything is powered down."

"Roger, we'll begin dumping now," replies Lowell.

Content from external source

I watch as a stream of jet fuel squirts out into the air through a three inch wide tube slung under the left wing. It will take about 15 minutes to dump 15,000 of our 50,000 pounds of fuel. As we dump fuel, Gerry will keep us steadily climbing.

Content from external source

Excerpts and photo from http://tailspinstales.blogspot.com/2011/05/hunting-hugo.html

 

[WeedWhacker]

Content from external source
"Lowell, we're ready back here for fuel dumping," says Alan over the intercom. "Everything is powered down."
"Roger, we'll begin dumping now," replies Lowell.

Definitive.

Now, how to explain to the "Max Bliss-heads" that their guy is wrong???

 

[Mick West]

Interesting excerpt from that:

"The cockpit G-meter shows we took five and half G's up and three and half G's down," continues Lowell, now sounding really concerned. "The P-3 is only rated to plus three and minus two G's, so we may have some serious structural damage.
...
NOAA 42 spent a month on Barbados undergoing a thorough check of its structural integrity before it was cleared to fly back to Florida, where it received a three-month long maintenance overhaul. No hurricane-related damage to the aircraft was found, except for the missing de-icing boot on the #4 engine and a failed fuel control sensor on the #3 engine. The instrument that recorded the amazing G-forces the aircraft encountered was found to be accurate, and engineers analyzing the data could only conclude that luck and the toughness of the P-3 airplane saved us from destruction.

Content from external source

That's significantly out of the V-G envelope (5.5g from a limit of 3), and yet it was fine.

 

[WeedWhacker]

Interesting excerpt from that:

"The cockpit G-meter shows we took five and half G's up and three and half G's down," continues Lowell, now sounding really concerned. "The P-3 is only rated to plus three and minus two G's, so we may have some serious structural damage.
...
NOAA 42 spent a month on Barbados undergoing a thorough check of its structural integrity before it was cleared to fly back to Florida, where it received a three-month long maintenance overhaul. No hurricane-related damage to the aircraft was found, except for the missing de-icing boot on the #4 engine and a failed fuel control sensor on the #3 engine. The instrument that recorded the amazing G-forces the aircraft encountered was found to be accurate, and engineers analyzing the data could only conclude that luck and the toughness of the P-3 airplane saved us from destruction.

Content from external source

That's significantly out of the V-G envelope (5.5g from a limit of 3), and yet it was fine.

This is interesting and certainly pertains to other threads (9/11 related).

What it shows is that despite some claims (those made by certain "other" websites), airframes are indeed built to far exceed what are defined in the CFR Regs as "minima".

 

[M Bornong]

Definitive.

Now, how to explain to the "Max Bliss-heads" that their guy is wrong???

Every so often Global Skywatch, https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/ provides some useful information. I wouldn't have found this without this post, https://www.facebook.com/groups/glo...=10153961373150302&offset=0&total_comments=11

 

[WeedWhacker]

Every so often Global Skywatch, https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/ provides some useful information. I wouldn't have found this without this post, https://www.facebook.com/groups/glo...=10153961373150302&offset=0&total_comments=11

"Useful information"??

I hope so. Now and then.

 

[M Bornong]

"Useful information"??

I hope so. Now and then.

It is quite rare.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

What would you spray on the ocean? Tartare sauce?

 

[KC-10FE]

Wow, Max really has no shame, it seems like he never lets a good opportunity go to waste to perpetuate his hoax. That's ok, I was having a conversation on Youtube today where the other guy went from saying it was airliners spraying, to changing his mind, saying those planes were actually making contrails, while it was actually low level unmarked objects holographically disguised as planes, flying in formation conducting the spraying. From there it moved to allegations of orbs and other sophisticated aircraft such as black, triangular-shaped UAV's spraying, since they were seen hovering over the World Trade Center on 9/11.

For some reason 9/11 has been brought into a lot of chemtrail arguments lately, with one individual telling me a B-52 had crashed into the World Trade Center before, when in fact is was a B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building in 1945. They also have started using Operation Ranch Hand during the Vietnam War as their latest "proof", bringing the spraying of Agent Orange into the equation. It's amazing to see them grasp for straws after you take way the WITWATS, HR2977 and "contrails don't persist" arguments, along with the latest theory that high-bypass turbofans can't make contrails.

Back on topic, I think the general question asked by non-flying types is why aircraft would want to dump fuel, not realizing the purpose is to land below the maximum allowable landing weight.

 

[JRBids]

Every so often Global Skywatch, https://www.facebook.com/groups/globalskywatch/ provides some useful information. I wouldn't have found this without this post, https://www.facebook.com/groups/glo...=10153961373150302&offset=0&total_comments=11

And some of them look at this forum, but don't seem to absorb what is posted:

Moot one would say Natalie, but worth digging up, I see the tools at metabunk are already all over this, thats generally a good sign somethings up with the clip/pic. From an economy point of view the P3C would most likely not be dumping fuel.....3-4 hours to reach search area 2 hours loiter time over area (obviously they would max the time in search area), this leaves a calculated amount of fuel + safety margin for the return trip , its more likely they would be pushing the fuel boundaries than having excess to dump I would say.

Content from external source

Story says the plane was turned back because of bad weather, hence the need to dump the fuel, because it hadn't covered the search area it had been assigned to.

Of course, that's what they would say, isn't it? ;)

Content from external source

https://www.facebook.com/groups/glo...=10153961373150302&offset=0&total_comments=11

 

[TWCobra]

Apart from anything else, the Australian Air Force engages in chemtrailing, and let's it be filmed by BBC journalists on a search the whole world is watching???

The NWO doesn't deserve to take over the world with stupidity like that.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Wow, Max really has no shame,

None of the 'leaders' have any shame. Whether Tanner, Saive, Wigington, Bliss, Mangels, etc... every one of them spouts total nonsense, if not outright lies. That may be the biggest hurdle to overcome in debunking the nonsense. You have to get the believers to understand that the deception they are sure is coming from 'government operatives' is actually coming from the people they fervently believe are telling them the full truth.

 

[WeedWhacker]

...every one of them spouts total nonsense...

This is why I have adopted a stance of calling "chem"trail claims an "Urban Legend". I think these claims qualify for that status.

"Urban Legend" defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend

An urban legend, urban myth, urban tale, or contemporary legend, is a form of modern folklore consisting of stories that may or may not have been believed by their tellers to be true.[1] As with all folklore and mythology, the designation suggests nothing about the story's veracity, but merely that it is in circulation, exhibits variation over time, and carries some significance that motivates the community in preserving and propagating it.

Content from external source