Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport

[cmnit]

The well know Italian chemtrailist "tankerenemy" aka Rosario Marciano' interviewed a technician working at the Malpensa airport (MXP, North Italy, close to Milan).

A transcript of the interview is available here (in Italian only).

The two main points raised by Enrico Gianini (the whistleblower) are:

• fluids from various aircraft pipes, water found in the cargo space
• alleged new way to load the cargo in a passenger plane

The problem, he adds, came back to him in another form: the strange way of loading luggage and goods. "The first time I was on the square - he remembers - there were the Md-80 of Alitalia", manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. "We first loaded the trunk in the hold 5, which is the rear, then the 4, the goods at 3, the post at 2. In 1, only the baggage of the crew. That was the standard load of the MD-80 Alitalia, until the de-hubbing ". Recently, Gianini happened to still deal with Md-80 aircraft, no longer Alitalia but with a charter company, discovering that the loading system has radically changed: luggage ahead, rather than at the bottom.


"The first low cost airlines (Volare, Air Europe) always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense." Moreover, the plane becomes more stable: «If instead it travels horizontal, any turbulence causes it to pitch». Up to the Airbus 319, Gianini says, the planes were loaded starting from the tail. On the Airbus 320, however, no: "All the weight is in front. Because?". It makes no sense, the operator reasons. "Behind it's empty. The 320 is longer than 319, and I have to put all the weight in front ". Ditto, for low cost companies that use the Boeing 737-800, as well as the upper or lower models: they load almost everything in front.Airbus 319 Lufthansafirst they loaded the hold behind the cargo box, now they divide the load: they tell you how much luggage behind and how many in front. They tell me "80 luggage behind", whereas before they were 120. So - concludes Gianini - it emerges that these planes seem to have weight, in the queue, not declared ".....

I understand that the first point was addressed in this forum before, therefore I would like to have your opinion about the second point.

More in detail, Gianini claims that in the past (MD80 up to A319) he was accustomed to load cargo starting from the rear of the fuselage to improve the balance of the airplane especially during takeoff (it seems to make sense). More recently, he claims, he is told to load more and more cargo at the front of the fuselage (from A320, but also B737-800, especially with low-cost companies), as if the rear were not available or already loaded with something dubious. He also claims that under instructions by a new handling company even on A319 he was instructed to load at the front as much as possible.

Your take?

 

[MikeC]

Unless you are seeing actual load sheets it is pure conjecture. A loader doesn't decide where stuff is put - that is decided by computer programmes these days.

 

[Keith Beachy]

What MikeC said.

Aircraft Weight and Balance, extremely important. Aircraft are loaded based on maintaining the CG in acceptable limits. The loader's ignorance of why the load is loaded forward and aft, and variations for loading different planes, not evidence for chemtrails.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/12_phak_ch10.pdf

http://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aerodynamics-and-performance/weight-and-balance

Loading more cargo in the rear makes no sense to maintain the CG (center of gravity); the load would be according to maintain the proper CG for safe flight. If you load from a cargo door in front of the wing, you might load the appropriate cargo in the rear first, followed by cargo as you go forward. You can't load the rear with cargo blocking the path to the rear. Failure to load the aircraft based on the proper weight and balance, can be fatal.

The libreidee website link in the OP, has a lot of chemtrail conspiracy theory related pages. The 'technician' offered no evidence for chemtrails.

 

[Trailblazer]

The loading claim sounds like a rehash of a similar claim made by Ian Simpson of Look-up.org.uk a few years ago. That site seems to be down now though.

 

[cmnit]

What MikeC said.

Aircraft Weight and Balance, extremely important. Aircraft are loaded based on maintaining the CG in acceptable limits. The loader's ignorance of why the load is loaded forward and aft, and variations for loading different planes, not evidence for chemtrails.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/12_phak_ch10.pdf

http://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aerodynamics-and-performance/weight-and-balance

Loading more cargo in the rear makes no sense to maintain the CG (center of gravity); the load would be according to maintain the proper CG for safe flight. If you load from a cargo door in front of the wing, you might load the appropriate cargo in the rear first, followed by cargo as you go forward. You can't load the rear with cargo blocking the path to the rear. Failure to load the aircraft based on the proper weight and balance, can be fatal.

The libreidee website link in the OP, has a lot of chemtrail conspiracy theory related pages. The 'technician' offered no evidence for chemtrails.

I understand, we know the nature of libreidee & tankerenemy, but my specific question is related to the fact that - according to the "whistleblower" - the technical guidelines for balance apparently changed with time for the same aircraft. I wonder if someone more versed in the matter can shed more light about this change (if any).

 

[cmnit]

The well know Italian chemtrailist "tankerenemy" aka Rosario Marciano' interviewed a technician working at the Malpensa airport (MXP, North Italy, close to Milan).

A transcript of the interview is available here (in Italian only).

The two main points raised by Enrico Gianini (the whistleblower) are:

• fluids from various aircraft pipes, water found in the cargo space
• alleged new way to load the cargo in a passenger plane

The problem, he adds, came back to him in another form: the strange way of loading luggage and goods. "The first time I was on the square - he remembers - there were the Md-80 of Alitalia", manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. "We first loaded the trunk in the hold 5, which is the rear, then the 4, the goods at 3, the post at 2. In 1, only the baggage of the crew. That was the standard load of the MD-80 Alitalia, until the de-hubbing ". Recently, Gianini happened to still deal with Md-80 aircraft, no longer Alitalia but with a charter company, discovering that the loading system has radically changed: luggage ahead, rather than at the bottom.


"The first low cost airlines (Volare, Air Europe) always loaded the baggage from the tail, because the plane must always travel with the nose facing upwards", from 5 to 10 degrees of inclination. "If it does not travel like this, consumption increases considerably, and a low cost that increases consumption does not make sense." Moreover, the plane becomes more stable: «If instead it travels horizontal, any turbulence causes it to pitch». Up to the Airbus 319, Gianini says, the planes were loaded starting from the tail. On the Airbus 320, however, no: "All the weight is in front. Because?". It makes no sense, the operator reasons. "Behind it's empty. The 320 is longer than 319, and I have to put all the weight in front ". Ditto, for low cost companies that use the Boeing 737-800, as well as the upper or lower models: they load almost everything in front.Airbus 319 Lufthansafirst they loaded the hold behind the cargo box, now they divide the load: they tell you how much luggage behind and how many in front. They tell me "80 luggage behind", whereas before they were 120. So - concludes Gianini - it emerges that these planes seem to have weight, in the queue, not declared ".....

I understand that the first point was addressed in this forum before, therefore I would like to have your opinion about the second point.

More in detail, Gianini claims that in the past (MD80 up to A319) he was accustomed to load cargo starting from the rear of the fuselage to improve the balance of the airplane especially during takeoff (it seems to make sense). More recently, he claims, he is told to load more and more cargo at the front of the fuselage (from A320, but also B737-800, especially with low-cost companies), as if the rear were not available or already loaded with something dubious. He also claims that under instructions by a new handling company even on A319 he was instructed to load at the front as much as possible.

Your take?

Note: in the last sentence please read "... these planes seem to have weight, in the tail, not declared".

 

[cmnit]

En passant, on his YT channel Mr Gianini (the "whistleblower") posts an ample collection of alleged UFO video proofs ...

 

[deirdre]

En passant, on his YT channel Mr Gianini (the "whistleblower") posts an ample collection of alleged UFO video proofs ...

He admits in his interview he was a chemtrail believer long before his "we need weight in the back so planes can keep their nose up" theory. But I don't think his belief in chemtrails or UFOs is relevant to his "claim(s) without evidence".

 

[Keith Beachy]

I understand, we know the nature of libreidee & tankerenemy, but my specific question is related to the fact that - according to the "whistleblower" - the technical guidelines for balance apparently changed with time for the same aircraft. I wonder if someone more versed in the matter can shed more light about this change (if any).

I may not be more versed, but I have worked weight and balance for many years in the USAF. Weight and balance don't change, they are in the manual for each aircraft and type, and if there are differences between planes, that will be included for each aircraft. I posted some reference which talk about weight and balance, it is science, based on physics. I loaded, supervised and was responsible for weight and balance since I first flew in the fall of 1973. I have flown aircraft loaded to 300,000 pounds, all over the world. The guidelines (WRT - weight and balance) don't change, loads change, loads vary depending on fuel, passengers, cargo, and models of aircraft. Weight and balance is the guideline. Bowling balls go over the wing, sleeping bags go in the back.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI

the 747 crashed when the cargo shifted aft - weight and balance are critical

On our KC-135 the boom operator was the loadmaster and pilots were trained, (like all pilots) to properly load the aircraft within limits. The weight and distance from the center of gravity were used to place cargo. You need to know the weight and then place in the correct location. This does not change, it depends on what is loaded and where, it has to be planned. Lightweight containers can be placed aft of the wing, but there needs to be heavier items over the wing and forward to offset the moment of the aft cargo. We filed weight and balance with our flight plan, and it had to be complete before flight. The KC-135 mission included offloading as much as 70,000 pounds of fuel to a receiver aircraft in 20 minutes, and the CG had to be monitored to maintain balance, the trim was a great indicator. The "whistleblower" thinks loads between planes are different is not an issue, the weight and balance is critical, the "whistleblower" anomalies are not valid.

You can't load a plane randomly, it has to be planned. In the KC-135Q/T, planes which handled segregated fuel (JP4/JP7), there was a ballast weight placed as far forward as possible to maintain CG/weight and balance due to the mission.

The weight and balance is according to the aircraft's CG. It has to be correct (in a range the plane is designed for) or the plane will not fly right. Each type of aircraft, the configuration, and mission of each aircraft can be different. Passenger baggage will be distributed between compartments as needed to meet the CG. Mail, extra cargo has to be loaded accordingly to make the CG work.

The "whistleblower" appears have limited or no knowledge on why and where things are loaded, and I doubt he can do the weight and balance for an airline and direct the load plan. There are other pilots besides myself on metabunk; for me the points the "whistleblower" has, don't make sense and are not evidence for chemtrail claims. If chemtrails were real, "we" would hide the secret elixir tanks in the fuselage of the aircraft in accordance with proper weight and balance not to crash our NWO aircraft. Wait till the chemtrail guys study aircraft with afterburners and see all the nozzles used to spray raw fuel into the exhaust.

For more on CG, I believe I added links which explain weight and balance. For more on weight and balance google aircraft weight and balance. This has some more info - http://avstop.com/technical/weightbal/weightbal.htm

 

[cmnit]

I may not be more versed, but I have worked weight and balance for many years in the USAF. Weight and balance don't change, they are in the manual for each aircraft and type, and if there are differences between planes, that will be included for each aircraft.
[...]
The "whistleblower" appears have limited or no knowledge on why and where things are loaded, and I doubt he can do the weight and balance for an airline and direct the load plan. There are other pilots besides myself on metabunk; for me the points the "whistleblower" has, don't make sense and are not evidence for chemtrail claims. If chemtrails were real, "we" would hide the secret elixir tanks in the fuselage of the aircraft in accordance with proper weight and balance not to crash our NWO aircraft. Wait till the chemtrail guys study aircraft with afterburners and see all the nozzles used to spray raw fuel into the exhaust.

For more on CG, I believe I added links which explain weight and balance. For more on weight and balance google aircraft weight and balance. This has some more info - http://avstop.com/technical/weightbal/weightbal.htm

Thanks a lot Keith for taking your time to elaborate.
The same level of ignorance of aviation technicalities from the "whistleblower" is apparent from the way he describes all sort of pipes and fluids related to aircrafts (his first main point in the interview).
Yet another example of the BS effect: you need a 10x effort to dispel a piece of BS ...