Unusual trails and clouds in Australia

[Unregistered]

[Mick: This is a spin-off thread, I added the title above]

Hey there,

On the morning of December 3, 2012 i watched "1 plane" fly back and forth "3 times", over a specific spot in the sky, releasing short length "Trails".

Below are 2(of several) close up photo's i took.
As you will notice there are 3 "Trails".
On the release of the 3rd "Trail" the plane took off and 3 minutes later, the 1st "Trail" then developed an intense "rainbow spectrum"
through it.

Could someone please provide a rational answer to this -
Keep in mind, I am not here to argue, or debate the validity of belief, i am simply searching for a reason for the incident i witnessed.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ra4bk7jdtlk1vra,fa9yvn3vbj0t7q1

http://www.mediafire.com/?ra4bk7jdtlk1vra,fa9yvn3vbj0t7q1

Cheers.

Those are all normal contrails.

Here is Mick's website which explains such observations in scientifically correct and verifiable detail.
Have you taken the initiative to read and learn from it?
http://contrailscience.com

You appear to have little understanding of aviation or contrail formation.
Have you read and understood EVERY aspect of these two atmospheric science papers I linked to previously?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...O%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://cires.colorado.edu/science/gr...llenberg72.pdf

Please answer Yes or No and perhaps indicate which atmospheric science facts and principles you cannot grasp.
For instance, do you fully understand that water vapor is invisible and that moist humid air is lighter than dry air?

 

[Mick West]

The rainbow spectrum is some kind of atmospheric optical effect caused by the sun refracting through the light crystals of the contrail (which by now looks more like a cirrus cloud, which it essentially is).

Yours seems likely to be a faint partial circumhorizon arc. See:

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/cha2.htm

You only see the arc when the right type of ice crystals are at the right position relative to the sun, so it's rare to see a full arc. Contrail sometimes reveal a bit of the arc.

 

[MikeC]

Rainbow clouds are a common phenomenum - but not always obvious if you are not looking for them - I didn't see any until last christmas - now I see them quite often whenever there is cirrus around because I look for them when that is the case.

 

[Unregistered]

Hey there,

Not sure if you received my post earlier, but

On the morning of Dec 3 2012, i watched "1 plane" fly back and forth over a specific spot in the sky, releasing 3 short "Trails", then took off.
3 minutes later the "1st Trail" developed a vivid "rainbow spectrum" through it.

I have attached 2 close up images of this event.

Keep in mind, i am NOT here to argue, i am just searching for a rational answer??

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?fa9yvn3vbj0t7q1
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?ra4bk7jdtlk1vra

Cheers.

 

[Unregistered]

Thanks for the reply,

I am somewhat aware of how the rainbow effect forms due to reflections/angles and ice crystals, but what i find curious is the fact that "1 plane" laid the "3 trails" by flying back and forth over a designated area??
what is even more curious is that the same event happened about a week prior, but, instead of the back and forth motion, it came in from the S/SW, performed 2 large "oval loops" releasing "ON/Off"
Trails, which expanded and turned into a large rainbow cloud, the plane returned back to the W, where i watched it(what seemed to me) laying, multiple-calculated trails, all over the sky?? all of which was being done in front of a large weather front coming in from the W. To me the pilot looked either drunk/lost.... or hijacked?

The rainbow spectrum is some kind of atmospheric optical effect caused by the sun refracting through the light crystals of the contrail (which by now looks more like a cirrus cloud, which it essentially is).

Yours seems likely to be a faint partial circumhorizon arc. See:

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/cha2.htm

You only see the arc when the right type of ice crystals are at the right position relative to the sun, so it's rare to see a full arc. Contrail sometimes reveal a bit of the arc.

 

[Mick West]

There are a variety of reasons why planes might fly in circuits, see:

http://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/

and

http://contrailscience.com/voodoo-contrails-over-los-angeles/

 

[Belfrey]

On the morning of December 3, 2012 i watched "1 plane" fly back and forth "3 times", over a specific spot in the sky, releasing short length "Trails".

Hi unregistered, did you follow this plane all along its path as it turned around to zig-zag through this spot, or did you see a plane go across the sky, and then later see a plane come back across over the same area?

 

[Unregistered]

Yes, i watched as "1 plane" created all "3 Trails", then took off to another area laying random trails..? odd.

Speaking of odd, this event occurred November 9 2012 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=FRlBU3lC0pg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuKvWnOS26E&NR=1&feature=endscreen
The 4 short "Trails" which, I cannot see to be anything than, calculated, came together, then pushed away the existing clouds surrounding them.

Do your best.
Cheers.

Hi unregistered, did you follow this plane all along its path as it turned around to zig-zag through this spot, or did you see a plane go across the sky, and then later see a plane come back across over the same area?

 

[Mick West]

Yes, i watched as "1 plane" created all "3 Trails", then took off to another area laying random trails..? odd.

Speaking of odd, this event occurred November 9 2012 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=FRlBU3lC0pg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuKvWnOS26E&NR=1&feature=endscreen
The 4 short "Trails" which, I cannot see to be anything than, calculated, came together, then pushed away the existing clouds surrounding them.

Do your best.
Cheers.

Those are fallstreak holes. They are not pushing the clouds away, but are just causing the clouds to precipitate out up to a certain distance from an original disturbance. Long ones like that are sometimes called canal clouds, or distrails (although they are not really conventional distrails).

http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/fallstreak-holes-–-a-new-understanding/

I saw some in LA a while back:
http://contrailscience.com/hole-punch-clouds-in-los-angeles/

 

[Unregistered]

Ok, but this, does in no way explain the reason for the only parallel alignment of 4 short trails of equal length in the sky? coincidence?..not likely. Pardon my cynicism, but a link to your website, referencing a "cloud enthusiasts" website is a bit hard to rely on for an explanation. I am trying my best to believe this has not been intentionally orchestrated, but when 2 strange phenomena's have been witnessed by numerous people(including myself) for -

A parallel alignment of 4 short jet-trails of equal length, which start off at substantial distance, then come together.
+
1 jet-Trail(with numerous stop/starts)that reacts with "natural" clouds, extending as far as the eye can see.

I need some pretty solid convincing to tell me otherwise.

Thanks anyways,
all the best.

j.

Those are fallstreak holes. They are not pushing the clouds away, but are just causing the clouds to precipitate out up to a certain distance from an original disturbance. Long ones like that are sometimes called canal clouds, or distrails (although they are not really conventional distrails).

http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/fallstreak-holes-–-a-new-understanding/

I saw some in LA a while back:
http://contrailscience.com/hole-punch-clouds-in-los-angeles/

 

[Mick West]

You can look up fallstreak holes yourself, there are lots of references, including many on Google Scholar. I chose the Cloud Appreciation article as it's well written, and references the latest research into the subject.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fallstreak+holes

The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle. Similar to this type of thing:
http://contrailscience.com/very-unusual-short-tapered-contrails/

They are very likely planes either to or from Brisbain, and most likely the Sydney Traffic, which descends from around the Coolangatta region.

 

[Mick West]

Oh, and the videos are NOT actually showing contrails. They just showing the fallstreaks. It's usually too warm for contrails and fallstreaks to coexist, as the fallstreak phenomena is small supercooled water drops at above -40.

 

[Unregistered]

hmmm,


"Oh, and the videos are NOT actually showing contrails."

Sorry, but YES they are, and were seen being emitted from a plane by many witnesses.
- In the 1st photo(taken by me), you can clearly see where the "Long-Contrail" extended, Wayyyy out past the "natural cloud". and by your theory, must be descending/ascending several times? (god help if there were passengers on this flight)
- The 2nd photo(taken by me), is a close up of the same "Trail" reacting with the "natural cloud" cover).
- The 3rd photo(taken by me), is a close up of the "4 parallels".
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?rgymlkr5d9kss62
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?er359849e3k43n7
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?dt6akb5856wd5qf


"It's usually too warm for contrails and fallstreaks to coexist".

This makes it all the more hard to understand?


"The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."

This theory you suggest is completely valid except for -
A. These 4 planes would have to had been flying "side-by-side" to achieve this effect(Not likely).
Or
B. Within "Seconds" appart of each other?(Not likely)


Cheers.

 

[Mick West]

hmmm,


"Oh, and the videos are NOT actually showing contrails."

Sorry, but YES they are, and were seen being emitted from a plane by many witnesses.
- In the 1st photo(taken by me), you can clearly see where the "Long-Contrail" extended, Wayyyy out past the "natural cloud". and by your theory, must be descending/ascending several times? (god help if there were passengers on this flight)
- The 2nd photo(taken by me), is a close up of the same "Trail" reacting with the "natural cloud" cover).
- The 3rd photo(taken by me), is a close up of the "4 parallels".
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?rgymlkr5d9kss62
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?er359849e3k43n7
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?dt6akb5856wd5qf

Great photos! Here's the first photo:

It seems to me in this photo that the "trail" only exists where there's cloud. It extended beyond the continuous layer of cloud, but only shows up beyond there where there are some fragments of that cloud layer. In the other photos, the "trail" is all within the cloud layer.

"It's usually too warm for contrails and fallstreaks to coexist".

This makes it all the more hard to understand?


"The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."

This theory you suggest is completely valid except for -
A. These 4 planes would have to had been flying "side-by-side" to achieve this effect(Not likely).
Or
B. Within "Seconds" appart of each other?(Not likely)


Cheers.

Those "canals" in the clouds are probably a mile wide. But I don't see any indication that the planes were flying either side by side, or within second of each other. More likely a few minutes of each other, probably all within an hour.

Am I right in assuming they point towards Brisbane?

 

[Unregistered]

Ok, 1 thing at a time, you've kinda lost me with your theory for the "4 parallels"?
you suggested that -
"The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."


This makes perfect sense, except for this theory to correspond with what is clearly shown in the photo - http://www.mediafire.com/view/?dt6akb5856wd5qf

each of the "4 planes" would have to begin descending "X" amount of kilometers "greater" than the "previous plane" in relation to its landing point, for argument sake, lets say the airport?"
For example -
For 1st plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 1st plane must start descending at 100kms prior to airport.
For 2nd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 2nd plane must start descending at 200kms prior to airport.
For 3rd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 3rd plane must start descending at 300kms prior to airport.
For 4th plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 4th plane must start descending at 400kms prior to airport.

Reason being, is the 4 parallel "trails" in the photo are clearly within close proximity to each other.

If the "4 planes" descended at the "same coordinates" as each other, the "fallstreak holes"(in relation to the speed/movement of the cloud cover)would appear in a row, certainly NOT side-by-side, as shown.

Which raises the question, are these pilots aiming for a point in a "Cloud" or a destination point, being the "Airport"?


The Only other way for your theory to work, is that, all 4 planes entered point "X" at the same time, or at least within a few seconds of each other.



Ps. apologies for posting off topic, my bad.
Cheers.

 

[GregMc]

A lot of folks seem to be under the impression parallel trails from aircraft must come from planes flying parallel paths.
It's hard for many observers with out time-lapse cameras to grasp that the sky moves since even rapidly moving layers of high altitude clouds are barely noticeable in movement in real-time.
Many parallel trails often result from a single flight path relative to the ground with a moving atmosphere and I suspect unregistered's parallel fallstreaks result from planes ascending or descending the same path relative to the ground but the winds at that level have shifted the cloud layer relative to the original path above the ground.

Unregistered, have a look at Mick's sim illustrating the effect of wind or watch this video of a fixed flight path resulting in parallel trails.:
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-simulations/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DSM7RS094c

 

[Fred259]

The hysteria created by a few grossly irresponsible "useful idiots" who are responsible for spreading this disinformation on this subject has resulted in a change in the perception of reality for many who choose to believe the mumbo jumbo. Of course, that was always the intention.


This guest it would seem is genuinely interested which of course must be welcomed./ An insight however into thought process is illustrated his choice of words contained within the thread title.


" Unusual trails and clouds in Australia"


According to whom?


Its all looks reasonably normal does it not. Broken alto-stratus I would suggest, indicative of a stable atmosphere at that level.

 

[Mick West]

The hysteria created by a few grossly irresponsible "useful idiots" who are responsible for spreading this disinformation on this subject has resulted in a change in the perception of reality for many who choose to believe the mumbo jumbo. Of course, that was always the intention.


This guest it would seem is genuinely interested which of course must be welcomed./ An insight however into thought process is illustrated his choice of words contained within the thread title.


" Unusual trails and clouds in Australia"


According to whom?


Its all looks reasonably normal does it not. Broken alto-stratus I would suggest, indicative of a stable atmosphere at that level.

I (Mick) chose the title, as this was a spin-off thread. I though it was pretty neutral, after all they ARE unusual clouds. I've only seen fallstreak canals twice in my lifetime.

 

[GregMc]

Interestingly, the type of "unusual" fall streak trails documented by unregistered are featured in the 1972 cloud book "Clouds of the world" in plate 11.4.4

What is common knowledge to one person is strange and mysterious to others.


I guess It's analagous to how many coastal folks are very familiar with the characteristics and appearance of rips and long-shore currents and surf waves at beaches.
A quick glance by an knowledgeable and experienced observer will quickly identify safe and dangerous spots to swim or surf with detailed terminology at their disposal (mumbo jumbo gobblegook to others) of sets, close-outs, righthanders, barrels, mush, bommies, peaks, reefbreaks, beachbreaks etc etc.
To many unfamiliar visitors to the beach it's all just "surf" and as a result they end up half drowned or being rescued. Some of these things are also exceedingly rare like fall-streak canals. I was lucky to be at Donkey Bay in Namibia on the rare 1 day in the whole year it produced 2km barrels, the longest in the world.
Unusual, sure, unnatural, no.

To the regular posters here these sorts of meteorological phenomena are quite familiar, but to folks who have only recently been prompted by hoaxes to pay attention to the sky it sometimes seems strange and mysterious and suspicious.

 

[Mick West]

each of the "4 planes" would have to begin descending "X" amount of kilometers "greater" than the "previous plane" in relation to its landing point, for argument sake, lets say the airport?"
For example -
For 1st plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 1st plane must start descending at 100kms prior to airport.
For 2nd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 2nd plane must start descending at 200kms prior to airport.
For 3rd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 3rd plane must start descending at 300kms prior to airport.
For 4th plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 4th plane must start descending at 400kms prior to airport.

Reason being, is the 4 parallel "trails" in the photo are clearly within close proximity to each other.

If the "4 planes" descended at the "same coordinates" as each other, the "fallstreak holes"(in relation to the speed/movement of the cloud cover)would appear in a row, certainly NOT side-by-side, as shown.

Which raises the question, are these pilots aiming for a point in a "Cloud" or a destination point, being the "Airport"?


The Only other way for your theory to work, is that, all 4 planes entered point "X" at the same time, or at least within a few seconds of each other.



Ps. apologies for posting off topic, my bad.
Cheers.

I don't see anything off topic. All seems like valid questions.

Three things here:

1) 300 km is way larger than the distance between the start of trail #1 and trail #4 there. It's probably more like 30-40km, the trails themselves are probably 2-3km wide. It's a little hard to judge.
2) Planes don't all fly at the same altitude, so if they start descending at approximately the same point, then they will pass through the cloud layer at different distances from the airport.
3) As greg pointed out, cloud layers move, and quite rapidly too, so even if a plane is flying the exact same route as another 15 minutes earlier, they will leave trails in different places.

Have a look at this video, which shows a trail like this forming
​

You start to see it around 0:20 (11:56 in real time)

and at 0:30 (12:06, just ten minutes later) it has moved quite considerably in the sky, and grown to full size.

(minor admin point, I suggest you register if you want to continue posting, as that way you will be able to post without waiting for moderation after your first approved post).

 

[Fred259]

Ok, 1 thing at a time, you've kinda lost me with your theory for the "4 parallels"?
you suggested that -
"The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."


This makes perfect sense, except for this theory to correspond with what is clearly shown in the photo - http://www.mediafire.com/view/?dt6akb5856wd5qf

each of the "4 planes" would have to begin descending "X" amount of kilometers "greater" than the "previous plane" in relation to its landing point, for argument sake, lets say the airport?"
For example -
For 1st plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 1st plane must start descending at 100kms prior to airport.
For 2nd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 2nd plane must start descending at 200kms prior to airport.
For 3rd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 3rd plane must start descending at 300kms prior to airport.
For 4th plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 4th plane must start descending at 400kms prior to airport.

Reason being, is the 4 parallel "trails" in the photo are clearly within close proximity to each other.

If the "4 planes" descended at the "same coordinates" as each other, the "fallstreak holes"(in relation to the speed/movement of the cloud cover)would appear in a row, certainly NOT side-by-side, as shown.

Which raises the question, are these pilots aiming for a point in a "Cloud" or a destination point, being the "Airport"?


The Only other way for your theory to work, is that, all 4 planes entered point "X" at the same time, or at least within a few seconds of each other.



Ps. apologies for posting off topic, my bad.
Cheers.

I take your point, however perhaps you are being very precise about this.


For example, in the photograph aircraft are descending from an airway at top right of the picture and are following or tracking a navigational aid which is situated at the bottom left of the photograph. The navigational aid may be at the airport but in all probability will be close to the airfield.


Therefore we agree that the aircraft are flying down essentially a radio wave being transmitted by the navigational aid.


We need to consider the speed of the aircraft over the ground.


We also need to consider the height or altitude of the aircraft.


The pilots needs to consider at what point in the airway he will commence his descent. As a general rule multiply the aircraft height or altitude by 3 ( this is why the pilot needs to know his three times table) and this is then the distance from the airport that the aircraft should commence its descent.


For example. If the aircraft is in at 35,000 feet ( 35x3=105 nautical miles) if the aircraft is lower at say 30,000 feet (30x3=90nm)


The navigational aid that the aircraft is tracking also has a distance measuring equipment (DME) co located on the same radio frequency. Therefore the pilot is able to see the distance in nautical miles that the aircraft is from the navigational beacon.


When the distance measuring equipment reads 105 nautical miles this is the distance from the airport that the pilot should commence the descent. The rate of descent will therefore be optimum.


You need to take into consideration that the aircraft must pressurise as it descends. This is done automatically but if you commence the descent too late the rate of descent has to be increased and therefore the rate of pressurisation must also be increased. Passengers don't like this as it hurts their eardrums. Babies won't put up with this discomfort and start crying. This is turn disturbs the passengers so when babies are crying you know you have commenced the descent late.


In your question (Unregistered Guest) you want to know why the aircraft are descending through the clouds at different positions. The answer is because they have all been at different positions when they commenced the descent. Also they could have been at different altitudes and have different ground speeds, but generally speaking they are all dropping out through these fall streak clouds at around the same point.


Being precise is most important. Yours ( unregistered Guest) is an intellectual question if I may say so.


PS. GregMc& Mike / I agree,these Fal streak clouds are interesting and not usual. I understood reference was being made to the clouds in #1. Either way its a good post and good thread.

 

[Mick West]

I've made a video explanation which gets into some detail of the traffic patterns responsible, and also has a possible explanation for the single plane flying in circuits (high altitude hold of Sydney-Brisbane traffic over the Gold Coast airport).

​

Probably best watched full screen, in HD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9YdNOI5RPk&hd=1

Please excuse my occasional rambling.

 

[TWCobra]

There has been a lot of holding on the east coast of Australia during the last 10 days or so due to ATC staff shortages.. (don't get me started). On Wednesday I arrived in Sydney from Bangkok and was told to hold for 40 minutes over a waypoint, Scone (SCO) that I had never previously held over. Also we held at FL320, another record for me. Unregistered if you can tell me roughly where you live and the direction you were looking, we may be able to see if you were seeing aircraft in a high altitude holding pattern

 

[Unregistered]

There has been a lot of holding on the east coast of Australia during the last 10 days or so due to ATC staff shortages.. (don't get me started). On Wednesday I arrived in Sydney from Bangkok and was told to hold for 40 minutes over a waypoint, Scone (SCO) that I had never previously held over. Also we held at FL320, another record for me. Unregistered if you can tell me roughly where you live and the direction you were looking, we may be able to see if you were seeing aircraft in a high altitude holding pattern

Hey TWCobra,

By the sounds of it you must be a pilot, yes?

I was at Kirra, facing East as i seen this high altitude plane(747 size?) come in from the S/SW, complete 2 loops, over where i would guess to be down the coast and a few kms out to sea, then it shot off back towards mt Warning(West direction), where it continued to leave 3 or 4 trails, i lost sight of it as it head North. And at the altitude it was flying, you could definitely tell it was travelling at some ridiculous speeds.

 

[Unregistered]

I take your point, however perhaps you are being very precise about this.


For example, in the photograph aircraft are descending from an airway at top right of the picture and are following or tracking a navigational aid which is situated at the bottom left of the photograph. The navigational aid may be at the airport but in all probability will be close to the airfield.


Therefore we agree that the aircraft are flying down essentially a radio wave being transmitted by the navigational aid.


We need to consider the speed of the aircraft over the ground.


We also need to consider the height or altitude of the aircraft.


The pilots needs to consider at what point in the airway he will commence his descent. As a general rule multiply the aircraft height or altitude by 3 ( this is why the pilot needs to know his three times table) and this is then the distance from the airport that the aircraft should commence its descent.


For example. If the aircraft is in at 35,000 feet ( 35x3=105 nautical miles) if the aircraft is lower at say 30,000 feet (30x3=90nm)


The navigational aid that the aircraft is tracking also has a distance measuring equipment (DME) co located on the same radio frequency. Therefore the pilot is able to see the distance in nautical miles that the aircraft is from the navigational beacon.


When the distance measuring equipment reads 105 nautical miles this is the distance from the airport that the pilot should commence the descent. The rate of descent will therefore be optimum.


You need to take into consideration that the aircraft must pressurise as it descends. This is done automatically but if you commence the descent too late the rate of descent has to be increased and therefore the rate of pressurisation must also be increased. Passengers don't like this as it hurts their eardrums. Babies won't put up with this discomfort and start crying. This is turn disturbs the passengers so when babies are crying you know you have commenced the descent late.


In your question (Unregistered Guest) you want to know why the aircraft are descending through the clouds at different positions. The answer is because they have all been at different positions when they commenced the descent. Also they could have been at different altitudes and have different ground speeds, but generally speaking they are all dropping out through these fall streak clouds at around the same point.


Being precise is most important. Yours ( unregistered Guest) is an intellectual question if I may say so.


PS. GregMc& Mike / I agree,these Fal streak clouds are interesting and not usual. I understood reference was being made to the clouds in #1. Either way its a good post and good thread.

Hey Fred, you've lost me?

All the info you provide is good to know, but somewhat irrelevant to my query.

"you want to know why the aircraft are descending through the clouds at different positions" this was never a question i asked ?

I suggested that, to achieve the "4 Contrails" to sit parallel, and "side-by-side", Each plane would have to start their descent at "X" amount, greater than the previous plane,
for Mick's Theory to apply - "The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."

 

[Mick West]

Here's some video of high altitude holds causing a racetrack contrail near Brisbane, noticed by a lot of people

​
​
​

 

[MikeC]

I suggested that, to achieve the "4 Contrails" to sit parallel, and "side-by-side", Each plane would have to start their descent at "X" amount, greater than the previous plane,
for Mick's Theory to apply - "The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."

It is conceivable that each plane was at a higher altitude than the previous one.

It is also conceivable that they were notat different altitudes but were descending at different rates.

It is also conceivable that any combination of these with wind at that altitude caused the pattern.

 

[MikeC]

Here's some video of high altitude holds causing a racetrack contrail near Brisbane, noticed by a lot of people

and of course picked up by chemmie sites such as Northland New Zealand chemtrail Watch.


and lots of aussie newspapers and news sites ran the story too.

 

[Mick West]

Nice time-lapse video of it here, really shows the effects of the wind moving the entire cloud layer.
​

From this collection:
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/12/05/3648013.htm

 

[Mick West]

Here's the Google Earth track for VOZ469. Holding west of Brisbane at 38,000 feet, Dec 4 2012
The closest point on the ractrack is 35 miles (56 km) from Brisbane airport, and the furthest is 63 miles (101 km)
View attachment FlightAware_VOZ469_YPPH_YBBN_20121204.kml

And here's QFA984, in green. It had a rather more convoluted hold at 39,000 feet. Presumably this was to keep it out of the way of VOZ 469
View attachment FlightAware_QFA984_YPPD_YBBN_20121204.kml

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The guests are getting some extraordinarily detailed information about their sightings. They should be very pleased to get these answers which would be totally unanswered at any chemtrail website or forum.

 

[TWCobra]

Unregistered, (this would be easier if you had a name ) Yes I am a pilot for Qantas BTW; Kirra is in Sydney's northern suburbs correct? Your explanation is a bit hard to follow but it sounds as though either saw some aircraft being subjected to the ATC holding I mentioned (here is a PPRUNE thread talking about what started the previous day- http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/501886-syd-atc-2nd-december.html ) and, or some military aircraft participating in an exercise (called "Grumpy Strike") based out of Williamtown which was using airspace to the north of you up to FL320. The RAAF exercise may explain some of the apparent randomness plus the orbiting, which is what the Wedgetail AWACS and the A330 MRTT's do a lot of in these exercises.

 

[Unregistered]

Unregistered, (this would be easier if you had a name ) Yes I am a pilot for Qantas BTW; Kirra is in Sydney's northern suburbs correct? Your explanation is a bit hard to follow but it sounds as though either saw some aircraft being subjected to the ATC holding I mentioned (here is a PPRUNE thread talking about what started the previous day- http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/501886-syd-atc-2nd-december.html ) and, or some military aircraft participating in an exercise (called "Grumpy Strike") based out of Williamtown which was using airspace to the north of you up to FL320. The RAAF exercise may explain some of the apparent randomness plus the orbiting, which is what the Wedgetail AWACS and the A330 MRTT's do a lot of in these exercises.

Thanks TWCobra, call me J.

No mate, Kirra is on the southern end of the Gold Coast,Qld.

The aircrafts i have seen would best suit your scenario of "military aircraft participating in an exercise", as these planes are way up high, travelling at break-neck speeds, and are nowhere near the domestic flight path, "predominantly" (what seems to be) S/SW(Ballina maybe?) to W/NW.

Anyhows, hopefully you could put this 1 to rest?

The image below shows, 4 short parallel "trails" of equal lengths, and in close proximity of each other.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?dt6akb5856wd5qf

The only explanation i have heard so far is Mick's theory of -
"The four parallel fallstreak trails would be caused by planes on the same route descending through the cloud layer at a shallow angle."

Now, this would be completely valid if,

Each of the "4 planes" begun descending "X" amount of kilometers "greater" than the "previous plane", in relation to its landing point, for argument sake, lets say the airport?"
For example -
For 1st plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 1st plane must start descending at 100kms prior to airport.(these figures are hypothetical, just to illustrate my point)
For 2nd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 2nd plane must start descending at 200kms prior to airport.
For 3rd plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 3rd plane must start descending at 300kms prior to airport.
For 4th plane to hit "drifting cloud" at point "X" - 4th plane must start descending at 400kms prior to airport.

Reason being,

If the "4 planes" descended at the "same coordinates"(say 100kms from airport) as each other, the "fallstreak holes"(in relation to the speed/movement of the cloud cover)would appear in a row, certainly NOT side-by-side, as shown.

The Only other way i see Micks theory to work, is -
A. All 4 planes entered point "X,X,X and X" at the same time, or at least within a few seconds of each other.(not likely)
B. The clouds were stationary(not likely)

Would be great to here a pilots explanation as to how these 4 "trails" arrived in this arrangement ?

cheers mate,
j.

 

[Mick West]

If the "4 planes" descended at the "same coordinates"(say 100kms from airport) as each other, the "fallstreak holes"(in relation to the speed/movement of the cloud cover)would appear in a row, certainly NOT side-by-side, as shown.

The Only other way i see Micks theory to work, is -
A. All 4 planes entered point "X,X,X and X" at the same time, or at least within a few seconds of each other.(not likely)
B. The clouds were stationary(not likely)

Well I must be explaining things poorly, as those conditions are the exact opposite of what my theory would require, which is:

A. The planes crossed though the cloud layer at different times
B. The clouds were moving.

Did you not watch the video I made, explaining how four planes on the same route passed though 20,000 feet at different positions along the same track. ?
​

Think on this.

The planes are all flying along the same path, viewed from above
The planes descend along different paths, viewed from the side
The clouds (and hence the canals/trails) move perpendicular to the actual flight path.

See below, note the direction of the wind, and the order of the clouds.

Since I don't know the actual direction of the wind, then it could be the other way around, and there may also be a component parallel to the path. That would not affect the outcome.

 

[MikeC]

If the "4 planes" descended at the "same coordinates"(say 100kms from airport) as each other, the "fallstreak holes"(in relation to the speed/movement of the cloud cover)would appear in a row, certainly NOT side-by-side, as shown.

The Only other way i see Micks theory to work, is -
A. All 4 planes entered point "X,X,X and X" at the same time, or at least within a few seconds of each other.(not likely)
B. The clouds were stationary(not likely)

I dont' know why you ignore al eth perfectly reasonable explainations that have been offered - but your insistance that there is only 1 possible explaination is simply not supported by facts.

the planes could be at different altitudes on slightly different flight paths and descend through that cloud (or climb through it!) at different locations.

Below is a screenshot from flightRadar24 showing flights just asouth of GC just a few minutes ago - of the 4 flights highlighted 1 is at 18,000 ft, 1 at 32,000, 1 at 34,000 the last is at 37,000

 

[Mick West]

No mate, Kirra is on the southern end of the Gold Coast,Qld.

The aircrafts i have seen would best suit your scenario of "military aircraft participating in an exercise", as these planes are way up high, travelling at break-neck speeds, and are nowhere near the domestic flight path, "predominantly" (what seems to be) S/SW(Ballina maybe?) to W/NW.

This Kirra, right by Gold Coast/Coolangatta Airport?

Again, you should look at the video I made. The high altitude holds for Brisbane from Sydney will fly right over Coolangatta.

 

[Unregistered]

Hey Mick, sorry i've probably misunderstood you somewhere here?

How i interpret your "punch hole" theory is like this - -

- 4 planes heading North for the airport
- Each plane descends 10km(an approx. hypothetical number) from airport.
- Cloud drifting South
Outcome = 1 cloud- 4 punch holes "in a row" or in sequence?

For your "punch hole" theory to display the arrangement(in the photo), i would suggest this -
- 4 planes heading North for the airport
- Each plane descends 10km(an approx. hypothetical number) GREATER to the previous plane from the airport, to hit the "moving" cloud at the same point?
- Cloud drifting South
Outcome = 1 cloud- 4 punch holes "side-by-side" or at least in a grouping.(as in the photo)


What i am trying to point out is, by your illustration, these 4 flights would have to hit that cloud at extremely short intervals, or, the cloud was moving extremely slowly?

Are we on the same page?

Also, just wondering, in your illustration, why are the "trails" running at right angles to the cloud/wind direction.

 

[Mick West]

The direction of the trails is mostly dictated by the direction of the planes, as they move 10x the speed of the wind.

Wind is blowing WEST, not south


The planes don't pass through in +10km increments. More like +10, -50, +20.

 

[Unregistered]

Mick,

You seem to be correcting a hypothetical scenario, which i am using ONLY to illustrate how i think YOUR theory could achieve the "grouped appearance" of 4 trails?

let me put it another way -

"Hypothetical Scenario 1"
4 airplanes heading North to the airport,
cloud direction is South,
1st plane starts descent 10 minutes prior to airport
2nd plane starts descent 15 minutes prior to airport
3rd plane starts descent 20 minutes prior to airport
4th plane starts descent 25 minutes prior to airport

Outcome - 1 cloud with 4 "trails" of "grouped appearance"


"Hypothetical Scenario 2"
4 airplanes heading North to the airport,
cloud direction is South,
1st plane starts descent 10 minutes prior to airport
2nd plane starts descent 10 minutes prior to airport
3rd plane starts descent 10 minutes prior to airport
4th plane starts descent 10 minutes prior to airport

Outcome - 1 cloud with 4 "trails" of "Queued appearance"

Both using your "punch hole" theory, just with 2 aesthetic outcomes.

All i'm suggesting is that for your "punch hole" theory to reflect the shown outcome, each plane would have to descend at "X" distance from the airport to coincide with the movement of the cloud cover, therefore, "Hypothetical Scenario 1" would be favourable for achieving a "grouped appearance" as shown in the photo.... "Hypothetical Scenario 2" would be favourable for achieving a "Queued appearance"

Are we on the same page??

 

[Unregistered]

Hey mike,

i'm not ignoring, just trying get my head around the "punch hole" theory, and how to apply it to the arrangement?

I dont' know why you ignore al eth perfectly reasonable explainations that have been offered - but your insistance that there is only 1 possible explaination is simply not supported by facts.

the planes could be at different altitudes on slightly different flight paths and descend through that cloud (or climb through it!) at different locations.

Below is a screenshot from flightRadar24 showing flights just asouth of GC just a few minutes ago - of the 4 flights highlighted 1 is at 18,000 ft, 1 at 32,000, 1 at 34,000 the last is at 37,000

View attachment 1204