• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Contrails & Chemtrails

Avgas is used in piston engined aircraft and often used in older high performance
racing engines, Jet aircraft use Jet fuel, aviation turbine fuel (ATF), or avtur,
this stuff smells like paraffin, neither are nice. Some years ago when many of
the trees at Tatton Park were dieing they suspected pollution from jets as
they were under the flight path for Manchester. I used to fly out of Manchester
Barton many years back and would often look up when sitting in the aircraft
and think, theres near 40 gall of very high octane fuel just 3 or 4 inches from
my head.
 
I totally commiserate with you escargot. That is just awful. Is there any form of legal recourse to at least get you compensated for the inconvenience? I couldn't imagine surviving living in an avgas soaked home for long. I am sure it is not good for anyone either. Its known health risks include:

R11 – Highly flammable. R20/21//22 – Harmful by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. R33 – Danger of cumulative effects. R38 – Irritating to skin. R45 – May cause cancer R46 – May cause heritable genetic damage. R48/20/21/22 – Harmfil: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure through inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. R61 – May cause harm to unborn child. R63 – Possible risk of harm to unborn child. R65 – Harmful:May cause lung damage if swallowed. R66 – Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness and cracking.

That is taken from a Materials Safety Data Sheet for Avgas btw. Here is the link:
http://www.cheetahracefuels.com.au/assets/avgas msds.pdf

It was rare but it happened a few times, before I learned about the very helpful www.flightradar24.com which would have told me exactly which plane had just flown over!
 
RaM, I wouldn't doubt it. In the case of an emergency I would imagine planes might need to dump fuel both to lighten their load and to reduce the risk of fire in a crash. ...

Correct - on both counts, with respect to emergency landings ...

However, the 'load / weight factor' applies to non-emergency landings as well. Here's why ...

Landings are rough, and aircraft are designed to safely land with up to a certain maximum weight on board. Every aircraft type has detailed specifications for the relevant parameters, and these specifications are in play during flight planning.

There's a big problem, though ... One thing that can easily turn a safe landing into a runway crash is having the onboard weight shift. Cargo palettes and passengers are tied down / belted in, and don't shift. Liquids - such as the possibly thousands of pounds of avgas in a plane's fuel tanks - slosh around. To make matters worse the sloshing fuel is typically housed in the wings - the components most vulnerable to load-related stresses.

Aircraft fuel tanks (typically bladders nowadays) are equipped with baffles and other things to minimize such sloshing, but there's frankly no way to reasonably ensure a fuel load won't or can't slosh around.

As a result, there are strict specifications for how much fuel load a large aircraft can safely carry when landing.

For most routine cases (e.g., commercial airliners) this landing fuel weight constraint is baked into the planning, so that jettisoning fuel becomes necessary only when the aircraft has to land earlier than expected.

The really critical situation has to do with tankers. If a tanker lifts off with, say, 100,000 lbs. of fuel intended to be offloaded to other aircraft, more than 90% of that weight can't simply be brought back to terra firma again. It has to be burned up by the tanker itself, offloaded to the intended or other recipients, or ...

The in-house term for the last-ditch solution is 'weight adjustment'. Major weight adjustments are (thankfully ... ) rare, and whenever possible tankers are diverted to remote locations (e.g., over the ocean) to perform them. Any such weight adjustments are performed at higher altitudes to dissipate the dump.

Just so we're clear ... No - the chemtrails BS isn't attributable to profligate fuel-related weight adjustments.
 
This was taken yesterday now I wounder what this aircraft was up to
the reg numbers, owner, takeoff and landing points were not shown so
could not find anything else out about it.
the other aircraft was a Typhoon up from Warton likely on test and had
been flying round our local area so likely not connected.

5bwY0JE.jpg
 
That is kinda suspicious, isn't it?
But they could have been doing aerial photography or something else that is perfectly innocent.
 
That is kinda suspicious, isn't it?
But they could have been doing aerial photography or something else that is perfectly innocent.
They could have but the weather was not that good and the aircraft the National Survey use are twin
engine, we see them now and then, it was only doing 100 knots at about 1800 ft also a bit shy about
any details like reg number, I honestly dont know but it was what I would expect from a spray pattern
a big one but who knows.
 
They could have but the weather was not that good and the aircraft the National Survey use are twin
engine, we see them now and then, it was only doing 100 knots at about 1800 ft also a bit shy about
any details like reg number, I honestly dont know but it was what I would expect from a spray pattern
a big one but who knows.
Could be Google. Google Earth view is pretty hi-res for that area, and the imagery is 2017.
 
Pretty good demo of straight lines and spacing what ever they were up to.
it covers a area roughly 13 by 5 miles.
 
Last edited:
Pretty good demo of straight lines and spacing what ever they were up to.
Yes, it's amazing that they are all so parallel. Perhaps using an autopilot program?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
Wow, that is pretty weird. But Google Maps or any other mapping / geo survey type operation is a plausible explanation.
 
The pop-up on the display (screen shot in post #361) flags the aircraft as PC6T. That's the ICAO designation for a Pilatus PC-6 Porter (and / or licensed clone) - the venerable single-engine plane noted for its STOL capabilities.

(If you've seen the movie Air America - the single-prop plane that landed on a seemingly un-land-able hilltop dirt track was a PC-6.)

In addition to backcountry cargo hauling, the PC-6 is often used for low-speed / lower-altitude missions like surveillance, mapping, remote sensing, and hauling skydivers.

As to this thread's topic ... The one utility purpose for which the PC-6 is NOT noted is agricultural spraying or any other aerial application missions. I can't find any mention of a PC-6 being used to spray anything (other than bullets).

https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-6_Porter
 
The pop-up on the display (screen shot in post #361) flags the aircraft as PC6T. That's the ICAO designation for a Pilatus PC-6 Porter (and / or licensed clone) - the venerable single-engine plane noted for its STOL capabilities.

Agree it's 99.9% likely to be a photo/mapping/LIDAR survey, but let's throw in a wild card: Is it a surveillance bird à la ISA/Centra Spike, as depicted in Killing Pablo, Mark Bowden's book about Pablo Escobar; also the related TV series, the excellent Narcos? Are they attempting to track a mobile 'phone or laptop?

Hmmm...

maximus otter
 
There are a couple of other possibilities ...

First, it could have been a training or familiarity flight. The Pilatus Porter is a very forgiving aircraft, but its flight characteristics are peculiar by today's standards.

Second, the Porter has a history of being used as an airborne communications relay platform or hub.

I don't see why a comm relay or device tracking situation would require or recommend the sort of back-and-forth grid coverage pattern shown in the screen shot. Both these objectives would be more easily served with a simple orbit pattern.

The depicted flight pattern is a better fit for a searching / scanning / recording mission.
 
The area is low-lying land. Maybe water levels were being monitored, as the first snows of winter were forecast? :ness:
 
Strangely enough I was walking the dog about 3:50 this afternoon and somewhere to the south I heard a very loud aircraft which, judging by the noise, appeared to be going at full throttle for six or seven seconds. There were a few seconds break and this was repeated. To the south of Morecambe would be approximately in this area. Being close to Salmesbury BAE I wonder, as has been put forward, this could be the explanation.
 
Strangely enough I was walking the dog about 3:50 this afternoon and somewhere to the south I heard a very loud aircraft which, judging by the noise, appeared to be going at full throttle for six or seven seconds. There were a few seconds break and this was repeated. To the south of Morecambe would be approximately in this area. Being close to Salmesbury BAE I wonder, as has been put forward, this could be the explanation.

I live near Bankstown airport - and hear that a lot. That's what happens in pilot training.

They cut the engine intermittently as emergency training. I think these might be future military pilots being trained.
 
I cant remember the time but there was a Tornado on test in the
Morcambe bay area yesterday passed over our house 3 or 4 times
you get that loud and quiet thing as they pull tight tunes.
 
The PC6 it is a Pilatus PC-6/B2-H4 was up again today
took off from the same place just West of Oswestry climbed
to about 1800 ft headed arrow straight towards Sheffield area
but disappeared after about 30 miles likely to low to track.
 
What ever it is they do they seem to be active again today only a few miles from
Owerstry

LroXcIK.jpg
 
If they would put the reg into the transponder it would help
it's only interesting at least to me because I don't know, I'm
a nosey sod.
 
...I wounder what this aircraft was up to
the reg numbers, owner, takeoff and landing points were not shown so
could not find anything else out about it.

5bwY0JE.jpg

I forgot to mention: Last week l was at the rifle range and fell into conversation with a fellow member who is a professional pilot. He’s currently under contract to photograph certain buildings for a UK agency. He told me that the above aircraft was on a photographic flight for Google or a similar firm. He also mentioned that the pilot is causing quite a stir, as she is female with a very sexy French accent!

maximus otter
 
I think you are right I have noticed it 2 or 3 time since flying similar patterns.
 
I forgot to mention: Last week l was at the rifle range and fell into conversation with a fellow member who is a professional pilot. He’s currently under contract to photograph certain buildings for a UK agency. He told me that the above aircraft was on a photographic flight for Google or a similar firm. He also mentioned that the pilot is causing quite a stir, as she is female with a very sexy French accent!

maximus otter
Sounds like my guess was correct!
 
The RAF retires it's Tornado fleet in the next 3 or 4 weeks and have been doing
fly-by's at many places associated with the aircraft but I doubt it having anything
to do with Richmond park.
 
That webpage is not loading for me and the hot-linked image (please don't do that) is not being displayed.
Could be a geo-blocking issue - I had the same thing, so had to invoke the power of Hola to conceal my actual whereabouts.
 
It loaded for me but the page/Guardian wanted to allow cookies .
Is that something worrisome...? btw..I'm really ignorant about most internet protocols. ;)
 
Back
Top