posted 04-02-2001 04:06 AM
I suppose I'll throw a few things out for discussion on this subject. Let me first begin by saying that, big picture, this is a great idea. No matter what side of the issue you're on, it could potentially put the issue to rest as to whether or not the chemtrail phenomenon is real. I think that this is great.
I'm not here to discuss which side will be eating crow when the results come back. I think we all know where everybody stands (or appears to) on the big issue. So, I won't waste your time with that.
What I will take up web space with is why I think this "operation" will be next to impossible to pull off.
First off, let's talk about flight rules and how aircraft are tracked by Air Traffic Control in the United States. Our airspace consists of several different classes of airspace. They are Classes A through G. Most airspace in the USA is Class E, which is just about every molecule of air below 18,000 feet and outside of airports. The airspace around airports are Classes B through D, and carry their own rules and levels of ATC control. Suffice it to say that Class B airspace is around major airports (DFW, Denver, LAX, etc.) and requires the highest level of control from ATC to transit. Classes C and D are around smaller airports and can have little more than advisory control from ATC.
Now let's talk about Class A airspace, which will more than likely be the regime in which the alleged sprayers are operating. Class A airspace is the airspace above the entire USA above 18,000 feet. To operate in this airspace, an aircraft must be flying on an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flight plan and be under ATC control. Another requirement (as is the case for Class B) is for the aircraft to have an operating transponder with altitude reporting capability. In layman's terms, a transponder is a radio beacon which, when illuminated by radar, emits a code and the aircraft's altitude. The code is assigned by ATC and is set by the pilot. This is the only way that controllers on the ground have of telling aircraft apart and, more importantly, what altitudes all of the radar blips are at on the two-dimensional screens that they use.
SUMMARY: for an aircraft to operate above 18,000 feet or to fly out of a major airport it must have a flight plan filed and have equipment on board which tells the contollers what aircraft it is and what altitude it is flying at.
Now, this transponder also serves another function. Most civilian aircraft (and some military) are equipped with TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) which also uses information from these transponders to provide the pilots on board with basic information to help them avoid other aircraft. If another aircraft with a transponder approaches within a certain distance, the TCAS warns the pilots of an impending collision and tells them which direction to turn to avoid the other aircraft. For those of you that don't remember the incident between an Atlantic City F-16 and a commercial airliner a few years ago, the F-16 pilot intercepted the commercial airliner and set off its TCAS. The airliner then took evasive maneuvers to avoid what the pilots believed was an imminent collision. In fact, the F-16 pilot had closed to within visual range and flew along side of the airliner (albeit illegally and idiotically.)
ATC will also use the information from the various transponders to route aircraft over/under/around other aircraft with crossing flight paths. They have a certain "bubble" which they put around each plane and they are required to vector aircraft in such a manner that this "bubble" is not encroached upon by other aircraft.
SUMMARY: A potential "chemtrailer" will more than likely have TCAS, which will alert the pilots ot aircraft flying on a collision course (intercept.) ATC controls all airspace above 18,000 feet and ensures aircraft separation, so you can't just jump in a plane legally and say "follow that aircraft."
You'll notice that I said LEGALLY. There is no way ATC will allow an intercept between two civilian aircraft under positive control (like above 18,000 feet.) Now, the only way for an aircraft to intercept an alleged sprayer is for it to do it illegally. What this means is for an aircraft to depart a smaller airfield (outside of Class B airspace) without its transponder on, climb above 18,000 feet, and hopefully be able to keep visual contact with the accused aircraft. With its transponder off the aircraft will only be a blip on ATCs radar screen with no altitude or flight information assigned to it. That will also keep the aircraft from alerting the "sprayer's" TCAS to its presence.
Upon getting up to altitude, the jet must be able to have the performance to close on the "sprayer." The pilot of the intercepting aircraft must have some experience in doing this, especially since he/she will probably not have an air-to-air radar aboard. Also, the pilot will have to have experience in flying formation. Things like controlling closure and knowing how to fly in close proximity to other aircraft are skills that require training and recent practice.
SUMMARY: The pilot of the intercepting aircraft must break Federal Regulations and have experience in flying intercepts and flying formation.
Now on to the subject of the aircraft. I've mentioned it already, but it must have the performance capabilities to fly faster than the "sprayer" and be able to fly at high altitudes. There are a number of small business jets that can fulfill this purpose. Unfortunately, willfully using one of these planes in the breaking of federal regulations can result in its seizure, which is very unappealing to the owner.
SUMMARY: You would be hard pressed to find an aircraft to use for the operation because of the risk.
Now, let's say that we get an aircraft, a willing pilot, and a plane flying overhead that appears to be spraying. The aircraft gets airborne, intercepts the "sprayer," and after several minutes of video taping and sample gathering, comes back and lands. Now copmes the real hard part. The hard part, ladies and gentlemen, is convincing the other side that the "evidence" is in fact there. If the tapes show a normal United Airlines 737, then people on the "pro-chemtrail" side will insist that the trail spotted is not the same as the ones that are REALLY dumping chemicals. Stories will then fly about the pilot and whether or not he is an agent and intercepted the wrong aircraft on purpose, blah blah blah.
If the video shows some kind of spray apparatus and the samples come back positive, then there will be the skeptic who questions the method of sample gathering, the authenticity of the tape, blah, blah, blah. Hell, if the flight does catch something legitimate on video, then there is obviously some sort of conspiracy underfoot and there are agents out there licking their lips waiting to taint the evidence and mess everything up.
SUMMARY: Any evidence gathered will not be accepted (or tolerated) by the other side.
So, there's my opinion on the subject. Not only do I believe that the operation would be nearly impossible, I also have doubts about the other side's acceptance of the information gathered. I've seen both sides here, and I'm certain that neither will accept what will be painfully obvious, even if done correctly.
This is not to say that I'm not in favor of it, anyway. I hope that someone will actually have the cash and cajones (balls) to carry this out safely. I just don't think that it will happen.
Maverick
[Edited 1 times, lastly by TopGun0069 on 04-02-2001]
[Edited 1 times, lastly by TopGun0069 on 12-31-2001]
Chemtrail Central Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted 03-31-2001 11:58 AM
posted 03-31-2001 12:48 PM
posted 04-02-2001 02:28 AM
posted 04-02-2001 04:06 AM
posted 04-02-2001 11:22 AM
