Remember Me?
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Ask Ed Need to find something in Edmonton? Have a question about moving, travelling or living here? This is the place to get answers from people who know.


Go Back   Connect2Edmonton > C2E Features > Ask Ed
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-02-2010, 10:55 AM   #1
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default Commercial Flight Paths Over Edmonton

Does anybody know where I could find a map of commercial flight paths over Edmonton? I've been searching online but can't find anything.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 11:30 AM   #2
McBoo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Default

Try http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.as...ts\default.xml

Or, maybe you already have, but Edmonton is a big Nav Canada centre for a huge swath of airspace - so somewhere, somehow, they probably have something that will be useful to you.

Good luck
McBoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 11:45 AM   #3
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Ya, I did browse the navcan website but couldn't find what I was looking for. I did find a cool pdf with all the Canadian airport maps though.
Airport Maps 31 MB.

That link you provided seems to only give me maps of the various air spaces but no actual flight paths.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 11:51 AM   #4
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
That link you provided seems to only give me maps of the various air spaces but no actual flight paths.
Those are the correct links - if you view the "sample chart" PDF you can see all the air routes between various navigation points. You have to purchase maps if you want them.

However, to back up a bit - is this what you are looking for? What do you mean by "commercial flight paths over Edmonton" - are you talking about aircraft at altitude passing over the city (eg Polar routes overflying the Province / city, etc), or commercial traffic departing / arriving at YEG? Two very different scenarios.
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 12:02 PM   #5
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I mean flights over Edmonton, not necessarily landing at or departing from YEG.

Let me check that link again...
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 12:08 PM   #6
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Oh, I do see flights on that sample map. But what does it all mean? I'm no pilot so I need some kind of legend to explain the numbers and stuff.

What I'd like to know is the flights I see passing over my neighbourhood every day, high in the sky, what is the origin and destination, type of plane and (if possible) the airline.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 12:14 PM   #7
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
What I'd like to know is the flights I see passing over my neighbourhood every day, high in the sky, what is the origin and destination, type of plane and (if possible) the airline.
If that's what you are interested in, the next best thing to sitting next to a controller on a radar screen is getting yourself a high quality live flight tracker for your computer, eg.

http://flightaware.com/

It's always a few minutes behind but the closest you can get to having that info in real time.
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 12:22 PM   #8
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Con Trail watcher are we ?
Blueline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 01:29 PM   #9
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

I sas gassing up at 7-Eleven yesterday (or was it the day before?) and saw a strange combination of con trails. I frequently see one contrail in this same path (although I never noticed the turn before) but this time there were two. Both were four engined planes. One followed the other by about 20 seconds and both made a turn in the same direction. That seemed odd to me and got me curious.

IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 01:29 PM   #10
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
What I'd like to know is the flights I see passing over my neighbourhood every day, high in the sky, what is the origin and destination, type of plane and (if possible) the airline.
If that's what you are interested in, the next best thing to sitting next to a controller on a radar screen is getting yourself a high quality live flight tracker for your computer, eg.

http://flightaware.com/

It's always a few minutes behind but the closest you can get to having that info in real time.
Wow, that's cool. Check this out.

http://flightaware.com/live/airport_...t?airport=CYEG
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 01:50 PM   #11
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

IKAN...

...if you are looking for the Jetways/Airways, call Jeppesen...you'll have to pay though.

...they haven't changed much over the years, so the aviation museum should have something there from the 1990's. Outside of RNAV points, the basic jetway to Vancouver from Edmonton (for example) hasn't changed...arrival and departure paths are pretty much the same as well...different names.

The path you saw in the photos has been the northern route for some time now...usually flights to the Pacific NorthWest(and depending on winds etc, LAX/SFO) from Europe. If I am not mistaken, the turn is still the YEG VOR...onto the outbound radial...then they line up to the next one - Princeton or Enderby...or another in the US for more southerly routes...

...also, don't forget that NATO/NORAD/CanFor/USAF planes use this route as well...it is a fairly common sight...and many are 4 engined specials going to the same destination...a minute or so apart..
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 02:01 PM   #12
McBoo
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Default

I think the Grade 4 translation is planes over-flying a city cross over the airfield at midfield. That way they're never going to hit someone landing or taking off.

Disclaimer: I quit flying school right about the chapter on vectors.......
McBoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 02:42 PM   #13
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
I think the Grade 4 translation is planes over-flying a city cross over the airfield at midfield. That way they're never going to hit someone landing or taking off.

Disclaimer: I quit flying school right about the chapter on vectors.......
I think he's interested in aircraft flying at altitudes slightly higher than say circuit height
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 02:50 PM   #14
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
I sas gassing up at 7-Eleven yesterday (or was it the day before?) and saw a strange combination of con trails. I frequently see one contrail in this same path (although I never noticed the turn before) but this time there were two. Both were four engined planes. One followed the other by about 20 seconds and both made a turn in the same direction. That seemed odd to me and got me curious.
High level routes are like streets in the sky. Everyone follows the same path, turn at the same point, etc, give or take (altitudes will vary). It just so happened that two aircraft were in reasonable proximity that time, travelling in the same direction. It happens a lot actually.

[nerd comment] Since you're into this - pull out a good set of binoculars or a good telephoto camera lens and try to ID the aircraft / airline from below. It is sometimes possible [/nerd comment]

Last edited by Chump; 23-02-2010 at 02:56 PM..
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 02:55 PM   #15
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Thanks for the explanations everyone. I appreciate that. I think I do have a pair of binoculars laying around somewhere, but of course never handy when you need it.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:02 PM   #16
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
Just to clarify (and maybe you realized this) - to ID the aircraft you are interested in you won't want to do a search for "YEG" on that site. That will only show aircraft coming and going from YEG. An aircraft leaving a contrail at 33K feet over the city obviously not coming or going from YEG. (Pardon if you realized that.) It is interesting to see how much traffic is coming and going from the airport though.
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:10 PM   #17
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Actually, this one is better but costs money

http://www.airnavsystems.com/index.html
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:12 PM   #18
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Careful what you wish for...

In the 40's and 50's Edmonton was known as the "Cross Roads of the World" (talk about being on the map) as we were the refueling site for West Coast flights (CDN/USA) to Europe and Mid West/East Coast flights (CDN/USA) to the Orient flying the great circle routes and polar routes.

The orient and polar routes were pioneered by an Edmontonian...Grant MacConachie...member of the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and soon to have a National Monuments plaque dedicated at our Aviation Museum.

His Legacy lives on...the routes are still used many, many times per day and you can often see multiple crossing contrails over Edmonton.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:30 PM   #19
Medwards
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
Just to clarify (and maybe you realized this) - to ID the aircraft you are interested in you won't want to do a search for "YEG" on that site. That will only show aircraft coming and going from YEG. An aircraft leaving a contrail at 33K feet over the city obviously not coming or going from YEG. (Pardon if you realized that.) It is interesting to see how much traffic is coming and going from the airport though.
If you click on Aviation Sectional (button on top right of maps), it appears you can see whats going on overhead... There's flights that aren't going to or from CYEG. Also, this feature down in the US shows restricted areas and flight path zones.
Medwards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:39 PM   #20
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Careful what you wish for...

In the 40's and 50's Edmonton was known as the "Cross Roads of the World" (talk about being on the map) as we were the refueling site for West Coast flights (CDN/USA) to Europe and Mid West/East Coast flights (CDN/USA) to the Orient flying the great circle routes and polar routes.

The orient and polar routes were pioneered by an Edmontonian...Grant MacConachie...member of the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and soon to have a National Monuments plaque dedicated at our Aviation Museum.

His Legacy lives on...the routes are still used many, many times per day and you can often see multiple crossing contrails over Edmonton.

Tom
I see a two crossing contrails outside my window right now.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:40 PM   #21
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
I think the Grade 4 translation is planes over-flying a city cross over the airfield at midfield. That way they're never going to hit someone landing or taking off.

Disclaimer: I quit flying school right about the chapter on vectors.......
I think he's interested in aircraft flying at altitudes slightly higher than say circuit height
...that's not the Grade 4 translation though...

...Plane just leaving ground is a lot lower than plane making pretty white clouds in the sky...like...30,000' lower...
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-02-2010, 03:41 PM   #22
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post

I see a two crossing contrails outside my window right now.

...as do I...

busy day out the window...and a nice distraction from the hell that is work lately...
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 10:29 AM   #23
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
I sas gassing up at 7-Eleven yesterday (or was it the day before?) and saw a strange combination of con trails. I frequently see one contrail in this same path (although I never noticed the turn before) but this time there were two. Both were four engined planes. One followed the other by about 20 seconds and both made a turn in the same direction. That seemed odd to me and got me curious.
IKAN, I share your curiosity and am wondering if you came to any conclusions as a result of your research (?).

I see what I consider to be unusual trails just about every day. By unusual, I mean that they are arranged in parallel and perpendicular lines; but, more importantly, they persist for hours and create a distinct haze in the sky. These trails often start and stop abruptly -- i.e., you can see a clear beginning and end.

I have heard the argument that these are just contrails from commercial jets, but I'm having a hard time buying that.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 10:37 AM   #24
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
I have heard the argument that these are just contrails from commercial jets, but I'm having a hard time buying that.
They are probably contrails. Some persist longer than others. If you see one that suddenly stops, that likely represents a change in the atmospheric conditions that the aircraft passed through. Or perhaps all 4 engines of that aircraft just quit. I think that is less likely

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/r...on_English.jpg

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html

Last edited by Chump; 22-04-2010 at 10:41 AM..
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 10:39 AM   #25
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Careful what you wish for...

In the 40's and 50's Edmonton was known as the "Cross Roads of the World" (talk about being on the map) as we were the refueling site for West Coast flights (CDN/USA) to Europe and Mid West/East Coast flights (CDN/USA) to the Orient flying the great circle routes and polar routes.

The orient and polar routes were pioneered by an Edmontonian...Grant MacConachie...member of the Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame and soon to have a National Monuments plaque dedicated at our Aviation Museum.

His Legacy lives on...the routes are still used many, many times per day and you can often see multiple crossing contrails over Edmonton.

Tom
Tom, please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but if I understand you correctly, you are saying that long-haul flights in the 40's and 50's used to land here in Edmonton to refuel. Since then, advancements in aviation technology have rendered these refueling stops unnecessary (i.e., planes can simply fly further now). But, the flight paths have remained unchanged for historical reasons? That is, planes fly over Edmonton for no good reason other than that they used to refuel here decades ago?

This seems to imply that planes are now going out of their way to fly over Edmonton (since there is no longer a practical reason for doing so). Or is it common practice for planes to fly over cities in case the need for an emergency landing ever arises?
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 10:51 AM   #26
RichardS
C2E Junkie
*
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Default

...just because they don't have to stop here...it does not change the fact that the earth is a globe and they still will fly over on the exact same great circle route.
__________________
Just stating facts...per ardua ad astra
RichardS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 12:42 PM   #27
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Paths may also follow or avoid high alititude jet streams and related High and Low pressure bands
Blueline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 02:49 PM   #28
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
I have heard the argument that these are just contrails from commercial jets, but I'm having a hard time buying that.
They are probably contrails. Some persist longer than others. If you see one that suddenly stops, that likely represents a change in the atmospheric conditions that the aircraft passed through. Or perhaps all 4 engines of that aircraft just quit. I think that is less likely

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/r...on_English.jpg

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/science.html
I've seen these stumpy contrails a lot lately and wondered about them. Just yesterday I saw three of them being created. A plane flew overhead and in it's flight path it left three stumpy contrails. Kind of like a dashed line. It was kind of weird but it did look like you say, it was passing through different atmospheric conditions.

I don't want to turn this into a conspiracy thread but I do believe some contrails are probably chemtrails (I know that's what you're getting at iondesky). Have we seen chemtrails over Edmonton? I don't know, but I have made it a habit to watch the skies and take pictures.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 04:31 PM   #29
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

iondesky

No...what I am pointing out is that "Grant McConachie" a great Edmontonian pioneered the over the pole route and through his efforts Edmonton, which is on the route, became on of the great stops for commercial air traffic through the 40s and 50s.

Those routes are still the routes today, but long range aircraft mean they don't have to stop.

Aircraft departing east of us to Asia/SE Asia/Japan/China use the route as they head to the west.

Aircraft departing west of us heading to Europe past over us on the polar route to their destinations.

We are still on the preferred route..they just don't have a good reason to stop.

Ikan104

Not all aircraft leave contrails...takes a specific humidity range and temperature range to get them to form from the turbulence caused by the aircraft.

The ones that you see as a dashed line are usually from an aircraft that is passing through zones where the humidity or temp is unstable and the ability to create contrails is on and off.

Contrails are basically clouds that form from the wake of the aircraft as the temp and humidity are tumbled.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 07:57 PM   #30
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

Hi Ikan,
Here's a site I like to look at from time to time although it primarily deals with Europe (much busier than these parts, of course). www.flightradar24.com
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 08:06 PM   #31
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

That's a really cool site. If you click on a plane it tells you all kinds of info, like origin, destination, plane, airline. Too bad it doesn't have any info for flights around our area.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 08:39 PM   #32
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

But wait, there's more! Click on the red link in the info box on the right hand side and it'll even link to an actual photo of the plane in question, plus a bunch of other data, serial no., last seen, etc.

If you pan out to a worldwide shot, it will show larger concentrations of air traffic, eastern US, western US, Australia, Buenos Aires and others. Happy tracking.
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 08:47 PM   #33
jagators63
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Edmonton (belevedre)
Default

there is flight path you can see here


__________________
Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks
jagators63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-04-2010, 10:29 PM   #34
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

^ Jeez, jags, I've heard of short hops, but that little square one takes the cake.
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-04-2010, 09:23 AM   #35
RTA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Holyrood
Default

^ That's my "flight path" after my fourth coffee.
__________________
Strathcona City Separatist
RTA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 08:30 AM   #36
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
iondesky

No...what I am pointing out is that "Grant McConachie" a great Edmontonian pioneered the over the pole route and through his efforts Edmonton, which is on the route, became on of the great stops for commercial air traffic through the 40s and 50s.

Those routes are still the routes today, but long range aircraft mean they don't have to stop.

Aircraft departing east of us to Asia/SE Asia/Japan/China use the route as they head to the west.

Aircraft departing west of us heading to Europe past over us on the polar route to their destinations.

We are still on the preferred route..they just don't have a good reason to stop.
Tom, I get what you're saying now. I just didn't realize that there were such established "routes". I assumed that different airlines would fly along whatever paths they felt were most efficient for their destinations, aircraft, etc.

It still strikes me as odd that airplanes would not fly along a more-or-less straight line between point A and point B, barring any geographical or environmental obstacles.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 08:31 AM   #37
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
there is flight path you can see here
Isn't that just showing how planes take off from City Centre Airport? I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of planes flying high over Edmonton.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 08:38 AM   #38
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
iondesky

No...what I am pointing out is that "Grant McConachie" a great Edmontonian pioneered the over the pole route and through his efforts Edmonton, which is on the route, became on of the great stops for commercial air traffic through the 40s and 50s.

Those routes are still the routes today, but long range aircraft mean they don't have to stop.

Aircraft departing east of us to Asia/SE Asia/Japan/China use the route as they head to the west.

Aircraft departing west of us heading to Europe past over us on the polar route to their destinations.

We are still on the preferred route..they just don't have a good reason to stop.
Tom, I get what you're saying now. I just didn't realize that there were such established "routes". I assumed that different airlines would fly along whatever paths they felt were most efficient for their destinations, aircraft, etc.

It still strikes me as odd that airplanes would not fly along a more-or-less straight line between point A and point B, barring any geographical or environmental obstacles.
iondesky

As Grant McConachie used to demonstrate with a globe as he was selling Edmonton as a centre of aviation and the ideal stopping/starting point for the Polar routes...a straight line on a map and a straight line on a globe are very different paths and the Great Circle Polar routes are the the fastest most efficient.

As far as established routes...you bet and at multiple levels. Literally layered highways in the sky.

Some sections becoming so crowded that route "time slots" are required and heavily bid on by airlines/air cargo.

Edmonton happens to be on several of the routes which is why we get so much overhead traffic.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 08:55 AM   #39
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
I've seen these stumpy contrails a lot lately and wondered about them. Just yesterday I saw three of them being created. A plane flew overhead and in it's flight path it left three stumpy contrails. Kind of like a dashed line. It was kind of weird but it did look like you say, it was passing through different atmospheric conditions.

I don't want to turn this into a conspiracy thread but I do believe some contrails are probably chemtrails (I know that's what you're getting at iondesky). Have we seen chemtrails over Edmonton? I don't know, but I have made it a habit to watch the skies and take pictures.
The only way to turn this into a "conspiracy" thread would be to make some completely unjustifiable claim. However, I agree with you that this whole chemtrail theory is indeed plausible. We could even list some potential motives, such as weather modification, for instance. Surely, you all acknowledge the possibility of such projects being in the works.

A few months back, I searched "airplane trail" or some other innocuous set of keywords after being curious about what I was seeing in the sky. That is, I felt like I was seeing something strange and new, and I wanted to know what it was. I did not start looking at the sky after reading about chemtrails on the Internet and getting that idea planted in my head.

It is possible that I just didn't notice this phenomenon during the previous decades of my life, or that conditions in the atmosphere have recently changed such that contrails are more dense and persistent than ever before. But these explanations seem highly unlikely to me.

I would like to say that I appreciate the honest and open discussion has been taking place in this thread (no name calling, belittling, etc.), and I hope that continues. I am just trying to understand what I have been seeing in our skies (not just over Edmonton, mind you), and have found existing explanations to be unsatisfactory. I do concede that I need to read up on contrail science before engaging in any further debate regarding the appearance of the trails themselves, though.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 11:40 AM   #40
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

iondesky

"I would like to say that I appreciate the honest and open discussion has been taking place in this thread (no name calling, belittling, etc.), and I hope that continues. I am just trying to understand what I have been seeing in our skies (not just over Edmonton, mind you), and have found existing explanations to be unsatisfactory. I do concede that I need to read up on contrail science before engaging in any further debate regarding the appearance of the trails themselves, though."

Great idea..you should learn more about contrails (condensation trails) they are a very well known phenomena that has been appearing since aircraft entered the edges of the Stratosphere.

Contrary to some information on Wiki and promoted by some others they are not engine or jet exhaust/water vapor..they are the result of the turbulence caused by the airframe shape more than anything. (the shuttleleaves a contrial in the lower atmosphere with no engines operating).

They became well known in during the second world war over Europe, they can last a few minute to hours dependant on the weather conditions and sometimes an aircraft won't even have cause them to form for the same reason.

Enjoy the learning process.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 10:59 PM   #41
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
It still strikes me as odd that airplanes would not fly along a more-or-less straight line between point A and point B, barring any geographical or environmental obstacles.
They are in fact flying "straight lines" - the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is called a great circle route. It's just that on most traditional maps which are flat and use a mercator projection the line appears curved - but if you look at a sphere it is in fact the shortest distance. Find a globe of the earth somewhere and use a piece of string to connect two different places on the globe - eg Edmonton and Frankfurt. Pull the string tight so it is as short as possible - you'll see the path takes you over the north / greenland etc. That's not the end of it of course - they will deviate from that line, sometimes considerably, depending on the jetstream, weather, and other reasons.

As for the contrails - they can be due to wingtip vorticies put are often from exhaust of the engines - there is a large amout of water vapour in the exhaust and that condenses as soon as it exits the engine in the cold air. If you look at any high flying aircraft producing contrails with binoculars you will usually see one contrail trailing each engine. It's described in the nasa link I provided above (the chart)

Last edited by Chump; 24-04-2010 at 11:04 PM..
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2010, 11:54 PM   #42
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
It still strikes me as odd that airplanes would not fly along a more-or-less straight line between point A and point B, barring any geographical or environmental obstacles.
They are in fact flying "straight lines" - the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is called a great circle route. It's just that on most traditional maps which are flat and use a mercator projection the line appears curved - but if you look at a sphere it is in fact the shortest distance. Find a globe of the earth somewhere and use a piece of string to connect two different places on the globe - eg Edmonton and Frankfurt. Pull the string tight so it is as short as possible - you'll see the path takes you over the north / greenland etc. That's not the end of it of course - they will deviate from that line, sometimes considerably, depending on the jetstream, weather, and other reasons.

As for the contrails - they can be due to wingtip vorticies put are often from exhaust of the engines - there is a large amout of water vapour in the exhaust and that condenses as soon as it exits the engine in the cold air. If you look at any high flying aircraft producing contrails with binoculars you will usually see one contrail trailing each engine. It's described in the nasa link I provided above (the chart)
"they will deviate from that line, sometimes considerably, depending on the jetstream, weather, and other reasons."

Absolutely. A case in point earlier this week, as shown on the site I referenced earlier in this thread, was an AC flight from London to Calgary being routed over South Wales and Southern Ireland as opposed to its normal path which would have taken it northwards up the length of the British Isles and out over the west coast of Scotland. All of this occasioned, of course, by the ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano.
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2010, 11:01 AM   #43
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default Evening of May 12, 2010: Anyone look up?

Yesterday evening (May 12) there was a remarkable amount of airplane activity in the sky over Edmonton, leaving numerous thick trails and distinct haze -- more than I've seen in quite some time. I'm referring specifically to the time around 5:00pm, which is when I left my office and was bicycling home. Just wondering if anyone out there observed this, and what you thought about it?
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2010, 11:12 AM   #44
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
Yesterday evening (May 12) there was a remarkable amount of airplane activity in the sky over Edmonton, leaving numerous thick trails and distinct haze -- more than I've seen in quite some time. I'm referring specifically to the time around 5:00pm, which is when I left my office and was bicycling home. Just wondering if anyone out there observed this, and what you thought about it?
You had several things happening yesterday as I watched it.

Conditions were ripe for good contrails, but you had high winds aloft.
So while contrails should have been bigger thicker and last longer than normal the winds spread them relatively quickly.

You also had more than typical with the Electras being called in on Waterbomber duty by Red Water...they tranist high and fast to conserve fuel.

Then you had the Red Water fire itself.....

All in all it made a different sort of sky day

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2010, 12:09 PM   #45
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

Marginally off topic:
If your cruising in your average (yes I know whats average) commercial jet liner at lets say 40,000 feet and you choose to start your descent to land in 100% free air space, what is the normal rate of descent and at what angle between flight line and ground ?
Blueline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2010, 04:14 PM   #46
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Blueline

I'll ask when the museum volunteers are in Saturday to confirm (we have several currently flying 767-777 and Airbus) but as my memory goes descent is typically a 3-5 degree angle. Actual rate of descent will vary and off the top I don't recall but would guess around 750-1000 feet per minute differing between aircraft.

Hope that helps

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2010, 11:41 AM   #47
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
You had several things happening yesterday as I watched it.

Conditions were ripe for good contrails, but you had high winds aloft.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "ripe". I have contacted Environment Canada asking how to obtain atmospheric temperature readings... If you happen to know how I can get them, please let me know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
So while contrails should have been bigger thicker and last longer than normal the winds spread them relatively quickly.
OK, let's assume it was windy up there. The question is, if the wind is going to spread these trails outward, why would they still linger around for so long and form such a distinct haze? There would have to be an awful lot of material/mass in those trails for them to remain so plainly visible across a large area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
You also had more than typical with the Electras being called in on Waterbomber duty by Red Water...they tranist high and fast to conserve fuel.

Then you had the Red Water fire itself.....

All in all it made a different sort of sky day
Is this a propeller airplane you are referring to, the Electra? And how high do they fly?

I don't think the Red Water fire itself is of much relevance here, since the haze I am referring to is distinct from any background haziness and is clearly produced by airplanes.

Thanks.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2010, 11:54 AM   #48
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

1) Ripe means....really good for making contrails

2) When conditions are good for contrails they try and stick together...the wind is trying to spread them...so while they spread they don't disapate like they would under less that ideal conditions.

3) The Electra is a converted (4)Turbo prop larger airliner and when transitioning they fly as high as the upper 20 thousand to lower 30 thousand foot levels.

4) Well aviation weather had haze warnings due to the fire...take it from there.

For upper air try the aviation weather section of Environment Canada, bit of a chore to wade through but lots of info.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2010, 11:55 AM   #49
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
Please elaborate on what you mean by "ripe". I have contacted Environment Canada asking how to obtain atmospheric temperature readings... If you happen to know how I can get them, please let me know.
iondesky,

I realize you are speaking to Tom and don't mean to interrupt - did you check out the NASA link I posted above? Contrails, if there are enough of them, can actually form cirrus-like cloud cover.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/r...on_English.jpg

A better explanation is here, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/...il.php?wfo=fgz

Last edited by Chump; 17-05-2010 at 12:04 PM..
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2010, 10:13 PM   #50
abaka
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton
Default

I have sometimes seen the condensation trails seem to start as the airplane approaches the builtup area of the city, and peter out as it leaves.

I wonder if the urban heat and evaporation island makes for especially favourable conditions.
abaka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2010, 11:44 PM   #51
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abaka View Post
I have sometimes seen the condensation trails seem to start as the airplane approaches the builtup area of the city, and peter out as it leaves.

I wonder if the urban heat and evaporation island makes for especially favourable conditions.
If anything it would be the increase in humidity.

Contrails form best in cool, high humidity conditions.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-05-2010, 11:57 PM   #52
abaka
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton
Default

^gotcha, thanks.
abaka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 09:07 AM   #53
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
1) Ripe means....really good for making contrails

2) When conditions are good for contrails they try and stick together...the wind is trying to spread them...so while they spread they don't disapate like they would under less that ideal conditions.

3) The Electra is a converted (4)Turbo prop larger airliner and when transitioning they fly as high as the upper 20 thousand to lower 30 thousand foot levels.

4) Well aviation weather had haze warnings due to the fire...take it from there.

For upper air try the aviation weather section of Environment Canada, bit of a chore to wade through but lots of info.

Tom
1) I meant, what conditions are you implying? You seem to have answered this subsequently as: "Contrails form best in cool, high humidity conditions."

2) That does not address the issue of mass. I'm no physicist, but given a fixed amount of material that has been left behind by an airplane, it's either going to "stick together" and form a thick, dense, visible trail -- or -- it's going to be spread out (dissipated) by the wind and become significantly less visible. I don't think you can have it both ways. The trails I'm referring to spread out over large areas and yet, they remain plainly visible for hours. I'm sorry but your theory does not explain this, at least not to my satisfaction.

3) Thanks for that information.

4) As I said, the haze I am referring to is easily distinguished from any background haze that may be due to a forest fire. It is clearly produced by an airplane (or planes), and I have seen the same thing on many other days when there are no forest fires.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 09:20 AM   #54
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaka View Post
I have sometimes seen the condensation trails seem to start as the airplane approaches the builtup area of the city, and peter out as it leaves.

I wonder if the urban heat and evaporation island makes for especially favourable conditions.
If anything it would be the increase in humidity.

Contrails form best in cool, high humidity conditions.

Tom
Abaka, I agree with your observation, and I'm confident that anyone who has been paying attention to the skies over Edmonton would also confirm this phenomenon.

Furthermore, I have observed several cases where the "tail" of the trail appears to twist or turn a little at the end, just before it disappears. Infer from that what you will. Of course, it's probably just an anomalous bump in the atmosphere, right? No, for me, that explanation just won't do.

Tom, are you speculating about the humidity being higher over the city or is this a known fact?

My first thought was that the atmosphere above the city would be slightly warmer, thus making the conditions less favourable for persistent trails. True or false?
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 09:28 AM   #55
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

"2) That does not address the issue of mass. I'm no physicist, but given a fixed amount of material that has been left behind by an airplane, it's either going to "stick together" and form a thick, dense, visible trail -- or -- it's going to be spread out (dissipated) by the wind and become significantly less visible. I don't think you can have it both ways. The trails I'm referring to spread out over large areas and yet, they remain plainly visible for hours. I'm sorry but your theory does not explain this, at least not to my satisfaction."

As I learned and have experienced

A contrail (for the most part) is a cloud...it is insigated by the passage of the aircraft and to some extent the water vapor from the engine...but for the most part it is a cloud.

That is why they form best under cool, high humidity conditions.

Like all clouds they are subject to dissipation based on environmental factors such as changing temperatures, wind etc.

So the water vapor is already there...the mass you are referring to...the conditions need to be right...and the passage of the aircraft sets it off. It is not exhaust by itself.

That is why there are many times when you will see an airliner pass and not form contrails...like the North bound WestJet 737 I watched around 8am today...the conditions were not right.

The haze I saw is what I reffered to, if you saw something different then I can't say.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 09:36 AM   #56
Thomas Hinderks
Flying Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Default

"My first thought was that the atmosphere above the city would be slightly warmer, thus making the conditions less favourable for persistent trails. True or false?"

You are trying to put constants on something that is not.

In constant conditions your statement would be right...but more often than not the upper air temps and humidities are very different at 30,000 feet that ground level and frankly the heat likely won't reach that level.

But a city puts out huge amounts of water vapor (humidity) and that can and will extend throughout the atmospheric levels.

The atmosphere is not strictly columns of air that behave like a lab.
There are different levels or layers, conditions often vary layer to layer.

It is not uncommon to have a North Wind on the surface, a West wind between say 10 and 15,000 feet and an east wind at 30,000.

Humidity and resulting icing conditions (very bad for aircraft) can vary greatly within a few thousand feet and when icing is encountered ascending or descending 1-2,000 feet can easily get you out of them.

It is much more complex than you seem to be assuming and I don't pretend to know more than I need to to safely fly.

Tom
Thomas Hinderks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 10:19 AM   #57
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
Please elaborate on what you mean by "ripe". I have contacted Environment Canada asking how to obtain atmospheric temperature readings... If you happen to know how I can get them, please let me know.
iondesky,

I realize you are speaking to Tom and don't mean to interrupt - did you check out the NASA link I posted above? Contrails, if there are enough of them, can actually form cirrus-like cloud cover.

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/r...on_English.jpg

A better explanation is here, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/...il.php?wfo=fgz
The photos in the NOAA link have clearly been cherry-picked and are not representative of average contrails. Why isn't there a single photograph of an airplane leaving behind fixed-length contrail, i.e., one that rapidly disappears as the plane move forward? For the satellite photo they even state: "It is very obvious from this color enhanced satellite image that the atmosphere was very conducive to the development of contrails on this date (5 April 1995)". OK, so you've shown me a photo of something that happens what, 1% 2%, maybe 5% of the time when conditions are optimal for persistent trails? It seems unduly biased toward presenting persistent contrails as the norm.

Again, from the NOAA link: "Persistence of contrails is neither an indication that they contain some kind of chemical, nor that it is some kind of spray." This is very interesting, to say the least. If persistent contrails were not so common, this statement would make sense, because, as the article itself implies, persistent, spreading contrails only occur under specific atmospheric conditions. There's just one problem. Folks here and in many other parts of the world have been reporting a remarkable increase in the number of persistent, spreading contrails! So, did the atmosphere suddenly become "ripe" for contrails in many diverse geographic areas of the planet, or did the composition of the trails themselves change?

The NASA link seems more scientific and neutral, and I've seen those kind of charts elsewhere. Actually the Appleman charts plot temperature vs. pressure, so I'm not sure why NASA is using humidity/moisture. Anyone?

In any case, I would much prefer an academic, peer-reviewed document to anything produced by a government body. I'm not saying that academics are immune to pressures from the sources of their funding, but I think government bodies are much more susceptible to political pressure and manipulation by the people "at the top".

For example, NIST has been accused of scientific fraud regarding their report on the collapse of Building 7 on 9/11: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=15201
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 11:01 AM   #58
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

iondesky,

Instead of constantly questioning the explanations presented here why don't you just come out and say what you really think? It's pretty clear that you have your own explanation for these things, and are looking for verification of that explanation.

You ask for scientific, objective peer reviewed evidence, and yet you base your concerns on a scientific statement like "Folks here and in many other parts of the world have been reporting a remarkable increase in the number of persistent, spreading contrails!" Practice what you preach, sir. (ma'am?) Give us your theory and your evidence - evidence of the type you yourself prefer ("academic, peer-reviewed").

It is quite simple to find a variety of peer reviewed articles on contrails in the scientific literature in a matter of minutes on the web if you care to look carefully. Many of them look at the issue of contrails forming high cirrus clouds and their role in climate change. Oh hang on - I might regret mentioning that....

Last edited by Chump; 18-05-2010 at 12:49 PM..
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 11:18 AM   #59
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
iondesky,

Instead of constantly questioning the explanations presented here why don't you just come out and say what you really think? It's pretty clear that you have your own explanation for these things, and are looking for verification of that explanation.
...
i wouldn't "bank" on that happening...
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-05-2010, 01:03 PM   #60
Blueline
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Edmonton
Default

interesting comments about the whole contrail issue
have also heard that this is / may be affected by high pressure weather zones
BTW
IONDESKY your boss called and asked that you spend more time with "your eyes on your desky"
Blueline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-06-2010, 11:55 AM   #61
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
iondesky,

Instead of constantly questioning the explanations presented here why don't you just come out and say what you really think? It's pretty clear that you have your own explanation for these things, and are looking for verification of that explanation.

You ask for scientific, objective peer reviewed evidence, and yet you base your concerns on a scientific statement like "Folks here and in many other parts of the world have been reporting a remarkable increase in the number of persistent, spreading contrails!" Practice what you preach, sir. (ma'am?) Give us your theory and your evidence - evidence of the type you yourself prefer ("academic, peer-reviewed").

It is quite simple to find a variety of peer reviewed articles on contrails in the scientific literature in a matter of minutes on the web if you care to look carefully. Many of them look at the issue of contrails forming high cirrus clouds and their role in climate change. Oh hang on - I might regret mentioning that....
Apologies for the hiatus. I've been quite busy with other things lately.

Chump, you are justified in saying that I should practice what I preach. My point was that the contrail site you suggested looks very biased, and since contrails are a well understood phenomenon, surely there must be better sources of information/education out there.

I never claimed that my statement about reported increases in persistent, spreading contrails, was scientific. It is however, an easily verifiable fact based on reports that you can find on the web. I can provide at least one citation, as it's mentioned in a magazine article I came across (in which the author actually asserts that chemtrails are contrails, it should be noted):

"[M]any people continue to think otherwise and are convinced that chemtrails are the visual evidence of a top-secret scientific mission, in which the U.S. military is weaving chemical-laden contrails in the skies above us..."
(Thomas Schlatter, "Weather queries", Weatherwise, 2002) http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/weatherw...eather+queries

Now, you asked for my theory. Here it is: I have reached the conclusion that airplanes are systematically spraying some type of material in the skies over Edmonton.

Unfortunately, at this point, I have not been able to find any scientific paper that specifically studies chemtrails. Sure, there are plenty of papers on contrails, as those have been around for decades and are not controversial. There are elaborate techniques and algorithms for predicting the presence or absence of contrails -- they only persist under certain conditions. This actually supports my argument that we probably shouldn't be seeing large trails in our skies every other day.

So, I can't yet find any specific peer-reviewed evidence of chemtrails -- you've got me there. Of course, supposing that this is a military operation, and the military (e.g., DARPA) controls billions of dollars of university funding, it is plausible that any such research would be suppressed by denying grants, etc, to the curious professors. And I can only guess that getting a permit to fly up and sample these trails would be difficult, especially if there are forces that wish to prevent you from doing so.

In any case, I have managed to find some rather compelling evidence

Can geo-engineering via aerosols save us?
From a 2009 geo-engineering conference at MIT.
See Slide 4, in particular (you can also view the presentation here).

Chemtrails, chemistry 131 manual, fall 1990
Author: United States Air Force Academy. Dept. of Chemistry.
Apparently, conspiracy theorists did not coin the term "chemtrails"... The U.S. Air Force did. They've been working on tinkering with the atmosphere for a while now.

And finally, for good measure, some examples of declassified information proving that chemical spraying has been carried out on oblivious citizens in the past:

US admits chemical weapons tests
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2315081.stm

MoD test of aerial spraying over Norwich
http://www.nr23.net/govt/spray.htm

So, in summary, my theory is based on the following evidence:
  1. We know that geo-engineering projects are being devised and carried out.
  2. We know that the U.S. Air Force has been researching ways to manipulate the atmosphere, and specifically mention "chemtrails" in a 1990 manual.
  3. We have historical examples of chemical spraying over populated areas without the knowledge or consent of the people being exposed to the agents.
  4. I see large, persistent trails in the sky multiple times per week. In particular, I have personally witnessed at least two cases where trails abruptly started or stopped. I have heard the arguments these are normal contrails, but it is my opinion that these arguments do not adequately account for the phenomena I have observed, and continue to observe.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2010, 09:05 AM   #62
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

iondesky,

I appreciate the obvious time you have put into the post and thanks for answering the question. With respect there is no evidence of anything concerning to me in your post. You initially say you've concluded about spraying over Edmonton but finish your post with summarizing your theory - I would call it a theory, not a conclusion.

I agree with you on our history - in fact there are many more examples in the past of governments performing tests and research that would today be considered morally questionable at best. Bikini Atoll for example, 1946.

I also have no doubt (in fact I've heard about) research and experimentation with cloud seeding for purposes of weather modification etc. The presentation you link looks like the hundreds of presentations about someone's research or academic area of interest that I come across in my day job all the time (though I'm not a meteorologist). Welcome to the world of academics.

So might there be some research and experimentation looking at ways to artificially create cloud cover for a variety of purposes? No doubt. Would this be any sort of larger plot or secret government plan with dubious intentions? No.

The next time you see a contrail of concern being formed by an aircraft, get yourself a decent telephoto lens and take a picture of the plane from the ground. If the telephoto is strong enough, and the picture can be cropped, you can often id the aircraft (at least the airline) from below (helps if you're not directly below and can see the sides a bit). I would bet in most cases you'll be looking at regular commercial airliners or cargo.

Last edited by Chump; 25-06-2010 at 09:08 AM..
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2010, 10:07 AM   #63
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

chump,

First of all, thanks for the cordial response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
I appreciate the obvious time you have put into the post and thanks for answering the question. With respect there is no evidence of anything concerning to me in your post. You initially say you've concluded about spraying over Edmonton but finish your post with summarizing your theory - I would call it a theory, not a conclusion.
If you have considered what I've said and are not concerned -- that's perfectly fine with me. I'm not really sure where to draw the line between theory and conclusion. What I have in my mind is something of a probability distribution over the possible explanations for the "persistent contrail" phenomena. It includes explanations such as "just a normal contrail", "scientific research", and "military operation". Right now, I've decided that the third explanation is the most probable, so that's my conclusion. And the "normal contrail" explanation is by far the least likely, in my opinion. It is possible that new evidence will come to my attention that changes this (i.e., new evidence could make me more certain, or less certain of what I currently believe to be true).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
I agree with you on our history - in fact there are many more examples in the past of governments performing tests and research that would today be considered morally questionable at best. Bikini Atoll for example, 1946.
Never heard of that one; I'll have to read up on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
I also have no doubt (in fact I've heard about) research and experimentation with cloud seeding for purposes of weather modification etc. The presentation you link looks like the hundreds of presentations about someone's research or academic area of interest that I come across in my day job all the time (though I'm not a meteorologist). Welcome to the world of academics.
Yes, there is much research and experimentation being carried out in the weather modification domain. I know about a professor at UCalgary that is working in this area, for example: David Keith. This map shows where all the publicly known weather modification experiments took place in North America, 2009:

United States Weather Modification Map 2009 based on NOAA Public Data.pdf

No need to be alarmed by the Alberta one. It's apparently due to a company, Weather Modification Inc, being hired to weaken hail storms between Calgary and Red Deer. But who knows, maybe they got their "foot in the door" and have moved onto bigger and more ambitious projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
So might there be some research and experimentation looking at ways to artificially create cloud cover for a variety of purposes? No doubt. Would this be any sort of larger plot or secret government plan with dubious intentions? No.
Yes; the experiments in the Western U.S. are, in many cases, supposed to increase rainfall and snow pack. And that's fine as long as the citizens agree with it and are aware of any potential adverse effects.

I find it interested that on the one hand you are well aware of past harmful government/military experiments, but you immediately dismiss this as benign. I never specifically said that there was a sinister plot at work here -- if I gave that impression in any of my earlier posts then let me make it clear that I do not purport to know what the purpose of this spraying is. In the rosiest scenario I can imagine, we have government and/or military and/or scientists trying to stop global warming by dispersing reflective particles in the atmosphere. But even this is problematic, because at least some the particles may fall to the ground and pollute our air and water. My point is that the harm doesn't have to be intentional, and in any case there is no good reason to carry out such an experiment under a veil of secrecy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
The next time you see a contrail of concern being formed by an aircraft, get yourself a decent telephoto lens and take a picture of the plane from the ground. If the telephoto is strong enough, and the picture can be cropped, you can often id the aircraft (at least the airline) from below (helps if you're not directly below and can see the sides a bit). I would bet in most cases you'll be looking at regular commercial airliners or cargo.
I would love to be able to do this. Being able to identify one of these "trailblazing" planes would be very helpful. Unfortunately, I don't have a good enough camera for the job, and being a graduate student doesn't afford me much of a disposable income these days. Welcome to academia, indeed.

I hope that some Edmontonian out there can try snapping a zoomed in photo and posting their findings. It would help to include a wider shot of the trail as well, for reference.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2010, 10:11 AM   #64
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

P.S.: Wondering if the military is involved? This guy sure thinks so (actually kinda funny IMHO):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS8ahQgy5hM

"The above YouTube Video shows an Oregon Weather Forcaster on Thursday, April 8, 2010, giving the national and local weather reports. The interesting part of this program is when he discusses the military use of Aluminum Coated Fiberglass or Chaff (See U.S. Air Force Section 214C, on this website, for USAF documents and other information about CHAFF). Please note the radar showing this usage on their map when the forecaster outlines this military program."

Description copied from: http://www.agriculturedefensecoaliti...-modifications
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2010, 11:11 AM   #65
Chump
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Saskatchewan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
I find it interested that on the one hand you are well aware of past harmful government/military experiments, but you immediately dismiss this as benign. I never specifically said that there was a sinister plot at work here -- if I gave that impression in any of my earlier posts then let me make it clear that I do not purport to know what the purpose of this spraying is. In the rosiest scenario I can imagine, we have government and/or military and/or scientists trying to stop global warming by dispersing reflective particles in the atmosphere. But even this is problematic, because at least some the particles may fall to the ground and pollute our air and water. My point is that the harm doesn't have to be intentional, and in any case there is no good reason to carry out such an experiment under a veil of secrecy.
I was actually going to raise this point in my reply but decided not to - I noticed you were careful not to say anything about a sinister plot per se - so I guess I'm guilty of doing what I'm saying you're doing - jumping to conclusions However, if you sensed annoyance in my earlier post to which you just replied, that's because it was there, and I was trying to "read between the lines" in the absence of you stating clearly what you were getting at. I guess the moral of the story is, it's important to be open and clear about what you're doing....maybe any cloud seeding / climate change researchers (govt, millitary, or university based) need to keep that in mind?

From a purely particle distribution exposure standpoint, for what it's worth, I would be shocked if anything deposited in the atmosphere at 35000 feet (in the size range of less than 10 microns for instance) would actually end up in Edmonton. More likely it will end up a long ways away following the jetstream - perhaps even never to settle on the earth. But I'm sure you realize that. Just look at the ash from the iceland volcano.

Bikini Atoll was the site of a lot of atomic testing. There were thousands of american "observers" exposed to radiation as a result. I would attribute some of what happened there to pure ingnorance, in the true sense of the word. That's not an excuse or justification, mind you.
Chump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-06-2010, 07:11 PM   #66
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chump View Post
From a purely particle distribution exposure standpoint, for what it's worth, I would be shocked if anything deposited in the atmosphere at 35000 feet (in the size range of less than 10 microns for instance) would actually end up in Edmonton. More likely it will end up a long ways away following the jetstream - perhaps even never to settle on the earth. But I'm sure you realize that. Just look at the ash from the iceland volcano.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soilradar.html
Scroll down to "BARIUM AND ALUMINUM CONFIRMED"

This isn't exactly proof, but something to consider at least.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 10:27 AM   #67
JJMorrocco
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default

Has anyone else noticed that the commercial flights arriving from the north through the east side of the city have been but at a much lower altitdue lately? I am guessing it's not just due to weather as it has been going for over east a month. Is it a new air traffic plan?
JJMorrocco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:39 AM   #68
iondesky
First One is Always Free
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Edmonton, AB
Default

Further to my last post, more rainwater testing has apparently been done in Edmonton:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread6000.html

<quote>
It is the scientific opinion of the lab that the aluminum content of the sample is HIGH and "unusual."
</quote>

I'd be interested in replicating these results myself, if it's not too expensive to do so. If anyone has experience in this area, please advise me on procedures for rainwater collection and any local lab(s) that may be able to do the analysis.
iondesky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 02:34 PM   #69
IKAN104
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJMorrocco View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the commercial flights arriving from the north through the east side of the city have been but at a much lower altitdue lately? I am guessing it's not just due to weather as it has been going for over east a month. Is it a new air traffic plan?
Haven't noticed, but now that you mention it I'll be watching for that.
IKAN104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 03:15 PM   #70
kcantor
Addicted to C2E
Mr. Reality Check
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iondesky View Post
Further to my last post, more rainwater testing has apparently been done in Edmonton:

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread6000.html

<quote>
It is the scientific opinion of the lab that the aluminum content of the sample is HIGH and "unusual."
</quote>

I'd be interested in replicating these results myself, if it's not too expensive to do so. If anyone has experience in this area, please advise me on procedures for rainwater collection and any local lab(s) that may be able to do the analysis.
there's lots of labs around... alberta innovates, als, envirotest, exova, maxxam and others i'm sure.

i can't imagine collecting the sample would be an issue (although i wouldn't use an aluminum tray or pan or hat if that's one of the elements you want tested).

the lab you want to use would probably have some suggestions as to the type and size of container that is most appropriate for them to work with - they may even provide some - as well as handling practices to be employed.
__________________
really just cranky, miserable and disagreeable on principle but happy to have earned the title anyway; downtown arena fan; edmonton 2017 world's fair and edmonton indy supporter; proponent of "edmonton works"
kcantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 09:27 PM   #71
howie
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: edmonton
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJMorrocco View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the commercial flights arriving from the north through the east side of the city have been but at a much lower altitdue lately? I am guessing it's not just due to weather as it has been going for over east a month. Is it a new air traffic plan?
Haven't noticed, but now that you mention it I'll be watching for that.
I sit on my deck, binoculars in hand, looking up at planes (no good today of course with all the cloud cover) but I hope they are at a lower altitude over the city as I like to see what airlines they belong to. The biggest problem is that from where I am they're at a very steep viewing angle making it very difficult to spot the tail insignia.
__________________
Nisi Dominus Frustra
howie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2010, 11:46 PM   #72
Hilman
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ozerna, North Edmonton
Default

You can see all airplanes landing at YEG and even overhead planes on this link:

http://flightaware.com/live/airport/CYEG
Hilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 07:54 AM   #73
JJMorrocco
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by howie View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJMorrocco View Post
Has anyone else noticed that the commercial flights arriving from the north through the east side of the city have been but at a much lower altitdue lately? I am guessing it's not just due to weather as it has been going for over east a month. Is it a new air traffic plan?
Haven't noticed, but now that you mention it I'll be watching for that.
I sit on my deck, binoculars in hand, looking up at planes (no good today of course with all the cloud cover) but I hope they are at a lower altitude over the city as I like to see what airlines they belong to. The biggest problem is that from where I am they're at a very steep viewing angle making it very difficult to spot the tail insignia.

Well I can almost read the tire size on some of the planes passing overhead. OK a bit of exaggeration but I can easily see the carrier and with small binoculars would be able to get the numbers, and see in the windows.
JJMorrocco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2010, 09:48 AM   #74
RTA
Addicted to C2E
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Holyrood
Default

^ I don't think it's that new a thing, I've noticed for the last couple of years flights from the north passing low on the east side of the city (presumably on approach to YEG).
__________________
Strathcona City Separatist
RTA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.