‘Gifpiloot’ wint kort geding tegen KLM
door Paul Eldering

‘Gifpiloot’ Willem Felderhof (47) heeft het kort geding tegen zijn werkgever KLM gewonnen. Het is voor het eerst dat een Nederlandse rechter vonnist ten gunste een vlieger die beweert ziek te worden van zenuwgas TCP.



KLM-piloot Willem Felderhof stelt dat hij in de cockpit chronisch vergiftigd zou zijn door zenuwgas. „Er moet wat gebeuren aan dit gezondheidsprobleem in de luchtvaart.” Foto: De Telegraaf

KLM is door de Rechtbank Amsterdam veroordeeld om op korte termijn een onafhankelijk onderzoek te laten doen naar de aanwezigheid en concentratie van giftige stoffen in cabine en cockpit. Felderhof zou daaraan jaren zijn blootgesteld zonder dat hij dat wist.

,,We zijn ongelooflijk tevreden dat deze piloot in het gelijk is gesteld. Iedereen heeft het recht in een schone, gezonde omgeving te werken. Daar moet 100% duidelijkheid over komen", aldus advocaat Christiaan Oberman. Overigens is KLM niet verplicht het salaris van Felderhof gedurende het onderzoek door te betalen. ,,Hij wil zo snel mogelijk weer aan de slag, maar zijn artsen moeten wel goed kunnen inschatten of dat veilig kan", vindt Oberman.

KLM stelt in een reactie aan het vonnis gehoor te zullen geven. Maar de luchtvaartmaatschappij benadrukt daarbij voorstander te zijn van een grootschaliger onderzoek in internationaal verband.

Een woordvoerder van KLM benadrukt verder dat er volgens de rechter geen aangetoond verband bestaat tussen de aanwezigheid van concentraties TCP en de gezondsheidsklachten van vliegend personeel.

KLM heeft altijd ontkend dat de dosis TCP aan boord te hoog is om ziek van te worden. Dat is wetenschappelijk nooit aangetoond. De gifdampen komen op de meeste vluchten mee met door olie verontreinigde lucht, die door motoren wordt aangezogen.

Source: ‘Gifpiloot’ wint kort gedi...n KLM|Binnenland| Telegraaf.nl

Airbus A320 family dispersal systems



Look-up
www.look-up.org.uk

Here we detail the discoveries we have made about the dispersal systems we believe are being used on Airbus planes. We focus on the Airbus A320 family, which include the A319 / A320 / A321. A380 planes also spray over the UK and we have images on a separate page. A380s use a slightly different system and we have no idea yet if that system is original to the design of the aircraft, but we do now know that the A320 family aircraft belonging to any of the participating airlines have been modified illegally for the purposes of spraying aerosols into our skies during flight.

------------

Our investigations started when we saw a single-pipe system fitted to a Ryan Air Boeing 737. Being based near Heathrow we went armed with long lenses and took about 100 images of planes landing, and sure enough we found the smoking guns as we now refer to them.

Below are just 3 of the many images we have of these modifications



There is a host of disinformation online that has been produced since we started to publish these images. Rather than waste time trying to counter them, we spoke directly to Airbus. They confirmed in an email to us in August 2014 that Airbus A320 Family aircraft DO NOT leave the factory with any pipes in the pylon.

------------

From: — name removed —

Sent: 26 August 2014 13:07
To:
Subject: A320 Pylon Drains

Dear Mr Simpson – in response to your recent query on pylon drain pipes please see below the following information.

Specification and design of our aircraft comply with certification requirements and safety practices to ensure that any potential draining need, linked or not to failure cases, will be adequately performed. As such, Airbus A320 family aircraft have a fuel drain mast fitted as standard in the lower parts of the nacelle (and none for the pylons). It is an airworthiness requirement that any fuel leak must not pool within the aircraft structure to create a fire risk, must be drained away from the aircraft structure, and must be able to be visibly identified during the preflight safety walk-around checks. The nacelle fuel drain mast only serves to identify the very rare occasion of a failure where a fuel leak has occurred and, in the case of such detected failure, then the aircraft would be repaired before its next flight. The mast has no spraying capability, and is only used to drain aviation fuel, in the very rare case of a fuel leak.

Yours

— name removed —

Airbus Communications

We have since asked for more detailed information about this and they refused to speak to us again. The issue in now in the hands of our legal firm who will be trying to get Airbus in court so as to force them to confirm this officially so we can then initiate our legal action against the airlines involved.

------------

Front Cargo Holds no longer used for luggage



The images above were taken at a UK airport in June 2014. They show the front cargo hold of an Airbus A320 family plane belonging to Easyjet. Having monitored air-side activity for some time at various airports Look-Up.org.uk concluded that the systems for dispersing the chemicals are located in the forward luggage hold on all Airbus models. This is never used any more for regular luggage, and we have seen, and filmed, what we believe to be the containers of the chemicals being loaded onto a plane in front of us at IstanbulAtaturk airport.



What seems to be going on is the chemicals are brought into European Hub airports in what are essentially converted luggage containers, or Unit Load Devices (ULD). These containers can, and used to be, used for luggage, but the reality now seems to be that all luggage is now loaded on by hand on conveyor-belts, and only into the rear cargo hold on Airbus A320 family (319/320/321) aircraft. We have seen this repeatedly at all hub and regional airports. The front hold is loaded with 3 of these ULD containers, but this only happens at hub airports. The reason for this is likely that special crews are needed to load, secure, and connect these containers to the dispersal systems. This is possibly one of the exceptions to the compartmentalisation rule we have suggested. It is extremely hard to believe that the crews who load these things and connect them to the dispersal systems do not realise they are doing something unusual. It is, of course possible, that they have been subject to the double bluff that we describe in other pages, namely they are told this is a matter of national security, or possibly even that they must do this to save us from a climate catastrophe. Either is equally possible. They are also likely paid considerably more for their work than others to ensure their compliance. It is interesting to note also that each airline has its home airport as it were, and their aircraft seem to be loaded with these containers only at those airports. The Easyjet images above were not at the Easyjet home airport, and so the front hold was secured, so as not to allow the local air-side staff to access. This was confirmed by them at the time these images were taken.

From our experience at Istanbul Ataturk airport, the team needed to do this seems to be 3-5 people. Quite how many of those individuals knows what they are doing, or the full implications, is still unclear.

------------

The official story

Officially these pipes have no technical purpose. This was confirmed in a recorded telephone conversation with Airbus some time ago, and then by email also. Despite this certain sectors of the industry, along with known disinformation websites such as Metabunk, have tried to claim they are drain pipes. Exactly what is supposed to be drained from the pylon by 3 separate pipes is still a mystery, and their attempts to suggest this have contradicted each other greatly. Suggestions range from gasses, hydraulic fluid, moisture, and even fuel. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that none of these make any sense whatsoever, and the contradicting accounts of their purpose is damning evidence of the fact that a concerted, though rather pathetic and ill-conceived, effort to attempt to cover up the true purpose of these pipes. It seems remarkable, almost laughable, that those behind this thought nobody would ever notice them and question what they were for, especially as we see them ejecting several types of aerosols into the atmosphere on a regular basis.

We have attempted to gain access to original plans from Airbus, but since our original conversation with them in which they readily volunteered the information that their aircraft do not leave the factory with these pipes fitted, they have refused comment further. As soon as we published this information they clammed up. This comes as no surprise really. If we can prove that airlines have modified their aircraft to spray aerosols into the atmosphere without our knowledge and consent, this could spawn one of the largest legal cases in history.

We think we have the evidence to do that. If we are successful, we may stand a realistic chance of bringing the entire Climate Engineering program to a halt. Please help if you can. If you work in the legal profession or for an airline, Airbus or any other related company please contact us.

------------

EASA – The plot thickens…

We contacted EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, to ask about this modification and whether it had been licensed. All modifications to commercial aircraft must be submitted and approved by EASA. After some discussion about whether it was a major or minor modification, we were stunned to be sent 2 images which we believe to be fake. We suspect they have been taken from other faked material produced by Metabunk, the worlds No. 1 disinformation website.



The image below is a screenshot of a document that was published on Metabunk. It has been fabricated to suggest that 3 pipes exists in the pylon of the A320, and appears to be from an official Airbus training manual. Several similar documents exists online, but all are fake. We now know this for a fact, and this was obviously confirmed by Airbus.

We then approached Airbus once again, but again they refused to comment.

------------



The similarities between these two documents suggest that the upper 2 were likely taken from the same document as that published by Metabunk. It is easy to produce something like this in Photoshop with even basic skills. We sent this image to Airbus for them to comment and again they were unable, unwilling, or possibly ‘not allowed’ to respond. If they were genuine, Airbus would have had no hesitation in stating that they were. They declined to comment. That speaks volume we think.

We were truly speechless to have been sent this by EASA and this will be a crucial piece of evidence in the impending court cases, when they finally happen. It suggests that at least some people in the organisation know that something untoward is going on. Anyone with ANY technical knowledge will realise immediately that the pylon of a large passenger jet does not have any active systems in it. There are no such things as pylon drain pipes. Even if there were, why would 3 different types of pipe be needed to pump out a few drops of condensation and why are they different diameters, and horizontal? If it were not so serious this would be laughable. As it is this is possibly the most serious piece of evidence we have to date, and one which could single-handedly bring down an entire industry.

------------

Further evidence

We cannot corroborate this yet but we were recently sent this image by a reader. They claim it is an image is from the patent application for the fitting of the pipes.



This image is interesting. We know there is no such thing as a pylon drain pipe, and we also know there are no active systems in the pylon of the A320, so to see these pipes connected to what look like 2 small reservoirs is very informative. The dispersal systems would need to control several aspects of the trails for them to be effective, such as flow rate, droplet size and density so it possible that the boxes seen here are the last stage of the dispersal systems that do exactly that. Airbus have 3 pipes, so this image may well be for the Boeing systems, we simply don’t know yet but are following this with great interest.

------------

Boeing aircraft dispersal systems

The situation on Boeings is the reverse as they use the front cargo hold for luggage, and the rear hold for storing the tanks. The systems are singe pipe systems and only seem to be used to spray one thing from what we know at the present time.

On a fact-finding mission last year we manage to film a crew working on rear cargo hold dispersal systems at Pisa. We hope to post some information on these as soon as we have time.

http://www.look-up.org.uk/airbus-a320-dispersal-systems/

Source: UK group exposes the Airbus A3...ystems | The Millennium Report