High-altitude U-turn ... What was that about?
One of the things about people like me who habitually watch the skies is that we see things that we can't explain. It happened again on Sunday afternoon. And I was not alone.
My wife and I were returning from a weekend in Philadelphia. We were headed south on I-95 at about 2 p.m. I was driving and my wife was snoozing in the passenger seat, when I noticed a lot of jet contrails in the skies. That is not particularly unusual along the busy east coast air lanes. But one of the contrails caught my eye.
There was an aircraft that - as near as I could tell - had been headed north, or northeast, probably well east of the Chesapeake Bay. But judging from its contrail, it had just made a wide left (toward the west) turn, leaving a broad arc of vapor that swung around 180 degrees until the plane, by the time I noticed it, was headed south, or southwest.
It was a complete U-turn, at what looked like a pretty high altitude - maybe 30,000 feet or more.
Now, scheduled airliners don't generally turn around in mid-flight and go back where they came from without first landing and dropping off passengers. It could have been an emergency, but in that case, I would expect the plane to descend and head for the nearest airport. This one did not appear to be doing that.
Another possibility I considered was that it was a military aircraft, on some sort of maneuver, or patrol, or training flight. Perhaps it was an executive jet, and the CEO just realized he forgot his power tie. Or, maybe it was a research, or mapping, or aerial photography flight. That just about exhausted my guesses.
Although my wife slept through the whole thing, I was not alone in my observation. On Monday, I received the following email from Betsy Shade, in Millersville:
"On Sunday afternoon, 2/15, while playing football in our backyard (Go Ravens!), we noticed a lot of contrails--seemingly more than usual. We live about 10 miles southeast of BWI. At least three of these contrails originated in the north, headed south, and made very wide 180 degree turns eastward then headed north. The contrails were high--probably too high to have originated at BWI. A picture of one is attached.
Not sure this is entirely weather-related, but can you please explain the higher than usual number of contrails, and the strange 180 degree turns?
Thanks very much- Betsy Shade"
That's Betsy's photo at the top of this post. I explained the contrails as best I could. Cold air aloft and plenty of humidity means aircraft engines will leave a trail of condensation. Particulates in the exhaust provide the seeds for water vapor to condense, forming droplets that create a trail of clouds. Under the right conditions, these "condensation trails" or contrails can persist for quite a while. They may even expand as more water vapor condenses on the droplets already formed.
Although there is a community of people out there who are convinced jet contrails are actually "proof" of secret government conspiracies to conduct chemical warfare or thought-control experiments on the US population, there is absolutely no evidence to support such a notion. And how long do you think the government could keep the secret? (Conspiracy theorists: No need to flood my Inbox. I'm just not buying it.)
But I could not explain the U-turn. Nor could I account for why the three (?!) U-turns Betsy and her family saw seemed, to them, to be headed south, making a U-turn to the east, then north. She said she's sure of that. The one I saw was northbound and turned south.
I have placed a call to the FAA to see if I can get an explanation. But I am not at all confident they'll bother to pursue the matter. It's just not very important given all the serious work the FAA does. But if I do get an explanation, I will post it here.
In the meantime, I'd be curious to hear whether anyone else was outside Sunday afternoon, looking up, and noticed the same odd contrail. Leave a note here and let me know what you saw.
UPDATE: Feb. 19. I finally heard from the FAA this afternoon. They sent me a graphical image of all the radar traces for aircraft in the Chesapeake area between 2 and 2:30 on Sunday. It was an amazing tangle of contrails, but I could see none that matched the broad turn we witnessed that afternoon. When I ran the fighter plane theory by the FAA spokesman, he said, "I can't even go there with you." I suspect if the 180-degree turns were made by fighters on hijack patrol, the FAA would never confirm it.
Comments
I was out walking with my daughter near Annapolis and noticed one of the big turns (I specifically pointed it out to her). I also thought it unusual. This was around 2:30 - 3 pm.
FR: Which way was the plane headed when it began its turn? And did you see more than one?
Posted by: Alan Hoffman | February 17, 2009 11:01 AM
Looks like an attempt at high altitude sky-writing to me. Maybe making smiley faces? Practicing either U's or n's or failing to make w's or m's.
Posted by: bryanintimonium | February 17, 2009 12:22 PM
I don't want to sound like, "Me too! Me too!!" but I know I've seen that configuration. It wasn't this weekend.
Posted by: Eve | February 17, 2009 12:50 PM
Was there a wind shift at BWI at that time? If so, the approach and landing patterns may have shifted dramatically.
FR: No way. This guy was at cruising altitude, not on approach to BWI. And he made a 180-degree turn.
Posted by: John in Columbia | February 17, 2009 12:58 PM
Hi,
Could be a jet fighter ???
FR: Quite possible. They do patrol in the DC area, on the ready for a 9-11 repeat. I think that's where I'd put my money.
Posted by: RavensFlock | February 17, 2009 2:55 PM
I saw these over the skies of Chicago on two different days. I watched the plane make a U turn when I was out jogging last week..
Posted by: Cosmic Being | March 24, 2009 3:46 AM
This is an F-16 trail. They're based at Andrews AFB.
Posted by: James Osborne | April 30, 2009 8:03 AM
I'm amazed at things like this. A very simple explanation is that there were aircraft holding for airports in the Northeast; Newark, La Guardia, Kennedy, even Boston. When an aircraft that is airborne is required to delay enroute for any reason, they are put into a holding pattern. It is a racetrack pattern of two, 180 degree turns with the legs being either a timed segment, i.e. 1-1/2 minutes, or a specified distance. There are standard arrival routings that pass over the Baltimore/mid-atlantic area for all of the above listed airports that contain pre-planned holds for use when needed.
FR: Not an unreasonable guess, but this plane was way higher than any holding pattern I've ever experienced. It was a simple U-turn, not a racetrack. The weather was fair. And, it was all alone. I like the F-16 explanation better.
Posted by: Airline Pilot | May 3, 2009 9:40 PM
Certainly this could have been a military aircraft, but that explanation is less likely than being an aircarrier aircraft in a holding pattern. As to the altitude, how high was it and how can you be so sure of the precise altitude? I have been flying aircarrier aircraft in scheduled service for over 30 years and I couldn't tell you by sight how high an aircraft was. In that area, holding at altitudes up to 39,000 feet are not uncommon. And being alone speaks more to an aircarrier than a military airplane. Lastly, the military stopped doing air patrols over Washington DC about 3 or 4 years ago.
FR: Well, clearly I can't be sure of the altitude, and you may well be right. I certainly don't have your credentials. But the contrail, and the fact I could not see the aircraft itself, suggested to me it was either quite high, or quite small, or both. And the plane was making very slow progress, which suggested considerable distance from the observer, hence altitude. And all my experience with holding patterns on airliners has been at fairly low altitudes in bad weather. This was a fine, sunny day. Also, the contrail was very persistent, and it was obvious the straight legs of the pattern were far longer than a few minutes - they extended to the limit of visibility on a clear day, with no evidence of the southern turn in view.
Posted by: Airline Pilot | May 4, 2009 8:35 PM
I'm ashamed at you Grown Men and humiliated to even admit I'm American ! My God do you hear yourselves ? do you hear the excuses your coming up with to Whitewash it away ? LISTEN TO ME FOOLISH PEOPLE ! How come in your lifetime YOU NEVER witness this before Now ask those EXPERTS IF THEY DID do Tests exactly where did the Results go and why if they did WERE they NOT PUBLISHED ? I'm ashamed of you , now tell Me you Tune into Fox News to get your Current events and you will complete to Brain Wash ?
Posted by: Roguelement | July 19, 2009 4:20 PM
people learning to fly small jets might make maneuvers like that, perhaps? you wouldn't land at a different airport than you took off from, if you drove to your lesson...
and to roguelement, "excuses" and "whitewash" and "cover-ups" are things which are done in the aftermath of an event which has been too negative and too public to dismiss as rumor. i see nothing negative going on here, either directly or indirectly. You're humiliated to be American? I'm ashamed that America is slowly filling up with uneducated people who don't know what they're looking at half the time. about 50 or 60 years ago, several dozen people in a fairly wide area reported seeing a "very brightly shining UFO" low in the sky. It turned out to be Venus. It wasn't that people had never seen Venus before, it was just that they'd been so stirred up by UFO fever that they no longer saw, "oh, Venus sure is bright tonight", they immediately thought, "UFO!!"
contrails have existed since the first jet flew into a patch of cold air. including persistent contrails. I've seen contrails as a child, that lasted hours. and yes, we've ALL seen u-turn contrails, but until this "chemtrail" nonsense became popularized, everyone who saw a u-turn looked at it and said "huh, i wonder why he had to turn around" and they were intelligent enough to realize that the needs and requirements of a jet pilot several miles up in the air are not generally knowable to non-pilots sitting on the ground looking up, but that the actions resulting from those needs were rarely something they needed to worry about. chemical experimentation, if it ever goes on, would not be done in the air, there's too little control, and much cheaper ways to do it.
But i guess Roguelement will be happy his trolling caused someone to respond to him... most conspiracy buffs are just trolls looking for attention, really.
Posted by: Prince Eric | September 17, 2009 6:11 AM
Don't know how I stumbled upon this but let me add my two-cents...
Maybe it was Obama in Air Force One practicing for his April run over New York City...
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/air-force-one-backup-rattles-new-york-nerve/ ...hey, you just never know about these things
BTW, If you ever find out the "why" in this, please let us know.
Norm
Posted by: Norm | January 17, 2010 10:40 AM