XPost: alt.usage.english   
   From: mail@peterduncanson.net   
      
   On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:19:10 -0000 (UTC), Moe Trin   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 07 Apr 2016, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban, in article   
   ><8rvbgb9pq5c2q6adsnsh9imbjmfiqojj1k@4ax.com>, Thomas Prufer wrote:   
   >   
   >>Moe Trin  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>I'm sure the paper was peer-reviewed - but there are several problems.   
   >   
   >>Yup... may have been reviewed by doctor-peers, not   
   >>airplane-knowledgeable peers?   
   >   
   >  "The senior author wishes to thank numerous officials and personnel of   
   >  Air India, British Airways, British Caledonian Airways, the Central   
   >  Aviation Authority, the Meteorological Office and the Thames Water   
   >  Authority for their ready co-operation, provision of data, and helpful   
   >  discussion in the course of this work."   
   >   
   >That doesn't look like a review to me either.  British Caledonian wasn't   
   >even flying into Asia though they were in Africa and South America.   
      
   The paper doesn't say what data was received from British Caledonian.   
   Useful information can be got from an airline even if it doesn't fly the   
   routes considered. If BC used the same type of aircraft as those used by   
   BA and AI on the routes being considred, BC could provide useful data   
   about the waste-handling equipment of those aircraft.   
      
   Perhaps BC was more helpful to the researchers than BA was.   
      
   --   
   Peter Duncanson, UK   
   (in alt.usage.english)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)