Re: bushies file illegal flight plan

[Gordon]

>
>For security reasons, Air Force One filed a flight plan identifying
>itself as a a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller airplane.

Not only is this illegal - period - it is also unsafe to that aircraft and
others sharing the sky. If a developing situation required the air controller
to order the "Gulfstream 5" to make radical flight manuevers to avoid someone
else, the controller would be wrongly assuming that the a/c could react as a
small, agile GS 5 and not a frickin Jumbo Jet. And what about separation
considerations, wingtip vortexes, jet wash, and a host of other reasons why
claiming to be a different aircraft is just plain ignorant? When you are in a
light a/c and a "heavy" is in nearby, the controller warns you of the
potential hazard. But here, the President's staff decided that such safeties
were unnecessary and could be waived, because they said so.

How many other laws does does the administration consider "Optional"?

Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Bob McKellar]

Gordon wrote:

> >
> >For security reasons, Air Force One filed a flight plan identifying
> >itself as a a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller airplane.
>
> Not only is this illegal - period - it is also unsafe to that aircraft and
> others sharing the sky. If a developing situation required the air controller
> to order the "Gulfstream 5" to make radical flight manuevers to avoid someone
> else, the controller would be wrongly assuming that the a/c could react as a
> small, agile GS 5 and not a frickin Jumbo Jet. And what about separation
> considerations, wingtip vortexes, jet wash, and a host of other reasons why
> claiming to be a different aircraft is just plain ignorant? When you are in a
> light a/c and a "heavy" is in nearby, the controller warns you of the
> potential hazard. But here, the President's staff decided that such safeties
> were unnecessary and could be waived, because they said so.
>
> How many other laws does does the administration consider "Optional"?
>
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
> "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
> "Nothing but my forehead, sir."

Gordon, I would not get too worked up.

This is, after all, about the fourth version of the story.

Tomorrow, we may get an announcement that it is in error as well.

"What we really meant was that an unknown pilot intended to develop a procedure by
which he could identify AF1 if he ever had the opportunity."

--- or ---

"Bill Clinton left us with an erroneous flight plan which we had not had time to
correct."

--- or ---

"9/11" ( This excuses anything.)

Bob McKellar, who thought the whole story sounded contrived from the start

[Gordon]

>
>Gordon, I would not get too worked up.

Oh, you know me. :1

>This is, after all, about the fourth version of the story.
>Tomorrow, we may get an announcement that it is in error as well.

I am not interested in political debate - honestly - but this episode is
bordering on ludicrous. I saw the press secretary explain that if anyone
detected AF1 or security was breached "in any way, the President had said they
would cancel the trip" and RTB. Then, when the story came out that AF1 was
identified, the previous comment was out with yesterday's coffee grounds.

I was disgusted with Clinton on a variety of levels, but the comedy didn't end,
we just got new actors on the stage.

Aggravating.

On that note, back to navy stuff...

yf
Gordon

[Gordon]

>
>> Learn to respect others first, then you might receive similar respect
>> from others.
>
>What law do you believe was broken?

John, filing a fraudulent flight plan IS illegal. Only someone truly "above
the law" can get away with it.

Gordon

[Jim H]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >For security reasons, Air Force One filed a flight plan identifying
> >itself as a a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller airplane.
>
> Not only is this illegal - period - it is also unsafe to that aircraft and
> others sharing the sky. If a developing situation required the air
controller
> to order the "Gulfstream 5" to make radical flight manuevers to avoid
someone
> else, the controller would be wrongly assuming that the a/c could react as
a
> small, agile GS 5 and not a frickin Jumbo Jet. And what about separation
> considerations, wingtip vortexes, jet wash, and a host of other reasons
why
> claiming to be a different aircraft is just plain ignorant? When you are
in a
> light a/c and a "heavy" is in nearby, the controller warns you of the
> potential hazard. But here, the President's staff decided that such
safeties
> were unnecessary and could be waived, because they said so.
>
> How many other laws does does the administration consider "Optional"?
>
> Gordon
> <====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew

Getting a bit wrapped around the axel are we when Pres Bush showed some
leadership...
In case you have never heard this before "Loose lips sink ships" or in this
case aircraft.

Heads of state traveling in secrecy isn't exactly something new...
I would reason it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time a head of
state (president/prime minister/king) is traveling into/over
hostile territory that secrecy would be maintained.


Jim

[Gordon]

From the official white house.gov website:

Roberts: “What are the legalities of filing a fraudulent flight plan?”
McClellan: “John, I think that the American people understand the
security arrangements that are made in a circumstance like this. The American
people understand the importance of not compromising security, not only for the
President of the United States, but for those on board the plane, and those on
the ground, as well. These are unusual circumstances. The President was pleased
to go into Baghdad and pay tribute to our troops for their service and
sacrifice, and show them that the American people stand fully behind them and
support them in their efforts.”

Ed Chen of the Los Angeles Times soon got into the act: “So the White
House has no compunctions about having misled the American people on this
trip?”
McClellan: “Well, first of all, one, I was not there, but I've gone and
gathered the facts. And I'm not sure that -- again, Colonel Tillman and the
pilots on board the Air Force One are people that relayed this information to
White House staff. And for very good reason, they believed it was a British
Airways flight, for the reason I stated. But now that we know more information,
we made an attempt to get you all that information as quickly as possible. And
that's what we always do.”
Chen: “I'm talking about having misled the public in thinking the
President was at the ranch. In other words, you know, that there's a level of
trust that has been eroded.”
McClellan: “Look, I understand, and I appreciate the question you're
asking. But I think that the American people fully understand the security
arrangements that were made so that the President of the United States could go
and thank our troops in person, on Thanksgiving, during a very special moment
for them, while they were celebrating Thanksgiving Day.”

A male in the front row, so with a top outlet, asked: “So did the
President then -- I mean, he made a decision that it was worth telling a white
lie to accomplish this policy goal -- or a political goal.”
McClellan: “I don't know exactly what you're referring -- I don't think
we viewed it that way."

========================
Luckily, it was only a little white lie.

[Gordon]

>I would reason it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time a head of
>state (president/prime minister/king) is traveling into/over
>hostile territory that secrecy would be maintained.

I have no problem with that. What I find bothersome is that the white house
issued a statement saying that the president ordered that the flight could only
take place if secrecy was absolutely maintained - if they were discovered, the
trip would be canceled. Then, they WERE seen, and didnt turn back, which flies
in the face of the official statement. At that point, the story gets quite
convoluted but still doesn't clear the initial comments about secrecy and
motivation for turning AF1 around. I dont understand why such a statement was
made in the first place, if it was already known to be false.

Gordon

[Stephen Harding]

Jarg wrote:

> Nope, still have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you haven't
> carefully examined this thread.

I think JT got his threads crossed.


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Jarg wrote:
>
> > Nope, still have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you
haven't
> > carefully examined this thread.
>
> I think JT got his threads crossed.

Sorry.

[Thomas Schoene]

Jim H wrote:

> In case you have never heard this before "Loose lips sink ships" or
> in this case aircraft.

Yeah, but how hard would it have been to declare the flight as an Evergreen
747F or some such? Still covert but properly identified as a heavy.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[JamesF1110]

>Yeah, but how hard would it have been to declare the flight as an Evergreen
>747F or some such?

Then they would have assumed that Jimmie Carter was still president and
hostages would be taken in Iran or France

[Bob McKellar]

Gordon wrote:

> >
> >> Learn to respect others first, then you might receive similar respect
> >> from others.
> >
> >What law do you believe was broken?
>
> John, filing a fraudulent flight plan IS illegal. Only someone truly "above
> the law" can get away with it.
>
> Gordon

Well it was a risky mission.

What if they determined that a British Airline pilot definitely HAD spotted
them?

"Ohmigod, turn back immediately!!! Danger lurks! We might get shot at!"

That would have looked good in the papers.

Bob McKellar, who still thinks the whole "sighting" was a fabrication for PR
purposes

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
>
> John, filing a fraudulent flight plan IS illegal. Only someone truly
> "above the law" can get away with it.
>

Information required in an IFR flight plan is specified by FARs 91.169 and
91.153. ATC can authorize a deviation from FAR 91.169 and the FAA
Administrator can issue a waiver for both of them. No doubt other countries
have similar provisions. There's no reason to believe there was anything
illegal about this flight plan.

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>"Gordon" > wrote in message

>> John, filing a fraudulent flight plan IS illegal. Only someone truly
>> "above the law" can get away with it.

>Information required in an IFR flight plan is specified by FARs 91.169 and
>91.153. ATC can authorize a deviation from FAR 91.169 and the FAA
>Administrator can issue a waiver for both of them. No doubt other countries
>have similar provisions. There's no reason to believe there was anything
>illegal about this flight plan.

Not saying anything about the legal questions, but I have one small
observation.

Obviously /some/ commercial aircraft was close enough to see a 747
with the "United States of America" markings of the 89th Airlift
Wing's VIP aircraft, including the two 747s used for Air Force One
flights. To get an answer back from a UK flight controller that "No,
that's a Gulfstream V" to your WTF query is stupid, since it raise
more questions than it answers in the minds of the pilots who damn
well know they saw a 747 with "United States of America" markings.

The 747s used for flying the President have been used to fly other
high government officials on missions here, there and elsewhere. When
flying someone like Colin Powell or Rumsfeld, it uses a standard USAF
Call Sign on the flight plan. Years ago, I understood that the 89th
used SAM [Special Airlift Mission] plus the last 3 or 4 digits of the
serial # as a call when they were not flying the Pres or VP. If they
had filed as such, that UK Controller could have replied "No, it's not
Air Force One, it's USAF SAM 8000 [or 9000]."
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not saying anything about the legal questions, but I have one small
> observation.
>
> Obviously /some/ commercial aircraft was close enough to see a 747
> with the "United States of America" markings of the 89th Airlift
> Wing's VIP aircraft, including the two 747s used for Air Force One
> flights. To get an answer back from a UK flight controller that "No,
> that's a Gulfstream V" to your WTF query is stupid, since it raise
> more questions than it answers in the minds of the pilots who damn
> well know they saw a 747 with "United States of America" markings.
>
> The 747s used for flying the President have been used to fly other
> high government officials on missions here, there and elsewhere. When
> flying someone like Colin Powell or Rumsfeld, it uses a standard USAF
> Call Sign on the flight plan. Years ago, I understood that the 89th
> used SAM [Special Airlift Mission] plus the last 3 or 4 digits of the
> serial # as a call when they were not flying the Pres or VP. If they
> had filed as such, that UK Controller could have replied "No, it's not
> Air Force One, it's USAF SAM 8000 [or 9000]."
>

Listening to the popular press has caused many people to believe "Air Force
One" is an airplane, when in fact it is just a radio callsign. It is the
callsign of any USAF airplane that has the president aboard, and at times an
aircraft other than one of the two VC-25s (747-200) assigned to the 89th AW
is used. The 89th AW also operates the C-37, a military version of the
Gulfstream 5.

I don't think we've seen an accurate version of this story yet. They
deliberately filed a wrong aircraft type as a security measure? What did
they file as the callsign? If they filed as Air Force One they defeated the
purpose of filing the wrong type aircraft. If they filed as SAM1234, then
the UK controller would have no aircraft on frequency or any flight plan
data on Air Force One. So when the question was asked, "is that Air Force
One", what was the controller looking at to determine it was a Gulfstream 5?

[Gordon]

>> For Christ's sake - do you think filing as
>> a G-V has any real material difference on a flight of this type?
>>

Actually, yeah, yeah I do. Ever hear of wake turbulence? If I am flying two
minutes behind a GV, I am not going to have to consider it - but if I am behind
a frickin jumbo jet, I'd like to know about it. For those that think I am just
Bush bashing, this is a serious concern and there have been plenty of accidents
caused by aircraft flying into the wake of large aircraft without knowing it.
Its dangerous and in this case, definitely unnecessary. Why not identify AF1
as an aircraft type that at least was similar in size? I don't care what
President is involved - this was stupid and the 'evolving' story provided by
the admin. staff doesn't help.

Gordon

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, yeah, yeah I do. Ever hear of wake turbulence? If I am flying
two
> minutes behind a GV, I am not going to have to consider it - but if I am
behind
> a frickin jumbo jet, I'd like to know about it. For those that think I am
just
> Bush bashing, this is a serious concern and there have been plenty of
accidents
> caused by aircraft flying into the wake of large aircraft without knowing
it.
> Its dangerous and in this case, definitely unnecessary. Why not identify
AF1
> as an aircraft type that at least was similar in size? I don't care what
> President is involved - this was stupid and the 'evolving' story provided
by
> the admin. staff doesn't help.
>

Relax. You're assuming it happened as it's been reported. I think that
unlikely.

[Gordon]

>
>Relax.

I'm fairly relaxed, Steven. Some folks act like "no harm, no foul" and that
can be a damn slippery slope.

> You're assuming it happened as it's been reported. I think that
>unlikely.

However it happened, the flight plan should not have included deception
concerning the size of the aircraft involved.

Gordon

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
>
> However it happened, the flight plan should not have included deception
> concerning the size of the aircraft involved.
>

Agreed, but we don't know that it did. What would be the point of
misidentifying the type aircraft but still using the Air Force One callsign?

[Jim H]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Relax.
>
> I'm fairly relaxed, Steven. Some folks act like "no harm, no foul" and
that
> can be a damn slippery slope.
>
> > You're assuming it happened as it's been reported. I think that
> >unlikely.
>
> However it happened, the flight plan should not have included deception
> concerning the size of the aircraft involved.
>
> Gordon


Now you found yourself flying behind a flight of BUFF's enroute a strike
would you have expected a flight plan filed...


Just a question.....

Jim

[Jim H]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Curtis CCR" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > the President in general. For Christ's sake - do you think filing as
> > a G-V has any real material difference on a flight of this type?
>
> Considering that post 9/11, filing a fake flight plane might
> result in being shot down, it seems to be relevant enough.


I would venture a guess they were little friends in the vecenity to prevent
said shootdown...


Jim

[Krztalizer]

>
>Now you found yourself flying behind a flight of BUFF's enroute a strike
>would you have expected a flight plan filed...
>
>
>Just a question.....

Really depends on whether I was passing over Kabul or transiting over the
Atlantic.

Gordon

[Peter Stickney]

(Gordon) wrote in message >...
> >
> >Relax.
>
> I'm fairly relaxed, Steven. Some folks act like "no harm, no foul" and that
> can be a damn slippery slope.
>
> > You're assuming it happened as it's been reported. I think that
> >unlikely.
>
> However it happened, the flight plan should not have included deception
> concerning the size of the aircraft involved.

Uhm, if I may - I can think of a solution that would provide:
1) Adequate security as to the President's wherabouts
2) Allow filing a flight plan that is accurate, without revealing that
the President is aboard.

Remember that there's no Rule, Regulation, or Law that says that the
aircraft that the President's on has to be Air Force
[Navy/Marine/Army] 1.
Or that that callsign is only used when the President's on board.

That use is custom/habit, not law.

Step 1: File a flight plan for the VC-25 as, say, BIGMAC 1234, a VC-25
on some manner of normal, non-Presidential flight.

Step 2: Publish a NOTAM that states that the President will be
travelling,
and that VC-37 (Gulfstream V) will be flying under the callsign of
"Air Force 1".

(The VC-25s go all manner of places ferrying People Other Than the
President. An example would be the use of one of the VC-137s by Henry
Kissenger during the lead-in to the Moscow & Peking visits. (VC-137
stages to French base that houses the French KC-135s, and is parked
among 'em, so it doesn't stand out.
Hank K. with Jill St. John on his arm, flies to Paris and checks into
a Ritzy Hotel, where they enter a suite & draw the shades. Thus,
nobody
expects him to sneak out the back door, into an umarked French Govt.
car,
which shuttles him to Orly, where, the French President's Mystere 20
(Falcon Bizjet, for us USAnians), on a Routine Proficiency Flight to
the
KC-135 base. H.K. boards the VC-137, which takes off for the Neutral
Location used for teh negotiations. (After dark, of course, to fool
the Planespotters.) No misfiled flight plans, and everybody has Jolly
Fun.
(Including Jill St. John, who has all the advantages of being shacked
up
in a Paris Hotel with the Secretary of State with having Henry
Kissinger
around))

The scenario unfolds thusly -
Somewhere over the Storm Tossed Atlantic, a sharp-eyed First Officer
('cos everybody knows that the Captains all wear glasses, and are too
busy checkign their Stock Portfolios) spots the VC-25. The spotting
airplane calls ARTCC, and asks if they've seen "Air Force 1." ARTCC
looks up the NOTAM, and
replies that Air Force 1 is a Gulfstream, today. Now, if they askes
if
they'd seem a VC-25, or a USAF 747, I wonder what kind of answer
they'd have received.

At least, that's how I'd do it, if they'd asked me.

--
Pete Stickney

[DBurch7672]

Listening to the popular press has caused many people to believe "Air Force
One" is an airplane, when in fact it is just a radio callsign. It is the
callsign of any USAF airplane that has the president aboard, and at times an
aircraft other than one of the two VC-25s (747-200) assigned to the 89th AW
is used. The 89th AW also operates the C-37, a military version of the
Gulfstream 5.

Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de facto,
"Air Force One"!

I don't think we've seen an accurate version of this story yet. They
deliberately filed a wrong aircraft type as a security measure?
Makes sense to me! You have to worry about "Gomer Al-Pyle, (Former) Republican
Guard"
with his Stinger/"Grail", (Soviet man-portable anti-aircraft missile/RPG;
*after all*! :)

What did they file as the callsign? If they filed as Air Force One they
defeated the purpose of filing the wrong type aircraft. If they filed as
SAM1234, then the UK controller would have no aircraft on frequency or any
flight plan data on Air Force One. So when the question was asked, "is that
Air Force
One", what was the controller looking at to determine it was a Gulfstream 5?

[Yeff]

On 08 Jan 2004 22:41:43 GMT, DBurch7672 wrote:

> Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de facto,
> "Air Force One"!

There's also Army One, Navy One, Marine One and Executive One.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"DBurch7672" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de
facto,
> "Air Force One"!
>

No, only an Air Force aircraft becomes Air Force One.

[Ogden Johnson III]

Yeff > wrote:

>On 08 Jan 2004 22:41:43 GMT, DBurch7672 wrote:

>> Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de facto,
>> "Air Force One"!

>There's also Army One, Navy One, Marine One and Executive One.

Don't forget Coast Guard One. Executive One covers any non-Army,
USMC, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard government aircraft the Pres
flies in. I don't know when the last President flew in a
civilian/commercial aircraft - prolly dates back to or before Ike's
Columbine days. I suspect, with no basis for it other than 40+ years
of government watching from the inside and outside, that if one did
fly civilian, they'd use the Executive One call.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't forget Coast Guard One.
>

When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the callsign becomes the
name of the military service, followed by the word "One." Whether or not a
Coast Guard aircraft is considered a military aircraft is open to debate.
While the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have all flown the President, I
don't believe the Coast Guard ever has.


>
> Executive One covers any non-Army,
> USMC, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard government aircraft the Pres
> flies in.
>

Ececutive One is the callsign of any civil aircraft carrying the President.


>
> I don't know when the last President flew in a
> civilian/commercial aircraft - prolly dates back to or before Ike's
> Columbine days. I suspect, with no basis for it other than 40+ years
> of government watching from the inside and outside, that if one did
> fly civilian, they'd use the Executive One call.
>

Nixon traveled aboard a civil airliner once during the first gas crunch.

[Pechs1]

Steven-<< Whether or not a
Coast Guard aircraft is considered a military aircraft is open to debate.
>><BR><BR>

I think the USCG people that have served in the last conflicts, like VietNam,
and Desert 'wars' would disagree with you.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think the USCG people that have served in the last conflicts, like
VietNam,
> and Desert 'wars' would disagree with you.
>

That's essentially what debate is.

[Pechs1]

steven-<< That's essentially what debate is. >><BR><BR>

There is no debate, go to war in uniform, you are in the military, regardless
of who your unit 'may' belong to. AirGuard units, that belong to states, are in
the 'military' when they go to war.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is no debate, go to war in uniform, you are in the military,
regardless
> of who your unit 'may' belong to.
>

To debate is to engage in a formal discussion or argument. Your response to
my statement proves that statement to be correct.

[Mike Kanze]

>To debate is to engage in a formal discussion or argument. Your response
to my statement proves that statement to be correct.

And entirely irrelevant . . . especially to anyone with mobilization orders.

--
Mike Kanze

"If it's good enough to get shot at in, it's good enough to wear to
McDonalds."

- CDR Doug "Woody" Beal, USN (Referring to the wearing of military uniform
clothing, like flight suits, off-base.)


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > There is no debate, go to war in uniform, you are in the military,
> regardless
> > of who your unit 'may' belong to.
> >
>
> To debate is to engage in a formal discussion or argument. Your response
to
> my statement proves that statement to be correct.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Kanze" > wrote in message
...
>
> And entirely irrelevant . . .
>

How so?