Air Force One seen by BA pilot

[Milo]

The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.

[Cub Driver]

Well, there are just two air-to-air freqs that I know of.

Better yet, he could have called on the emergency freq, which all
pilots must monitor if able.

On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, (Milo) wrote:

>The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
>British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
>Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
>thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
>how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
>How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
>wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
>was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
>onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
>and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
>why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
>are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
>wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
>did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
>up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Bob Gardner]

The air-to-air freqs you refer to are not used in oceanic airspace...all
transoceanic flights are talking to the appropriate oceanic controller on
his/her discrete frequency. Use of this freq for plane-to-plane is not
kosher, but not unusual, either.

Bob gardner

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, there are just two air-to-air freqs that I know of.
>
> Better yet, he could have called on the emergency freq, which all
> pilots must monitor if able.
>
> On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, (Milo) wrote:
>
> >The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
> >British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
> >Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
> >thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
> >how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
> >How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> >wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
> >was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
> >onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
> >and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
> >why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
> >are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
> >wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
> >did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
> >up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Harper]

I know this is hard for a lot of people to comprehend, but actually
US regulations only apply within the US. Hence an FAA TFR can
only exist within US airspace.

And luckily even the FAA doesn't (afaik) try to put a near-Mach-1
moving TFR around AF1 while it is actually flying, although there may
be some separation provided behind the scenes by ATC.

John

"Milo" > wrote in message
om...
> The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
> British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
> Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
> thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
> how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
> How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
> was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
> onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
> and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
> why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
> are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
> wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
> did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
> up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.

[Robert Moore]

"Bob Gardner" wrote

> The air-to-air freqs you refer to are not used in oceanic
> airspace...all transoceanic flights are talking to the
> appropriate oceanic controller on his/her discrete frequency.
> Use of this freq for plane-to-plane is not kosher, but not
> unusual, either.

For the 25 years that I flew trans-oceanic, whether the FAA or
FCC approved it or not, 123.45 WAS Oceanic Common. I suspect
that it still is. Not too many Radio Cops out there. :-)

Bob Moore

[Big John]

Milo

Long data article on Drudge.

Part said he was in Stealth mode, no AF call sign, no escort, routing
traffic and handling within system, nothing overt. Not just sure but
may have turned navigation lights off at night??? etc., etc.

Glad he made the trip. Troops got a boost. Shows he can move any place
he wants without being stopped by any terrorist organization.

Big John

On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, (Milo) wrote:

>The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
>British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
>Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
>thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
>how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
>How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
>wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
>was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
>onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
>and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
>why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
>are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
>wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
>did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
>up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.

[BTIZ]

Words are he did turn out the lights for the night landing in Baghdad.. but
I'm sure the lights were on when in other countries ATC system.

BT

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Milo
>
> Long data article on Drudge.
>
> Part said he was in Stealth mode, no AF call sign, no escort, routing
> traffic and handling within system, nothing overt. Not just sure but
> may have turned navigation lights off at night??? etc., etc.
>
> Glad he made the trip. Troops got a boost. Shows he can move any place
> he wants without being stopped by any terrorist organization.
>
> Big John
>
> On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, (Milo) wrote:
>
> >The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
> >British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
> >Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
> >thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
> >how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
> >How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> >wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
> >was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
> >onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
> >and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
> >why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
> >are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
> >wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
> >did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
> >up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.
>

[Cub Driver]

>The air-to-air freqs you refer to are not used in oceanic airspace...all
>transoceanic flights are talking to the appropriate oceanic controller on
>his/her discrete frequency. Use of this freq for plane-to-plane is not
>kosher, but not unusual, either.

Ah, I stand corrected!

I wonder if Maurice Kirk knows this? He is planning to fly his Piper
Cub from Australia to the U.S. next year.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ben Dover]

> >How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> >wherever AF1 goes in the world. >

TFRs are US only. It is up to the Authorities in other countries to decide
how to provide appropriate airspace protection.

The evil empire does not have the power to install TFRs outside the US -yet.

[Jay Somerset]

On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, (Milo) wrote:

> The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
> British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
> Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
> thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
> how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
> How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
> was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
> onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
> and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
> why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
> are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
> wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
> did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
> up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.

A tall tale. If another aircraft really had eyeballed "AF1" and called up
as stated, the AF1 pilot would have just ignored the call.

Also very unlikely that any other aircraft would be able to get into visual
range -- AF1 would have deviated to maintain greater separation. They do
have better than average radar, you know. :-)

[Martin Hotze]

On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, Milo wrote:

>First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
>How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
>wherever AF1 goes in the world.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*Aheeeem* the FAA only works within the US of A. And there are countries
left with their own government and airspace. ;-)

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:19:24 -0600, Big John wrote:

>Glad he made the trip. Troops got a boost. Shows he can move any place
>he wants without being stopped by any terrorist organization.

Hey! I went shopping today and I too wasn't stopped neither by police nor
by terrorists. So who is responsible for this big improvement? *haha*

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Gary Mishler]

"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...

> A tall tale. If another aircraft really had eyeballed "AF1" and called up
> as stated, the AF1 pilot would have just ignored the call.

It's been widely reported in both broadcast and print media and has been
confirmed through gov't sources. Knight Ridder Newspapers even printed a
quote from the AF1 captain. No one is trying to keep it a secret.

> Also very unlikely that any other aircraft would be able to get into
visual
> range -- AF1 would have deviated to maintain greater separation. They do
> have better than average radar, you know. :-)

Many times over the years AF1 has been on the same center frequency as me.
On more than one occasion I have "eyeballed" it inflight myself. Not really
that unusual actually.

Mish

[Big John]

Mish

I thought center gave vertical and horizontal separation for birds on
same over water route? Didn't they a few years ago reduce vertical
separation from 2K to 1K if certain (new accurate alt measuring)
equipment was on board the aircraft to increase (double) traffic
density on the overseas routes?

If flight was direct from way point to way point then I doubt if the
birds came within visual range??? Would be an odd throw of the dice.

That said, I can postulate a situation where two birds with a few
thousand feet vertical clearance going the same direction on the same
route and with different cruising speeds, slowly pass each other and
BA be able to recognize the distinctive paint job on AF1. This in day
light of course.

BA upon landing and telling story (Gulf Stream) around Ops, someone
would have called media (always some blabber mouth) and media would
have added 99 and 99 and gotten 1 and broke the story someplace in the
world from where it would have been picked up and gone like wildfire
to everywhere.

Now if the so called reply had been "Naw, we just got a special load
of Thanksgiving 'turkeys' for the troops", might have been a better
put off <G>

Tale has a lot of characteristics of a good bar story (another double,
bar keep) or news milking every story for a 'human interest' slant.

Good show George.

Big John


On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:47:38 GMT, "Gary Mishler"
> wrote:

>"Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
...
>
>> A tall tale. If another aircraft really had eyeballed "AF1" and called up
>> as stated, the AF1 pilot would have just ignored the call.
>
>It's been widely reported in both broadcast and print media and has been
>confirmed through gov't sources. Knight Ridder Newspapers even printed a
>quote from the AF1 captain. No one is trying to keep it a secret.
>
>> Also very unlikely that any other aircraft would be able to get into
>visual
>> range -- AF1 would have deviated to maintain greater separation. They do
>> have better than average radar, you know. :-)
>
>Many times over the years AF1 has been on the same center frequency as me.
>On more than one occasion I have "eyeballed" it inflight myself. Not really
>that unusual actually.
>
>Mish
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Big John wrote:
>
> I thought center gave vertical and horizontal separation for birds on
> same over water route?

Perhaps AF1 wasn't talking to center?

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Robert Moore]

Big John wrote

> If flight was direct from way point to way point then I doubt if
> the birds came within visual range??? Would be an odd throw of
> the dice.

Aircraft across the North Atlantic fly on the Organized NA Tracks.
They are similiar to airways but change every 12 hours or so
depending on winds and traffic needs.
>
> That said, I can postulate a situation where two birds with a
> few thousand feet vertical clearance going the same direction on
> the same route and with different cruising speeds, slowly pass
> each other and BA be able to recognize the distinctive paint job
> on AF1. This in day light of course.

It was not difficult at all to recognize aircraft type and operator
when overtaking (or being overtaken) by traffic that was 2,000'
higher or lower. Used to have (1980's) some interesting
conversations with Air Force C-141 types who were "getting out"
soon about "who's hiring and what's the job like". They typically
were cruising at M.76 as we went by at M.82 in the B-707s.

Bob Moore

[Pat Thronson]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
> That said, I can postulate a situation where two birds with a few
> thousand feet vertical clearance going the same direction on the same
> route and with different cruising speeds, slowly pass each other and
> BA be able to recognize the distinctive paint job on AF1. This in day
> light of course.

I thought any aircraft which caries the President is refered to as Air Force
1?
I do not know but I would guess he left the flashy blue and white bird on
the safe side of town.

Pat Thronson

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Pat Thronson" > said:
>I thought any aircraft which caries the President is refered to as Air
>Force 1? I do not know but I would guess he left the flashy blue and
>white bird on the safe side of town.

The flashy blue and white bird has a few things your average Gulfstream V
doesn't, like anti-missile flares and air-to-air refueling. I'm sure he'd
feel a lot safer in his normal bird.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more
interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim ."
E. W. Dijkstra

[Gary Mishler]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...

> I thought center gave vertical and horizontal separation for birds on
> same over water route?

They do.

> Didn't they a few years ago reduce vertical
> separation from 2K to 1K if certain (new accurate alt measuring)
> equipment was on board the aircraft to increase (double) traffic
> density on the overseas routes?

Yes, it's called RVSM = Reduced Verticle Seperation Minimums

> If flight was direct from way point to way point then I doubt if the
> birds came within visual range??? Would be an odd throw of the dice.

Huh? With all do respect, I do this for a living and there are "birds"
somewhere in the Flight Levels that come within visual range of each other
(both same and opposite direction) every minuite of every day. We are often
able to visually identify company paint schemes and aircraft types (again
both same and opposite direction) all the time. There is nothing odd about
it at all. Plus, with the 1K RVSM sep that you talk about above, it would
be even easier.

> That said, I can postulate a situation where two birds with a few
> thousand feet vertical clearance going the same direction on the same
> route and with different cruising speeds, slowly pass each other and
> BA be able to recognize the distinctive paint job on AF1. This in day
> light of course.

In the real world "birds" don't just flash past each other in the FL's in
the blink of an eye. Even if opposite direction you usually have several
seconds of good visual (weather conditions permiting, of course) opportunity
for an identification.

> Tale has a lot of characteristics of a good bar story ...

I disagree. To those of us in the trenches (er, Flight Levels) it has the
characteristics of an entirley plausable event that happens every day.

> Good show George.

Agreed.

Regards,
Mish

[Gary Mishler]

"Pat Thronson" > wrote in message
et...


> I thought any aircraft which caries the President is refered to as Air
Force
> 1?

Any Air Force aircraft with Prez on board is AF1.
Any Marine aircraft (such as the helicopter ride in/out of White House lawn)
is Marine 1, Navy aircraft is Navy 1, etc, etc.

> I do not know but I would guess he left the flashy blue and white bird on
> the safe side of town.

Nope, he took Big Bird - range, communications, countermeasures, press,
staff, etc. I believe there are pictures of it on the ramp in Baghdad.

[Judah]

Not to mention, of course, that I have yet to see a TFR that follows the
airplane enroute... Besides shutting down half the country's airspace, it
would also be a big-time security breach...

"2/1234 TX.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS SOUTHEAST USA DECEMBER 3, 2003 LOCAL.
PURSUANT TO TITLE 14, SECTION 91.141 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED ON THE FOLLOWING NAVIGATION
POINTS AND AIRWAY(S) UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY ATC. ACT V54 LIT
V124 GQE V47 DYR V140 AZQ V115 HVQ V4 ESL V166 MRB V8 DCA
FROM 0312031550 (0950 LOCAL 12/03/03) UNTIL 0312031700 (1100 LOCAL
11/30/03). WIE UNTIL UFN"

Might as well advertise! :)


Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> On 28 Nov 2003 10:37:39 -0800, Milo wrote:
>
>>First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
>>How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
>>wherever AF1 goes in the world.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> *Aheeeem* the FAA only works within the US of A. And there are countries
> left with their own government and airspace. ;-)
>
> #m

[Big John]

Gary

Not trying to put you down but have lots of experience with 1000 mph +
rates of closure in heavy iron. That's over 16 miles a minute and
about 1500 feet per second. At one eye blink per second that's about
7500 feet for 5 seconds. That's almost a mile and a half travel in the
5 seconds. If it takes the brain 2 seconds to process information a
bird can be pretty dam close before one can try to recognize.

Unless one is forewarned by center, aircrew may or may not see
closing traffic unless pulling a con. Trans ocean traffic is very
boring (as you know being in the business) and no one crew member is
tasked and sits there with an eye ball covering the forward quadrant
during the long cruise portion of flight. In fact some airlines allow
one pilot to nap during fight so he will be sharp at destination I'm
told. They found some pilots were doing this due to late night and
boredom so they made it legal :o) Couldn't do that in the fighters so
they gave us Phenobarb (sp) prior to landing.

All of this discussion after the fact is media garbage. Bird with
President aboard does NOT have to use the Call Sign AF!. In Stealth
mode it can be called anything.

I'm just surprised that some media type didn't let the cat out of the
bag unless they took all the cell phones away and gave everyone a pat
down and only let them use the birds com system after they had
departed Iraq and were in International airspace.

No matter what the nay sayer's say, good trip and a boost for those in
Iraq even if he was pretty closely monitored and protected. He did go
in harms way and a brace of mortars could have caused a lot of
casualties and put the media in a frenzy.

Big John

New subject. Where can I get the positive and negative G limits of
commercial birds, 747, 757, 767, etc? I want operational limits not
ultimate. Have looked on Internet and not found so far.



On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:34:09 GMT, "Gary Mishler"
> wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I thought center gave vertical and horizontal separation for birds on
>> same over water route?
>
>They do.
>
>> Didn't they a few years ago reduce vertical
>> separation from 2K to 1K if certain (new accurate alt measuring)
>> equipment was on board the aircraft to increase (double) traffic
>> density on the overseas routes?
>
>Yes, it's called RVSM = Reduced Verticle Seperation Minimums
>
>> If flight was direct from way point to way point then I doubt if the
>> birds came within visual range??? Would be an odd throw of the dice.
>
>Huh? With all do respect, I do this for a living and there are "birds"
>somewhere in the Flight Levels that come within visual range of each other
>(both same and opposite direction) every minuite of every day. We are often
>able to visually identify company paint schemes and aircraft types (again
>both same and opposite direction) all the time. There is nothing odd about
>it at all. Plus, with the 1K RVSM sep that you talk about above, it would
>be even easier.
>
>> That said, I can postulate a situation where two birds with a few
>> thousand feet vertical clearance going the same direction on the same
>> route and with different cruising speeds, slowly pass each other and
>> BA be able to recognize the distinctive paint job on AF1. This in day
>> light of course.
>
>In the real world "birds" don't just flash past each other in the FL's in
>the blink of an eye. Even if opposite direction you usually have several
>seconds of good visual (weather conditions permiting, of course) opportunity
>for an identification.
>
>> Tale has a lot of characteristics of a good bar story ...
>
>I disagree. To those of us in the trenches (er, Flight Levels) it has the
>characteristics of an entirley plausable event that happens every day.
>
>> Good show George.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Regards,
>Mish
>

[James Robinson]

Big John wrote:
>
> Not trying to put you down but have lots of experience with 1000 mph +
> rates of closure in heavy iron. That's over 16 miles a minute and
> about 1500 feet per second. At one eye blink per second that's about
> 7500 feet for 5 seconds. That's almost a mile and a half travel in the
> 5 seconds. If it takes the brain 2 seconds to process information a
> bird can be pretty dam close before one can try to recognize.

While it's not a sure thing, it's by no means impossible, or even
unlikely. As a passenger, I have been able to identify the owners of
aircraft flying in the opposite direction while traversing the North
Atlantic. If I happen to be staring out the window, and the lighting is
right, some paint schemes are quite clear in the five or so seconds you
see them. The rapid movement of the aircraft first attracts your eyes,
and you tend focus on the aircraft just as it passes. Further, 747s
aren't that common on the North Atlantic run these days, and the Air
Force paint scheme is easily recognizable, making identification that
much more likely, if you happen to be looking in the right direction.

[Cub Driver]

>I thought any aircraft which caries the President is refered to as Air Force
>1?

True.

>I do not know but I would guess he left the flashy blue and white bird on
>the safe side of town.

According to the Washington Post pool reporter, whose notes are posted
on the Drudge Report, it was one of the AF1 paint jobs. I believe
there are two of these, and I don't think there is a variant in mufti
that carries all the equipment needed for POTUS, as he is
unfortuantely called.

One AF1 was flown from Texas to Andrews AFB, where they changed planes
and picked up more reporters (and perhaps staff, I don't recall).


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Not to mention, of course, that I have yet to see a TFR that follows the
>airplane enroute... Besides shutting down half the country's airspace, it
>would also be a big-time security breach...

Of course they do exactly this for a presidential motorcade.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>I'm just surprised that some media type didn't let the cat out of the
>bag unless they took all the cell phones away

No, they only had them remove the batteries :)

No reporter so well established that he gets a seat on AF1 is going to
jeopardize his career by breaking the rules that way, especially when
told up front that the plane will turn around if word gets out.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Gary Mishler]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...

> While it's not a sure thing, it's by no means impossible, or even
> unlikely. As a passenger, I have been able to identify the owners of
> aircraft flying in the opposite direction while traversing the North
> Atlantic. If I happen to be staring out the window, and the lighting is
> right, some paint schemes are quite clear in the five or so seconds you
> see them. The rapid movement of the aircraft first attracts your eyes,
> and you tend focus on the aircraft just as it passes. Further, 747s
> aren't that common on the North Atlantic run these days, and the Air
> Force paint scheme is easily recognizable, making identification that
> much more likely, if you happen to be looking in the right direction.

Exactly right! Thank you.

[Gary Mishler]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...

> Not trying to put you down but have lots of experience with 1000 mph +
> rates of closure in heavy iron. That's over 16 miles a minute and
> about 1500 feet per second. At one eye blink per second that's about
> 7500 feet for 5 seconds. That's almost a mile and a half travel in the
> 5 seconds. If it takes the brain 2 seconds to process information a
> bird can be pretty dam close before one can try to recognize.

All that aside, it happens every minuite of every day ....

[Robert Moore]

Big John wrote
> New subject. Where can I get the positive and negative G limits
> of commercial birds, 747, 757, 767, etc? I want operational
> limits not ultimate. Have looked on Internet and not found so
> far.

From my B-727 AIRCRAFT manual, I don't know about BIRDS.

Flaps UP.........+2.5...-1.0
Flaps DOWN.......+2.0...-0.0

Bob Moore

[John Gaquin]

"Big John" > wrote in message
>
> I'm just surprised that some media type didn't let the cat out of the
> bag unless they took all the cell phones away

My understanding (according to Wash Post) is that that is about exactly what
happened. Reporters were given cell phones back after departing Baghdad.


Given the incessant and "uncontrolled" leakage that goes on these days,
Everyone should note that no one (NO ONE) in Congress was informed, and only
a few hand picked press who were on the craft. The way to enhance security
is to keep Congress out of the loop. Sad, isn't it?

JG

[Robert Moore]

Big John wrote
> New subject. Where can I get the positive and negative G limits
> of commercial birds, 747, 757, 767, etc? I want operational
> limits not ultimate. Have looked on Internet and not found so
> far.

Section 25.337: Limit maneuvering load factors.
(a) Except where limited by maximum (static) lift coefficients,
the airplane is assumed to be subjected to symmetrical maneuvers
resulting in the limit maneuvering load factors prescribed in this
section. Pitching velocities appropriate to the corresponding pull-
up and steady turn maneuvers must be taken into account.

(b) The positive limit maneuvering load factor n for any speed up
to Vn may not be less than 2.1+24,000/ (W +10,000) except that n
may not be less than 2.5 and need not be greater than 3.8 -- where
W is the design maximum takeoff weight.

(c) The negative limit maneuvering load factor --

(1) May not be less than -1.0 at speeds up to VC; and

(2) Must vary linearly with speed from the value at VC to zero at
VD.

(d) Maneuvering load factors lower than those specified in this
section may be used if the airplane has design features that make
it impossible to exceed these values in flight.

[Judah]

Cub Driver > wrote in
:

>
>>Not to mention, of course, that I have yet to see a TFR that follows
>>the airplane enroute... Besides shutting down half the country's
>>airspace, it would also be a big-time security breach...
>
> Of course they do exactly this for a presidential motorcade.
>

Perhaps, but the square-footage is much smaller. A presidential motorcade
should only close down a major city or state. The flight plan that I
outlined in my TFR went from Waco, TX to Washington National, closing the
entire southern half of the US...

Not to mention that a terrorist in a Cessna 172 would have more trouble
hitting AF1 in flight and has a much better chance of hitting the
President's Limo with a Water Bomb!

[Judah]

Who says that the plane that saw AF1 had to be flying in the opposite
direction? Perhaps they were flying in a similar direction? In that case, it
would be VERY visible for a fairly reasonable amount of time as it
passed...And in CAVU conditions, it would be visible for numerous miles,
especially over water...


Big John > wrote in
:

> Gary
>
> Not trying to put you down but have lots of experience with 1000 mph +
> rates of closure in heavy iron. That's over 16 miles a minute and

<snip>

[John Gaquin]

"Judah" > wrote in message
> >

>I have yet to see a TFR that follows the
>airplane enroute...

> ... Besides shutting down half the country's
> >>airspace,
>
> .... closing the
> entire southern half of the US...


Judah, using unbridled hyperbole to try to make a point rarely enhances a
discussion. AF1 movement TFRs do NOT shut down "...the entire southern half
of the US...", as you twice posited. As a general rule, they proscribe a
particular route, but then only "...unless otherwise authorized by ATC...".
X miles before and after passage, other traffic will be allowed to cross
paths. You do, in fact, have a TFR that follows the aircraft (as long as
everything runs smoothly); a moving bubble of airspace kept clear for the
passage of AF1.

[Judah]

John,
My unbridled hyperbole was actually made completely in jest.

To my knowledge (which is perhaps more bridled than my hyperbolic sense
of humor) there is no moving TFR that follows AF1... The TFR that I
posted was not real, it was a joke.

The point is not that half the country's airspace is shut down. The
point is that the whole TFR thing is a joke. The only people who
intentionally follow laws like the TFRs are law-abiding citizens. A
terrorist wouldn't be very upset about violating a TFR, unless, of
course, an F-16 actually had a shot in hell of intercepting him before
achieving the mission.


"John Gaquin" > wrote in
:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> >
>
>>I have yet to see a TFR that follows the airplane enroute...
>
>> ... Besides shutting down half the country's
>> >>airspace,
>>
>> .... closing the
>> entire southern half of the US...
>
>
> Judah, using unbridled hyperbole to try to make a point rarely enhances
> a discussion. AF1 movement TFRs do NOT shut down "...the entire
> southern half of the US...", as you twice posited. As a general rule,
> they proscribe a particular route, but then only "...unless otherwise
> authorized by ATC...". X miles before and after passage, other traffic
> will be allowed to cross paths. You do, in fact, have a TFR that
> follows the aircraft (as long as everything runs smoothly); a moving
> bubble of airspace kept clear for the passage of AF1.
>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >I thought any aircraft which caries the President is refered to as Air
Force
> >1?
>
> True.
>
Not quite true. If it is a navy plane, it is Navy 1, or a coast guard is
coast guard one.
--
Jim in NC

[Koopas Ly]

> New subject. Where can I get the positive and negative G limits of
> commercial birds, 747, 757, 767, etc? I want operational limits not
> ultimate. Have looked on Internet and not found so far.

Certification loads and limit load factors are described in FAR Part 25.

[Big John]

Sarayon

Got some figures from you and several others.

Let me explain where I am coming from.

I want to put together an agenda where airline pilots will load and
unload the bird if it is hi-jacked (hi-jackers have no access to
cockpit).

No aileron (bank) or rudder (yaw) inputs other than what is need to
keep bird on a straight line. Only elevator input with a clean bird
(no flaps, etc.).

The figures given seem to be about 2.5 +G's and 1.5 -G's. I'm not sure
those are the figures I want? Are these 'company' figures for
passenger comfort or airframe longevity or the manufactures structural
limits that should not be exceeded at any time? Also what is design
ultimate if it is available?

From lots of experience with rough air in 'heavy iron' that causes
large excursions of the 'G' meter , I've been on airline birds that I
know exceeded the limits given in these posts. While these are
basically 'instantaneous excursions, they will put the indicated
strain on the bird.

Would appreciate your (and others with the basic tech data who read
this post) comments.

For those who take umbrage at the use of the euphemism 'bird'. That is
a very common expression in 'heavy iron' so bear with me. Don't want
any flame that will singe my feathers. <G>

Big John.


On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:59:48 -0500, Saryon
> wrote:

>767 200-300 AOM says the same thing with a note "With flaps 25 and 30,
>positive limits vary linearly from +2.0g at maximum landing weight to
>+1.5g at maximum takeoff weight."
>
>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:39:31 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote:
>
>>Big John wrote
>>> New subject. Where can I get the positive and negative G limits
>>> of commercial birds, 747, 757, 767, etc? I want operational
>>> limits not ultimate. Have looked on Internet and not found so
>>> far.
>>
>>From my B-727 AIRCRAFT manual, I don't know about BIRDS.
>>
>>Flaps UP.........+2.5...-1.0
>>Flaps DOWN.......+2.0...-0.0
>>
>>Bob Moore

[Dennis O'Connor]

Roller coaster it +2 and -1.5 gees while smartly rolling the bird 45
degrees - left / right - during the zero gee portion at the top of the zoom,
and then push over for the negative gee dive... Do the manuevers with an
uneven rhythm, so no one can anticipate the next change... Fifteen
continuous minutes of this will reduce everyone in the passenger tube into
blubbering vomit... Those who were out of their seat belts, waving knives,
whatever, will get the shake-n-bake into unconsciousness, or submission <who
cares about the difference>... Just don't exceed the airframe limits with a
sharp bank maneuver at the peak positive of negative gee maneuver... You
will be allowed to 'bend' the airframe a bit, for dramatic effect, if you
like...

Cheers ... Denny - nobody ever wants to hijack me , durn it!

"Big John" > wrote in message

[GLPILOTSRV]

In article >, (Paul Tomblin)
writes:

>The flashy blue and white bird has a few things your average Gulfstream V
>doesn't, like anti-missile flares

Now optional equipment on Gulfstreams.

G. Lee

[Mateo]

Big John wrote:

> I want to put together an agenda where airline pilots will load and
> unload the bird if it is hi-jacked (hi-jackers have no access to
> cockpit).
>
> No aileron (bank) or rudder (yaw) inputs other than what is need to
> keep bird on a straight line. Only elevator input with a clean bird
> (no flaps, etc.).
>
> The figures given seem to be about 2.5 +G's and 1.5 -G's. I'm not sure
> those are the figures I want? Are these 'company' figures for
> passenger comfort or airframe longevity or the manufactures structural
> limits that should not be exceeded at any time? Also what is design
> ultimate if it is available?
Isn't that essentially what the El Al captain did back in the 70s?

[Milo]

>
> A tall tale. If another aircraft really had eyeballed "AF1" and called up
> as stated, the AF1 pilot would have just ignored the call.
>
> Also very unlikely that any other aircraft would be able to get into visual
> range -- AF1 would have deviated to maintain greater separation. They do
> have better than average radar, you know. :-

Thats what I thought. Also, I just realized how stupid it sounds
saying that I assume TFRs are in place wherever AF1 goes, but I do
assume there is some sort of TFRthingamajig overseas.

[Lynn Melrose]

Gary Mishler wrote:

> "Jay Somerset" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > A tall tale. If another aircraft really had eyeballed "AF1" and called up
> > as stated, the AF1 pilot would have just ignored the call.
>
> It's been widely reported in both broadcast and print media and has been
> confirmed through gov't sources. Knight Ridder Newspapers even printed a
> quote from the AF1 captain. No one is trying to keep it a secret.

Pilots Didn't Radio Air Force One, Airline Says
WASHINGTON POST Page A03

"We have spoken to the British Airways captains who were in the area at the
time and neither made comments to Air Force One nor did they hear any other
aircraft make the statement over the radio," Verrier said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26718-2003Dec1.html

[Big John]

mateo

Not sure. Todays pilots and airline Companies don't want to do it as I
read. :o(

Big John

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Mateo > wrote:

>Big John wrote:
>
>> I want to put together an agenda where airline pilots will load and
>> unload the bird if it is hi-jacked (hi-jackers have no access to
>> cockpit).
>>
>> No aileron (bank) or rudder (yaw) inputs other than what is need to
>> keep bird on a straight line. Only elevator input with a clean bird
>> (no flaps, etc.).
>>
>> The figures given seem to be about 2.5 +G's and 1.5 -G's. I'm not sure
>> those are the figures I want? Are these 'company' figures for
>> passenger comfort or airframe longevity or the manufactures structural
>> limits that should not be exceeded at any time? Also what is design
>> ultimate if it is available?
>Isn't that essentially what the El Al captain did back in the 70s?

[ShawnD2112]

This method was discussed quite a lot in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and
both Boeing and Airbus tested it out in the simulators. The presentation I
got from them both was that this was not a viable option. It may have, and
may will, work in exceptional circumstances in an isolated case, but their
view was that it wasn't worth developing a procedure and training pilots to
do it. A bulletproof door on the cockpit was a much better solution.

Shawn
"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> mateo
>
> Not sure. Todays pilots and airline Companies don't want to do it as I
> read. :o(
>
> Big John
>
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Mateo > wrote:
>
> >Big John wrote:
> >
> >> I want to put together an agenda where airline pilots will load and
> >> unload the bird if it is hi-jacked (hi-jackers have no access to
> >> cockpit).
> >>
> >> No aileron (bank) or rudder (yaw) inputs other than what is need to
> >> keep bird on a straight line. Only elevator input with a clean bird
> >> (no flaps, etc.).
> >>
> >> The figures given seem to be about 2.5 +G's and 1.5 -G's. I'm not sure
> >> those are the figures I want? Are these 'company' figures for
> >> passenger comfort or airframe longevity or the manufactures structural
> >> limits that should not be exceeded at any time? Also what is design
> >> ultimate if it is available?
> >Isn't that essentially what the El Al captain did back in the 70s?
>

[Brien K. Meehan]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message >...
> Given the incessant and "uncontrolled" leakage that goes on these days,
> Everyone should note that no one (NO ONE) in Congress was informed, and only
> a few hand picked press who were on the craft.

Actually, they weren't hand picked.

They were just whoever was on the list for White House media pool duty.

[lance smith]

Turns out this didn't quite happen as reported. A slight juggling of
facts and a nice story hits the airwaves. Still unfolding.

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/370183|oddlyenough|12-04-2003::10:07|reuters.html

-lance smith


(Milo) wrote in message >...
> The news mentioned that while AF1 was enroute to Baghdad Int., a
> British Airways pilot saw AF1 and asked (on the horn) "is that AF1?".
> Then AF1s' pilot responded "No, it's a Gulfstream". At first I
> thought that was funny but then after thinking about it, I'm wordering
> how true this is. First of all, did that BA pilot have binoculars?
> How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> wherever AF1 goes in the world. ***I just thought of something as I
> was typing this, maybe there was no TFR because Pres. Bush "wasn't
> onboard" and it wouldn't have offically been AF1, as far as call sign
> and ATC goes, at the time.*** Secondly, if none of that is the case,
> why would the BA pilot would ask that question over the radio and what
> are the chances the 2 aircraft would be on the same freq.? Just
> wondering and speculating, not that it matters either way. If this
> did happen, the pilot of AF1 has a great way of saying "Shut the hell
> up man, this isn't what you think" wink wink. Very funny.

[Margy Natalie]

> > How did he see AF1 with the TFR in place, I assume they are in effect
> > wherever AF1 goes in the world.

I don't think the US has that much power that they can get other nations to play the silly airspace
games we go through here.

Margy

[Big John]

Shawn

I'd love to get the final report of their testing to compare with my
years of experience with both plus and negative G's.

Any idea where I might get same?

My second suggestion is to dump the cabin pressure and drop the masks.
If the terroriests have to put on a mask they will be limited to the
2-3 foot hose length from ceiling to mask. Would limit their activity
in cabin.

All of the things I would propose, together would stop any action in
cabin on the part of terroriests I believe?

Have a nice day.

Big John


On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:18:16 -0000, "ShawnD2112"
> wrote:

>This method was discussed quite a lot in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and
>both Boeing and Airbus tested it out in the simulators. The presentation I
>got from them both was that this was not a viable option. It may have, and
>may will, work in exceptional circumstances in an isolated case, but their
>view was that it wasn't worth developing a procedure and training pilots to
>do it. A bulletproof door on the cockpit was a much better solution.
>
>Shawn
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> mateo
>>
>> Not sure. Todays pilots and airline Companies don't want to do it as I
>> read. :o(
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Mateo > wrote:
>>
>> >Big John wrote:
>> >
>> >> I want to put together an agenda where airline pilots will load and
>> >> unload the bird if it is hi-jacked (hi-jackers have no access to
>> >> cockpit).
>> >>
>> >> No aileron (bank) or rudder (yaw) inputs other than what is need to
>> >> keep bird on a straight line. Only elevator input with a clean bird
>> >> (no flaps, etc.).
>> >>
>> >> The figures given seem to be about 2.5 +G's and 1.5 -G's. I'm not sure
>> >> those are the figures I want? Are these 'company' figures for
>> >> passenger comfort or airframe longevity or the manufactures structural
>> >> limits that should not be exceeded at any time? Also what is design
>> >> ultimate if it is available?
>> >Isn't that essentially what the El Al captain did back in the 70s?
>>
>

[Robert Moore]

Big John wrote

> All of the things I would propose, together would stop any
> action in cabin on the part of terroriests I believe?

John, all of these things have been proposed and discussed at
length by various committees of the ALPA and FAA for as far
back as hijackings have occured. Despite the fact that I was
never an ALPA member (against my religion), ALPA has probably
done more for aircarrier safety than has the FAA. Those pilots
really are concerned about their own butts.

Bob Moore

[Big John]

Bob

These are part of a proposal I put together right after 9/11(well
before any committees were selected and started their delibertations).

I'll go back and start through the system and see what I can find on
the subject and who said what and why..

As an aside, I'm also pursuing the proposal that ball point pens be
banned from the cabin..I demonstrated to my Representative that I
could take one and kill an individual faster then is possible with
nail clippers or a pen knife.

Tnx for the info.

Big John


On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:39:49 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote:

>Big John wrote
>
>> All of the things I would propose, together would stop any
>> action in cabin on the part of terroriests I believe?
>
>John, all of these things have been proposed and discussed at
>length by various committees of the ALPA and FAA for as far
>back as hijackings have occured. Despite the fact that I was
>never an ALPA member (against my religion), ALPA has probably
>done more for aircarrier safety than has the FAA. Those pilots
>really are concerned about their own butts.
>
>Bob Moore

[Big John]

Bob

Naw, read close. Johns my good buddy.

He also votes to cancel Miss Jackson-Lee's votes <G>

Big John

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:01:52 -0500, "Bob Chilcoat"
> wrote:

>You killed your Representative with a ball point pen?! Way to go!