playing nice with Air Force One

[Cubdriver]

I've been grounded by a mighty TFR that began at 3pm yesterday.
Evidently Bush 43 is having a weekend at Bush 41's house in
Kennebunkport. So I took my binocs and my radio down to the dock and
waited for the various Ones to do their thing.

First there was a helo sweep of Great Bay, I think by the Coast Guard
because there was a red-orange flash on the aircraft.

Then a grimy gray airliner took off on 34, the usual runway because it
leads away from Portsmouth. Shortly thereafter a voice on the radio
says "We are conducting a sweep of the runway at this time." Gotta
love it: at this time! What were they looking for, debris from the
airliner's tires.

Then Air Force One called in on a 12 mile base leg. The air was a bit
misty so I didn't see it until final. What a huge mother! You don't
often see 747s at Pease International Tradeport, formerly Pease Air
Force Base.

But here's the cute thing: the controllers at Pease (or Portsmouth, as
they generally refer to themselves these days) are always impressed by
their military connection, and they invariably say: "Check wheels
down" to the incoming pilot, even if it's a Cessna 172. But not to Air
Force One! It was the prevailing wind and "Cleared to land." So even
an air traffic controller can be awed by the trappings of power.

Evidently it doesn't take a president long to inspect Pease
International Tradeport! About fifteen minutes after Air Force One
landed, Marine One called ready for takeoff. But by that time the deer
flies were getting to me, and I was indoors.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Peter R.]

On 6/29/2007 6:04:01 AM, Cubdriver wrote:

<snip>
> But by that time the deer flies were getting to me, and I was indoors.


Enjoyed your entertaining story. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

--
Peter

[Kingfish]

On Jun 29, 6:04 am, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote:

<snip Presidential aviating story>

I recall seeing AFOne fly into PVD (Providence) in '99 when I was
doing my instrument training. It was a shock to see something that big
fly into an airport that normally accomodates 737/757 traffic.

Sucks being grounded because the Commander in Cheese is visiting.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> said:
>leads away from Portsmouth. Shortly thereafter a voice on the radio
>says "We are conducting a sweep of the runway at this time." Gotta
>love it: at this time! What were they looking for, debris from the
>airliner's tires.

Not an unbelievable thing to do. Just ask the victims of the one and only
Concorde crash if they would have appreciated somebody doing a FOD sweep
after that Continental departure ahead of them?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Compared to system administration, being cursed forever is a step up.
-- Paul Tomko

[[email protected]]

> Just ask the victims of the one and only
> Concorde crash if they would have appreciated somebody doing a FOD sweep
> after that Continental departure ahead of them?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin /
> Compared to system administration, being cursed forever is a step up.
> -- Paul Tomko

Kind of hard to do considering they are all dead...

[Steve Schneider]

Cubdriver wrote:
>
>
> But here's the cute thing: the controllers at Pease (or Portsmouth, as
> they generally refer to themselves these days) are always impressed by
> their military connection, and they invariably say: "Check wheels
> down" to the incoming pilot, even if it's a Cessna 172. But not to Air
> Force One! It was the prevailing wind and "Cleared to land." So even
> an air traffic controller can be awed by the trappings of power.
>

I learend to fly at NAS Alameda as a dependent in their flying club.
Normally an enlisted man with binoculars would be stationed at the
approach end of the runway with the sole job of visually checking that
each aircaft had their gear down. It was only when this station was not
manned that the tower was required to say 'Check wheels down' to which
we invariably replied 'Gear down and welded' for the fixed gear GA
aircraft. It is quite possible that for Air Force One there may have
been someone on the ground who verfied the gear were down and thus the
tower did not have to ask them to check.

Steve

[AJ]

On Jun 29, 11:16 am, wrote:
> > Just ask the victims of the one and only
> > Concorde crash if they would have appreciated somebody doing a FOD sweep
> > after that Continental departure ahead of them?
>
> > --
> > Paul Tomblin /
> > Compared to system administration, being cursed forever is a step up.
> > -- Paul Tomko
>
> Kind of hard to do considering they are all dead...

Just yell out the question real loud.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>> Just ask the victims of the one and only
>> Concorde crash if they would have appreciated somebody doing a FOD sweep
>> after that Continental departure ahead of them?
>
>Kind of hard to do considering they are all dead...

That was my point.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Like the man said: "Nothing good ever goes in /opt."
-- Tim Foreman

[Dave S]

Steve Schneider wrote:
> Cubdriver wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> But here's the cute thing: the controllers at Pease (or Portsmouth, as
>> they generally refer to themselves these days) are always impressed by
>> their military connection, and they invariably say: "Check wheels
>> down" to the incoming pilot, even if it's a Cessna 172. But not to Air
>> Force One! It was the prevailing wind and "Cleared to land." So even
>> an air traffic controller can be awed by the trappings of power.
>>
>
> I learend to fly at NAS Alameda as a dependent in their flying club.
> Normally an enlisted man with binoculars would be stationed at the
> approach end of the runway with the sole job of visually checking that
> each aircaft had their gear down. It was only when this station was not
> manned that the tower was required to say 'Check wheels down' to which
> we invariably replied 'Gear down and welded' for the fixed gear GA
> aircraft. It is quite possible that for Air Force One there may have
> been someone on the ground who verfied the gear were down and thus the
> tower did not have to ask them to check.
>
> Steve

At Ellington here in Houston, it's a joint tower (busiest by USAF
standards allegedly). They almost always say it.. wether its civil
traffic or military.

Dave

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

When Bush 43 paid a visit here the Coast Guard had a Dolphin flying
sniper support for the motorcade. They made several passes over my
house since I live close to the airport (KATW). The sniper was hanging
out the door with his big rifle. During the motorcade through town,
several workers at a local paper company were standing on the roof of
their building...the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
or they would be shot...the Secret Service entered the building within
seconds of the warning to investigate. There were some scared and
embarrassed workers.

I learned to fly at Scott AFB (KBLV), "check wheels down" was standard
in the clearance to land statement. More airports need to do the same,
several unintentional wheels up landings could have been prevented. I
always responded "down and welded" sputtering along in my C-172.

[BT]

Dan.. I saw the TFR... utterly ridicules for so much airspace.
But it gives a good chance to mow that grass runway and Hampton..
I see the same cubs are still there that I flew back in '82.
I need to get home more often.

BT

"Cubdriver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
>
> I've been grounded by a mighty TFR that began at 3pm yesterday.
> Evidently Bush 43 is having a weekend at Bush 41's house in
> Kennebunkport. So I took my binocs and my radio down to the dock and
> waited for the various Ones to do their thing.
>
> First there was a helo sweep of Great Bay, I think by the Coast Guard
> because there was a red-orange flash on the aircraft.
>
> Then a grimy gray airliner took off on 34, the usual runway because it
> leads away from Portsmouth. Shortly thereafter a voice on the radio
> says "We are conducting a sweep of the runway at this time." Gotta
> love it: at this time! What were they looking for, debris from the
> airliner's tires.
>
> Then Air Force One called in on a 12 mile base leg. The air was a bit
> misty so I didn't see it until final. What a huge mother! You don't
> often see 747s at Pease International Tradeport, formerly Pease Air
> Force Base.
>
> But here's the cute thing: the controllers at Pease (or Portsmouth, as
> they generally refer to themselves these days) are always impressed by
> their military connection, and they invariably say: "Check wheels
> down" to the incoming pilot, even if it's a Cessna 172. But not to Air
> Force One! It was the prevailing wind and "Cleared to land." So even
> an air traffic controller can be awed by the trappings of power.
>
> Evidently it doesn't take a president long to inspect Pease
> International Tradeport! About fifteen minutes after Air Force One
> landed, Marine One called ready for takeoff. But by that time the deer
> flies were getting to me, and I was indoors.
>
> Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
>
> Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
> forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Jun 29, 1:58 pm, Dave S > wrote:

> At Ellington here in Houston, it's a joint tower (busiest by USAF
> standards allegedly). They almost always say it.. wether its civil
> traffic or military.
>
> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>

Albuquerque is a joint tower, and every time I appraoched with the
landing lights off they asked me to check the gear.

[Dave S]

Hawkeye wrote:
..the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
> or they would be shot..

I have a problem with this. They were breaking no laws. The SS can come
and check if they want, but there is a constituional right to peaceably
assemble. And this is PRIVATE property no less.

[Mxsmanic]

Hawkeye writes:

> When Bush 43 paid a visit here the Coast Guard had a Dolphin flying
> sniper support for the motorcade. They made several passes over my
> house since I live close to the airport (KATW). The sniper was hanging
> out the door with his big rifle. During the motorcade through town,
> several workers at a local paper company were standing on the roof of
> their building...the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
> or they would be shot...the Secret Service entered the building within
> seconds of the warning to investigate. There were some scared and
> embarrassed workers.

What legal basis does the Secret Service or anyone have to shoot someone
watching from a rooftop?

[Mike Schumann]

National Security!

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Hawkeye writes:
>
>> When Bush 43 paid a visit here the Coast Guard had a Dolphin flying
>> sniper support for the motorcade. They made several passes over my
>> house since I live close to the airport (KATW). The sniper was hanging
>> out the door with his big rifle. During the motorcade through town,
>> several workers at a local paper company were standing on the roof of
>> their building...the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
>> or they would be shot...the Secret Service entered the building within
>> seconds of the warning to investigate. There were some scared and
>> embarrassed workers.
>
> What legal basis does the Secret Service or anyone have to shoot someone
> watching from a rooftop?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Schumann writes:

> National Security!

Cite the actual law that allows people on rooftops to be shot.

[Jay Honeck]

> No on was hurt, but the T-34 was only a week out of a complete
> restoration.

It's even worse when it's a P-51 Mustang. Saw it happen at Davenport,
Iowa a few years ago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> .the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
>
> > or they would be shot..
>
> I have a problem with this. They were breaking no laws. The SS can come
> and check if they want, but there is a constituional right to peaceably
> assemble. And this is PRIVATE property no less.

I doubt they used those exact words.

The secret service CAN be brusque (I had a run-in on the ramp with
them when John Edwards -- a nuthin' nobody -- brought a TFR down on
Des Moines, during the last election, and the SS guys were quite
firm), but they aren't stupid. They're not about to shout "Get in the
building or we'll shoot you!"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>The secret service CAN be brusque (I had a run-in on the ramp with
>them when John Edwards -- a nuthin' nobody -- brought a TFR down on
>Des Moines, during the last election, and the SS guys were quite
>firm), but they aren't stupid. They're not about to shout "Get in the
>building or we'll shoot you!"

During the 1999 election season, before Rudy Gulliani withdrew from the
senate race, I taxied in between Hillary and Rudy's planes at Prior
Aviation in Buffalo. No TFR, no threats. A phalanx of black SUVs were
meeting Hillary's Gulfstream (which had "UNITED STATES" painted on it in
large letters), but other than that it was just another arrival.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
---------------- hit any user to continue ----------------

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Schumann writes:
>
>> National Security!
>
> Cite the actual law that allows people on rooftops to be shot.

You want to know, YOU look it up and tell us.

-----------------------------------------------
DW

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:53:40 -0700, Kingfish >
wrote:

>
>Sucks being grounded because the Commander in Cheese is visiting.

Turns out that his houseguest is Putin, which may explain why the TFR
is continuous until Dubya leaves on July 2. Usually they draw it up
after him, an hour or so after he leaves for Kennebunkport, and Pease
(and more important to me, Hampton Airport) are opened until he's
ready to go home again.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Cubdriver]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:30:11 -0700, Hawkeye > wrote:

>The sniper was hanging
>out the door with his big rifle.

Well, I'm awfully glad I was flying the American flag, in that case.
Here I was with binoculars and an aircraft radio ...

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
forthcoming from HarperCollins www.flyingtigersbook.com

[Jim Logajan]

Dave S > wrote:
> Hawkeye wrote:
> .the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
>> or they would be shot..
>
> I have a problem with this. They were breaking no laws. The SS can come
> and check if they want, but there is a constituional right to peaceably
> assemble. And this is PRIVATE property no less.

I thought about responding to Hawkeye's version of events, but figured it
was so absurd there was no reason respond. Unless they were handing out
industrial-strength stupid pills to the Secret Service agents that day,
there is no way they would have ordered people legally on private property
to do anything - and certainly not threaten to shoot them via a
loudspeaker. And entering private property without consent of the owner
when no laws were being broken? The SS has been handed their ass in court
for even less abusive behavior than that - when they got caught.

If the SS did all that Hawkeye claimed, and nobody bothered to bring legal
action against the SS agents, then somebody must have handed out
industrial-strength stupid pills to the citizens that day.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:25:20 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote:

>Dave S > wrote:
>> Hawkeye wrote:
>> .the helo over a loudspeaker told them to get inside
>>> or they would be shot..
>>
>> I have a problem with this. They were breaking no laws. The SS can come
>> and check if they want, but there is a constituional right to peaceably
>> assemble. And this is PRIVATE property no less.
>
>I thought about responding to Hawkeye's version of events, but figured it
>was so absurd there was no reason respond. Unless they were handing out
>industrial-strength stupid pills to the Secret Service agents that day,
>there is no way they would have ordered people legally on private property
>to do anything....

One occasional participant in this newsgroup used to live in a house in the
midwest. A presidential motorcade was scheduled to pass by, so he plopped
himself down in his own front yard with a homemade sign critical of the
president. HE was told to remove the sign, go back in the house, or he'd be
arrested. On his own private property.

Damn straight they can arrest you. They handcuff you, haul you to jail, stick
you in a cell for eight hours, then turn you loose without charging you.
Sue...if you can afford it.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Logajan]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> Damn straight they can arrest you. They handcuff you, haul you to
> jail, stick you in a cell for eight hours, then turn you loose without
> charging you. Sue...if you can afford it.

Yes, they do these things when they can get away with it. But threatening a
crowd with deadly force over a loudspeaker? Presumably there would have
been plenty of witnesses.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>One occasional participant in this newsgroup used to live in a house in the
>midwest. A presidential motorcade was scheduled to pass by, so he plopped
>himself down in his own front yard with a homemade sign critical of the
>president. HE was told to remove the sign, go back in the house, or he'd be
>arrested. On his own private property.

Then they would have had to arrest me. What nonsense is that in
America.

Ron Lee

[Ken Finney]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> >One occasional participant in this newsgroup used to live in a house in
> >the
>>midwest. A presidential motorcade was scheduled to pass by, so he plopped
>>himself down in his own front yard with a homemade sign critical of the
>>president. HE was told to remove the sign, go back in the house, or he'd
>>be
>>arrested. On his own private property.
>
> Then they would have had to arrest me. What nonsense is that in
> America.
>

And if you do nothing else, you'd be out the next day and the best you can
hope for is that your neighbors/employer/customers would here that you have
been taken in for creating a nuisance. If you start making verbal threats
(which most people seem to do in these situations), that is assault of a
federal agent. And these aren't new laws, either. Better hope that they
aren't federal marshals; there was a person in the 1980s that verbally
assaulted a federal marshall, and when he (she?) blew off the court notice
thinking it was like a traffic ticket, was arrested. It's an old law from
the 19th century, but if you are convicted of assaulting a federal marshall,
you are not allowed to appeal the conviction until you have served the
sentence! The person spent several years in prison and had their life
destroyed. IIRC, the whole thing started because the federal marshalls
parked in front of the person's store, and he (she?) was afraid that the
presence of the marshalls (in a marked car) was driving customers away.

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> Damn straight they can arrest you. They handcuff you, haul you to jail, stick
> you in a cell for eight hours, then turn you loose without charging you.
> Sue...if you can afford it.

Or hire a press agent--cheaper and possibly more effective.

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> You want to know, YOU look it up and tell us.

There is no such law.

[Judah]

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> If the SS did all that Hawkeye claimed, and nobody bothered to bring
> legal action against the SS agents, then somebody must have handed out
> industrial-strength stupid pills to the citizens that day.

They may not be able to shoot people off the tops of buildings (yet). But
I bet the SS could certainly arrest them, and detain them indefinitely as
terrorist suspects. The "perpetrators" sat in positions that might be
used by sniper terrorists to execute an attack on the President, and were
therefore an obvious threat to National Security.

It was the private security force of another historic leader that started a
similar trend in the 30's and 40's. They even used the same initials. But
their camps weren't in Cuba, and I don't think we're using our detainees as
slaves. It seems like we get closer and closer every day.

Terror is a powerful force. More powerful than airplanes.

I'll tell you this - if our SS starts buying their black suits from Hugo
Boss, I'm heading for the hills!

'Heil Dubya!'

[Judah]

Cubdriver <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in
:

> Then a grimy gray airliner took off on 34, the usual runway because it
> leads away from Portsmouth. Shortly thereafter a voice on the radio
> says "We are conducting a sweep of the runway at this time." Gotta
> love it: at this time! What were they looking for, debris from the
> airliner's tires.

No - they're sweeping up all the bulls&*^% left behind by the Bush Family
loose lips.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike Schumann writes:
>
>> National Security!
>
> Cite the actual law that allows people on rooftops to be shot.
>

Why, looking for an excuse, postal bankrtuptcy boi?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> They may not be able to shoot people off the tops of buildings (yet). But
> I bet the SS could certainly arrest them, and detain them indefinitely as
> terrorist suspects.

Detention is not conviction. On what legal basis would they arrest them?
Being on a roof does not make one a terrorist.

> The "perpetrators" sat in positions that might be
> used by sniper terrorists to execute an attack on the President, and were
> therefore an obvious threat to National Security.

How much of a threat are they with no weapons?

> It was the private security force of another historic leader that started a
> similar trend in the 30's and 40's. They even used the same initials. But
> their camps weren't in Cuba, and I don't think we're using our detainees as
> slaves. It seems like we get closer and closer every day.

If nobody objects, the evolution in that direction is natural.

> Terror is a powerful force. More powerful than airplanes.

Goering agreed.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> They may not be able to shoot people off the tops of buildings (yet).
>> But I bet the SS could certainly arrest them, and detain them
>> indefinitely as terrorist suspects.
>
> Detention is not conviction. On what legal basis would they arrest
> them? Being on a roof does not make one a terrorist.

Camping on the roof again after your eviction, bankruptcy boi?


Bertie
>
>> The "perpetrators" sat in positions that might be
>> used by sniper terrorists to execute an attack on the President, and
>> were therefore an obvious threat to National Security.
>
> How much of a threat are they with no weapons?
>
>> It was the private security force of another historic leader that
>> started a similar trend in the 30's and 40's. They even used the same
>> initials. But their camps weren't in Cuba, and I don't think we're
>> using our detainees as slaves. It seems like we get closer and closer
>> every day.
>
> If nobody objects, the evolution in that direction is natural.
>
>> Terror is a powerful force. More powerful than airplanes.
>
> Goering agreed.
>

Aww, nazi argument.

Yer so kwt!


Bertie

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Detention is not conviction. On what legal basis would they arrest
> them? Being on a roof does not make one a terrorist.

They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute without
ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point becomes
irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been demonstrated already.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html#eight

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute without
> ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point becomes
> irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been demonstrated already.

Is it Constitutional?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute
>> without ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point
>> becomes irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been demonstrated
>> already.
>
> Is it Constitutional?

Exactly.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> They would detain them indefintely using the Material Witness Statute
>> without ever having to even bring charges. Conviction at that point
>> becomes irrelevant. It's a pattern of abuse that has been
>> demonstrated already.
>
> Is it Constitutional?
>

Why< you gonna blow then up if it ain't terrorist boi?

Bertie