bushies file illegal flight plan

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 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, 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

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

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

"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.

"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]

"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?

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?

"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