bushies file illegal flight plan

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

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?

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

"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.

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

"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?

"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