A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

bushies file illegal flight plan



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 03, 03:24 AM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."
  #2  
Old December 8th 03, 03:40 AM
Bob McKellar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

  #3  
Old December 8th 03, 03:49 AM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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
  #4  
Old December 8th 03, 08:03 PM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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
  #5  
Old December 8th 03, 08:08 PM
Jim H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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





  #6  
Old December 8th 03, 08:10 PM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From the official white house.gov website:

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

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

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

========================
Luckily, it was only a little white lie.
  #7  
Old December 8th 03, 08:14 PM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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

Gordon
  #8  
Old December 8th 03, 10:55 PM
Stephen Harding
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jarg wrote:

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


I think JT got his threads crossed.


SMH

  #9  
Old December 9th 03, 12:13 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

Nope, still have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you

haven't
carefully examined this thread.


I think JT got his threads crossed.


Sorry.


  #10  
Old December 9th 03, 12:40 AM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim H wrote:

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


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

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




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk Jehad Internet Military Aviation 0 February 7th 04 05:24 AM
bushies file illegal flight plan Bob Dornier Military Aviation 19 December 10th 03 04:29 AM
bushies file illegal flight plan JamesF1110 Naval Aviation 1 December 8th 03 01:06 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.