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
  #21  
Old December 10th 03, 07:11 PM
Jim H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...

the President in general. For Christ's sake - do you think filing as
a G-V has any real material difference on a flight of this type?


Considering that post 9/11, filing a fake flight plane might
result in being shot down, it seems to be relevant enough.



I would venture a guess they were little friends in the vecenity to prevent
said shootdown...


Jim



  #22  
Old December 11th 03, 06:02 AM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.....


Really depends on whether I was passing over Kabul or transiting over the
Atlantic.

Gordon
  #23  
Old December 11th 03, 05:10 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nt (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.


Uhm, if I may - I can think of a solution that would provide:
1) Adequate security as to the President's wherabouts
2) Allow filing a flight plan that is accurate, without revealing that
the President is aboard.

Remember that there's no Rule, Regulation, or Law that says that the
aircraft that the President's on has to be Air Force
[Navy/Marine/Army] 1.
Or that that callsign is only used when the President's on board.

That use is custom/habit, not law.

Step 1: File a flight plan for the VC-25 as, say, BIGMAC 1234, a VC-25
on some manner of normal, non-Presidential flight.

Step 2: Publish a NOTAM that states that the President will be
travelling,
and that VC-37 (Gulfstream V) will be flying under the callsign of
"Air Force 1".

(The VC-25s go all manner of places ferrying People Other Than the
President. An example would be the use of one of the VC-137s by Henry
Kissenger during the lead-in to the Moscow & Peking visits. (VC-137
stages to French base that houses the French KC-135s, and is parked
among 'em, so it doesn't stand out.
Hank K. with Jill St. John on his arm, flies to Paris and checks into
a Ritzy Hotel, where they enter a suite & draw the shades. Thus,
nobody
expects him to sneak out the back door, into an umarked French Govt.
car,
which shuttles him to Orly, where, the French President's Mystere 20
(Falcon Bizjet, for us USAnians), on a Routine Proficiency Flight to
the
KC-135 base. H.K. boards the VC-137, which takes off for the Neutral
Location used for teh negotiations. (After dark, of course, to fool
the Planespotters.) No misfiled flight plans, and everybody has Jolly
Fun.
(Including Jill St. John, who has all the advantages of being shacked
up
in a Paris Hotel with the Secretary of State with having Henry
Kissinger
around))

The scenario unfolds thusly -
Somewhere over the Storm Tossed Atlantic, a sharp-eyed First Officer
('cos everybody knows that the Captains all wear glasses, and are too
busy checkign their Stock Portfolios) spots the VC-25. The spotting
airplane calls ARTCC, and asks if they've seen "Air Force 1." ARTCC
looks up the NOTAM, and
replies that Air Force 1 is a Gulfstream, today. Now, if they askes
if
they'd seem a VC-25, or a USAF 747, I wonder what kind of answer
they'd have received.

At least, that's how I'd do it, if they'd asked me.

--
Pete Stickney
  #24  
Old January 8th 04, 10:41 PM
DBurch7672
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


  #25  
Old January 9th 04, 02:36 AM
Yeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 08 Jan 2004 22:41:43 GMT, DBurch7672 wrote:

Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de facto,
"Air Force One"!


There's also Army One, Navy One, Marine One and Executive One.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com
  #26  
Old January 9th 04, 05:05 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DBurch7672" wrote in message
...

Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de

facto,
"Air Force One"!


No, only an Air Force aircraft becomes Air Force One.


  #27  
Old January 9th 04, 05:11 AM
Ogden Johnson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yeff wrote:

On 08 Jan 2004 22:41:43 GMT, DBurch7672 wrote:


Actually, I thought *any* plane with the President on board became, de facto,
"Air Force One"!


There's also Army One, Navy One, Marine One and Executive One.


Don't forget Coast Guard One. Executive One covers any non-Army,
USMC, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard government aircraft the Pres
flies in. I don't know when the last President flew in a
civilian/commercial aircraft - prolly dates back to or before Ike's
Columbine days. I suspect, with no basis for it other than 40+ years
of government watching from the inside and outside, that if one did
fly civilian, they'd use the Executive One call.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
  #28  
Old January 9th 04, 05:24 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...

Don't forget Coast Guard One.


When the President is aboard a military aircraft, the callsign becomes the
name of the military service, followed by the word "One." Whether or not a
Coast Guard aircraft is considered a military aircraft is open to debate.
While the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have all flown the President, I
don't believe the Coast Guard ever has.



Executive One covers any non-Army,
USMC, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard government aircraft the Pres
flies in.


Ececutive One is the callsign of any civil aircraft carrying the President.



I don't know when the last President flew in a
civilian/commercial aircraft - prolly dates back to or before Ike's
Columbine days. I suspect, with no basis for it other than 40+ years
of government watching from the inside and outside, that if one did
fly civilian, they'd use the Executive One call.


Nixon traveled aboard a civil airliner once during the first gas crunch.


  #29  
Old January 12th 04, 02:14 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven- Whether or not a
Coast Guard aircraft is considered a military aircraft is open to debate.
BRBR


I think the USCG people that have served in the last conflicts, like VietNam,
and Desert 'wars' would disagree with you.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #30  
Old January 12th 04, 02:50 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

I think the USCG people that have served in the last conflicts, like

VietNam,
and Desert 'wars' would disagree with you.


That's essentially what debate is.


 




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 02:26 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 04:24 AM
bushies file illegal flight plan Bob Dornier Military Aviation 19 December 10th 03 03:29 AM
bushies file illegal flight plan JamesF1110 Naval Aviation 1 December 8th 03 12:06 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:45 PM.


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