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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |