Comments for Aviation photo ops.

Aviation photo ops.

2009-04-28T13:08:00Z

I had an interesting email discussion with an about-to-deploy to a sandbox soldier of my acquaintance:

So....we have FRGs to lessen our worries about the homefront when we're deployed. We do all sorts of stuff before we deploy to lessen our worries about the homefront when we're deployed. Once we're deployed, we have ample opportunity to call/email/webcam home to lesson our worries about the homefront when we're deployed.

But what to we do to lessen our worries when we're convinced our leaders are hard at work destroying from within the country we're defending? Especially when our observation convinces us the top level of leadership is composed entirely of idiots?

If it wasn't an actual Presidential decision, I think it's still starkly reflective of the abilities and judgement, or lack thereof, of the people he has staffed the White House with. Actually, from the initial coverage I read/saw, I got the impression that the Pres was on board the aircraft in question.

If he wasn't, why all the secret squirrel games with local agencies? They should have broadcast it on TV, radio, etc, so they wouldn't freak people out. As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, "The country's in the best of hands."

Me, I'm a fan of airshows. I like it when airplanes fly low and slow overhead. But I usually know they're coming, having been advertised and all.

There have been those who argue that America has returned to a 9/10 mindset. Perhaps. In some ways, we're certainly returning the approach to the Overseas Contingency Operations Against Persons With Strong Antipathy to the US (OCOAPSAUS) to that of fully-Mirandized law enforcement activity - with exceptions. Hey, we were promised change. And, in fact, not all the change is bad.

That said - reading this account of the event over at the NYT City Room, you can see that while perhaps not exactly a 9/10 mindset at work, it's certainly not one that was thinking in a larger context.

In fact, one aspect of the post 9/11 mindset added to the problem - the secrecy about the whereabouts of the Air Force One fleet.

Do I think President Obama had any knowledge of this? Prolly not. Again, one would hope that he's not having to see/make/approve every decision made by every official in the Administration - though he's probably starting to get a glimmer about something that he's never really faced before - as the Executive (vice, say, a legislator and community organizer) he *is* responsible for the decisions made in his name. Something he's probably not had to deal with much, before, being able to hide in the crowd of fellow legislators when he needed to. He's responsible for the people he named to make those delegated decisions.

Former undistinguished Secretary of the Army under President Clinton and current ~~lightning rod~~ Director of the White House Military Office Louis Caldera, dutifully stood tall on the curb and threw himself under the bus:

For Immediate Release April 27, 2009

Statement from Louis Caldera, Director White House Military Office, on Air Force One flight over New York

“Last week, I approved a mission over New York . I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey , it’s clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused.”

So, what's the real lesson of this event? Aside from "do a better job of coordination?" Simple. While we may want to return to the false security of 9/10, 9/11 lurks just under the surface, and will bite this administration in the throat should something happen.

Just like our wounded guineas and the hen with PTSD, people in the region of New York and DC had a significant emotional event with a deeply embedded memory.

“People came pouring out of the buildings, the American Express Building, all the buildings in the financial district by the water,” said Edward Acker, a photographer who was at the building, 3 World Financial Center. “And even the construction guys over by 100 North End Avenue area, they all got out of their buildings. Nobody knew about it. Finally some guy showed up with a little megaphone to tell everyone it was a test, but the people were not happy. The people who were here 9/11 were not happy.”

Mr. Acker added: “New York City police were standing right there and they had no knowledge of it. The evacuations were spontaneous. Guys from the floor came out, and one guy I talked to was just shaking.”...

In Jersey City, construction workers were evacuated from a condominium tower under construction at 77 Hudson Street.

The workers, who were on the 32nd floor of the construction site, said the plane circled three times past the Goldman Sachs tower, the tallest building in New Jersey. On the second pass, they said, the jet appeared to be only a few dozen feet from the building — close enough to clip the side of the skyscraper. A fighter followed right behind, mirroring its moves....

Sidney Bordley, a floor director in an office building at 1 Battery Park Place, said, “People were running out of the office, claiming they saw a commercial flight being pursued by F-16’s.” He added, “There was some confusion and a little excitement.”

A group of financial services workers, who were gathered outside the same building but declined to give their names, described their reactions. “I saw the landing gear and I was out of here,” one said. Another said: “There were people in my elevator, sweating and shaking. There were women crying. It was not an experience to be taken lightly.”

Imagine how pissed they're going to be if something actually *happens* vice just appears to happen.

And what is it with this country that 8 years on, the WTC is just a hole in the ground? 30 years ago, we'd have rebuilt just to spite them.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-29

2009-04-29T18:09:01Z

Regardless of whether or not proper procedures were followed, The Won has already decided that someone needs to be thrown under the bus.

I'm thinking the sacrificial victim(s) will be wearing blue suits...

Comment from AFSister on 2009-04-29

2009-04-29T17:19:16Z

Sure, it wasn't a very well thought out decision, BUT... they *did* follow notification protocol. Seems to me the breakdown came *after* the notice was sent to NYC, because the people who got the message never delivered it to those who really needed to know- the New York police, mayor, and all residents.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-29

2009-04-29T15:30:56Z

I think this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. Yes, it was stupid to scare people by flying an airliner unannounced near a national landmark. But...that's all that happened. They made a bad judgement call and scared some people. Oops. Compared to the bad judgement of, say, wasting a trillion dollars on useless garbage, or prostrating ourselves before our enemies, this doesn't even rate.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-04-29

2009-04-29T11:34:27Z

They might have had photogs on the ground, say on Liberty Island, to get the statue in the forground with the VC behind/above it.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-04-29

2009-04-29T05:45:37Z

Gates of Vienna had this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn0tMMYEkQU

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-04-28

2009-04-29T04:11:06Z

I think it's starting to make sense after all.

Listening to the LiveATC feed of the VC-25 talking to NY Approach, it refers to its chase aircraft as Capital 92, which is 113FW (an F-16 unit) co-located at Andrews.

Was also contacted by an F-16 driver on another blog and he says that the D-mod tub is just fine for combat camera duties -- shooting forward angles are fine and so on.

So contrary to my comments above, the selection of F-16 as camera platform is shaping up to make perfect sense.

Not letting the public know in advance, less so.

Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T23:50:08Z

Hmmm - I wonder what Castle Argghhh Media Productions, L.L.C.'s CAGE Code is?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T23:43:54Z

Hey - if DoD wants to hire me to do Photoshop, I'm a venal war-profiteering contractor! I gots a multiple! G&A must be paid!

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T23:23:12Z

The question nobody's raised is, if this was just a photo op, how are they going to assuage the Greenies that it was worth burning 30,000 gallons of JP-8 to get a pic that they could have had John PhotoShop (for minimum wage, natch) at less than .000003% of the carbon footprint?

BTW, judging from the various vids, most of AF One's surroundings *as seen from the F-16s* was blue sky.

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T17:18:06Z

The FAA didn’t issue a NOTAM for ZNY ARTCC, which would have told any interested civil pilots that a 747 variant would be zooming around the Statue of Liberty at 1500 feet. Sometimes presidential flights have their NOTAMs released at the last minute (or in secret cases, not at all). A picture shoot should not rate the same level of secrecy as an actual president-is-aboard flight.

Second, as BillT points out, F-16s as a still camera platform? It’s doable, but not when you are trying to maintain formation with a manoeuvring flight lead. The F-16 is a single-seater, after all. They would have to have sent up a two-seat trainer, which would put the combat cameraman in the back.

Which leads to the third problem. Most of the footage we have seen involves the F-16 flying very loose echelon right (or in trail), with the VC-25 as lead. That means most of your pics are going to be from three-quarters behind, a few hundred feet away, which don’t make for the best airplane glamour shots. Especially when your camera guy is in the back and most of his forward perspective is obscured by the guy flying the fighter. Typically you would want a side profile or oblique view from the front. The F-16 and its back-seat photopgrapher should have been abeam or leading the VC-25 most of the time, or his shots are going to suck.

When civilians do this stuff, say for airline commercials (where you see the 747 roll into a hard turn, and peel off to the left like a fighter jet) they hire a larger, more stable—but still very nimble—camera platform, like a Gulfstream business jet, have it fly in formation with the airliner, run through it a half-dozen times to get the shots they need, and then go home. A NOTAM would be published, that part of the airspace would get closed for a specified period of time, ATC would keep other air traffic well away from it.

Now, since the Statue of Liberty is already part of an existing TFR area, the airspace is already closed. But publishing an additional NOTAM, plus allowing the local authorities (who did know, but were instructed not to publicise it) to get the word out, could have avoided this whole mess.

As for the other points… there’s no doubt good and entirely ordinary explanations for them, but keeping it all under wraps makes the whole thing look much worse than it actually was.

Comment from Foxfier on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T16:51:16Z

....So, count down to lawsuits?

I know if a civi company did this, they'd be put out of buisness with the "mental pain and anguish" lawsuits-- as well as the medical bills for folks who didn't realize they could be triggered to panic attacks.

Comment from 11B40 on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T16:38:06Z

Greetings:

Apparently, Director Caldera has never read Conrad's "Lord Jim". Somehow, throwing yourself under the bus just doesn't seem adequate to me. My idea of accepting responsibility for this level of idiocy would include a resignation at least.

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T15:25:45Z

"So, if the intent was to photograph AF One against the New York Skyline, where were the photographers -- flying the F-16s?"

I guess we have to assume it was a B/D/F two-seater Falcon... Or somebody was fibbing.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T15:12:41Z

Why the Defense Department wanted to do a photo-op right around the site of the World Trade Center catastrophe defies imagination.

And the other excuse I've heard was was that the USAF needed still *another* iconic shot of Air Force One. In which case, my question is, "So, if the intent was to photograph AF One against the New York Skyline, where were the photographers -- flying the F-16s?"

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T14:45:58Z

" ... But what to we do to lessen our worries when we're convinced our leaders are hard at work destroying from within the country we're defending? .."

Even if you discount the possibility of "malicious intent" - which I do not - many of us firmly believe this will be the inevitable result. While they may not be attempting to "destroy" the country per se, their goal is definitely - and admittedly - to change it.

These changes expose us to more risk as our enemies and potential foes perceive weakness in our capabilities and a lessening of our national resolve to defend ourselves - and our culture - militarily, diplomatically. and economically.

The recent warning from Janet Napolitano and the Obama Administration's DHS showed us who they see as their real threat. That, and their reaction to the Tea Party movement, told us everything we needed to know about them.

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-04-28

2009-04-28T14:42:39Z

Certainly a NOTAM would have been issued, so that ZNY controllers vectoring aircraft along the CAMRN or LENDY arrivals would be aware of the VC-25 heavy in the vicnity of Liberty at 1500 feet. That's just common sense.