Comments for Aviation photo ops.

Aviation photo ops.

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:08:00 -0600

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...

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-29

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:09:01 -0600

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

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:19:16 -0600

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

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:30:56 -0600

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

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:34:27 -0600

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

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:45:37 -0600

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

Comment from Chris Taylor on 2009-04-28

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:11:06 -0600

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:50:08 -0600

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

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:43:54 -0600

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:23:12 -0600

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:18:06 -0600

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:51:16 -0600

....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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 11:38:06 -0600

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:25:45 -0600

"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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:12:41 -0600

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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:45:58 -0600

" ... 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

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:42:39 -0600

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.