AZwildcat Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Speaking of bullshit media headlines... First Lady Onboard Plane That Reportedly Just Misses Military Jet Really? Just misses? I love the quote burried in there "The FAA is investigating the incident. The Boeing 737 landed safely after executing the go around. The aircraft were never in any danger." Is it really that big of a deal? Obviously making the first lady's plane go around is not ideal but c'mon, this shit happens every day at multiple US airports. I guess it's sensational news when you've got other stories out there of controllers falling asleep. edit: sprrelling Edited April 19, 2011 by AZwildcat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Winning Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/19/michelle.obama.plane/index.html?hpt=T1 uhhhh copy they did a circle and landed. jesus. how the F is this front page CNN news? don't we have an economy in crisis? but no the press would rather drum up some "emergency" the first lady was on. UFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B*D*A Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 (edited) Speaking of bullshit media headlines... First Lady Onboard Plane That Reportedly Just Misses Military Jet Really? Just misses? I love the quote burried in there "The FAA is investigating the incident. The Boeing 737 landed safely after executing the go around. The aircraft were never in any danger." Is it really that big of a deal? Obviously making the first lady's plane go around is not ideal but c'mon, this shit happens every day at multiple US airports. I guess it's sensational news when you've got other stories out there of controllers falling asleep. edit: sprrelling "Aborting" a landing....nice. Edit: words. Edited April 20, 2011 by B*D*A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Speaking of bullshit media headlines... First Lady Onboard Plane That Reportedly Just Misses Military Jet Really? Just misses? I love the quote burried in there "The FAA is investigating the incident. The Boeing 737 landed safely after executing the go around. The aircraft were never in any danger." Is it really that big of a deal? Obviously making the first lady's plane go around is not ideal but c'mon, this shit happens every day at multiple US airports. I guess it's sensational news when you've got other stories out there of controllers falling asleep. edit: sprrelling This happened at KADW. Reading further, it's clear the aircraft didn't have the required separation for wake turbulence. Neither aircraft came even remotely close to each other. The approach control initiated the handoff without the standard separation and KADW tower tried to fix it to no avail and instead they just sent them around. Another great example of how journalism is going into the shitter. By reading the opening lines of the article (and even a few other lines throughout) it appears Mrs. Obama had a close call, when that's not near the truth. They also stated it was another embarrassment for the FAA...? Really? Controllers aren't perfect and no one's safety was in jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExBoneOSO Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Another great example of how journalism is going into the shitter. By reading the opening lines of the article (and even a few other lines throughout) it appears Mrs. Obama had a close call, when that's not near the truth. They also stated it was another embarrassment for the FAA...? Really? Controllers aren't perfect and no one's safety was in jeopardy. You should hear the local DC media -you'd think the C-17 and Michelle's plane did a knife-edge pass on short final. Pretty soon the headlines are going to read "Terror in the Skies - Two Planes Are In The Air At The Same Time, One Over California, the Other Over Florida! How did the FAA lose control?" UFB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiFlyer Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Another great example of how journalism is going into the shitter. Going? I'd say they were already pretty much gone as far as aviation reporting goes. I remember once at Beale in the 80s the local people called wanting base access to cover "the accident" and then accused us of covering up the "disaster" when they were denied. Apparently they were monitoring the base freqs and heard about the "crash". What actually happened (it took us a while to figure it out) was a tanker called in after landing that they had a flat tire, and a fire truck responded (per normal procedure in care the tire caught on fire) while they waited for the MX guys to change the tire. By the time I left Beale that time I had a dozen such stories. Everytime a new reporter got to an existing story, he/she had to pump it up a little to "expand" the coverage and justify the time (I suppose), and none of them know anything about airplanes. I was even personnally chastised by the media because I laughed at a reporter on one occasion. Of course, this was northern California, so that sort of explains it, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeA10 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 SOS is pretty much useless but I do remember this one nugget of wisdom from a three star: "How often do you read information in newspapers or see news reports on television about topics that you are experts and you see the errors in their information? So, why is it that you give any credibility to those same sources when they report on topics that you are unfamiliar with?" 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
contraildash Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 According to the news here the NTSB is now investigating the "incident" which is another "embarrassment" for the FAA. I could keep the NTSB busy year round with all the "aborted" landings I've had to do because I was behind a C-130 on final (which is about as fast as a VW camper van) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Just keep hauling those DVs OSA boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arg Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 According to the news here the NTSB is now investigating the "incident" which is another "embarrassment" for the FAA. I could keep the NTSB busy year round with all the "aborted" landings I've had to do because I was behind a C-130 on final (which is about as fast as a VW camper van) So you aint learned to slow down behind one of those? Are you a 16 driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 So you aint learned to slow down behind one of those? Are you a 16 driver? C-152 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B*D*A Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 C-152 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Ramp_disaster 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HossHarris Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 C-152 Zing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 In the midst of the FAA dealing with controllers falling asleep on the job, the press has latched onto this gem. Plane carrying Michelle Obama aborts landing because of controller error In summary, they were supposed to be five miles behind the C-17. The approach controllers let them get down to 3 miles, but reported they were at 4 when they handed over to tower. Fair enough - bonehead move on the part of the controllers, but here are some of the gems the press has come up with. A White House plane carrying Michelle Obama came dangerously close to a 200-ton military cargo jet and had to abort its landing According to AP, 3nm=danger close. In most instances both locally and nationally planes came too close but without risk of collision; in some, however, fatal consequences were narrowly averted. I'm curious as to how they quantify this. Another case under review is an incident last year near National that involved an airliner carrying a congressman. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) demanded an explanation from the FAA after his United Airlines flight bound for National swerved to avoid another jet after the encounter activated the onboard collision-avoidance system. Planes can swerve? And just today the FAA released that the air traffic controllers have been fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 In the midst of the FAA dealing with controllers falling asleep on the job, the press has latched onto this gem. Plane carrying Michelle Obama aborts landing because of controller error In summary, they were supposed to be five miles behind the C-17. The approach controllers let them get down to 3 miles, but reported they were at 4 when they handed over to tower. Fair enough - bonehead move on the part of the controllers, but here are some of the gems the press has come up with. According to AP, 3nm=danger close. I'm curious as to how they quantify this. Planes can swerve? And just today the FAA released that the air traffic controllers have been fired. Holy fucking retarded reporter, Batman! The headline says that the controllers involved in the Michelle Obama go-around were fired, but then the article clearly says that the two controllers that were fired were from completely different incidents. One was in Tennessee and the other was in Miami. You don't have to know anything about flying to know that Tennessee and Miami are not anywhere near Andrews. I also love this quote from the US Transportation Secretary: "The controller that was in-charge made sure that her plane made the corrective moves that were necessary in order to alleviate any kind of that backup wind that the consultant was talking about," he said Backup wind?! Apparently you don't need to know shit about flying to be in charge of the FAA. YGBFSM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) According to AP, 3nm=danger close. They need to state what their assumptions were to arrive at those danger close numbers. massive C-17 If a C-17 is massive, what adjectives are these guys using for 777s, 747s, A380s, and C-5s? Go ugly early, I guess. Edited April 21, 2011 by SurelySerious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cain1683 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Non issue. Unfortunately, stupidity will turn it in to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck17 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Its been a slow news week... what with a golden economy, non-existent national debt, well below double digit unemployment, complete lack of military commitments worldwide and peace breaking out everywhere, including Syria and Libya... (and the Red Sox kicking ASS!) Who could blame the non-flying public or the media!??! Chuck 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Jesus. If I had a dollar for every time I got vectors because another aircraft was on short final and we didn't have the spacing to make a landing afterwards, I could quit the USAF and open my aviation-themed bar, complete with topless "stewardesses". Did these reporters do NO research? 3NM is a long distance. Probably didn't even trigger the TCAS, I'd imagine. This was certainly nothing dangerous. Inside minimum spacing for a landing behind a heavy aircraft? Yes. "Narrowly averting a collision"? Yeah, the same way I narrowly avoid a collision when I stop at a red light and someone goes across the intersection. Edited April 21, 2011 by pawnman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockheedFix Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I wonder if the C-17 crew will get a DFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masshole Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I advise anyone to tell their IP that 6,000 feet is not enough spacing because 3nm is the set limit for "dangerously close." To expect you to fly any closer may result in you having to swerve to narrowly avoid a collision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADFNZ Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Should have declared MARSA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucky60k Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I wonder if the C-17 crew will get a DFC. I'm surprised 18AF hasn't Q3'd them 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chim richalds Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I'm surprised 18AF hasn't Q3'd them No, he's too busy letting sex offenders out after 20% of their sentence while not releasing 500 pilots out of their commitment early. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/04/air-force-gurney-sentence-reduced-042111w/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I advise anyone to tell their IP that 6,000 feet is not enough spacing because 3nm is the set limit for "dangerously close." To expect you to fly any closer may result in you having to swerve to narrowly avoid a collision. Hell yes. Sensor is about as close as I want to get anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now