Skip to comments.
Bush jet damaged local runway (Air Force One)
news.com.au ^
| 23rd May 2006
| Peter Veness
Posted on 05/22/2006 7:54:31 PM PDT by naturalman1975
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
To: Red6
That would make sense. I've seen empty 737's crack pads at DFW and Love.
41
posted on
05/22/2006 8:30:40 PM PDT
by
Spktyr
(Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
To: UCANSEE2
That's another possibility.
But the bottom line remains, AF1 is most likely A LOT lighter than a loaded 747 like you normally see taking off and landing on near every major airport on this planet. It's an old plane, a generic plane and it probably is much lighter than what the standard 747 weighs as well. In other words, no matter how they try to turn this, it wasn't AF1. It may be a lack of investmant for repairs, mismanagement of pad space, it can be a lot of things. I don't know. But it's safe to say that AF1 didn't cause any damage beyond that of any other normal jet going into that airport.
42
posted on
05/22/2006 8:32:45 PM PDT
by
Red6
To: naturalman1975
If they left the MSM jerks that deadhead a ride on AF1 there would be a lot less weight to haul. All that walking bovine excrement would leave the aircraft a LOT lighter.
43
posted on
05/22/2006 8:38:37 PM PDT
by
Pistolshot
(Condi 2008.<------added January 2004. Remember you heard it here first)
To: pissant
LOL. I guess tossing the reporters over a school of sharks in the ocean would be better. Cannibalism no matter which species ain't pretty. :-)
To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
Can you imagine the poor shark who gets to Helen Thomas first?
45
posted on
05/22/2006 8:41:12 PM PDT
by
pissant
To: naturalman1975
You owe me a new keyboard and a new monitor!
To: naturalman1975
Somehow they act surprised that a 747, technology over 35 years old, was heavy. Apparently no one in the world had experienced this phenomenon until it was thrust upon them by President Bush.
47
posted on
05/22/2006 8:44:19 PM PDT
by
pfflier
To: naturalman1975
Other military and VIP planes had also damaged the runway but the visit by Air Force One worried the airport owners to the point where they raised concerns about the weight of the jet with the Federal Government. You'd think Australia would have a runway capable of handling 707's or 747's at an airport near their nation's capitol.
To: pfflier
Somehow they act surprised that a 747, technology over 35 years old, was heavy. The 747 can use any runway that a 707 can use.
To: naturalman1975
Garbage from an obvious GWB hater. Try big Frenchy A-3 ga zillions or C-17's or something else, dirtbag.
50
posted on
05/22/2006 8:48:17 PM PDT
by
Rembrandt
(We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
To: naturalman1975
Nixon did the same thing -- in the old AF1, a 707 in those days. I was holding at Orange County airport when the tower shut all operations down for his arrival. They had been warned that the bearing strength of the runway was too weak for that large a plane -- but Nixon told them to do it anyway because it was a big political deal to show up there.
The plane left 2 inch grooves in asphalt that was hot from the summer sun. This made the runway dangerous to use for smaller planes. But politics has always trumped safety, reason and common sense. The runway was closed for a week for repairs...
51
posted on
05/22/2006 8:49:32 PM PDT
by
EagleUSA
To: naturalman1975; COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; ...


If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
To: GW and Twins Pawpaw
AF1 Doesn't even need a runway. ;-)
To: decal
54
posted on
05/22/2006 8:58:17 PM PDT
by
BlessedBeGod
(Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
To: nuconvert
Yep, it was a local event actually. Though it may have been Clinton who was riding AF1 at the time... The point is you've probably heard it because history is simply repeating itself.
Try searching for "Air Force One" and "Las Cruces Airport" if you want info on that previous incident.
55
posted on
05/22/2006 9:02:27 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.)
To: Kath
Is there anything anywhere in the world that ISN"T President Bush's falt???
This should be a real story for kooksville to brew on at Alex Jones!??!
56
posted on
05/22/2006 9:02:52 PM PDT
by
danamco
To: pissant
Might poison the sharks...
57
posted on
05/22/2006 9:04:59 PM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
"Cannibalism no matter which species ain't pretty"
I have to respectfully disagree.
I find lawyers eating there own very entertaining. I would also encourage it wherever possible...
58
posted on
05/22/2006 9:07:43 PM PDT
by
DB
(©)
To: All
It's actually not unusual for runways to have restrictions on landing weight that are well below the weight of a 747. I worked at such an airport until recently, but in October 2004 President Bush flew in on Air Force One anyway. It took special permission from the airport authority (along with an engineering study to make sure it was safe). No damage done by the 747, or by the C-17 or C-130 that cart around the support equipment, limos, Suburbans, etc.
59
posted on
05/22/2006 9:07:44 PM PDT
by
xjcsa
(Fight global climate stagnation!)
To: Paleo Conservative
Is that supposed to be a new commercial for Jenny Craig?
60
posted on
05/22/2006 9:09:26 PM PDT
by
phantomworker
(And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-140 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson