Posted on 04/30/2009 8:48:12 AM PDT by TankerKC
An FAA memo ( PDF) floating around the Internet Wednesday suggests that if the FAA didn't originate the secrecy surrounding Monday's White House photo op over New York, it certainly went along with it.
The memo—authored by James J. Johnston of the agency's security operations branch—clearly indicates the FAA was notified well ahead of the planned flyover and that it recognized the kind of reaction it might cause. The memo begins by saying: "The information in this document is considered FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, and should only be shared with persons with a need to know. Information in this document shall not be released to the public or media."
The document then details the flight planning and the schedule, including the intent to fly around as low as 1000 feet in the Hudson River Corridor in the vicinity of the Statute of Liberty. The flyover occurred on Monday morning and raised a considerable ruckus in lower Manhattan and mid-town, as hundreds of workers panicked and evacuated buildings in the city, fearful of another 9/11-type terrorist attack. Also circulating the news sites are recordings of hysterical calls to New York's emergency services numbers.
The FAA did not respond to email and telephone requests for comment and, interestingly, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association told AVweb that it was declining comment because it didn't normally comment on security issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at avweb.com ...
He’s an ego-filled maniac. Maybe he did it just to show off for his kids that he could.
You have better eyes than I do.
Were? Did you mean "weren't?"
Or maybe she had an appointment at a rummage sale to buy some new clothes?
Maybe...maybe not.
My BIL said maybe BO had a late night with one of his “friends” and thought he could sneak out of town by flying low!
bump
Right from the beginning it was reported that they were flying at 1000 ft. If this memo wasn't readily available they got the information from somewhere else.
oops. Yes I did.
There diffinitely was something more to that flyover than a photo op. If it really was to be a photo op then they could have done it on a Sunday when no one would have been at work.
I want to know where Michelle was that day. She said she does love to sneak out.
Also there is no way Obama wouldn't have known that, that plane was going to be in use. They have to know where those planes are at all times in case there is an emergency and some contingency plan has to go into effect.
Flying at this altitude cannot h ave been safe for the aircraft or ground.
Pilots?
I keep thinking, “I beleive Obama may have really enjoyed seeing the people on the ground, running, terrified.”
Indulging his secret hatred of Americans.
Incorrect. By the way, ever been to an air show? The FAA routinely grants altitude and airspeed waivers.
Some people have suggested that this was a special "gift" for political doners!
My point exactly.
Photo op or joy ride - either way this was not only nuts but over 300k spent of OUR money on nothing of importance.
“They” does not mean the President personally. Anyone in a top executive position who would concern himself with such trivia is not qualified to hold the position. In this case, somebody in the “they” department screwed up.
Flying a 747 jet aircraft at those levels over NYC seems a bit dangerous to me. I am not a pilot. I would be interested if there is someone who is to comment on it. I provided a link at post #20 that gives the official AF policy on low altitude training.
Indeed. But we’ve been told “only flight-crews.” Is the WH photographer part of every flight crew? Don’t think so. And WHOSE photo-op? An opportunity to take pictures FROM any one of the planes, OF any one of the planes?
Or was it a training mission? For what eventuality that it couldn’t be conducted above saltflats, or at least in some infinitely less dangerous environment for crews and spectators?
This whole thing reeks.
What I’m waiting to see is whether anyone can produce any documentation that somebody in an authoritative position received clear advice that this whole thing was a very bad idea (not just vague mention of “public concern”), especially without full public notice well in advance. If that happened, the recipient who didn’t follow up on the advice and investigate in detail exactly what was proposed to happen and what was virtually guaranteed to go wrong if the plan was executed without modifications, needs to be fired.
What I think is a bit more likely, is that this is an example of poor communication culture in a hierarchical and multi-agency management structure. I.e. nobody quite had the full picture, and even though some people who handled pieces of the communications had concerns, they didn’t feel comfortable challenging the plan, since it seemed to have originated from very high levels, and/or assumed somebody else was addressing the glaring problems with the plan. If so, we should be thankful the communication problem was brought to light (at least if it gets addressed effectively) in the context of something like this, rather than in the context of some actual or expected enemy attack.
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.