It was a near collision, so they say...

I didn't realize just how many close calls I've had

This is a near miss:

Shoot if they're not sleeping or watching movies they're trying to crash us into each other

Near miss? That is a complete miss.

Maybe she got airsick with the s turns, she will puke on the prez in bed tonight...

Ah yes, the Media and aviation. The report I heard on the Medical flight that had to land at 2:00 am, while the controller was having a nap, with no other traffic, and , as far as I know the runway lights on: assured us that no one was injured and there were no fatalities!! Amazing. How have the rest of us survived all these years?

Ugh, talk about over sensationalizing a news story. I wanted to write a comment to Fox news and explain this tot hem. You would think they would have an aviation analysis chime in.

I have been with the C-17 program for years in different Military/civilian capacity's. Also when Learning to fly near Charleston AFB/ Charleston International Class Charlie. I have had many experienced flights into and from trailing a "heavy" C-17. Usually when traffic is called it is preceded with "Caution Wake Turbulence, Aircraft is a heavy C-17, on 5 mile final" something like that.

This story was making it out to be a "Near miss". the story fails to point out that most of the FAA radar screens still run on the old TUBE's and are antiques. I am sure the radar controller was separating the traffic based upon a educated guess and estimation.

There has been many times i have been cleared to land, behind a C-17 and i visually watch it as it lands. Careful not to follow or cross its direct path, but also mindful that wake turbulence can roll off and float depending on air currents etc, while in a Cessna 150. 5 moles is not that exactly far apart for wake turbulence. It is most always given to the pilot an advisory, following a heavy aircraft to the pilot, and the pilot totally has the option to request more separation and or a go around or alternate arrival sequence.

Dont FRY the Controller on this one. It just so happened that he was doing what he probably does everyday and it happend to be " the 1st lady". They were pissed that they had to do S turns.

BULLSHIT

It's a good thing we all mailed in our tax checks in yesterday so she had enough fuel money to fly a 737 across the country and back so she could be on "The View"

avi8ter wrote:It's a good thing we all mailed in our tax checks in yesterday so she had enough fuel money to fly a 737 across the country and back so she could be on "The View"

She only went to New York City. I am not sure on the business of PR trips for the first lady, but it would seem the C-40/737 would be the appropriate size for the trip, considering her entourage. She maybe burned about 20K of Jet A, round trip. Not bad.

If you really want to hear about waste, let me explain to you why when a C-5 or C-17 breaks for a bad tire or simple bench stock item you should have on hand at any normal enroute base, that when they come to Diego Garcia and break, we have not even a tire or tire change kit on hand. So therefore they must fly out or divert another mission to the island to send parts.

GULP, GULp, GULP.....quickly a C-17 Tire, becomes a $100,000 cost because nobody wanted to pay a contractor to maintain a bench stock full of popular parts and tools. not too mention, loading that diverted plane back up with 170K of JP-8 and sending her on her way.

Probably need TFR for Michell from now on. Oh I want to say something sooooooo bad. It is to bad for non hot air thread. he he he

OregonMaule wrote:Probably need TFR for Michell from now on. Oh I want to say something sooooooo bad. It is to bad for non hot air thread. he he he

What's stopping you? Zane got you on probation?

58Skylane wrote:

OregonMaule wrote:Probably need TFR for Michell from now on. Oh I want to say something sooooooo bad. It is to bad for non hot air thread. he he he

What's stopping you? Zane got you on probation?

Double super secret probation. Getting close to life with no parole. I was thinking if I reset my user name the 3 strike rule would reset.

Cheers

OregonMaule wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

OregonMaule wrote:Probably need TFR for Michell from now on. Oh I want to say something sooooooo bad. It is to bad for non hot air thread. he he he

What's stopping you? Zane got you on probation?

Double super secret probation. Getting close to life with no parole. I was thinking if I reset my user name the 3 strike rule would reset.

Cheers

Ah man, I wanna say something so bad now, too. But, I'm thinking that would be very inappropriate

Is the C-17 wing different from other heavy transports? That is, does it put out worse vortices then others for it's size? Arn't there some aircraft, regardless of their size, more known for bad (to others) vortices? Don't know, just asking...

One factor not reported on: were the winds at the time such as to blow the vortices to the side, making the 3 mile separation less of a biggie, or calm? I know I take that into consideration when behind a bigger bird (most of the time).

The network news pulled out all the stops, everything but "they are lucky to be alive". I listen for that phrase on every aircraft incident report, and usually hear it, no matter how minor the incident!

courierguy wrote:Is the C-17 wing different from other heavy transports? That is, does it put out worse vortices then others for it's size? Arn't there some aircraft, regardless of their size, more known for bad (to others) vortices? Don't know, just asking...

No it has Winglets to make it have less vortices. Reading this report boiled my blood. You know the worst part...I bet the whole crew of that C-17 get's Q-3ed (busted) for that too because of publicity this is getting.

B737 behind a heavy requires 5 miles. They had 2.9. Go arounds like this happen many times every day. Hard to believe the controllers made a screwup like this.

I keep meaning to look up the ATC tapes on it but it slips my mind when I have time at the computer. I have been told the controller recomended a slow down for wake turbulance seperation and it was not complied with by the crew on the Obama flight. he controller then handed off to the militery tower reporting 4 miles seperation at which point the tower controller also tried to setup more seperation and when that did not work he spun them. Happens many times a day and is not an issue...unless it happens on the Big O's flight. Why the controllers are taking the heat for this is a mystery...they did their job correctly as far as I can tell.

I'll step up, put this in Hot Air. Would we be having this same petty ass sniping if Barbara Bush had been in the same plane? The controllers, the FAA, and the liberal media, oops, made this a big issue. Big f----ng deal, a go around. Now let's get LaHood to chime in, the unions to get their voice heard, geeeez, give me a break!!

lowflybye wrote: Why the controllers are taking the heat for this is a mystery...they did their job correctly as far as I can tell.

They did not remotely do their job correctly. They have radar, they're a radar facility for crying out loud. Until the controller gets the pilot to accept responsibility for separation by maintaining visual the approach controller is responsible. That's ATC 101. He needs 4 miles in trail increasing to 5 when the heavy crosses the numbers. The aircraft should never have been turned over to the tower as the required separation did not exist at that time.