# Carrier Landing by Bush **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 2, 2003, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547 "2003-05-02T03:32:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/21 "2003-05-02T12:52:38Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Broomstick \* > \*\* > Second, if he did die… VP Cheney takes over. Cripes, Air Force or Marine One could go down, too, you know? Or he could slip on the soap in the shower_\* Or he could choke on a pretzel. All things considered a spectacular wreck on a carrier landing would do more for his legacy than if he had choked to death. Although I’m certain even the most vainglorious president would prefer to live out his term. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/22 "2003-05-02T13:10:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fat Bald Guy \* > \*\*[slight hijack] Was the fighter that he arrived in… [/slight hijack] \*\* [Slighter hijack] The S-3B Viking is primarily an anti submarine platform, with alternate missions of anti-surface, recon, and aerial refueling. It has no guns or air-to-air missiles. [/Slighter hijack] ---
**Author:** ![RiverRunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/977dab/32.png) [@RiverRunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RiverRunner)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/23 "2003-05-02T13:23:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dragline \* > \*\*Yeah, they let him fly the jet, but note that nobody let him have a pretzel. Some things are just too dangerous. \*\* Waahahaha! That one caught me by surprise. I nearly spewed my coffee. I can tell you one thing, though. I’m with **GMRyujin** on this one. As much as I dislike some of Bush’s policies, I’d have taken advantage of the chance to land on a carrier, too. What’s the point of being President if you can’t do something fun once in a while? Shoot, I’d wangle a ride on the space shuttle if I could think of a way to do it. I’m going to go make “brrrbrrbrbrbr” noises now while I dream of driving a tank. 🆒 RR ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/24 "2003-05-02T13:26:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. B \* > \*\*Has it ever occurred to you how foolish it is to think our president might actually have risked his life in a very difficult and perilous stunt? You guys never watched Star Trek, apparently, and never found yourself saying “Shit no, a real captain would never go on one of those Beaming Party missions, no matter how voluptuous the babe.” \*\* How do you figure? While carrier landings are difficult and dangerous things, the Navy trains their pilots well. The accident and fatality rate are very low. Helicopters are relatively dangerous, and the president flies around in one all the time. Also, they probably gave him the navy’s best pilot and best mechanical crew. There was very little danger. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > Take a moment to look up Global Hawk by Raytheon. I think you’ll be quite surprised how easily a remote site can control some planes. And even – dare I say it – commercial jets! Not to digress, but four Raytheon mucky-mucks died on Flight 11, at least two of whom worked on Global Hawk. Just type raytheon and september 11 into Yahoo! and see what comes up. \*\* Sorry, you’ll have to tell me what you’re getting at here. You lost me. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/25 "2003-05-02T13:28:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Saltire \* > \*\*Oh, and apparently they decided to fly him in on a jet rather than a helicopter because jets have ejector seats. Someone decided that made it the safest way to get Mr. Bush onto a carrier under weigh. \*\* Actually, it was a range thing. The carrier was too far off coast to take a helicopter. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/26 "2003-05-02T13:34:56Z")
I’d love to have listened into the conversation when whatever aide was given the task of setting this up briefed the Secret Service guys…who almost certainly went totally apeshit… ---
**Author:** ![bernse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@bernse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bernse)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/27 "2003-05-02T14:42:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. B \* > \*\*Has it ever occurred to you how foolish it is to think our president might actually have risked his life in a very difficult and perilous stunt? \*\* Yeah! And what about those rides in them helio-copter thing-a-ma-jobs? Those big blades whirring mere inches from his head. What is he trying to pull? There is nowhere he can’t go by a good old horse and buggy. It may take him a bit longer, but please, won’t someone **PLEASE THINK OF THE COUNTRY!!** ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/28 "2003-05-02T14:44:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > On a significant percentage of landings, all four wires are missed and the Pilot has to ‘bolter’ and go around again. This can’t be correct. A bolter (unless it’s a planned training event) is not a good thing. Hitting any wire other than the three wire is also not a good thing as far as the pilot’s qualifications are concerned. Accumulating too many of those not good things will get the pilot’s carrier quals revoked. ---
**Author:** ![bernse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@bernse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bernse)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/29 "2003-05-02T14:44:40Z")
FWIW - I think it’s pretty cool. I would imagine the troops on board were pretty happy about it. [hijack]Has there been any other cases where a sitting President piloted Air Force One/Navy One/Marine One/Executive One himself? ---
**Author:** ![Kilt-wearin\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kilt-wearin\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilt-wearin_man)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/30 "2003-05-02T15:06:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bernse \* > \*\*FWIW - I think it’s pretty cool. I would imagine the troops on board were pretty happy about it. > > [hijack]Has there been any other cases where a sitting President piloted Air Force One/Navy One/Marine One/Executive One himself? \*\* Unless you count President Whitmore in _Independence Day_, that would be a “no”…can’t remember if President Marshall in _Air Force One_ was at the controls at any point or not… In the real world, I believe Mr Bush and his father are the only Presidents who have been qualified military pilots. Anyone able to find another? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/31 "2003-05-02T15:13:17Z")
> [@](#): > > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/index.html) > Officials also told CNN that in preparation for the flight, Bush underwent water survival training, which involves sitting in a simulated cockpit that fills up with water, then spins around, while the person inside has to escape and come up for air. To pilots, the training is known as “panic in a can.” ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/32 "2003-05-02T15:31:30Z")
Really don’t know why I bother with this board. There’s a big difference between HAVING to fly somewhere and WANTING to make a big production out of landing our CEO on the deck of a ship. Granted, them thar whirly blades are mighty dangerous, they’re nothing compared to a carrier landing. SenorBeef: I have no idea how to answer your question. It’s like my saying “the sky is blue” and your replying “what color is the sky?” Broomstick: Whatever you’re smoking, I’d like to try it. We have the technology. It works very well. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/33 "2003-05-02T15:34:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monty \* > \*\*This can’t be correct. A bolter (unless it’s a planned training event) is not a good thing. Hitting any wire other than the three wire is also not a good thing as far as the pilot’s qualifications are concerned. Accumulating too many of those not good things will get the pilot’s carrier quals revoked. \*\* Okay, bolting I can understand, but why is not hitting the three wire but one of the other ones a bad thing? After all, it gets you down. ---
**Author:** ![Eirik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b19c9b/32.png) [@Eirik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eirik)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/34 "2003-05-02T15:53:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kilt-wearin’ man \* > \*\*Unless you count President Whitmore in _Independence Day_, that would be a “no”…can’t remember if President Marshall in _Air Force One_ was at the controls at any point or not… > > In the real world, I believe Mr Bush and his father are the only Presidents who have been qualified military pilots. Anyone able to find another? \*\* Marshall was supposed to have been an ex-helicoptor pilot in Vietnam. He takes the controls with the William H. Macy Air Force officer character for a while, including during an attack. I can’t think of any other fictional Presidents to take the controls in an emergency. I can’t think of any other Presidents who were pilots other than the two Bushes. FDR was the first President to fly while in office, and he certainly wasn’t. Of the Presidents that followed, until Bush, I don’t think any were military pilots. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/35 "2003-05-02T16:22:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by asterion \* > \*\*Okay, bolting I can understand, but why is not hitting the three wire but one of the other ones a bad thing? After all, it gets you down. \*\* The three wire is preferred becuase it’s like baby bear, it’s just right. Carrier landings are very different than on shore. All planes approach landing on a specified glideslope. When there is the luxury of a normal runway the pilot reduces the rate of descent by flaring, raising the nose slightly, just before touchdown. This isn’t possible on a carrier because the margin of error is razor thin. The flight deck may look like a lot of room but the entire landing area is just a few hundred feet long and the allowable touchdown area is a fraction of that. Remember that the shallow angle of the approach means a small error in altitude means a big error in touchdown point. Ship movement and weather add possible error so the pilot neds to be precise as possible. Landing too far aft risks a “ramp strike” where the plane crashes into the sloped section at the very aft edge of the deck. Too far forward and it’s easy to overshoot the arresting wires altogether leaving little room to take off again for a second try. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/36 "2003-05-02T16:25:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by asterion \* > Okay, bolting I can understand, but why is not hitting the three wire but one of the other ones a bad thing? After all, it gets you down. The impression that I got from watching the extensive coverage on CNN is this. As a plane approaches the carrier, the pilot “calls the ball” when s/he can see the array of guidance lights called “the meatball”. If the plane is coming in too low or too high, the pilot will see different colored lights (yellow and red?). If s/he is on the correct glide path s/he will see green lights. Why is the three wire preferable? Presumably that is the one that you would catch if you were exactly on the correct glide path. Come in a bit too high and you hope to catch #4. Yes, you are still arrested, but the landing wasn’t ideal because you increased the chance of missing #4 and becoming a “bolter”. This is not too uncommon and happens once or twice during each mission. IOW, if all the planes leave the ship, when they return probably at least one will be a bolter. Every landing is graded on whether the plane was too high or low or off the center line. As for the 1 and 2 wires, hitting one of those means that the plane came in too low. And that is even worse since while being a bolter is embarrassing, that is preferable to being so low as to crash into the end of the deck on approach. The pilot flying the president in was considered so accomplished that everyone was sure that he would catch the 3 wire. So it was a bit amusing to see him catch #4 instead. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/37 "2003-05-02T16:32:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by asterion \* > Okay, bolting I can understand, but why is not hitting the three wire but one of the other ones a bad thing? After all, it gets you down. The impression that I got from watching the extensive coverage on CNN is this. As a plane approaches the carrier, the pilot “calls the ball” when s/he can see the array of guidance lights called “the meatball”. If the plane is coming in too low or too high, the pilot will see different colored lights (yellow and red?). If s/he is on the correct glide path s/he will see green lights. Why is the three wire preferable? Presumably that is the one that you would catch if you were exactly on the correct glide path. Come in a bit too high and you hope to catch #4. Yes, you are still arrested, but the landing wasn’t ideal because you increased the chance of missing #4 and becoming a “bolter”. This is not too uncommon and happens once or twice during each mission. IOW, if all the planes leave the ship, when they return probably at least one will be a bolter. Every landing is graded on whether the plane was too high or low or off the center line. As for the 1 and 2 wires, hitting one of those means that the plane came in too low. And that is even worse since while being a bolter is embarrassing, that is preferable to being so low as to crash into the end of the deck on approach. The pilot flying the president in was considered so accomplished that everyone was sure that he would catch the 3 wire. So it was a bit amusing to see him catch #4 instead. ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/38 "2003-05-02T16:40:45Z")
Ack! My first double post. Ever. There goes my perfect record. Damn schizophrenic hamsters – I swear I hit submit just once and waited patiently for the post to go through. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Bean\_Counter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/db5fbb/32.png) [@Bean\_Counter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bean_Counter)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/39 "2003-05-02T16:42:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrotherCadfael \* > \*\*I’d love to have listened into the conversation when whatever aide was given the task of setting this up briefed the Secret Service guys…who almost certainly went totally apeshit… \*\* After thinking about what you said in your quote, I would have to respectfully disagree. Now, IANASSA (Secret Service Agent) but I would think this “job” would be much less difficult and time-consuming to set-up and run than something like a public appearance at a political rally. They already have very stringent procedures for the airplane and crew for when the President flies. They only need to check out the plane and the pilot thoroughly. I would wager that the place was the best-maintained S-3B the Navy had – or it was by the time the Secret Service and Navy maintenance got done with it. The pilot would have been the best of best and probably checked out medically beforehand. As for the destination, that would be a cakewalk for the Secret Service. The military probably has twice the protection around the Lincoln than normally for a carrier group. (Remember that a carrier is a well-protected asset. It is not sitting out in the middle of the ocean by itself.) There is probably a no-fly and no-sail zone around that carrier for hundreds of miles. While on the carrier, access to the President is easily controlled. I understand you were referring to the “stunt” of landing on the carrier is where the Secret Service would go “apeshit”, but on a percentage basis, appearing in public and having a wack-a-do attempt assassination has been more lethal than landing on an aircraft carrier. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547/40 "2003-05-02T17:07:57Z")
You may be right, but if I were a Secret Service person, I would take a dim view of running any risks at all that don’t absolutely have to be taken. I know they hate it when presidents insist on “pressing the flesh”, ie, getting close enough to a crowd to shake hands. On the other hand, when the Presidents says, “jump”, I assume the Secret Service doesn’t stop to ask how high. As you say, the environment ON the carrier, once he actually IS on the carrier, is about as well controlled as you could hope for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/carrier-landing-by-bush/172547.md?page=3)