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.
[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]
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
**
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.
Sorry, you’ll have to tell me what you’re getting at here. You lost me.
Actually, it was a range thing. The carrier was too far off coast to take a helicopter.
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…
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!!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.