I heard/read/saw (sorry, no cite) that Bush wanted to fly an F-18 Hornet to the carrier. Now, I can hardly begrudge him this - which would you rather fly, a fighter or anti-sub plane?
The fact that this wasn’t the case leads me to believe the reason was one of two things. One, the F-18 isn’t as safe. Anyone got good data for a comparison of safety?
Two (the one I think is more likely), the F18 is a two-seater, which means its just Bush and a pilot. I don’t think the Secret Service likes leaving Bush alone, except for maybe the bathroom and when he’s sleeping. The Viking carried Bush, the pilot, a second pilot (backup?) and a Secret Service agent.
Are you suggesting that landing on a carrier is as dangerous as going on a Beaming Party mission?
I am sorry but I can’t think of it as a “perilous stunt”. Sure, sometimes people die while trying to land on an aircraft carrier. But, people die in helicopter crashes and on the highway too. The landing might have been slightly more dangerous then the other two activies, but hardly perilous either.
“My fellow Americans. I believe this tank to be the finest one available today. However, I will not be absolutely sure until I get to take it out and drive it and maybe even shoot the gun a little bit. For, you know, science.”
Hell, what’s the point of being Commander in Chief if you don’t get to do stuff like that?
IIRC Eisenhower had a private pilot (not military) certificate–if it wasn’t him it was some other pres that had a civilian pilot’s licence.
I’ve landed a Cessna 150 in shorter distance than the length of a carrier (I think), but the runway wasn’t moving at the time.
So the prez could’ve postponed his speech for 12 hours (not like there was anything new or urgent in the speech anyway) and given it from the deck of the Lincoln while docked in San Diego. Which would’ve saved the taxpayers a few bucks, and gotten the Lincoln’s crew home to their families a day earlier.
But then we wouldn’t have pictures of Bush in a flight suit, which I’m sure we’ll see again between now and November 2004.
:rolleyes: (actually, my eyes are rolled so far they might get stuck.)
Comparative statistics (spot the odd one out!):[ul][li]Presidents assassinated in office: 4 (in 214 years), for a fatality rate of 1.87% per President per year.[]Fatalities on Star Trek (Original Series), from this site: 53 (of about 400, in less than 5 years), for a fatality rate of 2.65% per crewman per year (probably lower if you don’t wear red).[]Total Navy Class A “mishaps” (fatalities, permanent total disabilities, or damage > $1M), 2002 Oct 1 - 2003 Apr 30, from here (and a few other pages at the site): about 25, of which it looks like 9 involve landings (carrier or otherwise); one landing-related fatality. About 650000 flight hours, so if the average flight lasts four hours (a guess), this is a landing-related fatality rate of about 0.000615% per landing.[/li][/ul]Carrier landings aren’t quite as dangerous as wearing red to a landing party.
There is a difference between “works very well” and “suitable for civilian airlines”.
At present, the remote-guidance technology is being used by the military, and even there mostly in spy missions that have historically been very dangerous to human beings. In other words, in areas where the danger is high anyway. Lose an unmanned drone? No big deal. Lose an airliner with 200+ civilians on board due to software error or transmission noise - heap big deal. Get the difference?
For commercial passenger travel “very well” isn’t good enough - you want “damn near foolproof”. You also have the problem of a compromised control center regardless of what you’re flying. The whole notion of a ground control of some sort guiding (or even taking over in case of a hijack) presupposes that the ground facility is absolutely secure - and nothing is absolutely secure.
On the flip side, we do have systems already in place for airplanes to essentially fly themselves with no need of remote guidance, and these systems are already in place on a significant number of civilian airplanes. Since the airlines have already invested in that technology it is far more likely that they will continue to invest in such systems, rather than forking over for the money and infrastructure for a whole 'nother system. For the airlines to invest in remote guidance it would have to be so much further superior to the installed guidance systems as to justify trashing the already many-millions spent on the current, on-all-on-the-airplane systems in use. In other words, “remote guidance” would not only have to work “very well”, but rather “blow you out of the water better”. And I doubt that’s the case now or any time soon.
Like SenorBeef I could use some explanation here. Are you suggesting that Raytheon used their Global Hawk remote-control technology to fly commercial jets into skyscrapers on Sept. 11 and kill 4 of their own people (along with thousands of others)?
First, let me repeat that regular Presidential commuter travel is unavoidable. So it is preposterous for one to postulate there’s a correlation between landing a stunt flight on a ship’s deck and flying daily on Air Force One or Marine One. The real problem to think about is whether we would be angry if he were to skydive into a July 4 picnic. The problem is not the DANGER involved, it’s the unecessary exposure of our POTUS to death. Minimize this how you may – pretzel jokes and other non sequiturs are open for business – but this fellow’s life is staged. Every time he goes “riding” on his Crawford “ranch,” there’s a SS sniper ready to cut the horse’s medulla should it buck or spook. BTW: people will be very bitter should he take up rock climbing.
SenorBeef and Bunny (Lagomorph): Did you watch the footage? You’re American, so you’ve likely seen it thousands of times. Watch those excellent turns and think about the novices “flying” them.
Broomstick: You dance around the argument, trying to confuse the topic with a modicum of “facts.” Granted, the systems aren’t perfect now, and no one’s saying these systems are globally (meaning widely) installed for everyday use. Pilots might tattle. But you can’t cloud the facts – you’ve even backed this notion by your own logical argument – that the present systems are good enough now to fly most planes. You know as well as I do that the FLYING is not the stumbling block in this program.
Of course the obvious retort from the rabble is about “how difficult” it might be to hit a horse’s head during a buck or spook. See, that’s just avoiding the argument. Just because the contingency might not pan out, it doesn’t mean they won’t plan for it. So Agent Johnson doesn’t take the shot, he’s not comfy with it: the spotters ride up on twin buckskins and lift the Prez like a baby from the stroller. (Sad I’ve got to qualify my posts.)
Mr. B, I still don’t know what you’re saying. Rereading your first post, it seems to imply that Bush didn’t land the plane, but it was done by remote control as a PR stunt. Well, Bush didn’t land the plane, and no one claimed that he did, it was a Navy pilot. So why would they need to make a conspiracy to land it by remote control?
a. President Bush can hardly show up for duty as a Nat’l Guard guy, let alone land a Viking on a carrier.
b. President Bush was inside the plane.
c. There was another human occupant of the plane.
d. There is no way we could possibly allow our CEO to risk his life (actuarially-speaking, of course) for some jingoistic stunt. Therefore: we must eliminate or at least mitigate, according to commonly-held theorums (known as actuarial tables), the risk of damage to or loss of our CEO.
This posting was simply intended as a type of “mental wording” or IMAGERY. I am simply positing (I mean POSITing) the following:
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE WORLD SHOULD THIS BOOB DIE SLIPPING OFF THE EDGE OF A CARRIER?
