Carrier Landing by Bush

Factual Questions
61

Mr. B.: I won’t bother typing slowly, as I’m not certain that you’ve actually bothered read what people have written. But I’ll take a shot at it.

In reading his post, it’s fairly obvious that SeniorBeef is asking what you are getting at regarding your remote control comments. That’s it. You talk around the issue, and make vague conspiracy theory sounding statements, but don’t get to the point.

As for your shouted question about what would happen should the President die slipping off the edge of the carrier, I direct you to the years 1974, 1963, 1945, 1923, and 1901 (just keeping it in the 20th century). Quick history quiz for you: what do those years have in common?

62

Oops. Because of the tone taken in some of the recent posts in this thread, I forgot what forum we’re in right now (or momentarily confused this with another, much angrier thread in the Pit regarding the carrier landing). If I crossed the line in my last post, I apologize to the Mods and the other members of this community.

63

Don’t act like I’m an idiot because you were throwing around really really vague conspiracy theories. You could’ve just gotten to the point.

To be honest, I’m still not quite sure what you mean. I can think of 3 or 4 whacked out conspiracies you’re getting at, but you’re being very unclear.

Since the plane didn’t crash into the carrier, I assume you’re not saying they’re trying to kill the president. So, are you saying that the plane was remotely landed? What would be the point?

Maybe I’m dense, or maybe you’re just excessively vague, but I’m still not sure exactly what you’re getting at. Once you say it, I’ll probably realize what you were thinking all along, but as it is, you seem to be making an odd line of thought to some conspiracy theory and expect us to be right there with you without any explanation.

64

Mr. B , this beating around the vague bush is very irritating to those of us who think you are trying to make a good point but just can`t figure out what the hell it is.

65

I don’t see where anyone here is disagreeing with that.

Maybe it’s just that I don’t view a carrier landing as a “stunt”. Difficult, yes, extremely difficult and requiring a great deal of skill. Any man or woman who can do such a thing should by all means be proud of their accomplishment. But it’s not a “stunt” any more than open heart surgery is a “stunt” or the performance of any other highly technical task that carries some risk is a “stunt”.

Huh. How would I feel about that? Gee, I dunno… I suppose if he had been an active skydiver in his youth (in other words, he had some notion of what he was doing) and decided to take a flying leap… You know, I don’t think I’d have a problem with that. Certainly didn’t freak me out when his dad took a skydive, I thought it was kind of cool.

Likewise, even if the current POTUS wasn’t up to carrier landings in his youth, he WAS a pilot. He’s not some ignoramus (well, at least in that area) jerking around without a clue, he actually does know something of what flying is about, and the risks involved. Arguably, he would be more knowledgable about it than the average secret service agent.

How is “danger” different than “exposure to death”? Or don’t you mean “exposure to the possibility of death”?

When did the POTUS get to be this quasi-sacred figure who is to be exposed to no risk? At most he’s going to be president for 8 years, if something did happen to him (which I’d prefer not to see) there is a clear line of succession – we’ve lost sitting presidents before, we’ve even lost them in war time, and the country goes on. I have to question WHY the life of just one man is of such overwhelming importance. Yes, by all means, provide him some protection, but the amount and extent of the restrictions on the POTUS - and on the people in the cities he visits - are getting excessive in my opinion.

And I, for one, find that extremely sad and tragic.

I’m not sure how shooting the horse is going to solve that sort of difficulty. Indeed, a good rider (I’ll presume Bush is such) should be able to handle a spooked horse or a small buck with no problem (I speak from personal experience on this). Shoot the horse dead and it could fall over and then the POTUS could really get hurt. Besides which, the horse has no malice towards the POTUS, as opposed to a potential terrorist sniper hiding out in the trees or bushes.

Why? What’s wrong with rock climbing?

We’re having an argument? I thought it was a discussion.

[quote]
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.

[quote]
What the heck are you talking about here? Are you talking about the sophisticated autopilots now used, such as in category III approaches, or your “remote control” systems? Please clarify to minimize misunderstanding.

In either case - true, the systems aren’t perfect. That’s why we still have human beings aboard commercial jets. When the plane flies it flies better than a human, problem is, the plane isn’t perfect and can’t deal with the unexpected - improvisation and coping with the unforeseen are areas where humans still excel. I find it an amazing example of a man-machine partnership that takes advantage of the strengths of both modes of flying.

Yes, good enough to fly most planes in most conditions. Civilian aviation adopts new technology slower than the military does - it always has and probably always will. Military operations by their very nature must accept a higher risk than that considered acceptable by civilian transit.

You are correct, flying is not the stumbling block. To my mind, it is reliability that is the biggest bump in the road. That, and the ability to cope with the unexpected. If you have a different quibble please state it plainly.

I never said they technology wouldn’t be adopted - I’ve just stated it’s not ready to be adopted right now by civilian airlines. So I don’t see where an argument comes into play.

I do have the opinion that the airlines, having already made a substantial investment in the equipment to perform such things as category III approaches and autoland, were most likely to continue in the same rut. I don’t see a need for a remote guidance system when the guidance system itself could be mounted on the airplane.

Now, maybe you can explain why a remote guidance system is so superior that the airlines will rip out and trash hundreds of millions of dollars of systems already in place. How would it be that much superior?

66

Again, I think you are talking about Sept. 11 here. Do you think those planes were being driven by remote control? And what is the Raytheon connection? If they could control the planes remotely why would they (Raytheon) need people on them?

If you keep alluding to vague conspiracies and not bothering to post more info you are going to be a very popular person around here! :smiley:

67

First, let me preface this by the following statement: I am not meaning to sound angry here, I outright refuse to use those emoticons. How in the world did people communicate via telegraph or epistle.

See this is the problem with Americans! You force pedantry onto yourselves. Not one of you needs to LOOK for the facts anymore, you just want to be spoon-fed. I have said in my first post to look for the facts and discover them on your own. <not angry>

Broomstick: from Merriam-Webster – argument, 2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal. The colloquial usage is by context not relevant.

Bunny: I am simply trying to stay on-topic. Going in depth into conspiracy theories would hijack the thread.

I am merely postulating the plane in which our straw-man president was stunt-landed onto a carrier deck was flown by another human, with the backing of remote-guidance. That’s all. If you want to start another thread, fine by me.

68

Mr. B: When you post something as outrageously ridiculous and patently absur as

it certainly qualifies as “extraordinary claims” which require extraordinary proof.

Prove it.

69

Monty,

Which part is ridiculous? Which part is absur[d]?

  1. We know he’s a straw man. Hopefully you’re aware of this. Even our venerable Cecil backs this.
  2. We know the technology has been developed; it is being used and is reasonably reliable. This knowledge has been supported by at least one member of this group.
  3. We know that our POTUS is very important. Without him, who will wave the flag of 9/11 and keep the home fires burning against the Evil Crescent? Mr. Cheney? Please.
  4. We know he needs to pump his “victory” in The Empire Strikes Back, so that we have an effective anchor in our collective psyches once it comes time to punch that card next November. We know this because of his dad’s painful loss to that horrible President Clinton – via, of course, the meddling Mr. Perot – but that’s a subject for another debate.

>>Prove it.<<

According to rules of debate, I have met the burden of my postulation. It is now your burden to disprove me.

70

Why not? Hey, I think they’re kinda cute! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

By speaking as plainly as possible.

And you’re from… where?

  1. I’m not going to argue about whether or not the Shrub is actually running the country or not. I don’t particularly like him, either, but under our system a president isn’t an absolute power anyhow.

  2. As I’ve stated before, I don’t feel a carrier landing is a “stunt”. Difficult, worthy of admiration, but not a “stunt” in the sense of jumping a motorcycle over 15 burning cars or some such.

  3. There is absolutely no disputing that it was flown “by another human”. In fact, the pilot was chosen for his skill and currency to maximize safety. The POTUS did take the stick briefly, but that was clearly on the way over to the carrier, in cruise flight, and not at any critical part of the flight such as approach and landing. Since our current POTUS is a pilot and has met at least the minimum qualifications for licensing (albeit some time ago) and a competant pilot was seated next to him I personally don’t have any problem with this. Maybe you do. I don’t know. I don’t even particularly care whether or not you care about that.

  4. What the heck is this “backing of remote guidance” weehocky you are refering to? Why would this even be necessary? You already had two pilots on board the airplane, not including the POTUS. What makes you think there is any such system on board that airplane? That’s what I’m confused about.

71

The thing that was unusual about the landing has not been mentioned yet.

The first aircraft carriers had a straight deck. The planes would land and be pushed forward. This caused a big problem when a plane missed the hook and plowed into the planes sitting on deck. As a kid I can remember news clips of this happening. I believe that for awhile a net was used, but was not that much of a help. The carrier Antietam was the first aircraft carrier to have a slanted deck. The planes taking off use the longer straight deck, but when coming in for a landing they are shooting for the slanted deck. If the landing is not successful the pilot immediately gives full power and goes around again. This has saved many aircraft and pilots.

Bush’s landing was performed on the longer straight deck. This was probably to give the pilot more reaction time, if they missed the hook. It appeared to me that there was something wrong with the wires, since if his landing had been made on the slanted deck, it would have fallen in the drink. I have two guesses as to what caused this to happen. They could have set the wires to have more slack, so that Bush did not experience a rapid stop or since the wires were not in their normal position, they did not or could not perform in the normal fashion.

[sup]The information for this post was mostly obtained from my experience of having landed on the Antietam, twice. The first time was a “touch and go” and the second one was with the hook which was then followed by a take-off.[/sup]

72

Broomstick: By “stunt,” I’m meaning a “publicity stunt.” I gave the benefit of the doubt, not appreciating the limits to my audience’s grasp of vernacular. I will make my point most plainly in the future.

As an aside, there’s a device in discourse and literature known as “imagery.” Its purpose is to evince a mental picture through use of words. Sometimes vagueness breeds the ambiguity necessary to deliver different imagery to different readers, thereby adding real tinder to the debate.

You’re clearly educated. You don’t need to be spoon-fed.

The “remote guidance” (that you yourself have agreed is available and deployed, yet now decide to call weehocky – are you waffling the debate? <grin>) is simply a hedge against the risks inherent to the Administration’s gambol.

>>>And you’re from… where?<<<
BTW: My location is right under my name. Geographically, it’s a little subdivision in the city limits of Mons Pubis.

73

I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that what Mr. B was getting at in his first reference to remotely controlling Navy One is that since “we have the technology”, it would theoretically have been possible for the Bad Guys to have taken control of Navy One in mid-flight, and that therefore it was stupid to risk the CinC’s having his ride crashed by agents of the Illuminati.

Or aliens. Either way.

Well? That work for anybody?

I see Tommy Jones as the Bad Guy, why is that?

and Steven Seagal’s in there someplace, too.

74

DDG,

(…and I submit this with trepidation, lest I stand accused of dignifying your post.)

>>>Bad Guys to have taken control of Navy One in mid-flight<<<
The system doesn’t work that way. It can’t work that way. Now the Space Shuttle, that’s a whole different story, but I digress. <sheepish grin>

BTW: Why would the Illuminati burn its marionette?

75

Again, I hope that I’m not crossing the line, considering that we’re still in GQ, but I felt a need to respond to this.

More often, especially when one whishes to sound important and knowledgeable, a person will make vague, unverfyable statements. When they are called on the statements, the vagueness allows them to assert nearly any meaning or motivation. This device is known as “weasaling”.

76

And there it is, folks.

77

Mr. B, the General Questions forum is not for political arguments. If you want to call a political figure a “boob”, the BBQ Pit is the place for that. If you want to call him a “straw-man” and are prepared to back up your statement, Great Debates is the place for that. That is also the place to debate conspiracy theories.

Since the factual question has long since been answered, I’ll close this thread.

bibliophage
moderator GQ