# Manhattan Fly-by -- really a photo-op? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016 "2009-05-01T20:10:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/21 "2009-05-02T03:39:55Z")
On a related topic, when do we get to see the pictures and video? Do I have to submit a FOIA request or something? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/22 "2009-05-02T05:12:02Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > OK, I’d like to keep this on topic, if possible. > > **Magiver** , I don’t think I understand why there would be more secrecy when the president is NOT on the plane. Taking out a military plane that happens to look like AF-1 would be less “terrorist-like” than taking out a loaded commercial 747, I think. When the President uses AF1 there is a tremendous amount of security around it. Not so when the same plane is flying around without a President. The logic is that it’s still a juicy target and without the added security it is more vulnerable. If you’ve every worked at an airport during a Presidential visit you would see at least some of the layers of protection. It’s substantial. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/23 "2009-05-02T05:25:21Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > [- Bloomberg](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqgwCVt31_s0&refer=home) > > Whatever complaints can be made about the trip (and there’s plenty enough), complaining about the price tag seems a bit unimpressive. It wasn’t a training mission, it was hours stolen from training hours. So while you could say it wasn’t additional money spent you can also say it’s not legitimate training time unless there is a training need to fly in camera formation. I normally wouldn’t care but during a national financial crisis I expect my tax dollars to be spent wisely. It’s not rocket science to understand that this would draw attention to itself and thus become a publicly visible waste of money. Military budgets are finite and this is Peter robbing Paul for a couple of glossy shots. There’s a whole file of the damn things available without wasting time and military budgets on new ones. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/24 "2009-05-02T11:27:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It wasn’t a training mission,… Sure, it was. Pilots have to practice, and there are very specific requirements on just how much practice is needed; three takeoffs and landings within the preceding ninety days, that sort of thing. I don’t know the exact details for the president’s flight crew, but it’s got to be stricter than what I had to do as a private pilot. And all trips count, that’s one of the reasons pilots keep a logbook. Is there some reason you think “fly(ing) in camera formation” doesn’t count as flying? Security, necessity, and cost can be debated, but from a pilot proficiency standpoint, these guys have got the chops. If they can do a low pass, in a 747, flaps up, _in formation_, normal cruising ought to be no problem. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/25 "2009-05-02T19:53:19Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Sure, it was. Pilots have to practice, and there are very specific requirements on just how much practice is needed; three takeoffs and landings within the preceding ninety days, that sort of thing. I don’t know the exact details for the president’s flight crew, but it’s got to be stricter than what I had to do as a private pilot. And all trips count, that’s one of the reasons pilots keep a logbook. Is there some reason you think “fly(ing) in camera formation” doesn’t count as flying? Yes, as a pilot myself I understand the need to log hours but this involved military aircraft as well as AF1. At this level, it’s not a bunch of weekend National Guard pilots logging touch and go’s. This was time taken out of military budget in order to create yet another photo op picture to a file cabinet full of them. It screams waste of tax payer money. It was a waste of time for all the pilots concerned. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/26 "2009-05-02T21:03:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, as a pilot myself I understand the need to log hours but this involved military aircraft as well as AF1. At this level, it’s not a bunch of weekend National Guard pilots logging touch and go’s. This was time taken out of military budget in order to create yet another photo op picture to a file cabinet full of them. It screams waste of tax payer money. It was a waste of time for all the pilots concerned. AIR FORCE 1 is a military aircraft (not in any conspiracy sense–just that it’s an air force aircraft.) Plus, if they had to do the training anyway, why not do it in a way that added some other kind of value as well–like getting useful photos? that’s saving, rather than wasting money. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/27 "2009-05-02T21:43:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It wasn’t a training mission, it was hours stolen from training hours. So while you could say it wasn’t additional money spent you can also say it’s not legitimate training time unless there is a training need to fly in camera formation. Says who? Do we have evidence supporting the notion that the Air Force _doesn’t_ count that time as legitimate training hours as they’re claiming they do? The woman who gave the statement quoted in Bloomberg was a spokesperson for the Air Force. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/28 "2009-05-02T23:02:31Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Plus, if they had to do the training anyway, why not do it in a way that added some other kind of value as well–like getting useful photos? that’s saving, rather than wasting money. This sometimes comes up when military jets do fly-overs at the Super Bowl, or other such events. Some people think that’s wasteful. But the fact is, the airplane and pilots have to fly a certain number of hours anyway. May as well show off the hardware to the public in the process. I have no problem with that. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/29 "2009-05-02T23:30:17Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Helicopters and jetliners don’t mix. The jet’s wake will not do nice things to the helicopter. Should be no problem at all so long as the jet does not fly right over the top of the helicopter. Of course the fact that its top speed may not match a 747’s slowest flying speed would tend to make a helicopter a poor choice for this photo mission. ---
**Author:** ![Fionn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fionn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fionn)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/30 "2009-05-03T00:59:00Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > That said, other countries seem to get by without having fuck-off huge personal jets for their leaders, with the country’s name plastered all over them. Their PMs and presidents often just use aircraft of one of the national airlines. I’m not sure why the US president requires a personal fleet. Offhand, I would guess that in addition to the safety and communication benefits, the president of the United States relies on air travel within the US because the country is so large, just like many ordinary citizens do, and does more long-distance travel than other leaders might. Which countries were you thinking of that don’t have the equivalent of an Air Force One? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/31 "2009-05-03T01:10:54Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Says who? Do we have evidence supporting the notion that the Air Force _doesn’t_ count that time as legitimate training hours as they’re claiming they do? The woman who gave the statement quoted in Bloomberg was a spokesperson for the Air Force. It isn’t a function of logging time, it’s a function of lost training. Ferrying a jet to NY to take pictures is not combat related training. This was wasted training time taken out of a budget for purposes of creating additional photo-op pictures that aren’t needed. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/32 "2009-05-03T01:29:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It isn’t a function of logging time, it’s a function of lost training. Ferrying a jet to NY to take pictures is not combat related training. This was wasted training time taken out of a budget for purposes of creating additional photo-op pictures that aren’t needed. Well, first, not all training is “combat related”–you have to learn to fly well as well, and just keep skills up. Second, flying low, in formation, near obstacles seem like pretty well combat related skills. Similarly intercepting an airliner, and taking up escort positions seems to be most of what our U.S. based fighters do these days. So practicing that is in fact related to what the fighters do for a living–not all operational use is combat. Third, what kind of “combat related” training do you do with an Air Force One, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/33 "2009-05-03T01:49:49Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Third, what kind of “combat related” training do you do with an Air Force One, exactly? They’ve got two of them. Wouldn’t you love to see that dogfight? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/34 "2009-05-03T01:54:30Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > They’ve got two of them. Wouldn’t you love to see that dogfight? I’d bet AF1 has been built to higher tolerances than the average 747–that it can pull more strenuous maneuvers. I’d also guess it’s got one of the more experienced USAF pilots around. So in short, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/35 "2009-05-03T02:20:05Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > I’d bet AF1 has been built to higher tolerances than the average 747–that it can pull more strenuous maneuvers. I’d seriously question the notion that with regard to rated aerodynamic stress it’s much different from a standard 747. No reason for this to be true - the standard 747 has an excellent and extremely long history of top-notch performance doing just what AF1 is expected to. If - at who knows what hideous cost - you could make it 20% stronger, it would be no better at its job (indeed, it would probably be substantially worse, as such changes would surely add weight). > [@](#): > > I’d also guess it’s got one of the more experienced USAF pilots around. This is certainly true. And one of the things an experienced pilot can be trusted to do is know the limitations of his aircraft and stay within them. Dogfighting is right out. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/36 "2009-05-03T02:57:05Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Well, first, not all training is “combat related”–you have to learn to fly well as well, and just keep skills up. F-16’s and 747’s aren’t trainers. My plane is hangared at an F-16 training base and they don’t fly around doing touch and go’s. They swap out ordnance and fly to reserved areas for combat training. > [@whorfin](#): > > Second, flying low, in formation, near obstacles seem like pretty well combat related skills. Similarly intercepting an airliner, and taking up escort positions seems to be most of what our U.S. based fighters do these days. So practicing that is in fact related to what the fighters do for a living–not all operational use is combat. Training to intercept an airliner is like practicing to walk. Only in this case, they didn’t even practice to intercept. It was a 2 plane formation which is something I did on my first flight after I got my license. The difference is that a photo chase plane follows at a greater distance. > [@whorfin](#): > > Third, what kind of “combat related” training do you do with an Air Force One, exactly? None, that’s why it’s a waste of money. Flying a 747 around to get pictures to hand out is pointless when such pictures already exist. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/37 "2009-05-03T03:17:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > F-16’s and 747’s aren’t trainers. My plane is hangared at an F-16 training base and they don’t fly around doing touch and go’s. They swap out ordnance and fly to reserved areas for combat training. No, but neither is it true that every training flight is a live-fire exercise at a training base. Some is merely keeping up flight hours, others is maintaining currency in type, and so on. The point was that the time and experience wasn’t wasted simply because the pilots weren’t practicing top-gun style dogfighting. > [@](#): > > Training to intercept an airliner is like practicing to walk. Only in this case, they didn’t even practice to intercept. It was a 2 plane formation which is something I did on my first flight after I got my license. The difference is that a photo chase plane follows at a greater distance. And we’d like our pilots to be able to walk, no? Seriously–whether simple or not simple, if our pilots are training to do X, they ought to train by practicing X. Further, I assume that a photo plane needs to be in a very precise position to get the desired photos. Precision formation flying may be a basic skill, but it’s an important one. > [@](#): > > None, that’s why it’s a waste of money. Flying a 747 around to get pictures to hand out is pointless when such pictures already exist. Nice dodge of the point that not all training is “combat” training–especially in a VC-25 or similar aircraft. You have to ask what the aircraft’s mission is to identify relevant training—and hence it’s not a “waste” that AF1 isn’t doing “combat” training when it’s not training for combat. Also, I just did an image search, and couldn’t find any pictures of AF1 and the statue of liberty. As you’re telling me they exist, can you point me in the right direction? > [@Xema](#): > > I’d seriously question the notion that with regard to rated aerodynamic stress it’s much different from a standard 747. No reason for this to be true - the standard 747 has an excellent and extremely long history of top-notch performance doing just what AF1 is expected to. If - at who knows what hideous cost - you could make it 20% stronger, it would be no better at its job (indeed, it would probably be substantially worse, as such changes would surely add weight). I have no reason to doubt you on the structural point–though Wiki says that AF1 is equipped for in-flight refueling–so at least there are some relatively substantial modifications. Presumably, those who know for sure aren’t telling. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/38 "2009-05-03T03:33:59Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > And we’d like our pilots to be able to walk, no? That doesn’t mean you need to waste thousands of dollars on walking training. You can get all the walking training you need just getting from point A to point B during your _real_ training. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/39 "2009-05-03T04:08:44Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > … Wiki says that AF1 is equipped for in-flight refueling–so at least there are some relatively substantial modifications. That makes a lot of sense, as under certain circumstances it might have to spend a long time airborne. And there will for certain be a very sophisticated set of electronics on board, for communications and ECM. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016/40 "2009-05-03T04:12:46Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > No, but neither is it true that every training flight is a live-fire exercise at a training base. Some is merely keeping up flight hours, others is maintaining currency in type, and so on. The point was that the time and experience wasn’t wasted simply because the pilots weren’t practicing top-gun style dogfighting. Again, my plane is hangared at an F-16 base. They don’t go out joy riding to log hours. That’s what simulators are for. They rack up different ordinances and head off to practice. > [@whorfin](#): > > Also, I just did an image search, and couldn’t find any pictures of AF1 and the statue of liberty. As you’re telling me they exist, can you point me in the right direction? You cannot be serious. You’re trying to say we needed to spend $350,000 for a picture of the Statue of Liberty to hand out as a freebie during a recession? Is that what you’re saying? There are an infinite number of promo pictures we DON’T have. Now we have an infinite number plus one (minus $350,000). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-fly-by-really-a-photo-op/495016.md?page=3)