Air Force One, missed approach

My husband informed me that the ILS comes back online later on tonight/early tomorrow? LOC 7 minimums are 400', LOC 25 are 600'! So I guess it's lucky they made it in at all.
 
Report I read. Said they missed due to turbulence. Sounds bogus:eek:
 
Datadriver said:
Report I read. Said they missed due to turbulence. Sounds bogus:eek:
Click to expand...

Why bogus? I think going around is a sign of maturity and good sense. Some landings just aren't worth saving -- whatever the reason.

-Rich
 
what the heck do reporters know about 'weather?' If you wanted to try to tell the reporter that the pilot was a) not yet ready to land when he broke out or b) really did not have the runway in sight at the MAP or c) simply was still in the clouds . . . you'd be met with something written like this . . .

"Air Force One today made a missed approach to Ohio airport despite there being a problem with the ceiling. The Pilots were not clear and the FAA reported that the ceiling was lower than it needed to be for a safe landing. It is unknown why the airplane ceiling was lower than needed for landing."
 
Saw an interview somewhere recently with the colonel who is the current AF One commander. He said something to the effect of, "Diverting is not an option, no matter the situation. The president has to get where he's going. We will get in." Thought that was interesting. I'm sure the aircraft has all kinds of cool super secret technology...but somehow I doubt that altering the existing weather is among the capabilities...
 
One of the most impressive things I've seen in aviation was an intentional low pass over FFA by AF1 (and I use that term in the strict sense of the word). W was onboard having just made a quick speech at the Wright Brothers reenactment.
 
flyingron said:
One of the most impressive things I've seen in aviation was an intentional low pass over FFA by AF1.
Click to expand...

Oh, GW was in the right seat for that one!

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for me to fly this baby right down there and rustle up the ghosts of Neville and Wilbur!"

:D
 
cnn said:
It was the second aviation incident related to the presidential campaign in the past week.
Click to expand...
This shouldn't even be mentioned. Hardly worth a footnote in the campaign. Ann Romney's problem could have turned deadly.
 
Aborted due to wx (400-3). I did a PAR for Air Force 1 (Clinton) at 500-2. Horrible approach. Turns like a pig! :(
 
Velocity173 said:
Aborted due to wx (400-3). I did a PAR for Air Force 1 (Clinton) at 500-2. Horrible approach. Turns like a pig! :(
Click to expand...

Buckaroo: Don't worry, it drives like a truck.
Alien: Good. What's a truck?
 
The only folks who have never missed have never flown in real weather. I recall trying to get into NAS Midway for some fuel after a Looooong search north of there. Made five approaches in gusting wind and heavy rain before we got down.
 
BrianR said:
"Diverting is not an option, no matter the situation. The president has to get where he's going. We will get in."
Click to expand...

Why does the image of burning twisted mangled wreckage and dead bodies littering the landscape for 3/4 of a mile come to mind?
 
fgcason said:
Why does the image of burning twisted mangled wreckage and dead bodies littering the landscape for 3/4 of a mile come to mind?
Click to expand...

It is hard to imagine a weather condition other than a stationary tornado or freezing rain at an unheard of rate that would keep a well equipped 747 with a well skilled crew and all the goodies they have off for long. No weather system is consistent, with the possible exception of fog. One of the tricks to flying in nasty stuff is persistence, mixed with caution. Barring a catastrophic mechanical failure, I don't doubt that the Colonel can deliver on that promise.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
It is hard to imagine a weather condition other than a stationary tornado or freezing rain at an unheard of rate that would keep a well equipped 747 with a well skilled crew and all the goodies they have off for long. No weather system is consistent, with the possible exception of fog. One of the tricks to flying in nasty stuff is persistence, mixed with caution. Barring a catastrophic mechanical failure, I don't doubt that the Colonel can deliver on that promise.
Click to expand...

Similar ingredients, including hubris, were at play in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash
 
Jim Logajan said:
Similar ingredients, including hubris, were at play in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash
Click to expand...

Oh, I bet they weren't nearly as well equipped.

A little on board ground mapping device of some sort. Three INS's with good GPS or ground mapping device updates. Best terrain database (tax) money can buy. HUD with a flight path marker. Too much of a stretch to think the VC-25 could be set up like that?

I think I'd give 100 - 1/4 a shot or two with that gear and appropriate proficiency.
 
catmandu said:
I think I'd give 100 - 1/4 a shot or two with that gear and appropriate proficiency.
Click to expand...

On a VOR approach? No way in hell. Go somewhere with a clear ILS and sure, no problem.
 
catmandu said:
I was talking more of a 'exhausted the normal divert matrix' kind of situation.
Click to expand...

Understand now. But still not for a VOR only approach. I'd want to know that a glide slope was available.
 
Clark1961 said:
Understand now. But still not for a VOR only approach. I'd want to know that a glide slope was available.
Click to expand...

Paradigm shift. The equipment I listed would give you an aircraft supplied glide slope.
 
catmandu said:
Paradigm shift. The equipment I listed would give you an aircraft supplied glide slope.
Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily provide terrain and obstacle clearance...
 
That's why I included "Best terrain database (tax) money can buy." :)
 
Captain said:
I gotta fill out paper work every time I do the same. 'incident' seems about right.
Click to expand...
There is a legal definition in 49 CFR Part 830 of an "incident." This doesn't meet it even if your company requires reports on missed approaches.
 
Ron Levy said:
There is a legal definition in 49 CFR Part 830 of an "incident." This doesn't meet it even if your company requires reports on missed approaches.
Click to expand...

Having to make a report on a missed approach is absurd, IMO.
 
I don't know about where Captain works but for us it's a customer service thing. I'll note on our trip feedback sheet if we do a missed approach just so that if a customer questions what happened at a later date they can look it up and see what they are talking about. Usually it will be something like, "Went around for traffic on the runway. Passengers seemed OK about it."
 
Clark1961 said:
Which won't cover a 200 ft tower built last month...
Click to expand...

If I am shooting a self contained precision approach while carrying the POTUSA because I have exhausted all other options, and I find that someone in the last 30 days has constructed a 200 foot tower on a runway center line that intersects a plus or minus three degree glide slope to a runway capable of supporting a VC-35, then I sure hope I played 1-2-3-4-5 powerball 6 and handed that ticket to my smoking hot wife just prior to heading to Andrews.

Just sayin' . . .
 
catmandu said:
If I am shooting a self contained precision approach while carrying the POTUSA because I have exhausted all other options, and I find that someone in the last 30 days has constructed a 200 foot tower on a runway center line that intersects a plus or minus three degree glide slope to a runway capable of supporting a VC-35, then I sure hope I played 1-2-3-4-5 powerball 6 and handed that ticket to my smoking hot wife just prior to heading to Andrews.

Just sayin' . . .
Click to expand...

go for the glideslope rather than a no external data approach...just sayin'...
 
catmandu said:
If I am shooting a self contained precision approach while carrying the POTUSA because I have exhausted all other options, and I find that someone in the last 30 days has constructed a 200 foot tower on a runway center line that intersects a plus or minus three degree glide slope to a runway capable of supporting a VC-35, then I sure hope I played 1-2-3-4-5 powerball 6 and handed that ticket to my smoking hot wife just prior to heading to Andrews.

Just sayin' . . .
Click to expand...

I have no comment other than the fact that your avatar is of the all time sexiest jet in the history of the world. That is all :)
 
35 AoA said:
I have no comment other than the fact that your avatar is of the all time sexiest jet in the history of the world. That is all :)
Click to expand...

That is not an entirely untrue statement! One might say that one would be inspired to persue high alpha should one grow up looking at those sexy beasts in the sky, eh? :wink2:
 
catmandu said:
That is not an entirely untrue statement! One might say that one would be inspired to persue high alpha should one grow up looking at those sexy beasts in the sky, eh? :wink2:
Click to expand...

We had one on a stick outside the chow hall at NAS Memphis. Often wondered what happened to that thing.
 
Velocity173 said:
We had one on a stick outside the chow hall at NAS Memphis. Often wondered what happened to that thing.
Click to expand...

Coincidentally, my avatar is an inflight of that very aircraft!

(Still sitting on those sticks at KNQA as of the latest Google street view).
 
Last edited:
catmandu said:
That is not an entirely untrue statement! One might say that one would be inspired to persue high alpha should one grow up looking at those sexy beasts in the sky, eh? :wink2:
Click to expand...

The Vigi was gone by the time I was born in '83 sadly, but I will admit that the Hornet was not the aircraft I dreamed of flying.......little hint, it wasn't fast or sexy, and it had a refueling probe sticking out of the top of it's fat nose :)
 
Threefingeredjack said:
While I won't argue your taste, I would ask you to not forget the XB-70. :D
Click to expand...

Another great, though not as sexy IMHO, just a very impressive aircraft program altogether.....probably a bigger undertaking than any aircraft past, present, or near future. And also of a similar lineage to the RA-5, as well as the F-108 (also sexy in mock up form). I'm pretty sure that North American Aviation did not approve a design unless it looked like it was going at least mach 2 while sitting in the chocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top