Huggy, things don't change that much. Google "The Battle of Los Angeles" to see what I mean.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
AF-One Terrorizes New York City!!!
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
Huggy, things don't change that much. Google "The Battle of Los Angeles" to see what I mean.
To play devil's advocate here:
1) It's possible that even at low altitude, the paint/markings of the jet were not clear to bystanders on the ground. Given the right combination of sunlight and shadows, it could have very easily been onscured, even that low.
2) The F-16 may have appeared to have been intercepting or escorting the jet....most people know that this was attempted (too late) on 9/11.
3) Most of the information that is common knowledge among folks on this forum, and this line of work, is lost on the vast majority of citizens. Just read the comments on any aviation or military related video on youtube and I think this becomes really apparent.
Not saying that the media isn't making a spectacle over a non-issue, but I can at least understand where some folks would have been concerned.
1) It's possible that even at low altitude, the paint/markings of the jet were not clear to bystanders on the ground. Given the right combination of sunlight and shadows, it could have very easily been onscured, even that low.
2) The F-16 may have appeared to have been intercepting or escorting the jet....most people know that this was attempted (too late) on 9/11.
3) Most of the information that is common knowledge among folks on this forum, and this line of work, is lost on the vast majority of citizens. Just read the comments on any aviation or military related video on youtube and I think this becomes really apparent.
Not saying that the media isn't making a spectacle over a non-issue, but I can at least understand where some folks would have been concerned.
My point is that this isn't something that the WH dreamed up. They apparantly approved it, but it's not as though Obama or his COS were like, "Hey lets do a photo shoot over NYC with Air Force 1." This was a DoD thing.
Brett
I've had two friends fly C-130s up the VFR corridors on the Hudson (usually reserved for helos as I think the altitude is around 500'); one did it in '04 with little fanfare, another did it around '06 with a bit more hoopla as I heard a building or two was evacuated.
The primary concern is the (seemingly) high mortality rate with the cases in Mexico.
And my main frustration with the nature of the coverage is the woeful inability or unwillingness of the media to ask the pertinent questions...ie were those killed by the outbreak suffering from additional health complications...or is the virus indeed killing otherwise healthy individuals.
And why haven't we seen (thank God) a corresponding fatality rate in the US?
For what it is worth, the 1918 Spanish Flu (which actually started in the US and also jumped from swine) did not have a high mortality rate...initially. The strain mutated after it spread to Europe and became incredibly lethal...to the tune of 100 million dead worldwide in some estimates. It also decimated the combat effectiveness of the front line combat units during WW I.
Even stranger...it killed the young and healthy at a MUCH higher rate than expected. Basically, the virus caused a vigorous and healthy immune system to over react...leaving the healthy at great risk. The young and the old did far better than would have been thought.
Bigger picture (IMHO) is the need for preparation to mitigate the next viral outbreak...as it seems that governments will not be able/willing to react quickly enough to contain future mutant strains from spreading.
We've known for years that our flu virus production capability is not up to responding to a pandemic...hopefully this will turn out to be a relatively minor situation but scary enough to jumpstart a more realisitic public health contingency plan.
End state...they should have known this would be very high-visibility. Several players fumbled the ball before the whistle blew. Primarily the WH military office, but also the NYC public safety officials. I give the FAA a pass, because their considerations are safety of the airways, not PR. Either one could have sounded off at the fact that this could be a huge fiasco, and that at a minimum, the public should have been notified of what was happening in advance. If security considerations for the plane wouldn't allow notice to be given, the event should have been scrubbed. If they wanted to fly the plane by a cool-looking backdrop, I'm sure Mt. Rushmore wasn't booked.
While I don't think I would have gone into a state of panic at the sight, I definitely see the point of view of those NYers who did. 1000-1500 feet is really low for a 747, and the markings would not necessarily have been readily distinguishable. Even the F-16 escort could have made one MORE apprehensive, not less. Having a shot-down jumbojet plunging into Manhattan is kind of a scary possibility, too.
While I don't think I would have gone into a state of panic at the sight, I definitely see the point of view of those NYers who did. 1000-1500 feet is really low for a 747, and the markings would not necessarily have been readily distinguishable. Even the F-16 escort could have made one MORE apprehensive, not less. Having a shot-down jumbojet plunging into Manhattan is kind of a scary possibility, too.
The cost doesn't bug me too much. You can look on any page of the budget and see stuff that makes one go, "WTF?"
Apparently, the decision to not inform the public was a conscious one. I'm not sure which is worse: not realizing that this course of action would cause panic, or knowing it and doing it anyway.
Apparently, the decision to not inform the public was a conscious one. I'm not sure which is worse: not realizing that this course of action would cause panic, or knowing it and doing it anyway.
And why is (apparently) nothing being done to limit the spread?
The article seems to indicate that it was the FAA that demanded secrecy.
From the reports I have read the vast majority of deaths have been to young and healthy individuals, the exact opposite of normal flu deaths. That is part of the reason it has public health officials very worried.
What do you mean by that? There are already some pretty stringent measures in place to try and prevent the further spread of the virus, especially in Mexico City. It is to the point right now where it cannot be completely contained, it spread far enough before health officials realized what they had on their hands to do so. That was largely through no fault of their own, when they realized that it was killing young and healthy patients tests were done rapidly and confirmed it was more than the regular flu and by that time it had spread. Health officials in Mexico and around the world reacted relatively quickly and are trying to limit the spread where they can.
Which doesn't belie the point in any case.
Though generally I would tend to think the FAA wasn't the originator of the secrecy request--it had no stake in keeping the flight unannounced.
I was referring to nothing additional being done at the border crossings, at least those in the San Diego/Tijuana area.
You mean slowing tourists from visiting Mexico? I'm guessing there are warnings posted now, and there have been numerous press conferences.