• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
10:30AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesAir Force Two Damages Small Plane On Long Island

Back to Squawk list

Air Force Two Damages Small Plane On Long Island

Submitted
An Air Force spokeswoman says that a small private plane was knocked over by the jet wash from Biden's plane as it taxied to take off Wednesday morning at Francis S. Gabreski Airport. The left wing of the Piper Cub was damaged but no one was on board. (cbs5.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bigren
bigren 1
I didn't know there was such a plane as Airforce Two. I thought there was only Airforce One.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
Looking at an overhead view of (FOK)I would assume the AF-2 would have been parked by the c-130's pf the ANG. If my assumtion is correct, in order for AF-2's exaughst to damage another aircraft said aircraft was either parked too close to the taxiway or ATC Ground incorrectly instructed AF-2 taxi instructions to the runway.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
Itoo would like to blame this on the Marines but only Air Force Pilots get to Dive POTUS and VPOTUS around in the big blue and white birds.
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
Hmmm...all I am seeing is a load bearing capacity of 100,000 for dual tandem aircraft. For a plane that weights in empty at about 125,000...am I missing something?
cmcook
Chuck Cook 0
I am sure that somehow the media will say that it was due to something that Bush had done.
LIKE
Chuck is right - I am sure Bush is to blame.
lholden
Larry Holden 0
Fixed wing - AF guys in blue up front.
Rotary - Marines up front.

(That's why they call it Marine One...)
RAMCO01
Richard Marks 0
AF1 and 2 as well as Marine 1 and 2 are military aircraft. As such, they are not restricted to the same limitations as us civilian pilots. So, if there was a taxiway load limit, other than concern about the aircraft becoming stuck, the military would not be held in violation of regs. Also, the owner of the Piper Cub will be paid off since AF2 jet blast caused the damage. It is a maritime rule that pilots (as well as boat Captains) must be conscious of their 'wake' and the potential for damage to other vessels--or aircraft-- and operate so as to avoid causing damage. Therefore, the Captain of AF2 is responsible for the jet blast that flipped the Cub.
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
As a 21 year USAF pilot (Heavy) you are incorrect about the "non-limitations" of military aircraft. Load bearing capacity is based on physics,not regulations. A presumably 200,000 pound aircraft taxiing on pavement that can only support 100,000 will result in severe damage to the taxiway/runway as well as potentially disabling the aircraft. In addition, and although it is not what it is provided for, load bearing capacity should be an indication of the overall field capability of the airport. A 100,000 dual tandem limitation sings to me of general aviation, not heavy jet transport. Which leads to my second point.

Yes you are right about the wake, although whether it derives from maritime law is suspect (I am also an attorney). Ultimately, as in shipping, the pilot in command is responsible for the operation (and consequences) of his aircraft. That is a civilian and military regulation. The feds will pay for it. I know this sits poorly in the face of most tax payers. We seem to have no problems with 600 billion dollar budgets and supplemental appropriations near 40 billion for wars of our choosing.
RAMCO01
Richard Marks 0
I am a vietnam era chopper pilot. Fortunately my name is not on a wall. However, I do recall that when it came to limitations many of what would be a limit for civilian are exceeded in military. For example, max weight for takeoff and landing; or maintaining proper distance from other aircraft/obstacles, conducting IFR operations outside of the minimums, etc., these are violated many times by military/public aircraft. There may be internal consequences from the particular agency or unit perhaps, but the FAA seldom goes after such aircraft or pilot. And, of course these violations are suppose to be limited to combat/enforcement missions. But I know of events where aircraft did not follow the same civilian rules and the FAA were hand-tied.

And yes, the load bearing limit on the runway is a standard, however, certain taxiways are developed for lessor weighted aircraft at many fields. A pilot should know and the ATC ground controller should know where that aircraft may taxi. But again, other than the physics involved, if the crew managed to taxi on a taxiway without damaging it or the aircraft, it is doubtful that any consequence would incur from the FAA. Again, the agency/unit may have a different take on it.
firesafety552
firesafety552 0
must have been a Marine pilot..he-he
Eric27
Eric Schaffer 0
I've noticed this adminastration spends a lot of time spending tax dollars in these aircraft. Does anyone know how often the last adminstraton spent in the air?
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
They are the president and vice president. There are serious security issues. Their time is our money. They represent the largest economy and strongest democracy in the world. When they travel, we can't send them on jet blue. The tax dollars spent are minimal.
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
Air Force One alone bills out at $100,000 per hour. Adding to the cost are military aircraft to carry limos and secret service vehicles, Marine One on standby, Secret Service, local police and other factors. This only ever becomes an issue when there is a democratic president. Except for Jimmy Carter , who lived like a pauper and was criticized for it.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
The Air Force One fleet, also known as the 95th Squadron, supplies specialized Aircraft for members of Congress, who are traveling on official business and the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House, who is Third in line of succession, have dedicated aircraft at their disposal.

The two 747's known as Air Force One are specially fitted out to provide the President with a means of travel. They are also safe haven in the event of security threats made toward the President. They are both capable of air to air refueling, have a full and secure communications suite, a full surgical theater, a private office and sleeping area for the president as well as a secure meeting room on board. Most recently the Aircrafts were upgraded to allow the President to address the American People while in the air.

There are many other features aboard the Air Force One Aircraft most of which are classified. As we have all seen during 9/11 the safest place for the President is in the Air. The only limiting factor(s) is the ability to get fuel up to the aircraft and food. While it has never been said I would be willing to bet there are several pallets of MRE's in the forward cargo bay which can be accessed from the main cabin.
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
The president's 747s are air refuelable.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
I thought I said that. The only problem is getting a tanker to them during an attack. During 9/11 that was not a problem. If there was a nuclear attack getting a tanker to them could be a problem. Air Force One is believed to be protected against Electromagnetic pulse. I am not aware of any tankers being protected in such a manner. One would think there would be some so protected and strategically placed when the president is traveling.
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
There is some limited EMP protection for tankers. Enough that it can still operate. One of the best protections, the Navigator, has since been removed. There would be plenty of post SIOP opportunities for AF-1 to refuel.

There are issues that are greater than EMP.

Also, remember, the flight time for an SLBM is less than 10 min to DC. That is assuming they survive our attack boats. I am not confident, unless it is dispersed, of its survival in a first strike.
toolguy105
toolguy105 0
I guess you have not seen the hangar AF-1 is in. It looks to be a very sturd structure. Of course no one will tell you what it is built to withstand. Lets face it though; if we all ever start shooting nukes at each other there is not going to be mujch of anyone or anything left to govern anyway.
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
Yea, I have seen the hangers, and there are ones just like it at Offutt for NEACAP. I don't care how strong you build them, nuclear overpressure is significant.

The Soviets had enough nukes that they employed them as "tactical" weapons. I can assure you that 2 - 4 weapons (maybe more) would be used on Andrews. They will even independently target a POL area. The problem comes with the fly-out. Consider the Redoubt volcano, its consequences, and the effect of multiple ground bursts. Nuff said.

There is quite a constitutional structure for the transfer of power. Also, most sensible powers avoid decapitation strikes. You don't want to kill the people who you will negotiate a surrender with...
jlday1256
Jim Day 0
Ohhhh we are talking combat minimums, operations.. True, but just not a FOK. During peacetime the USAF is obligated to follow the FARs and military regs, believe it or not, whatever is more restrictive.

The load bearing capacity is for the runway. Taxiways may have a lesser LBN.
annakatt
George Wilson 0
Some might term this "more hot air from Biden."