| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Photo-op over NYC causes scare....
Troy Taormina, Photographer
 |
Richmond | Tx | USA | Posted: 6:36 PM on 04.27.09 |
| ->> That's a helluva situation. On the one hand I can completely understand the locals freaking out. On the other hand, does anybody really expect that the White House would have announced an Air Force One flyover to the general public? |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 7:31 PM on 04.27.09 |
| ->> It wasn't Air Force One. Pres was not on board. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:41 AM on 04.28.09 |
| ->> Of course the New York Post called it "Obama's Plane" when it wasn't... |
|
Dominick Reuter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boston | MA | USA | Posted: 6:14 PM on 04.28.09 |
| ->> Vincent Laforet and his 5D MkII are really getting out of hand... |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 6:49 PM on 04.28.09 |
| ->> ...and what did this photo-op cost? According to the United States Air Force this photo-op cost taxpayers US$328,835 |
|
Dave Breen, Photographer
|
Somerset | PA | USA | Posted: 7:06 PM on 04.28.09 |
| ->> Mark Rebilas had a camera mounted on the tail. Seriously, what were they photographing? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 7:20 PM on 04.28.09 |
->> Dave,
They were shooting the VC-25 against New York City and The Statue of Liberty for USAF PAO imagery.
They could have used the $328,835 more effectively do directly help troops engaged in combat zones. The United States Department of Defense has failed to comply with Section 351 of Public Law 108-375 repeatedly.Section 351 of Public Law 108-375 requires the implementation of a reimbursement program for members of the United States Armed Forces who have been required to purchase their own body armour or other protective, safety equipment for use in combat.
How many members of the U.S. Armed Forced could the Department of Defense have reimbursed for their body armour instead of initiating a US$328,835 photo shoot?
OK, I'm off my soap box. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:25 PM on 04.28.09 |
->> WTF, what would it cost to hire a high school sophomore for 10 minutes with an old Mac with PhotoShop CS (1) to put a stock or public domain photo of that plane into a stock or public domain image of the Statue of Liberty?
How much grief and stress would that have saved many in lower Manhattan?
Fish, stay on that soapbox! |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 7:31 PM on 04.28.09 |
->> Jim Colburn--
Who else has flown as principle passenger of that plane in the last 99 days?
Yes, it is in the inventory of the DoD and thus owned by the taxpayers, but when will you or I be able to request that plane for our use with at the most a few hours notice?
--Steve Ueckert |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 7:34 PM on 04.28.09 |
->> Steven,
Few things done by the government or any large organization hold up to the oversimplistic "it costs this so they should have spent it on that" logic. Everything involved with aviation (as you know), costs a ridiculous amount of money. Cleaning the aircraft each month probably eats up a similar amount of money. By your logic, most things in the Government would not get done.
I don't really have a problem with updating the imagery. That kind of stuff has to be done, and it will cost money. But the moron that decided to do it with anything less than a full public announcement on TV and radio needs to be fired. If they didn't want to announce it weeks in advance for security reasons, they still could have announced it in the media an hour or so before the flight so that people wouldn't freak.
It's an aircraft trusted with the safety of the President of the United States flying escorted by two highly capable military jets. If it's not safe for those guys to fly on a pre-announced schedule, all of us squished into the cheap seats on an RJ are absolute toast. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 7:46 PM on 04.28.09 |
->> David,
I am all for maintaining the VC-25s. I am all for keeping them clean, shining and proud as a very visible symbol of the United States and The President of the United States when in use. I know that the VC-25s are maintained dillegently, cleaned obsessively and I know that the VC-25s fly with fighter escorts fairly often. I also know that the VC-25s when used as Air Force One are supported by a massive number of support aircraft. Those costs are justified.
However...this photo-op, at times 1,000 feet off the deck beside the site of the Twin Towers and buzzing the Statue of Liberty for some promo photos is an unwarranted expense. POTUS visits New York a few times each year, why not wait until POTUS is overnighting in New York? When he lands at JFK for the hop to Manhattan to address the UN, wait for the photo op then? At that point the equipment in is place, would cause no fear as everyone knows when POTUS is in Manhattan, and the costs would be significantly reduced?
No, it is not that simple. The government is not that simple and the Military answers to no-one most of the time. The DOD essentially has a license to print money...but it cannot properly equip its 'assets' on the ground. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 6:33 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> When he lands at JFK for the hop to Manhattan to address the UN, wait for the photo op then?
You obviously don't want to do yank-and-bank maneuvers at low level for a half an hour with the President, the White House staff and the press onboard. Talk about additional expense...and risk!
If you wait until the President is in the city, you don't want his primary mode of transportation unavailable to him in case of an emergency. If the airplane out doing maneuvers and something happens where the President needs his plane, it would take significant time to get it back on the ground and configured to receive everyone...20 minutes, a half an hour...not to mention refuel time (yes you can refuel while airborne...it takes time). You don't want to waste that kind of time in an emergency. You also don't want to take the chance of something happening to the aircraft (bird strike, hard landing, fluke accident, etc.) and risk having to go to backup plans to fulfill the primary mission of transporting the President and staff.
Doing it with a backup aircraft when the President wasn't there is fine...they just should have notified people. Heck they could have even turned it into a feel-good...let everyone know it was happening so the public could take pictures at the same time. It's our aircraft, after all... |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 6:47 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> Mr. Frischling,
"Military answers to no-one most of the time"
Really ? And your proof of that is ? |
|
Robert Caplin, Photographer
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 7:55 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> Jim,
My proof? The proof is in the layers of the DoD. They answer when there are significant public relations problems on a scale much larger than that of a VC-25A fly-over.
The fly-over will be forgotten in a week. The White House's request to investigate the fly-over will be swept aside by swine flu, GM closing its plants for 9 weeks this summer instead of 2 weeks, working on relations with Mexico as a result of swine flu, the need to deal with tech-hackers that threaten the US national power grid, a major US airline headed towards bankruptcy and the foreseen spike in fuel prices (again) as we head into the summer.
So when all is said and done the FAA will have technically fullfilled their end for the authoriation and the White House Military Director will be back to more important topics rather than the fly over and hundreds of other smaller 'trivial' situations that deal with a lack of DoD financial oversight and you will have forgotten you asked me the above question.
--
Info for travellers: www.flyingwithfish.com
Twitter for travel: www.twitter.com/flyingwithfish |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:00 AM on 04.29.09 |
| ->> i'm still lost on exactly why they needed to get new stock images of what has to be the most photographed airplane of all time. What purpose does it serve? |
|
Steve Violette, Photographer
|
Gulf Breeze | FL | USA | Posted: 9:30 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> Mark -
Keeping another photographer employed - that's a good thing...... |
|
Daniel Putz, Photographer
|
Jefferson | MD | USA | Posted: 9:34 AM on 04.29.09 |
| ->> Not when it scares the ever-living-s*** out of a million people... |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:38 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> "Who else has flown as principle passenger of that plane in the last 99 days?"
It ain't "his" plane. The Post was just trying to turn it into something political when it wasn't.
"...when will you or I be able to request that plane for our use with at the most a few hours notice?"
About the same time they approve my request for a Blackhawk for the day. They've been "thinking about it" for years. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:40 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> The New York Post was probably more interested in sensationalism and selling papers than making a political statement.
Taking that view, which works better as a headline?
1: "Government Plane which Sometimes Transports
Presidents Scares New Yorkers"
OR
2: "Obama's Plane Scares New Yorkers"
Headline #2 works better. It grabs your attention, it generates more of an impulse to read the story, and it fits better on the page. It is misleading, of course, in that it implies that Obama was on the plane with a cigarette in his mouth, a drink in his left hand, while giving the city The Finger with his right. The problem with all of this was that Obama was not on the plane.
Obama is neither evil nor stupid, and I doubt that he planned this. Taking this a step further, it is rather unlikely that anyone involved in planning this sat down with the president and explained every step involved in a photo of a government jet. Why bother the presdient at all with such a routine project?
In time it will be alleged that Bush (who is a pilot) and Cheney were at the controls of the jet and that this was all a "First 100 Days" prank on the new President. After all, there are still quite a few morons who believe that Bush and Cheney planned the 9/11 attacks. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 11:14 AM on 04.29.09 |
->> Jim--
There is popular vernacular and there is precise technical descriptions. Your use of the word "ain't" suggests at least a passingly familiarity with the difference.
True, The New York Post could have listed the bureau number of the craft as well as the inventory reference and likely such a description would have passed over the heads of most of their readers at about the same altitude as the photo op flight, or they could have simply referred to it as the President's plane. If I was a professional communicator trying to reach the readers of the NY Post, I know how I would have described the plane.
Would I have been deliberately politicizing the plane's reference, not consciously. Was the NY Post's reference a deliberate politicization, perhaps. Given the relationship between the news media and the White House going back only the last 8 years, I can't find too many references to the White House that haven't been political to some degree. Even this year's Easter Egg Roll was politicized by specifying who all was on the list of invitees.
Maybe the NY Post was just trying to make the most of a crisis, not an original concept there.
Good luck with that Blackhawk.
--JSU |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> "...which works better as a headline?"
Neither, but
"Air Force Photo-Op Scares New Yorkers"
does the job, tells the truth and remains non-political.
"Was the NY Post's reference a deliberate politicization"
Given their past, yes. |
|
Kevin Leas, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> Heh - techno artist/NYC resident Moby chimes in with the same point others here have already made:
"haven't they heard of photoshop? it's a little worrisome to think that the department of defense, who control about a trillion dollars a year, don't know that you can use a computer to make it LOOK like a plane is flying with the statue of liberty in the background without actually having to HAVE a plane flying with the statue of liberty in the background." |
|
Nic Summers, Photographer
|
Mount Prospect | IL | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> Seems someone omitted the part about the hours charged to the airplane/pilot time would have been spent regardless.
The pilots that fly those planes will usually fly their allotted monthly hours regardless where they fly to maintain proficiency.
To say that it cost yada yada yada thousands is misleading because it more than like would have cost the same over Manhattan or on another mission location.
A few Monday morning quarterbacks here? |
|
Jason Orth, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 5:39 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> you mean:
"White House Military Office Photo-Op Scares New Yorkers"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR200904280...
The current director is former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, who also serves as the *Deputy Assistant to the President.*
He ensures that White House requirements are clearly communicated to the WHMO Directorates and meet the highest standards of Presidential quality. The WHMO Director oversees all military operations aboard Air Force One on Presidential missions worldwide. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 6:33 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> Nic,
The hours would have been flown, however given the President's schedule for the past few weeks the allotted hours of flight would have been flown, as the VC-25A usually travel in pairs and the time flown was only three hours. |
|
Bruce Twitchell, Photographer
|
Nic Summers, Photographer
|
Mount Prospect | IL | USA | Posted: 9:24 PM on 04.29.09 |
| ->> I wonder if Snoop Dogg was flying as Captain.... There's a video of him flying AF1 somewhere on the net.. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:59 PM on 04.29.09 |
->> From http://gretawire.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/picture-57.png?w=918&h=555
"The cost of the VC-25 mission in the New York City with the 2 F-16s was an Air Force training mission. the hours would have been flown regardless and the expenses would have been accrued on a different mission."
In other words, it didn't cost the taxpayers any extra money to do this flyover, according to the Air Force. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 7:17 AM on 04.30.09 |
->> While there may not have been an incremental cost to the DOD, ask the various public agencies that had to respond to the 911 calls, the companies that lost productivity, etc. if there was a cost.
The cost isn't the primary issue. Stupidity and insensitivity is the issue. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 7:55 AM on 04.30.09 |
->> "In other words, it didn't cost the taxpayers any extra money to do this flyover, according to the Air Force."
David,
So you are reading a USAF Release and taking it as fact without doing further research or seeking an independent opinion?
Press releases are put out there for 'spin.' Any public affairs professional wants to get in front of a story instead of behind it...hence the 'press release.' |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 8:14 AM on 04.30.09 |
->> Steven,
You choose to believe that the Air Force cooked up a bunch of lies and/or misrepresentations to "cover" for this mission.
I choose to believe the Air Force, which is made up of men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting the nation, did what they were told. I respect the fact that they know more about their flight operations and daily routine than we do. When asked about this mission, I choose to believe they told the truth.
The people who do this every day have earned that respect from me. If that makes me a naive babe in the woods, I'm okay with that. |
|
Jeff Martin, Photographer
|
wellington | OH | usa | Posted: 8:34 PM on 04.30.09 |
->> "In other words, it didn't cost the taxpayers any extra money to do this flyover, according to the Air Force."
Because Air Force officers aren't affected by pressure from the CIC (Pres).
"I choose to believe the Air Force, which is made up of men and women who .... did what they were told."
Did what they were told is the operative part of that statement.
They members of the armed forces have my utmost respect...however, they are "just following orders."
This isn't meant to be an Obama slam. It would be the same with any President. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:22 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> Steven & Jeff,
I think what's most important about what David had to say was not what you quoted, but this part of his quote:
"I respect the fact that they know more about their flight operations and daily routine than we do."
The Air Force routinely uses training flights for PR missions (ever seen a flyover at a ball game?) and given THAT fact, it makes this statement believable. Much more credibility, in fact, than some news reader on TV blabbering about the outrageous $329,000 price tag.
As others have pointed out, the issue is really the stupidity of anyone to approve flying Air Force One over NYC with F-16s "in pursuit."
And Steven is technically correct...the military does answer to virtually no one - except the commander-in-chief. The Constitution and Supreme Court have made it that way, and thank God for that (and 233 years of freedom).
Chuck |
|
Nina Zhito, Photographer
|
bay area | CA | | Posted: 8:28 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> One nefarious but not illogical possibility is that this ill-conceived act was part of a larger, clandestine and strategic ploy to assess New York citizens' response to a perceived air assault.
Occurring contemporaneously with the mass near-hysteria of the "swine flu crisis" (real or manufactured -- it's too soon to tell), and happening amidst serial assaults on the financial markets and other traditional indices of perceived security, it wouldn't take much for susceptible individuals to believe that the city is under attack, rather than the victim for poor administrative communications and a bad PR ploy.
Monitoring citizen reactions to a sham attack would provide an interesting data set, for those inclined to study such things and put them to use. Our collective threshold for fear is greatly reduced, given the above de-stabilizing current events, especially when executed in a fear-primed environment like Manhattan, post 9/11. Analyzing this information would tell, "just how scared ARE people?"
Why is knowing this important? We know Governments can do much when the citizenry is afraid, as history has long taught, and as the last Administration's erosion of constitutional rights affirmed.
And the Press, whose job it is to monitor and report on such things, is being dismantled... bit, by bit, by bit.... |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 9:23 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> Nina--
Have you considered a career in hollyweird as a conspiracy theorist?
Your last two sentences actually make pretty good sense to me.
--Steve |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 10:08 PM on 05.02.09 |
| ->> So, uh. Where is this photo they took? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 11:03 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> Chuck,
USAF, USN, ANG, USMC fly overs of sporting events to gain positive public relations. These positive public relations are then used in recruiting drives and to further public support for those who serve.
The USAF fly over of New York City was not announced and handled very poorly, which then generates the opposite of positive public relations. I understand there are PR missions, I have seen ANG A-10s due multiple passes over a small town parade in New England, however again that PR mission generates positive support, rather than scaring the crap out of a major city that is prone to being affraid of a Boeing 747 flying 1,000 feet off the deck beside the site of a terrorist attack that involved two commercial airliners.
...and David I saw no need to attack my patriotism and support for Sailors, Soldiers, Marines, Airmen(and Airwomen) and Coasties that protest our Nation. Those in the military follow orders. My issue is not with those deployed, but often those in the command and governmental positions. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 11:12 PM on 05.02.09 |
->> "that protest our Nation"
...or PROTECT our Nation
(I knew what I meant, damn typos) |
|
Kristopher Wilson, Photographer
|
Virginia Beach | VA | USA | Posted: 3:36 AM on 05.03.09 |
->> Re: Kevin/Moby & JSU
Really? Photoshopping the plane into another image? I'm sorry, did someone just flip the ethics switch off? Please turn it back on before you leave the room.
Besides, after the Army General Photoshop fiasco a while back and the s**tstorm that followed, you can bet your bottom dollar that there's no way in hay anyone involved with DoD imagery, ESPECIALLY the folks at USAF 1st Combat Camera Squadron, would commit such an ethical atrocity.
... wink wink nod nod say no more... |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 7:13 AM on 05.03.09 |
->> Steven,
You said,
"So you are reading a USAF Release and taking it as fact without doing further research or seeking an independent opinion?"
I was responding to this sentence. You spent several sentences explaining why I shouldn't trust something the Air Force says in a press release, I spent several sentences explaining why I do.
When you asked me in the sentence above why I chose to blindly accept what the Air Force said, I only responded with the truth about how I feel. It wasn't an attack on you. I didn't "spin" it to question your patriotism...I didn't use the word "patriotism" at all. I used the word respect. There is no other answer I could give, because that's exactly, precisely how I feel. I didn't say, "and anyone who doesn't feel that way is unpatriotic." If I had felt that way I would have said it.
We all walk different paths and have different life experiences, and I have no idea what your path has been. I would not even begin to presume that I could question your belief system based on a couple of lines in a message board posting. If you took it that way then I apologize. It was not meant to be. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 9:10 AM on 05.03.09 |
->> Steven,
Taking a photo of an airplane in flight is also a PR mission. Just because it backfired doesn't mean it wasn't a PR mission. That was my only point - that such missions are routine, and makes the point of the mission's "cost" (or non-cost) very believable.
Incidentally, you must trust the Air Force PR machine as well, because you sure do like quoting the precise cost figures they provided. :)
Chuck |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Jack Megaw, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Pittsburgh | PA | America | Posted: 12:28 PM on 05.05.09 |
| ->> Well I'm annoyed now because I won't even get to see the picture! |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 12:59 PM on 05.05.09 |
->> Again another PR boondoggle. As a way of saying "sorry", they could have offered up a bunch of posters for free/cheap to anyone in NYC (up to a certain limit).
These guys need to hire an agency. |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 2:54 PM on 05.05.09 |
| ->> I knew those pictures never existed! Just didn't make sense. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 3:17 PM on 05.05.09 |
->> I'd like to thank the anonymous SportsShooter reader, with the faux e-mail address of stan@stansvan.com and the IP address of 69.232.207.4, using Mozilla Browser 5.0 Mac & OS X 10.5.6, US/English from Union City California.
Why do I want to thank this person? Because they think my comments in this thread sound like "f__king hannity or that f__king @$$hole levin"
This was the laugh I needed all day as I can't stand Hannity and don't even know who Levin is. Further more if you are going to trash talk please learn to use proper capital letters. Also having a real name and e-mail for a reply might make corresponding and actually having an open debate easier.
We need not all agree but a more civilized dialog is appreciated.
(at least I wasn't called an @$$bag this time, my Mountainsmith Tour was offended) |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:25 PM on 05.05.09 |
->> The photographs that you will not see depict an event that is highly sensitive, perhaps even classified. You are hereby asked to forget that this ever happened and move forward. Change is a process, and part of that process is to let go of our past disagreements and move forward with a common purpose. The New York City photographs will not assist in this process of moving forward while we try not to dwell in the past.
In the mean time, please look back a few years at thousands of recently declassified photographs from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay which will remind you that it is better to be angry at a presdient who is no longer in power than it is to have an honest question for one currently in office. Remember that in moving forward we are looking forward at where we are going and not where we have been. |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 7:04 PM on 05.05.09 |
->> Michael,
What the hell are you talking about? |
|
This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|