Presidential Plane Damages Runway

[Meyekul]

Why is it so hard for G.W. to listen to warnings?  He was warned of Bin Laden wanting to attack America using jetliners, and he was warned not to try to operate a C-17 from a hot, asphalt runway.  But, he's the president, he knows best, right?  Sure "the military" is expected to pay for damages, but in reality its the taxpayers that get to pay to fix Dubya's latest screwup.  They should make him pay it out of pocket.

---

From AVweb...

   We've grown used to a presidential visit closing aviation facilities but the effect is usually temporary. Las Cruces (New Mexico) International Airport closed one of its three runways indefinitely after George W. Bush's entourage left an indelible mark. A C-17 accompanying Air Force One created ruts more than 2,500 feet long when it backed up to get in position for takeoff there last Thursday. Damage is estimated at $1 million. (Oops.) Airport Manager Theresa Cook told AVweb that the president's travel team was warned that the asphalt runway (in the middle of a Southwest summer day) might not handle the weight of the planes in the entourage. Cook said the C-32-A (a military version of the Boeing 757) carrying President Bush landed and took off without any problems. It wasn't until the accompanying C-17 backed up for almost half the length of the affected runway that the damage occurred. Cook said she didn't know why the cargo plane backed up, using its thrust reversers, instead of taxiing conventionally. Initial reports said it was the 757 that caused the damage but that was an error, said Cook. She said the ruts are about two inches deep but the displaced asphalt also created a bump, so the total depth might approach four inches. The runway was closed immediately. The military is expected to cover the cost of repairing the damage but it's not known when the repairs will be made.

[Felix/FFDS]

The article is interesting, in a "crap happens' sort of way.  the inital rant makes it a political statement... too bad.

[Jaffa]

Don't see how it is the president's fault?

[Meyekul]

Well, the airport manager said the runway might not hold up to the heavy aircraft, and they decided to go there anyway.  Since GW was the one in charge, that makes him responsible.  I guess in reality it was the fault of the C-17 pilot who decided to use thrust reversers despite warnings about the hot asphalt, but I'm sure GW could have said hey, let's go to another airport that we know we can safely land at..  As bad as this was, it could have been worse.  What if one of the planes had crashed on takeoff or landing and people were hurt or killed?

[Chris_F]

[quote]Well, the airport manager said the runway might not hold up to the heavy aircraft, and they decided to go there anyway.

[SilverFox441]

This thread just reeks of political overtones...should be deleted.

Interesting, that a C-17 pilot chose to back down a runway rather than taxi normally...

Interesting, that the President flew in a 757 rather than a 747...

Interesting, that the runway was damaged...

Political, that the blame is put on GW even though it was a choice made by the support staff to bring the cargo A/C into the same airport....(they could have gone anywhere)...

[Drastic]

gw is a dumbass anyway u guys need clinton back lmao

[Meyekul]

And, assuming you're an American citizen, then you were part of the process that got GW elected.  Even if you didn't vote for the guy you still endorse the government that put the electoral system in place.  Your taxes paid for the election and the C17.  So YOU put the ruts in the runway.  Why did you do that?  Can't you listen to a simple warning?

I didnt vote for Bush, and I don't particularly like our electoral system which put Bush in office, and I doubt they'd listen to my ideas of how it SHOULD work, but anyway... this isn't just about Bush, and my personal feelings for the man are a totally different topic; I'm sorry I let them get involved in the discussion.  If it were Clinton, John Kerry, Santa Claus, or anyone who did something dumb like that I'd be just as irritated about it.

You're correct about my taxes paying for the election, and the C-17, and it will be my tax dollars paying to fix the runway too, but it wasn't my decision to put down at an airport that wasn't suitable for a heavy plane like that.  I was nowhere near New Mexico, I sure wasn't flying the C-17, and I didnt give Bush permission to use *my* C-17 for his little presidential air parade.  Why does he need a heavy military transport following him around anyway?  If he can't fit everything he needs in a freaking 757, he should have just stayed in Washington.  

I guess what really irritates me is that the people responsible for this mistake will never feel any consequences for it.  

[Chris_F]

The C17 is used to transport the presidential limo and support vehicles.  The presidential security detail is not significantly different under GW as it was under Clinton.  And typically the president would not be in the decision loop regarding the logistics of his visit.  He wouldn't decide what runway to land on, what VOR to fly over, how much fuel to carry, etc.  He and his cabinet decide they need to go somewhere, the Secret Service and staff decide how best to get him there, and that's it.

The airforce pilots who fly the routes are not picked by the president or his staff.  They're selected and assigned the duty.  I'm sure it's not an easy job and, like all people, sometimes they make mistakes.  Who is responsible?  Well, the pilot.   Is the pilot's commanding officer responsible?  Is his commanding officer responsible?  Are the joint cheifs responsible?  Is the President responsible?  Well, yes.  They're just as responsible as we are as citizens of the USA.

As for what will happen to the pilot: I'm sure there will be an incident investigation.  I'm sure they'll find out why the event occured and put in procedures to prevent recurrance.  Having only learned of this from the internet I certainly don't have enough information to say why it occured.  Maybe the airport gave instruction to not use taxiway A1 and that's why the C17 used A2 and backed up to the threshold instead of just taxing normally?  Somehow I doubt that the airport said "please, please don't let the C17 use runway 9L."  and president Bush said "to hell with you.  What do you know about flying.  Pilot, use runway 9L".  And the pilot said "but sir..." and Bush said "you want me to have you executed boy?  I told you to use runway 9L.  And really make a mess out of it."

If you want to dislike GW that's fine.  Go ahead and dislike him.  Go ahead and criticize his policies.  But be realistic.  Blaming him for this is just silly.  I'm sure Clinton's cavalcade did similar stuff when it would come to town.  I don't think "pro-runway damage" is a Republican political platform.

[Woodlouse2002]

Now here's a question. Why does Mr. Bush need a huge motorcade transported with him everywhere he goes? In england the PM and the Royal family get one large car and four bodyguards. And lets face it. It's been a long time since either have been assassinated.



Also, why did the C17 pilot reverse thrust half the length of the runway? It ruined the runway and I very much doubt it could have done the engines much good as the reverse thrust feature is for slowing down and so not intended to be used for a sustained amount of time or reversing. I think the pilot should be held responsible for this if anyone even though I like having a quip at GW myself.


Finally, lets leave out the political aspect of this topic. It's been locked once already and god knows why it's still running.