Air Force One Just Had A Near Miss With A Drone According To Reporter Onboard

TheDrive ^ | August 16, 2020 | BY TYLER ROGOWAY

[Seizethecarp]

Reports are emerging describing a potential near miss with an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) while the C-32A that President Trump was flying on was making its final approach into Andrews Air Force base on Sunday evening. POTUS was returning from Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster New Jersey when the reported near miss took place.

AFP's Sebastian Smith reported on the incident shortly after disembarking the highly modified 757-200, stating:

"@realDonaldTrump just landed at Andrews on AF1. Shortly before, while descending, we flew right over a small object, remarkably close to the president’s plane. Resembled a drone though I’m no expert."

[Seizethecarp]

“...would a passenger even be able to see a smallish drone hovering nearby?”

I would, with proper lighting, sufficient minimal distance from the aircraft and color on the drone and background contrast!

[Seizethecarp]

“As far your information on those Glideslopes and Paths is kinda dated (hint hint).”

The only “information” I have is that a drone was claimed to have been observed virtually IN the glidepath of AF1.

Drones sold today are supposed to be locked OUT of being anywhere NEAR AF1 glidepaths. So right there we have a problem.

[Seizethecarp]

“The aircraft is heavily designed to take a hit and stay in the air. There was talk in the thread about an engine shutdown.”

There is a big problem should one or more AF1 turbofans on the same side ingest a drone and then disintegrate and fall off the wing, possibly causing the airframe to become uncontrollably unstable and flip over.

See Yukla 27 AWACS crash:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Alaska_Boeing_E-3_Sentry_accident

[Mark17]

I was an air traffic controller. Let me correct some of your statements. ALL aircraft land nose up. Touching down nose wheel first, can be hazardous to their health. Aircraft, like AF One, are on instruments, from the time they leave their departure airport, till they touch down at their arrival airport. There is never a time when they are NOT on instruments. Even a visual approach is considered an instrument approach. The most accurate approach, always has been the PAR, and Cat 11 ILS. Now, things have changed. They have Cat 111A, B and C ILS approaches. A Cat 111C ILS, is so accurate, it can put an aircraft on the runway, in virtual W0X0F conditions. It’s far more accurate than VOR, TACAN, or GPS.
In Vietnam, I used PAR, and many times, in the weather, was able to put an aircraft dead on the runway centerline. I got many compliments, and I always thought, of course I put you dead on the runway centerline, because you did exactly what I told you to do, when I told you to do it. It was not a great mystery. 👍😁

[Redwood71]

“There is a big problem should one or more AF1 turbofans on the same side ingest a drone and then disintegrate...”

This is a given with any aircraft. If you lose power on a 747 totally on one wing, you will not stay in the air. But the sighting they had was one drone, if it actually existed, and could have been swept into a turbofan. But the aircraft would fly on 3. And if the disintegration takes enough of the wing, it will get unstable as you mentioned. But that stands to reason as if you take out a big enough piece of the wing, anything may come down.

rwood

[Seizethecarp]

“But the aircraft would fly on 3.”

However, on this particular day, AF1 was a 757-200 with only 2 turbofans. If one turbofan were to ingest a drone and explode and worst case drop from the wing, this would leave only one engine with thrust on the opposite wing, and then the airframe could be highly prone to flip.

If a single drone has turned up now, drone swarms are being experimented with around the world that could be placed (parked) in the ILS glide path of AF1 in an ambush on very short notice to increase probability of a strike.

STC

[Redwood71]

I was made to understand that he was using AF1 for the flight, which is a four engine 747-8 aircraft.

The one you are talking about is AF2 which is an AF C-32 used by the VP and other dignitaries. In my reading I found the C-32 was equipped with the same configured dual performance Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofan engines. If one was taken out, it could fly with a little work from the pilots and could land. Very seldom does the president use the C-32 as the 747-8 AF1 is predominately bigger and has a greater range.

rwood

[Seizethecarp]

The AF1 designation is reserved ONLY for the actual plane that POTUS is flying on, so if it is a 747, then that is AF1. If it is a 757, then the 757 is AF1. That is how the article refers correctly to the 757 plane...as AF1.

There is NO specific 747 AF1. We are just so used to seeing POTUS using a 747 in that role. I admit that it seems strange to see a 757 referred to as AF1!

[Trueblackman]

All I will say is that sometimes I see activists in and around the Homeland Security Site along the Southern approach into Andrews and also the Prince George’s Country Fire Department also has it live firer trainer next door not saying they are the responsible parties, but I would not be surprised on a weekend. The glideslopes and paths they have been modified as needed recently.

[Seizethecarp]

“The glideslopes and paths they have been modified as needed recently.”

I am glad to hear this, TBM. I would recommend random modification of ILS glide path touchdown point for all
AF1 landings, assuming that runway length will safely allow it!

[Redwood71]

“The glideslopes and paths they have been modified as needed recently.”

Agree with that completely. Too bad they don’t have alternate landing locations a little closer to home besides Andrews.

rwood