AF1 range/route/refueling?

David Lesher wrote:

Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.

Why would you doubt that?

A friend was on a KC10 that got refueled twice en-route to Africa.
He vividly described the number of PX's who lost their lunch into
the issued barf bags. The only reason for the refueling was proficiency
practice for the crew.

I doubt the AF1 crew practices that aspect that all that often, and
in fact don't know it's ever been used. I'll let BUFDVR etc comment
but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.

Any aircrew flying the aircraft would have specific currency
requirements for Air Refuelling, and if the crew isn't current
in it, they won't be flying on any operational mission. As far
as getting practice, they fly many sorties without passengers
specifically to get their various currencies updated.

As for air refuelling being risky, I don't think it is all
that risky, and I do it regularly in a C-130 behind both
KC-135s and -10s. C-141s and C-5s carrying both passengers
and cargo refuel as necessary based on their mission profiles,
AFAIK.

Mike

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...


Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some basic
research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
more dangerous.



I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...


Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some
basic
research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
more dangerous.



I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.

Yes, in 1966. If thats the best incident that can be recalled, then my
original point is well validated.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...


Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some
basic
research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of
an
aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather
is
more dangerous.



I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.

Yes, in 1966. If thats the best incident that can be recalled, then my
original point is well validated.


Not really, I only recalled that incident because it was splashed
across the world media for weeks, that hardly makes it the only
flight refuelling accident that ever happened

I found an article by MAJ CHRISTOPHER TIMBERLAKE of
Offutt AFB, Nebraska in which he stated

"Air refueling accidents represent a significant percentage of large
military
aircraft accidents simply because of the precise parameters the task
requires."

So while the risk may be low its clearly not zero.

The article is at
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazi...7/apr97010.htm

Interestingly it has an image of a 747 being refulled in flight

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
snip

So while the risk may be low its clearly not zero.

The article is at
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazi...7/apr97010.htm

Interestingly it has an image of a 747 being refulled in flight

Keith

A couple of factors that greatly influence the safety of inflight refueling
are weather and daylight. If you're in clear smooth weather during
daylight, the risks are minimized. I've been on KC-10's passing and
recieving gas, and can tell you that if you were sitting in the back on a
smooth day, you wouldn't know you were in a refueling operation.

Even IF AF1 was refueled inflight on this trip, the airplane has enough
range so the flight planners had the option to select a time and location
with good weather and daylight.

KB

Anything you do in an airplane has a risk above zero, even taking a dump.
The major does not back up his statement; in fact I don't see how he can. I
have been a KC-10 crew dog since 1985 and can count on my fingers the number
of aircraft that have been lost during AR. And most of those were actually
AFTER AR was complete. The risk during AR is mainly due to bad
weather/tubulence or inexperienced crewmembers. I doubt the latter was a
factor refueling AF1.

Did he take the VC-25 into Baghdad? Some media inferred he switched to a
C-17 at some point.

Curt


"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...


Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some
basic
research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss
of
an
aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect
weather
is
more dangerous.



I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.

Yes, in 1966. If thats the best incident that can be recalled, then my
original point is well validated.


Not really, I only recalled that incident because it was splashed
across the world media for weeks, that hardly makes it the only
flight refuelling accident that ever happened

I found an article by MAJ CHRISTOPHER TIMBERLAKE of
Offutt AFB, Nebraska in which he stated

"Air refueling accidents represent a significant percentage of large
military
aircraft accidents simply because of the precise parameters the task
requires."

So while the risk may be low its clearly not zero.

The article is at
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazi...7/apr97010.htm

Interestingly it has an image of a 747 being refulled in flight

Keith

A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
civilian 747 doing so.

wrote:
| A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
| civilian 747 doing so.

At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would
even consider it an option.

"Kyle Boatright" writes:



Even IF AF1 was refueled inflight on this trip, the airplane has enough
range so the flight planners had the option to select a time and location
with good weather and daylight.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq.bush.tic.toc/
has the timeline.



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

$19 per gallon? What does that represent?
Curt

"Brett" wrote in message
...
wrote:
| A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
| civilian 747 doing so.

At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would
even consider it an option.