18 ms·

My grandfather was almost shot down at the White House (2018)

188 points by plondon514 4y ago

gus_massa 4y ago
The story was posted in 2018. Do you know when it happened? (Or at least an approximation.)
- plondon514 4y ago
  I believe he started flying in his late 30s/early 40s so it would be around the early 1970s. Edit: I just asked him (he’s at the dentist) and he said around 1980, guess I was wrong about when he started flying!
  - jaclaz 4y ago
    I would say no earlier than October 1977: https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N47943 https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N47943
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      That registration and the reference to cell phones not being available at that time puts the timeline somewhere between 1977 and 1987 or maybe 1990.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Then definitely before the DC ADIZ. It's kind of tough to make this mistake anymore.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  It says that cell phones had not been invented yet: > When we were ready to head back to Teterboro Airport, I got to a phone, [cell phones had not not yet been invented], and called Departure. [...] That's not precise enough to really know. It could mean "before the 90s", "before 1983", or even "before 1973". The plane's registration is from 1977, so TFA can't mean literally "before cell phones were invented". Though I suspect it really means something like "before cell phones became widely available to private pilots", which presumably means "before 1990".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
m2fkxy 4y ago
and that's why you have a chart of every place you fly to, from, or through, sitting on your knee or not very far from it.
blamazon 4y ago
The following sounds so stressful, especially considering the 727 was a trijet with a center engine! [1] That must have been a crazy vantage point in that time period. > Seat belts fastened, I rolled forward made a right turn and taxied to runway 18 and took my place behind a 727, a large commercial airliner. When I looked back I saw another 727 roll onto the taxiway behind me and then as I slowly rolled forward there was another one behind that one. I was about twelth for departure. The radio traffic was constant. Like Jeopardy contestents the one that was quickest on the button got heard and those guys in the big planes were really fast. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727
knodi123 4y ago
> "Airline pilots are the best at what they do and have spent years honing their craft." And apparently one of those rare and vital skills is filling in the gaps when talking to air traffic controllers who are not competent to communicate life-or-death information.
- blamazon 4y ago
  Why are we still doing air control with competitive real time voice radio anyway? Can we not engineer in some queued delay of planning? (I know nothing of the vagaries of air control)
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    my startup is providing air traffic control solutions using an AI trained bot to talk to the pilots when a life and death situation arises!
    - blamazon 4y ago
      I feel it somewhat obvious that humans talking to humans is a good thing for life and death split second stuff, same page there. But aren't most of the comms really rote and mundane instructions that follow a standard pattern? We trust automated systems to land the plane, [1] why not to tell a plane to say, cross runway 22 and stop at threshold Z? A human could still give that instruction, but with a button instead of their mouth parts flapping? Then the radio channel would be more open for higher urgency stuff. [1]: https://youtu.be/LyVuGQUl2bA https://youtu.be/LyVuGQUl2bA
  - leeter 4y ago
    Primary ATC is still done that way but at least for the big jets there are other ways they send digital comms to ATC[1]. The main reason is because radios fail and more complex radios fail more easily. A standard Jetliner carries three radios, any of which the pilots can use to contact ATC. The bands are internationally standardized. So it's not just a case of the FAA mandating a change. It would have to be the entire world. So even if the FAA did require digital radios it wouldn't actually change much because both ground and plane would still have to transmit analog backup anyway. That creates more chatter etc. It's also important to recognize that controllers are human and can only deal with one thing at once. The current system generally speaking gives one human control over one section of airspace. In this specific case the pilot should have been aware of the restricted airspace and set a flight plan that took them away from it before turning to their destination. There is zero excuses for flying into restricted airspace as there are published maps. The zone around the WH and USC is a permanent zone, so even less of an excuse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS
Overtonwindow 4y ago
The FAA representatives terrible attitude aside, I sense there's something that is being left out. When the author states "I filed a visual flight plan and we were on our way." that would seem to indicate that he looked at a chart, saw the restricted airspace, and planned his takeoff and turn appropriately. From the information given, I think the FAA rep was a douche but the author clearly did not plan his route properly. Also, this line was very confusing "cell phones had not not yet been invented." If that's the case I seriously doubt missiles were pointed at anyone. Clearly this is pre-2001, maybe even back to the 80s. While jets may have been scrambled, I am calling BS on that whole part of the conversation. The timeline, security posture, and even the flight corridors don't add up. Something is fishy...
- elashri 4y ago
  While this might be true, there were some reports (without government confirmation) that such missiles already deployed before 2001 [1]. The other thing is that it might be only a bluff the FAA officer add fot psychological purpose. One last guess is that it might be already anti air missile system from a nearby airbase or so ( which I don't have idea about if this was even feasible) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites-antiaircraft-missiles-at-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites-antiaircr...
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  The FAA rep is not just dissuading the pilot but any others who may hear about it. Also given the era it was much easier to get away with such bluffs as people couldn’t jump onto the internet to look for corroborating evidence.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  > The FAA representatives terrible attitude aside... If this pilot did anything like this today, he would be in for a lot more trouble than a tongue-lashing over the phone. I don't know what the range of prescribed sanctions for this sort of infraction were at the time, but I suspect the person handling the case was exercising some discretion in choosing to respond with nothing more than a verbal dope-slap.
pivo 4y ago
I've just finished reading, "Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service" by Carol Leonnig [0]. In that book the author describes an incident on September 12, 1994 [1] in which a pilot landed a small plane in front of the white house. Secret Service members she interviewed were dumfounded that they were asked there to run to the white house roof with rifles to protect the building, and that there were no such thing as anti-aircraft missiles available at the time. More recently, another person landed a small aircraft on the Whitehouse grounds [2] with (apparently) no missiles involved. Maybe the missiles are elsewhere, or maybe they're just a cost-effective rumor. The book makes it clear that the Secret Service is constantly underfunded and sorely lacking in modern technology, with agents sometimes having to use their personal car to transport the people they're protecting because their official cars aren't working. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Fail-Rise-Secret-Service/dp/0399589015 https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Fail-Rise-Secret-Service/dp/0399... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder [2] https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on-capitol-grounds/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on-ca...
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  >The book makes it clear that the Secret Service is constantly underfunded and sorely lacking in modern technology, with agents sometimes having to use their personal car to transport the people they're protecting because their official cars aren't working. Maybe the answer is to cool it with the idea that government officials all need to have large personal protective details. Isn't that the job of the police? And aren't they all just citizens of this country? If it's not safe for various politicians to walk around in the streets, then maybe they should do something about that because it means that it is unsafe for everybody.
  - throwaway1777 4y ago
    I like your take but politicians do have a target on their back that the average citizen doesn’t.
    - 4y ago
dncornholio 4y ago
I have a feeling the person who made the call was trying to intimidate him. I'm fairly sure no jet was being scrambled or anti-air was being aimed for a small plane that made a wrong turn..
- godshatter 4y ago
  We don't know what might have been going on at the White House at that particular time though. Was the President having a press conference, for example?
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Doesn’t matter, DC has permanent restrictions (much smaller when this occurred, larger and more restrictive post-9/11).
- prewett 4y ago
  I hope they were scrambling jets, that's their job. I'm sure they assumed it was some mistake, but if it isn't, by the time you know for sure it is too late. I'm sure "scrambled" meant "pilots sprinting for their planes" and beginning the process, not that they have pilots sitting in warmed up planes ready to take off for intercept the moment someone crosses the restricted airspace line. The FAA caller was absolutely trying to convey that he was completely out of his depth, though. As is appropriate.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Scrambling jets to intercept planes that wander into no-fly zones is a regular occurrence at DCA (the military craft usually launch from Andrews AFB, or possibly a local USCG station for rotorcraft). Not uncommon at other airports where POTUS is a regular, airports with other VIPs (NYC area), major sporting events (no fly around the Super Bowl stadium). DCA has a permanent zone, the others are temporary and communicated via NOTAM.
amelius 4y ago
Of course the White House didn't want the same embarrassment as the Kremlin felt when some guy landed a sports airplane on the Red Square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
- raldi 4y ago
  What a story! I've submitted it as a post of its own.
- hydrox24 4y ago
  > Rust's flight irreparably damaged the reputation of the Soviet military. This enabled Gorbachev to remove many of the strongest opponents to his reforms. Minister of Defence Sergei Sokolov and the head of the Soviet Air Defence Forces Alexander Koldunov were dismissed along with hundreds of other officers. This was the biggest turnover in the Soviet military since Stalin's purges 50 years earlier. This flight is a whole series of extraordinary coincidences, but the fact that such a ridiculous event essentially cleared the way for Gorbachev to reform the entire Soviet military is astonishing. History is full of strange things.
godshatter 4y ago
Shouldn't the dispatcher have given more precise directions than "follow the river"? If they had said "take a right and follow the river", this wouldn't have been a problem. I suppose they were used to professional pilots knowing what was meant, but they were already working to fit a small plane into a larger system presumably filled with mostly larger jets from commercial airlines that flew in and out of that airport regularly. Although I do agree that the pilot should have had no-fly zones at the top of their mind when flying in or around D.C.
- fh973 4y ago
  Actually no. The fact that to the left was a restricted airspace (that the pilot must be aware of) disambiguates the instructions already. Obviously the pilot did not do their flight preparation, was it includes being familiar with any airspace restrictions.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    Also. I'm looking at a chart of the DC airspace. P-56, the restricted airspace containing the White House, is not on any rivers. If you are following the river (left, right, doesn't matter) then you are not getting into P-56. If you are oscillating around the river then yeah, you are going to have a bad time. Also, I'm looking at all the runways at this airport. They all have one obvious direction which way you should be following the river. Just from the angle your flightpath would be crossing the river.
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      If you take off northbound, you only have a few seconds to turn left with the river before you’re over DC and into restricted airspace. If you take off and obliviously fly straight, it’s too late. It’s not a wide river. Once you’re across the river, turning left is way worse (takes you directly over the federal complex), so ATC told them to turn right to exit the restricted airspace. That would take them around over SE DC.
      - 4y ago
otikik 4y ago
One of the things that surprised me when I flew (as a passenger) a practice flight on a coworker’s Cessna was the constant radio chat between ground and all the airplanes. There were like 4 planes doing practice runs like us. It was constant chitchat. I can’t imagine the noise in a big comercial airport. I am sure there’s many good reasons for that system, figured out by people smarter than me with much more experience. To me the whole thing felt too … manual. Imagine a bunch of train operators trying to avoid head-on collisions by all of them talking with a single control guy on a shared channel. But the trains move in 3D, one order of magnitude faster, and if they run out of fuel, they explode.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  This is partially mitigated by data systems for commercial airliners. They have an in cockpit system that give them takeoff clearance & other details from the relevant air traffic controllers. I think they still verbally acknowledge something on the radio, but it is a brief exchange. I'll let a professional pilot try and add more detail here as to how it lessens the workload on the radio.
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  There is a lot more going on than just the radio communications. There are standard published approaches and departures that will generally be flown (once cleared). Flight plans are filed and clearance given before take-off, so ATC knows where everyone is going. At a large controlled airport, ATC is in control, so less needs to be communicated by the pilots. There are not generally aircraft flying circuits which is what required so much coordination in your example. Most aircraft at large airports are required to have ADS-B(1) which is transmitting aircraft position, altitude, heading, speed, et cetera to anyone who has a receiver, particularly ATC and other aircraft. If everything does go bad, large airliners have TCAS(2). There are also lots of different controllers and frequencies to handle different parts of the airspace: approach, departure, tower (take-off and landing). This is just what I can think of off the top of my head. You can listen to what is actually going on at your favourite airport on www.liveatc.net. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillance%E2%80%93Broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillan... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...
NelsonMinar 4y ago
Technology has made this problem better: most pilots these days are flying with a GPS enabled moving map. Little airplane icon, big scary boxes around restricted airspace. Yes all this stuff is optional and a good pilot will have other ways of knowing where they are. But in normal operation most pilots have something simple now. That wasn't the case years ago.
boringg 4y ago
I feel like there has to be a lot of stories similar to this where people got really close to getting shot down. Rare but not completely uncommon .. or is this truly a unique story?
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  I really doubt that he was all that close to being shot down. I actually doubt fighters were scrambled or missiles armed. They might have been if he had entered restricted airspace, but from the story, it sure sounds like he did not. Even if he did enter restricted airspace, the threat would have been assessed, actions taken, and so on. Perhaps, he might have even gotten a fighter escort out of restricted airspace. Shooting down a plane over a populated area is going to be an absolute last resort.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  It’s a normal, but infrequent, occurrence in locations where POTUS or other VIPs are frequently located. DC has permanent restrictions. Camp David temporary restrictions when POTUS is in residence. Restrictions are also placed around major sporting events (Super Bowl), though I’m not sure if those are for fear of somebody dive bombing the stadium or for the other reasons (events often have military fly-bys, parachute displays, etc). I’ve listened to a few intercepts on the radio. They don’t shoot without a good bit of verification. Typically, the lost pilot gets a hint when they see the F-16 fly across their nose, or a USCG helicopter flies alongside, or ATC finally gets through to them.
  - boringg 4y ago
    I have to think that the F-16 flying by the civilian - the pilot is probably having a relatively enjoyable time (as soon as they know it isn't a threat). It's like rolling up beside a toyata camry with a bugatti veyron (insert your choice super car).
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Not even close. The last thing a civilian pilot wants is an F-16 rolling up. If that happens, there will almost certainly be a LEO waiting at the nearest airstrip waiting to debrief them. And likely a suspension of their license. Many times worse than the “I have a phone number for you to call” you get from ATC after a “normal” screw up.
joshdick 4y ago
And that's why we now require any pilot flying VFR within 60nm of DC to get special training: https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-services-brief-faa-special-awareness-training-for-the-washington-d-c-metropolitan-area https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-se...
warent 4y ago
This should probably say "ground-to-air" with dashes. Title was super confusing for me for a while. Like, right now it reads the ground shot him down into some missiles that are in the air
francisofascii 4y ago
After looking at the map I am a little confused on which river. Sounds like he took off in a NE direction and the ATC's command to "follow the river" meant follow the Anacostia river NE. Maybe the pilot was confused by the Washington Channel and started to follow that when he turned left?
- rtkwe 4y ago
  They say they lined up on runway 18 which is now runway 19 so they were flying almost directly south. That doesn't really clear up how they had any ambiguity about what direction they should go to follow the river though because for a decent ways you're already following the river downstream.
squallgmn 4y ago
Washington National doesn't have any runways that run perpendicular to the Potomac, so if the pilot maintained runway heading on takeoff, he should have already been more or less aligned with the river going north or south. The story says he landed on a 6000 foot runway. There are three runways on the field: 1/19 is 7169 feet, 15/33 is 5204 feet, and 4/22 is 5000 feet. It's possible the runways were configured differently back then, but it's most likely that runway 1/19 was in use because it's the only one over 6000 feet. That runway runs almost due North/South. If the tower operator instructed the pilot to follow the river after departure and intended the pilot to fly south, it's almost certain the pilot took off on runway 19 which is nearly parallel to the river and the pilot would be traveling south. If the pilot found themselves crossing the river, they were not on a runway heading and had already deviated. The pilot could have checked his compass or heading indicator, take into account the runway heading of 190 degrees, and that should have informed him to turn right to return to his original heading. Instead, the pilot turned left which put him in the opposite heading he was assigned.
- theideaofcoffee 4y ago
  He mentioned in the piece that he was on 18: "Seat belts fastened, I rolled forward made a right turn and taxied to runway 18..." 18 at the time it was written/recounted, and 19 now most likely due to pole drift.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    That does match with the rest of the story. Left turn of of 18/19 to go up river would point him back towards the Whitehouse and Capitol. It does make their mistake a little more egregious though because if they're 'following the river' turning nearly 180 to do that and also not following the flow is much larger change than simply following your current heading and making the small turn to follow the river out to sea. That unexpected and uninstructed turn back towards the WH and Capitol certainly would have raised a lot of eyebrows. One thing I am having trouble with is picturing where they would have been crossing the river at 1500 feet. The Potomac is basically at the end of the runway he took off from. On the other hand for the rest of the process small planes aren't that rare in National and there's even a rather scenic approach pattern that actually follows the Potomac into runway 19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zco3XlYt6Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zco3XlYt6Ko
DerekL 4y ago
Title has a typo. It should be “the White House”.
treetoppin 4y ago
Interestingly, the US Coast Guards only “no fail” mission is providing rotary wing air intercept capability to the air defense network. In the National Capital Region they have helicopters that get scrambled as part of the air defense response to go intercept air targets that a slow and low. Basically anything that it would be hard for a fighter jet to pull up along side and match airspeed with. The Coast Guard helos don’t have any air to air weapons capability, their main purpose is to prevent false positives. They can get real close and relay information to the air defense folks who have access to weapons systems, and also a helicopter suddenly appearing next to you with a signboard saying that you need to turn immediately is a pretty good indicator to a weekend warrior that they are not supposed to be flying there.
Animats 4y ago
Another clueless VFR pilot in Washington DC restricted airspace. This reads like pre 9/11 procedures. Hearing from Oklahoma City FAA 3 weeks later has to be pre-9/11. Currently, operations to and from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA, are "limited to DCA Approved Carriers."[1] There's a huge restricted area covering the whole Washington area and special ID and approval procedures. Any aircraft out of place gets an F-16 and a Coast Guard helicopter escort. (Used to be two F-16s, but the Coast Guard is more used to dealing with the lost and clueless.) This has happened hundreds of times, and now the FAA makes anyone who wants to fly anywhere near Washington take a course on how to do it. [1] https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/405/1310/200115%20SFRA%20Course%20NOTES.pdf https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/405/13...
mannykannot 4y ago
In addition to everything else, this pilot may have put himself at considerable risk of running into wake turbulence by following behind a 727. Waiting 3 minutes or more for the vortices to dissipate would not have gone down well in this situation.
- tjohns 4y ago
  The 3 minute delay for wake turbulence is required by ATC procedures (when applicable). It can only be waived by the pilot in specific situations, and only by the pilots request. It's built into the procedures, expected, and is totally acceptable. Source: FAA JO 7110.65, Chapter 3, Section 10 ("Arrival Procedures and Separation") https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_10.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
jamesmoroni 4y ago
I had a similar experience in 2008. I was an Air Force helicopter pilot stationed at Andrews Air Force Base just outside DC. I got a last-minute assignment to show a new copilot some of our operating sites on the north side of DC. One of those sites was Camp David. I read through the NOTAMS but didn't notice that the large restricted area around Camp David was active that day because the president was there. So we totally busted through the outer restricted area and the Secret Service wanted my head. They launched a helicopter to chase me away, and they almost launched the F-16s at Andrews. I almost lost my wings. It was a bad day.
- donatj 4y ago
  Can you explain for the layman what it means to lose your wings?
  - tylergetsay 4y ago
    lose the ability to fly
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Aviators (military) get a pin to indicate they’re pilots. The pin is usually two bird-like wings with an emblem in the center. Losing ones wings would be having the pin (figuratively) removed and losing permission to fly.
lawrenceyan 4y ago
Excited to tell my grandkids as interesting of a story as this to them.
plondon514 4y ago
Thanks everyone for reading the story and the investigators for figuring out the real runway! My grandfather is an amazing man, storyteller, and my personal hero. He was an ad photographer in the mad men era. You can see some of his photographs here: https://condenaststore.com/collections/leonard+nones https://condenaststore.com/collections/leonard+nones
leonard_ 4y ago
> ground to air missels were aimed at ME If ground-to-air missiles are ready to protect the White House way back in the ‘70s or ‘80s, then why were none used to defend The Pentagon from the huge aircraft that crashed into it in 2001?
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If ground-to-air missiles are ready to protect the White House way back in the ’70s or ’80s, then why were none used to defend The Pentagon from the huge aircraft that crashed into it in 2001? The White House is not the Pentagon. Also, while there have been rumors for decades of White House SAMs for decades (usually MANPADS – but sometimes something more capable), they’ve never been officially acknowledged and, and AFAICT the only thing that has ever become non-speculative public knowledge was an Avenger system that was photographed on a rooftop across the street during an alert in 2019 (by which time it was also known that D.C. had a post- and motivated-by- 9/11 layered air defense system, including NASAMS batteries. But when this occurred, “before cell phones were invented”, if it wasn’t an embellishment added to the story, it was probably just something that was said to drive in the point “don’t ever make that mistake again”.

188 points by plondon514 4y ago

gus_massa 4y ago

The story was posted in 2018. Do you know when it happened? (Or at least an approximation.)

plondon514 4y ago
I believe he started flying in his late 30s/early 40s so it would be around the early 1970s. Edit: I just asked him (he’s at the dentist) and he said around 1980, guess I was wrong about when he started flying!
- jaclaz 4y ago
  I would say no earlier than October 1977: https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N47943 https://flightaware.com/resources/registration/N47943
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    That registration and the reference to cell phones not being available at that time puts the timeline somewhere between 1977 and 1987 or maybe 1990.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Then definitely before the DC ADIZ. It's kind of tough to make this mistake anymore.
cryptonector 4y ago
It says that cell phones had not been invented yet: > When we were ready to head back to Teterboro Airport, I got to a phone, [cell phones had not not yet been invented], and called Departure. [...] That's not precise enough to really know. It could mean "before the 90s", "before 1983", or even "before 1973". The plane's registration is from 1977, so TFA can't mean literally "before cell phones were invented". Though I suspect it really means something like "before cell phones became widely available to private pilots", which presumably means "before 1990".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

m2fkxy 4y ago

and that's why you have a chart of every place you fly to, from, or through, sitting on your knee or not very far from it.

blamazon 4y ago

The following sounds so stressful, especially considering the 727 was a trijet with a center engine! [1] That must have been a crazy vantage point in that time period. > Seat belts fastened, I rolled forward made a right turn and taxied to runway 18 and took my place behind a 727, a large commercial airliner. When I looked back I saw another 727 roll onto the taxiway behind me and then as I slowly rolled forward there was another one behind that one. I was about twelth for departure. The radio traffic was constant. Like Jeopardy contestents the one that was quickest on the button got heard and those guys in the big planes were really fast. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_727

knodi123 4y ago

> "Airline pilots are the best at what they do and have spent years honing their craft." And apparently one of those rare and vital skills is filling in the gaps when talking to air traffic controllers who are not competent to communicate life-or-death information.

blamazon 4y ago
Why are we still doing air control with competitive real time voice radio anyway? Can we not engineer in some queued delay of planning? (I know nothing of the vagaries of air control)
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  my startup is providing air traffic control solutions using an AI trained bot to talk to the pilots when a life and death situation arises!
  - blamazon 4y ago
    I feel it somewhat obvious that humans talking to humans is a good thing for life and death split second stuff, same page there. But aren't most of the comms really rote and mundane instructions that follow a standard pattern? We trust automated systems to land the plane, [1] why not to tell a plane to say, cross runway 22 and stop at threshold Z? A human could still give that instruction, but with a button instead of their mouth parts flapping? Then the radio channel would be more open for higher urgency stuff. [1]: https://youtu.be/LyVuGQUl2bA https://youtu.be/LyVuGQUl2bA
- leeter 4y ago
  Primary ATC is still done that way but at least for the big jets there are other ways they send digital comms to ATC[1]. The main reason is because radios fail and more complex radios fail more easily. A standard Jetliner carries three radios, any of which the pilots can use to contact ATC. The bands are internationally standardized. So it's not just a case of the FAA mandating a change. It would have to be the entire world. So even if the FAA did require digital radios it wouldn't actually change much because both ground and plane would still have to transmit analog backup anyway. That creates more chatter etc. It's also important to recognize that controllers are human and can only deal with one thing at once. The current system generally speaking gives one human control over one section of airspace. In this specific case the pilot should have been aware of the restricted airspace and set a flight plan that took them away from it before turning to their destination. There is zero excuses for flying into restricted airspace as there are published maps. The zone around the WH and USC is a permanent zone, so even less of an excuse. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS

Overtonwindow 4y ago

The FAA representatives terrible attitude aside, I sense there's something that is being left out. When the author states "I filed a visual flight plan and we were on our way." that would seem to indicate that he looked at a chart, saw the restricted airspace, and planned his takeoff and turn appropriately. From the information given, I think the FAA rep was a douche but the author clearly did not plan his route properly. Also, this line was very confusing "cell phones had not not yet been invented." If that's the case I seriously doubt missiles were pointed at anyone. Clearly this is pre-2001, maybe even back to the 80s. While jets may have been scrambled, I am calling BS on that whole part of the conversation. The timeline, security posture, and even the flight corridors don't add up. Something is fishy...

elashri 4y ago
While this might be true, there were some reports (without government confirmation) that such missiles already deployed before 2001 [1]. The other thing is that it might be only a bluff the FAA officer add fot psychological purpose. One last guess is that it might be already anti air missile system from a nearby airbase or so ( which I don't have idea about if this was even feasible) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites-antiaircraft-missiles-at-white-house.html https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/12/us/report-cites-antiaircr...
cjbgkagh 4y ago
The FAA rep is not just dissuading the pilot but any others who may hear about it. Also given the era it was much easier to get away with such bluffs as people couldn’t jump onto the internet to look for corroborating evidence.
mannykannot 4y ago
> The FAA representatives terrible attitude aside... If this pilot did anything like this today, he would be in for a lot more trouble than a tongue-lashing over the phone. I don't know what the range of prescribed sanctions for this sort of infraction were at the time, but I suspect the person handling the case was exercising some discretion in choosing to respond with nothing more than a verbal dope-slap.

pivo 4y ago

I've just finished reading, "Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service" by Carol Leonnig [0]. In that book the author describes an incident on September 12, 1994 [1] in which a pilot landed a small plane in front of the white house. Secret Service members she interviewed were dumfounded that they were asked there to run to the white house roof with rifles to protect the building, and that there were no such thing as anti-aircraft missiles available at the time. More recently, another person landed a small aircraft on the Whitehouse grounds [2] with (apparently) no missiles involved. Maybe the missiles are elsewhere, or maybe they're just a cost-effective rumor. The book makes it clear that the Secret Service is constantly underfunded and sorely lacking in modern technology, with agents sometimes having to use their personal car to transport the people they're protecting because their official cars aren't working. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Fail-Rise-Secret-Service/dp/0399589015 https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Fail-Rise-Secret-Service/dp/0399... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder [2] https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on-capitol-grounds/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/aircraft-lands-on-ca...

thepasswordis 4y ago
>The book makes it clear that the Secret Service is constantly underfunded and sorely lacking in modern technology, with agents sometimes having to use their personal car to transport the people they're protecting because their official cars aren't working. Maybe the answer is to cool it with the idea that government officials all need to have large personal protective details. Isn't that the job of the police? And aren't they all just citizens of this country? If it's not safe for various politicians to walk around in the streets, then maybe they should do something about that because it means that it is unsafe for everybody.
- throwaway1777 4y ago
  I like your take but politicians do have a target on their back that the average citizen doesn’t.
  - 4y ago

dncornholio 4y ago

I have a feeling the person who made the call was trying to intimidate him. I'm fairly sure no jet was being scrambled or anti-air was being aimed for a small plane that made a wrong turn..

godshatter 4y ago
We don't know what might have been going on at the White House at that particular time though. Was the President having a press conference, for example?
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Doesn’t matter, DC has permanent restrictions (much smaller when this occurred, larger and more restrictive post-9/11).
prewett 4y ago
I hope they were scrambling jets, that's their job. I'm sure they assumed it was some mistake, but if it isn't, by the time you know for sure it is too late. I'm sure "scrambled" meant "pilots sprinting for their planes" and beginning the process, not that they have pilots sitting in warmed up planes ready to take off for intercept the moment someone crosses the restricted airspace line. The FAA caller was absolutely trying to convey that he was completely out of his depth, though. As is appropriate.
alistairSH 4y ago
Scrambling jets to intercept planes that wander into no-fly zones is a regular occurrence at DCA (the military craft usually launch from Andrews AFB, or possibly a local USCG station for rotorcraft). Not uncommon at other airports where POTUS is a regular, airports with other VIPs (NYC area), major sporting events (no fly around the Super Bowl stadium). DCA has a permanent zone, the others are temporary and communicated via NOTAM.

amelius 4y ago

Of course the White House didn't want the same embarrassment as the Kremlin felt when some guy landed a sports airplane on the Red Square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust

raldi 4y ago
What a story! I've submitted it as a post of its own.
hydrox24 4y ago
> Rust's flight irreparably damaged the reputation of the Soviet military. This enabled Gorbachev to remove many of the strongest opponents to his reforms. Minister of Defence Sergei Sokolov and the head of the Soviet Air Defence Forces Alexander Koldunov were dismissed along with hundreds of other officers. This was the biggest turnover in the Soviet military since Stalin's purges 50 years earlier. This flight is a whole series of extraordinary coincidences, but the fact that such a ridiculous event essentially cleared the way for Gorbachev to reform the entire Soviet military is astonishing. History is full of strange things.

godshatter 4y ago

Shouldn't the dispatcher have given more precise directions than "follow the river"? If they had said "take a right and follow the river", this wouldn't have been a problem. I suppose they were used to professional pilots knowing what was meant, but they were already working to fit a small plane into a larger system presumably filled with mostly larger jets from commercial airlines that flew in and out of that airport regularly. Although I do agree that the pilot should have had no-fly zones at the top of their mind when flying in or around D.C.

fh973 4y ago
Actually no. The fact that to the left was a restricted airspace (that the pilot must be aware of) disambiguates the instructions already. Obviously the pilot did not do their flight preparation, was it includes being familiar with any airspace restrictions.
- krisoft 4y ago
  Also. I'm looking at a chart of the DC airspace. P-56, the restricted airspace containing the White House, is not on any rivers. If you are following the river (left, right, doesn't matter) then you are not getting into P-56. If you are oscillating around the river then yeah, you are going to have a bad time. Also, I'm looking at all the runways at this airport. They all have one obvious direction which way you should be following the river. Just from the angle your flightpath would be crossing the river.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    If you take off northbound, you only have a few seconds to turn left with the river before you’re over DC and into restricted airspace. If you take off and obliviously fly straight, it’s too late. It’s not a wide river. Once you’re across the river, turning left is way worse (takes you directly over the federal complex), so ATC told them to turn right to exit the restricted airspace. That would take them around over SE DC.
    - 4y ago

otikik 4y ago

One of the things that surprised me when I flew (as a passenger) a practice flight on a coworker’s Cessna was the constant radio chat between ground and all the airplanes. There were like 4 planes doing practice runs like us. It was constant chitchat. I can’t imagine the noise in a big comercial airport. I am sure there’s many good reasons for that system, figured out by people smarter than me with much more experience. To me the whole thing felt too … manual. Imagine a bunch of train operators trying to avoid head-on collisions by all of them talking with a single control guy on a shared channel. But the trains move in 3D, one order of magnitude faster, and if they run out of fuel, they explode.

sidewndr46 4y ago
This is partially mitigated by data systems for commercial airliners. They have an in cockpit system that give them takeoff clearance & other details from the relevant air traffic controllers. I think they still verbally acknowledge something on the radio, but it is a brief exchange. I'll let a professional pilot try and add more detail here as to how it lessens the workload on the radio.
goodcanadian 4y ago
There is a lot more going on than just the radio communications. There are standard published approaches and departures that will generally be flown (once cleared). Flight plans are filed and clearance given before take-off, so ATC knows where everyone is going. At a large controlled airport, ATC is in control, so less needs to be communicated by the pilots. There are not generally aircraft flying circuits which is what required so much coordination in your example. Most aircraft at large airports are required to have ADS-B(1) which is transmitting aircraft position, altitude, heading, speed, et cetera to anyone who has a receiver, particularly ATC and other aircraft. If everything does go bad, large airliners have TCAS(2). There are also lots of different controllers and frequencies to handle different parts of the airspace: approach, departure, tower (take-off and landing). This is just what I can think of off the top of my head. You can listen to what is actually going on at your favourite airport on www.liveatc.net. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillance%E2%80%93Broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Dependent_Surveillan... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_sy...

NelsonMinar 4y ago

Technology has made this problem better: most pilots these days are flying with a GPS enabled moving map. Little airplane icon, big scary boxes around restricted airspace. Yes all this stuff is optional and a good pilot will have other ways of knowing where they are. But in normal operation most pilots have something simple now. That wasn't the case years ago.

boringg 4y ago

I feel like there has to be a lot of stories similar to this where people got really close to getting shot down. Rare but not completely uncommon .. or is this truly a unique story?

goodcanadian 4y ago
I really doubt that he was all that close to being shot down. I actually doubt fighters were scrambled or missiles armed. They might have been if he had entered restricted airspace, but from the story, it sure sounds like he did not. Even if he did enter restricted airspace, the threat would have been assessed, actions taken, and so on. Perhaps, he might have even gotten a fighter escort out of restricted airspace. Shooting down a plane over a populated area is going to be an absolute last resort.
alistairSH 4y ago
It’s a normal, but infrequent, occurrence in locations where POTUS or other VIPs are frequently located. DC has permanent restrictions. Camp David temporary restrictions when POTUS is in residence. Restrictions are also placed around major sporting events (Super Bowl), though I’m not sure if those are for fear of somebody dive bombing the stadium or for the other reasons (events often have military fly-bys, parachute displays, etc). I’ve listened to a few intercepts on the radio. They don’t shoot without a good bit of verification. Typically, the lost pilot gets a hint when they see the F-16 fly across their nose, or a USCG helicopter flies alongside, or ATC finally gets through to them.
- boringg 4y ago
  I have to think that the F-16 flying by the civilian - the pilot is probably having a relatively enjoyable time (as soon as they know it isn't a threat). It's like rolling up beside a toyata camry with a bugatti veyron (insert your choice super car).
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Not even close. The last thing a civilian pilot wants is an F-16 rolling up. If that happens, there will almost certainly be a LEO waiting at the nearest airstrip waiting to debrief them. And likely a suspension of their license. Many times worse than the “I have a phone number for you to call” you get from ATC after a “normal” screw up.

joshdick 4y ago

And that's why we now require any pilot flying VFR within 60nm of DC to get special training: https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-services-brief-faa-special-awareness-training-for-the-washington-d-c-metropolitan-area https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/air-traffic-se...

warent 4y ago

This should probably say "ground-to-air" with dashes. Title was super confusing for me for a while. Like, right now it reads the ground shot him down into some missiles that are in the air

francisofascii 4y ago

After looking at the map I am a little confused on which river. Sounds like he took off in a NE direction and the ATC's command to "follow the river" meant follow the Anacostia river NE. Maybe the pilot was confused by the Washington Channel and started to follow that when he turned left?

rtkwe 4y ago
They say they lined up on runway 18 which is now runway 19 so they were flying almost directly south. That doesn't really clear up how they had any ambiguity about what direction they should go to follow the river though because for a decent ways you're already following the river downstream.

squallgmn 4y ago

Washington National doesn't have any runways that run perpendicular to the Potomac, so if the pilot maintained runway heading on takeoff, he should have already been more or less aligned with the river going north or south. The story says he landed on a 6000 foot runway. There are three runways on the field: 1/19 is 7169 feet, 15/33 is 5204 feet, and 4/22 is 5000 feet. It's possible the runways were configured differently back then, but it's most likely that runway 1/19 was in use because it's the only one over 6000 feet. That runway runs almost due North/South. If the tower operator instructed the pilot to follow the river after departure and intended the pilot to fly south, it's almost certain the pilot took off on runway 19 which is nearly parallel to the river and the pilot would be traveling south. If the pilot found themselves crossing the river, they were not on a runway heading and had already deviated. The pilot could have checked his compass or heading indicator, take into account the runway heading of 190 degrees, and that should have informed him to turn right to return to his original heading. Instead, the pilot turned left which put him in the opposite heading he was assigned.

theideaofcoffee 4y ago
He mentioned in the piece that he was on 18: "Seat belts fastened, I rolled forward made a right turn and taxied to runway 18..." 18 at the time it was written/recounted, and 19 now most likely due to pole drift.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  That does match with the rest of the story. Left turn of of 18/19 to go up river would point him back towards the Whitehouse and Capitol. It does make their mistake a little more egregious though because if they're 'following the river' turning nearly 180 to do that and also not following the flow is much larger change than simply following your current heading and making the small turn to follow the river out to sea. That unexpected and uninstructed turn back towards the WH and Capitol certainly would have raised a lot of eyebrows. One thing I am having trouble with is picturing where they would have been crossing the river at 1500 feet. The Potomac is basically at the end of the runway he took off from. On the other hand for the rest of the process small planes aren't that rare in National and there's even a rather scenic approach pattern that actually follows the Potomac into runway 19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zco3XlYt6Ko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zco3XlYt6Ko

DerekL 4y ago

Title has a typo. It should be “the White House”.

treetoppin 4y ago

Interestingly, the US Coast Guards only “no fail” mission is providing rotary wing air intercept capability to the air defense network. In the National Capital Region they have helicopters that get scrambled as part of the air defense response to go intercept air targets that a slow and low. Basically anything that it would be hard for a fighter jet to pull up along side and match airspeed with. The Coast Guard helos don’t have any air to air weapons capability, their main purpose is to prevent false positives. They can get real close and relay information to the air defense folks who have access to weapons systems, and also a helicopter suddenly appearing next to you with a signboard saying that you need to turn immediately is a pretty good indicator to a weekend warrior that they are not supposed to be flying there.

Animats 4y ago

Another clueless VFR pilot in Washington DC restricted airspace. This reads like pre 9/11 procedures. Hearing from Oklahoma City FAA 3 weeks later has to be pre-9/11. Currently, operations to and from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, DCA, are "limited to DCA Approved Carriers."[1] There's a huge restricted area covering the whole Washington area and special ID and approval procedures. Any aircraft out of place gets an F-16 and a Coast Guard helicopter escort. (Used to be two F-16s, but the Coast Guard is more used to dealing with the lost and clueless.) This has happened hundreds of times, and now the FAA makes anyone who wants to fly anywhere near Washington take a course on how to do it. [1] https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/405/1310/200115%20SFRA%20Course%20NOTES.pdf https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/405/13...

mannykannot 4y ago

In addition to everything else, this pilot may have put himself at considerable risk of running into wake turbulence by following behind a 727. Waiting 3 minutes or more for the vortices to dissipate would not have gone down well in this situation.

tjohns 4y ago
The 3 minute delay for wake turbulence is required by ATC procedures (when applicable). It can only be waived by the pilot in specific situations, and only by the pilots request. It's built into the procedures, expected, and is totally acceptable. Source: FAA JO 7110.65, Chapter 3, Section 10 ("Arrival Procedures and Separation") https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap3_section_10.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...

jamesmoroni 4y ago

I had a similar experience in 2008. I was an Air Force helicopter pilot stationed at Andrews Air Force Base just outside DC. I got a last-minute assignment to show a new copilot some of our operating sites on the north side of DC. One of those sites was Camp David. I read through the NOTAMS but didn't notice that the large restricted area around Camp David was active that day because the president was there. So we totally busted through the outer restricted area and the Secret Service wanted my head. They launched a helicopter to chase me away, and they almost launched the F-16s at Andrews. I almost lost my wings. It was a bad day.

donatj 4y ago
Can you explain for the layman what it means to lose your wings?
- tylergetsay 4y ago
  lose the ability to fly
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Aviators (military) get a pin to indicate they’re pilots. The pin is usually two bird-like wings with an emblem in the center. Losing ones wings would be having the pin (figuratively) removed and losing permission to fly.

lawrenceyan 4y ago

Excited to tell my grandkids as interesting of a story as this to them.

plondon514 4y ago

Thanks everyone for reading the story and the investigators for figuring out the real runway! My grandfather is an amazing man, storyteller, and my personal hero. He was an ad photographer in the mad men era. You can see some of his photographs here: https://condenaststore.com/collections/leonard+nones https://condenaststore.com/collections/leonard+nones

leonard_ 4y ago

> ground to air missels were aimed at ME If ground-to-air missiles are ready to protect the White House way back in the ‘70s or ‘80s, then why were none used to defend The Pentagon from the huge aircraft that crashed into it in 2001?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> If ground-to-air missiles are ready to protect the White House way back in the ’70s or ’80s, then why were none used to defend The Pentagon from the huge aircraft that crashed into it in 2001? The White House is not the Pentagon. Also, while there have been rumors for decades of White House SAMs for decades (usually MANPADS – but sometimes something more capable), they’ve never been officially acknowledged and, and AFAICT the only thing that has ever become non-speculative public knowledge was an Avenger system that was photographed on a rooftop across the street during an alert in 2019 (by which time it was also known that D.C. had a post- and motivated-by- 9/11 layered air defense system, including NASAMS batteries. But when this occurred, “before cell phones were invented”, if it wasn’t an embellishment added to the story, it was probably just something that was said to drive in the point “don’t ever make that mistake again”.