It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US denies French fighters emergency landing rights in a critical situation

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

When nine French fighter jets and a weather plane from a French carrier taking part in a joint exercise with Canadian Naval forces in the Atlantic off New Jersey ran perilously low on fuel last Friday because of a freak storm that prevented them from returning to their ship, they figured, no problem. They weren't too far from the U.S. mainland, and so they could just land at McGuire AF Base in southern New Jersey.

And this was an ally.


link

One wonders what the American reaction would be if a French military airport turned away American pilots in similar circumstances-or what the French reaction would have been if the planes hadn't made it safely to Atlantic City.


Such american policies disgust me


How shameless can one get ?....makes me sick


What a shamelessly pathetically back-stabbingly horrible way to retaliate for not endorsing the war on iraq


The French airplanes were short of fuel and barely made it to. One was seriously machenically unfit and yet they were denied rights to land.




[edit on 12-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Edited the long quote. One paragraph or so, and then provide the link!

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I did an ATSNN piece on this here: NEWS: French Fighter Jets Forced to Land in New Jersey

The fighters did not have clearance to land at a U.S. base and it was not an emergency situation because there was another airport the planes could safely reach, which they did and landed safely.



[edit on 6/12/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   
They were short on fuel as well and were deined the same too


One of the jets was apparently disabled, and the U.S. State Department was contacted by French officials after one of the pilots tried to buy fuel and couldn't because he didn't have the available funds on his credit card, Philadelphia television station WPVI-TV reported.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   
here's a pic. I pity the French




The jets were - Super Entendard small attack aircrafts and the carrier was The Charles de Gaulle and they were particapiting in an exercise with the US navy.

i suppose the US is not a trustworthy nation in such things


[edit on 12-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
That just isn't right... The airbases were 100% operational and ready yet they wouldn't let an ALLY's plane land at there...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Yeah, like the article points out the USA is only a "fair weather friend"



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
That just isn't right... The airbases were 100% operational and ready yet they wouldn't let an ALLY's plane land at there...


France is not an Ally.

They aren't part of NATO, and they always do the best they can to undermine us.

No way should we let them land at our military bases when we can send them to a civ one.

We found a more suitable place for them, and thats all that matters.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
France is a NATO ally, but still our military bases aren't open for any plane, even one belonging to an allied military force, to land without any notice or clearance. Like I said several times, if it was a life-or-death situation, they would have been allowed to land, but since an alternate airport was available where they could land, they were redirected there. There's nothing unusual about this. :shk:



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   


...potentially life-threatening --breach of basic air etiquette by the U.S. military..


link

How disgusting




posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Greetings,

I apologise, but I also find this quite sickening in the way that the pilots were treated. I have to say that by potenially risking a number of foreign aircrews lifes based on a stereotypical view of the French and their view on the war, its no reason to risk service members lives.

Its a common code of practice, or if you will a "Unwritten Rule" where foreign military aircraft should be directed towards a military airfield if they are humanly possible, if not they will land at the nearest civvie airfield.

The reason is simple, if the military aircraft are carrying weapons, it is to reduce the risk to civvies in the area, not to mention the possible secuirty risks that landing fully armed combat aircraft at a civvie airfield is not to go unmentioned.

I am farely surprised at this to say the least.

- Phil

[edit on 12-6-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
When did it become the responsibility of the United States to harbor French planes? Maybe next time they decide to take to the air, they should take better care to ensure the safety of their pilots. A failure to plan on their part does not constitute an emergency on ours. I am glad no American tax dollars were wasted because of the stupidity of a nation that is openly hostile to us in order to cover for their own immoral behavior.


BTW, what are the French wasting money on an air force (or any military forces) for? We all know they will never use them, unless to deliver care packages to their enemy before they surrender without a fight.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Ok people, lets stop making stupid statements for one second and hear the truth.



Trust me on this one, I work at at a military air base that I run and manage myself. Hence, I am a United States Air Force Airfield Manager....

The main and only possible reason why these French aircraft weren't given the persmission to land at a DoD/Military Installation (McGuire Air Force Base, NJ) is the lack of a proper landing permit number. All aircraft under all DoD/Military Installations have a special landing permit number that isn't just given out for free, but under certain basis of security. Any aircraft not having this special landing permit number at any particular FAA Owned Airport/DoD Installation will not have the go-ahead to land if their situation doesn't fit certain emergency criteria. Indeed they were low on fuel and weather was bad, but if the emergency wasn't life or death, which it wasn't, then landing at a DoD/Military would be the last possible place for such aircraft to land. Especially since they are French (foreign aircraft), regardless of the peace they hold through any air show, there are always certain guidlines/perameters that exist on a DoD/Military airfield that will prevent an aircraft from landing. All in all, their reason (low on fuel, mildly bad weather) for wanting to land at a military base wasn't credable enough.



There are military procedures that you guys have no idea about. I suggest you inform yourself before making statements that make you look the fool.

[edit on 6/12/05 by jetsetter]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Thats just sickening. How would you feel if some a hijacked American civillian plane low on fuel was not cleared to land at a foriegn airport just because "they should take better care to ensure their own safety. A failure to plan on their part does not constitute an emergency on ours"



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Thats just sickening. How would you feel if some a hijacked American civillian plane low on fuel was not cleared to land at a foriegn airport just because "they should take better care to ensure their own safety. A failure to plan on their part does not constitute an emergency on ours"


That is a different situation, a much different situation. Read "civilian".



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Fine, imagine if a US fighter was under those circumstances. I am sure many of your arguments would change tremendously. If not for the civillian airport, it could very well be blown into an international situation, if the french pilots ditched in the sea or ejected. And also, even if it lacked the required procedures, the Airbase was 100% ready for a landing like that. The US should be flexible enough to accomodate this type of situations.

[edit on 12/6/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Do you know the procedures for other countries? Do you know the rules? I don't think so.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I can safely say that they are similar. But, in a case like this, the US airbase should be flexible enough to warrant a landing there.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
If not for the civillian airport


That's the point! The civilian airport was there and they were able to land safely! If it was a life-or-death situation and the alternate airport wasn't there, any airplane could land at a military base but this was not such a situation and they were directed to a nearby airport where they landed safely...sheesh.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Petty and childish, but what do you expect from neocons?

The French ough to pull out of Afghanistan to return the "screw you."



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I am amazed with the ignorance. Go to a real military discussion board and see how smart you think you are.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join