Wrong. How else is your statement in response to my statement supposed to be viewed? It sure seemed like a counter argument to my argument.

now he's saying only his interpretation of your words are correct -- not what you say you meant.

Strange, considering he demanded a policy of innocent until proven guilty one thread ago.  I guess he gets to tell us what's to be interpreted and what's to be proven first.

"I think the risk is substantially larger for a plan from Qatar."

I do not agree.  If you are given a used car, are you going to trust everything is in top shape, or are you going to inspect it and maybe take it to a mechanic to inspect?  would you use the same level of scrutiny on a car you bought brand new from a dealer?

Same thing here.  if we get an aircraft from Boeing that's certified, we still check it out before using it for operational missions.  If, however, the plane comes from Qatar, we will spend more time, possibly calling upon top experts, before we certify it for use.

You're making a false assumption -- that we'd use the same level of care inspecting the aircraft as if it came from the Boeing factory.

I was not referring to the airworthiness of the plane here, I am concerned with surveillance devices being hidden on the plane, which is something harder to address than mechanical issues.

I was not referring to the airworthiness of the plane here, I am concerned with surveillance devices being hidden on the plane, which is something harder to address than mechanical issues.

Show me where I excluded ANY systems onboard and focused solely on airworthiness.

I'm a mission support professional, not a pilot.  My whole focus has been on the mission systems which are separate from the flight systems.

I don't think you comprehend the words i'm using due to lack of experience with anything in the military especially the Air force.

Show me where I excluded ANY systems onboard and focused solely on airworthiness.

I'm a mission support professional, not a pilot.  My whole focus has been on the mission systems which are separate from the flight systems.

I don't think you comprehend the words i'm using due to lack of experience with anything in the military especially the Air force.

I was explaining my specific concerns so that they would not be confused with other aspects of the aircraft. I am not worried that mechanics would be unable to make sure the airplane flies safely.

it's supposed to be viewed as stated
not what it "seemed" to state
FOCUS...

Wrong. How else is your statement in response to my statement supposed to be viewed? It sure seemed like a counter argument to my argument.

I was explaining my specific concerns so that they would not be confused with other aspects of the aircraft. I am not worried that mechanics would be unable to make sure the airplane flies safely.

I wasn't talking about flight safety either.

Funny how we can be talking about the same exact things, and you STILL have to start an argument!   

I wasn't talking about flight safety either.

Funny how we can be talking about the same exact things, and you STILL have to start an argument!   

I didn't say you were talking about flight safety.
Funny how you have to argue about things like that rather than address the key issue which is whether technicians would reliably find and remove all possible bugs.

I didn't say you were talking about flight safety.
Funny how you have to argue about things like that rather than address the key issue which is whether technicians would reliably find and remove all possible bugs.

Funny how you are dismissive of facts in favor of your own hypotheticals.

Funny how you are dismissive of facts in favor of your own hypotheticals.

I am dismissive of no facts. Show me anywhere it is a fact that technicians would find every surveillance device possible.

Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"? Pretty sure if it were Biden accepting a 747 you wouldn't be so dismissive.

Pretty sure if it were Biden accepting a 747 you wouldn't be so dismissive.

Depends if his son was given a CEO position in return.

I am dismissive of no facts. Show me anywhere it is a fact that technicians would find every surveillance device possible.

Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"? Pretty sure if it were Biden accepting a 747 you wouldn't be so dismissive.

"Would find' is an imaginary outcome that may or may not happen in the future.

You asking for proof of something that has never happened is no different than me asking you to prove they would not find every surveillance device possible.

It's an argument for pure argument's sake.  You have your paranoid and unsupported, layman's opinion, and I have my expert opinion.

 

"Would find' is an imaginary outcome that may or may not happen in the future.

You asking for proof of something that has never happened is no different than me asking you to prove they would not find every surveillance device possible.

It's an argument for pure argument's sake.  You have your paranoid and unsupported, layman's opinion, and I have my expert opinion.

 

Swoosh
I asked you for proof of the position you claimed I took. You can't produce it and avoided the question I posed to you.
So again,
Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?

Swoosh
I asked you for proof of the position you claimed I took. You can't produce it and avoided the question I posed to you.
So again,
Why are you so quick to dismiss concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?

Why are you so quick to entertain imaginary concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?

1.  Given the expertise already applied to the existing VC-25A as well as the follow-on VC-25B, I will state that we have the skills needed to keep a donated plane from Qatar from passing valuable information to our enemies.  The plane is a 747-8, no different than the two already on order from Boeing.  All the same modifications added to make it serve as AF1 will also have to be done to the Qatar 747.  That process is very invasive and would override anything Qatar might want to install.  Any software will be updated to match the VC-25B software.  hardware will be swapped out with the latest versions to match the VC-25B.

2.  This is not a gift to the President.  So your 2nd concern is immaterial. 

Security people are paranoid to the extreme.  Anything Qatar might try to slip past them will either be swapped out, written over or found before it's certified.  I'd be more concerned that a Boeing employee might install malicious code or hardware in the VC-25Bs already on order.  As a former integration and testing officer, there are a slew of tools and audits to be done to verify that the right code and changes are present, and any anomalies with the hardware are reported to maintenance for in-depth diagnostics and possible repair or replacement.

Why are you so quick to entertain imaginary concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?

It leaves him room to wiggle out of the original false concern.

Why are you so quick to entertain imaginary concerns of security of the plane or of the ethical issues of a president receiving a "gift"?

1.  Given the expertise already applied to the existing VC-25A as well as the follow-on VC-25B, I will state that we have the skills needed to keep a donated plane from Qatar from passing valuable information to our enemies.  The plane is a 747-8, no different than the two already on order from Boeing.  All the same modifications added to make it serve as AF1 will also have to be done to the Qatar 747.  That process is very invasive and would override anything Qatar might want to install.  Any software will be updated to match the VC-25B software.  hardware will be swapped out with the latest versions to match the VC-25B.

2.  This is not a gift to the President.  So your 2nd concern is immaterial. 

Security people are paranoid to the extreme.  Anything Qatar might try to slip past them will either be swapped out, written over or found before it's certified.  I'd be more concerned that a Boeing employee might install malicious code or hardware in the VC-25Bs already on order.  As a former integration and testing officer, there are a slew of tools and audits to be done to verify that the right code and changes are present, and any anomalies with the hardware are reported to maintenance for in-depth diagnostics and possible repair or replacement.

Imaginary concerns? Now that is a stretch, everything is imaginary until it happens. Terrorists hijacking airplanes and using them as missiles to attack buildings was an imaginary concern until someone did it.

The ethical issues aren't even imaginary, the jet was accepted, if Trump plans to get the plane for his library like he indicated, that is an ethical issue. That isn't immaterial, saying it isn't a gift because Trump says it isn't a gift doesn't make it not a gift. It walks like a gift, talks like a gift... but its not a gift? Saying that the Air Force will decide when to retire the jet from Qatar is a meaningless rebuttal since the president is head of the Air Force, he can order it to be retired conveniently at the same time he is about to leave office.

As for your first point, I don't doubt that the Air Force and/or its contractors will go from nose to tail, I question whether they will be able to get every bug. You are a tech guy, you, I assume, know how well a surveillance device can be installed and hidden. You must know how a device can remain dormant to a specific period in time so that it won't get caught sending any signals. If you stripped the plane completely down to skin and bones maybe you could ensure enough were removed but then at that cost, it isn't a free airplane anymore, it is now something we are spending a large amount to bring up to snuff.

Imaginary concerns? Now that is a stretch, everything is imaginary until it happens. Terrorists hijacking airplanes and using them as missiles to attack buildings was an imaginary concern until someone did it.

The ethical issues aren't even imaginary, the jet was accepted, if Trump plans to get the plane for his library like he indicated, that is an ethical issue. That isn't immaterial, saying it isn't a gift because Trump says it isn't a gift doesn't make it not a gift. It walks like a gift, talks like a gift... but its not a gift? Saying that the Air Force will decide when to retire the jet from Qatar is a meaningless rebuttal since the president is head of the Air Force, he can order it to be retired conveniently at the same time he is about to leave office.

As for your first point, I don't doubt that the Air Force and/or its contractors will go from nose to tail, I question whether they will be able to get every bug. You are a tech guy, you, I assume, know how well a surveillance device can be installed and hidden. You must know how a device can remain dormant to a specific period in time so that it won't get caught sending any signals. If you stripped the plane completely down to skin and bones maybe you could ensure enough were removed but then at that cost, it isn't a free airplane anymore, it is now something we are spending a large amount to bring up to snuff.

Maybe theres a terrorist hidden in a compartment on the plane with months of food and water and a bag to store waste.  Why haven't you brought that possibility up?  Do you not care about this from happening?  Or are you in on it and are aware but want to hide it from everyone else?

I would have to assume that if even one piece of “surveillance” equipment was found Qatar would be fucked and the plane would not be accepted.

I would have to assume that if even one piece of “surveillance” equipment was found Qatar would be fucked and the plane would not be accepted.

When I was with the AWACS program, all E-3 aircraft were parked in secure areas with armed guards.  Nobody was allowed to enter the roped area without proper ID and authorization.  "USE OF DEADLY FORCE" signs were posted on the perimeter.  And, since the air field was almost always on a military facility, you had to have access to the base or field before you could even get close enough to get shot.

Since we are talking a 747, not all air fields and airports are able to accommodate them.  The ones that can are also well guarded.  Air travel both commercial and private are high priority assets when it comes to airport security. 

That whole security envelope is the first line of defense for any 747, especially for high profile government officials and their families -- i.e. the current users of the Qatar aircraft.  I'm sure no physical security measures are 100% foolproof, but it's not as if the 747 is sitting on a city street for anyone passing by to monkey with.

That means we have to be at least a little trusting of the people giving the 747 to the US in their protection of the plane and their own people.

I'm sure there is no way to calm EEF's fantasy fears.  I mean the plane hasn't even been received and already he's having nightmares of spies planting listening devices that can somehow transmit data and conversations to someplace else while the aircraft is aloft and all without detection.

Anything EEF can imagine, the Air Force will have already thought of and then some.  If they overlook something, heads will roll.  That's why i'm sure there's no chance of anything being covertly installed and overlooked.  As I said, I'd be more concerned with someone at Boeing trying to sabotage the Qatar 747 simply because they are being blasted for taking so long for the VC-25B delivery, and possibly because of their politics.

I would have to assume that if even one piece of “surveillance” equipment was found Qatar would be fucked and the plane would not be accepted.

That would be the safest course of action. Afterall the plane was "free" so finding one bug and then getting rid of the plane wouldn't be much of a loss.

I think the government should just auction it off now and use the money to pay down the debt.

I don't know what Qatar would be screwed at all though. They would probably get an intense finger wag from us and things would continue. Qatar's influence goes quite deep into our country, I think they would get off quite lightly.

Anything EEF can imagine, the Air Force will have already thought of and then some.  If they overlook something, heads will roll.  That's why i'm sure there's no chance of anything being covertly installed and overlooked.  As I said, I'd be more concerned with someone at Boeing trying to sabotage the Qatar 747 simply because they are being blasted for taking so long for the VC-25B delivery, and possibly because of their politics.

And that is how the FBI prevented the plot to crash airliners into buildings.... oh wait