Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)  
User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 679 posts, RR: 44
Posted (4 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6694 times:

Why are the contrasting color markings omitted at the periphery of the main entrance/exit doors on the" Air Force One" aircraft? Past VC-137C and present VC-25A did/do not have them:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...d=ca326ca1bf85bcd8ff2205c258d58692

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...d=ab730e623f42e0ba952b7ae08fa2a00e

What is the philosophy in this? Of course these aircraft are USAF and not civilian registrered but that would make no difference if one of these aircraft were to be involved in a mishap requiring emergency rescue, the main reason contrasting colors are a requirement on civilian registered aircraft.

Other USAF aircraft in the same size category do have these markings, hence the E-3B:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...d=ab5aa19dfbd8c14b21a296a9f1bfd8ec


Does anyone have an explanation for this. . . . .?



Regards,

Starglider

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3875 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6672 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Jackie Kennedy didn't like them so they were left off... and that's become a tradition....   

User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Not really necessarily considering emergency personnel get a briefing on the aircraft from the Secret Service.

Besides it would look like crap...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 679 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6605 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 2):
Besides it would look like crap...

Regardless of what it would look like, these markings have a purpose. Apparently government can do what it pleases while the same government has regulatory requirements in place for these markings and if one does not comply with these, one is violating FAA (or EASA) rules or regulations.

As if the secret service will be available any place or any time, are these people selected for their premonition talents with regards to airplane mishaps? Does this mean that no rescue teams are allowed to approach the damaged aircraft until the secret service have contacted them? That could mean that vital minutes, at the least, would be lost to save lives . . . . .especially in poor weather conditions, darkness or smoke these markings serve their purpose.


Regards,

Starglider


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6591 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starglider (Reply 3):
Regardless of what it would look like, these markings have a purpose.

Apparently the people who operate this aircraft feel otherwise....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6567 times:

Quoting Starglider (Reply 3):
Does this mean that no rescue teams are allowed to approach the damaged aircraft until the secret service have contacted them?

Yes...by that I mean rescue teams that will be on duty would be briefed by the advance team, so they know the locations for emergency access. Also, information for rescue response personnel about all military is readily available. Check this link, starting at Page 64, for information on the VC-25:
http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%209%20.pdf



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6537 times:

Quoting Starglider (Reply 3):
Regardless of what it would look like, these markings have a purpose. Apparently government can do what it pleases while the same government has regulatory requirements in place for these markings and if one does not comply with these, one is violating FAA (or EASA) rules or regulations.

You could look at it a different way...the gov't insists on a higher level of safety for the general public than for their own employees, so "the people" should be thankful  

But seriously, why would anyone care? If the government wants to put their people at risk to achieve an aesthetic objective, then that is their problem.

[Edited 2010-12-23 15:52:47]

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6314 times:

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 6):
But seriously, why would anyone care? If the government wants to put their people at risk to achieve an aesthetic objective, then that is their problem.

I'd agree with that 100%, and then add maybe because it is most likely the single best maintained and highly professionally flown in the world (2 of them yes I know), and because it serves as much as a visual and emotional symbol of the country as it does anything else, that the lack of a yellow line around the door is pretty much a non issue.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 679 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6283 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 5):
Check this link, starting at Page 64, for information on the VC-25:

Thanks for the link with useful information.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 7):
I'd agree with that 100%, and then add maybe because it is most likely the single best maintained and highly professionally flown in the world (2 of them yes I know), and because it serves as much as a visual and emotional symbol of the country as it does anything else, that the lack of a yellow line around the door is pretty much a non issue.

No difference of opinion here, and indeed no big deal at first glance. But still, there apparently are 2 worlds regarding rules and regulations. The ones that need to comply and those that don't!

I find it strange that the mind set is that every measure has been put into place to prevent or reduce risk to a minimum so that certain "minor issues" such as markings can be waivered because of aesthetics. On this premise accident would never happen again, but unfortunately they do because there is always another exception out there that has been overlooked.

To quote Frank Borman on the Apollo 1 fire when he was questioned about what cause the fire. His answer was "Failure Of Imagination" of everyone involved in the project:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120570/quotes?qt0349768

My experience is that exceptions confirm the rules (or make a new rules). Hopefully that rule about door markings (which was ever introduced by such an exception) will never be a determining factor for the occupants of these 2 great aircraft.



Regards,

Starglider


User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 679 posts, RR: 44
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6257 times:

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 6):
because it serves as much as a visual and emotional symbol of the country as it does anything else, that the lack of a yellow line around the door is pretty much a non issue.

That is a matter of perception. It may also illustrate the arrogance to the country (and the world for that matter) as it does anything else by not including them. Not intended to stirr things up but often it's the little things that do matter.



Rgds,

Starglider


User currently offlineCharlieNoble From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

Quoting Starglider (Reply 8):
No difference of opinion here, and indeed no big deal at first glance. But still, there apparently are 2 worlds regarding rules and regulations. The ones that need to comply and those that don't!

I agree with you there...governments in general are happy to exempt themselves from the rigid requirements they put on their citizens. One could find many, many examples of that!

Quoting Starglider (Reply 9):
That is a matter of perception. It may also illustrate the arrogance to the country (and the world for that matter) as it does anything else by not including them. Not intended to stirr things up but often it's the little things that do matter.

Onlookers are probably so mesmerized by the blue/white/light blue/bare metal combination that they don't even notice  

Seriously, I think the AF1 livery is iconic and I hope they never change it to something more "modern"...looks great on a 707, 747, 757...


User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 679 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6224 times:

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 10):
Onlookers are probably so mesmerized by the blue/white/light blue/bare metal combination that they don't even notice

Looking at it from that angle you are right but most of the public wouldn't have any idea why they are applied in the first place.

Quoting CharlieNoble (Reply 10):
Seriously, I think the AF1 livery is iconic and I hope they never change it to something more "modern"

As I totally agree with you. Just finished the VC-137C (SAM 72000) as a 1/72nd scale model with this livery, that is when I noticed such markings were missing on the decal sheet. Checked some pictures here on airliners.net that confirmed the decal set was accurate. This subsequently triggered my question.


User currently offlineStarglider From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 679 posts, RR: 44
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6211 times:

Quoting Starglider (Reply 11):
(SAM 72000)

Oops!! I meant SAM 27000 of course.  


User currently offlinecitationjet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (4 years 19 hours ago) and read 6021 times:

Quoting Starglider (Reply 3):
Regardless of what it would look like, these markings have a purpose. Apparently government can do what it pleases while the same government has regulatory requirements in place for these markings and if one does not comply with these, one is violating FAA (or EASA) rules or regulations.

There are many examples of where the government violates the very laws that it has put in place. It is naive to assume that every aircraft design complies with every aircraft regulation, rule, or requirement. Check any large aircraft's Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS) and you will see numerous Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS), Exemptions, or Exceptions. These are incidences where the aircraft design cannot or elects not to meet certain regulations.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu.../rgMakeModel.nsf/Frameset?OpenPage

The 777-300 FAA TCDS shows exemptions to 16 FAA regulations. This means that the 777-300 does not meet 16 FAA requirements, and is exempt. Once documented on the TCDS, it is not considered a violation of the regulation. The 777-300 also has 33 Equivalent Safety Findings. One of these is for 25.811(f) Exterior Exit Markings, which is the subject of your concern. It seems that the VC-25 isn't the only aircraft that doesn't meet this. These Equivalenet Safety items are where the aircraft does not meet the regulations as written, but has other features that meet the intent of the safety aspects of the regulation.

To avoid to being accused of picking on Boeing, I checked Airbus. The Airbus A-380 FAA TCDS shows two exemptions, including one for emergency dynamic landing conditions. The A-380 has 26 Equivalent Levels of Safety listed on the TCDS, including one for flight control system failure criteria and another for APU mounting system fireproofness.

In my profession, I have written the TCDS for the FAA for newly certified aircraft, and I have been involved in petitioning the FAA for exemptions. Some of the exemptions are as simple as the size of the "No Smoking" font in the lavatory of a business jet, to an exemption to allow a small business jet to be certified Part 23 in commuter category (the current regulations require the airplane to be a turbo prop). The exemption is required because the regulation has not been kept current with engine technology.

Also, not every country requires the outline around the cabin entry door. Therefore what is required in one country may not be required in another country, even though the aircaft without the door outline can legally operate in a country that may require it.

.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (4 years 18 hours ago) and read 6011 times:

It appears the French Air Force A-340-200s and A-330-200 used for troop or VIP travel don't have them, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fr...irbus_A340_at_BSB_09_2009_7134.jpg

Most C-160s don't have them either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transall_LTG_62_1983.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tu...ce_transall_c-160d_landing_arp.jpg

Nor does this Brazilian Air Force C-295 with the unique livery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_c-295_c-105_riat2009_arp.jpg


User currently offlinecitationjet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 18 hours ago) and read 6011 times:

Quoting Starglider (Reply 8):
But still, there apparently are 2 worlds regarding rules and regulations. The ones that need to comply and those that don't!

There are not two different worlds. I believe that you will find that every major aircraft that is certified does not meet every regulation that is in place at the time of certification. That is the world of aircraft certification. All aircraft certification basis are a negotiation between the manufacturer and the certifying authority or agency. My job at the world's largest general aviation manufacturer is to negotiate the certifcation basis for new and modified aircraft with the FAA and various foreign agencies, including EASA.

Sometimes exeptions are required because the regulations don't stay current with technology. For example, the FAA still requires a compass even though many aircraft are getting exemptions because they have been replaced by the electronic flight instruments. It is easier for the FAA to grant exemptions than it is for them to keep the rules current.

Another example is the regulation that specifies the color band for engine display assumes an analog display. Given that the new aircraft use digital displays for engine information, an exemption has to be request for this regulation. It is not that the aircraft manufacturer is asking for anything special, it is just that the regulations do not match the current techology found in aircaft. In these cases the regulations don't keep up with the technology. To meet the regulations sometimes would require the aircraft to use an older, obsolete technology.

Quoting Starglider (Reply 8):
I find it strange that the mind set is that every measure has been put into place to prevent or reduce risk to a minimum so that certain "minor issues" such as markings can be waivered because of aesthetics.

In my "No smoking" exemption example in Reply 13, the reason for the exemption was based purely on aesthetics. The FAA requirement specified the size of the No Smoking font. The regulation that specified the size of the No Smoking font [FAR 23.853(d)(2)] was based on a larger cabin aircraft, and was thought to be too large for the Cessna Citation CJ3 business jet. The FAA agreed, and an exemption was granted to allow the smaller font.

.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Force One Livery posted Sat Feb 11 2006 10:46:59 by ORDUSA
Air Force One To Detroit 6/25 - Question posted Tue Jun 24 2008 18:32:43 by Nwafan20
Air Force One Upper Deck Question posted Wed Jan 9 2008 02:36:40 by CF105Arrow
Air Force One (VC-137C) Livery posted Mon Sep 10 2007 23:45:06 by EFCar98
Air Force One Question posted Tue Oct 19 2004 16:51:39 by Cancidas
Another Air Force One Question posted Fri Aug 6 2004 19:23:39 by T1210s
What Will Be The Next Air Force One And When? posted Fri Dec 3 2010 04:16:11 by bj87
Air Force One Cruise And Speed posted Sat Oct 30 2010 09:44:15 by UAEflyer
Air Force One Retrofit: What's New posted Tue Oct 26 2010 09:29:09 by ua777222
Violating Air Space Of Air Force One. posted Wed Aug 18 2010 06:49:05 by fxramper

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format