Starglider
Topic Author
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:23 pm

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
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:58 pm

Jackie Kennedy didn't like them so they were left off... and that's become a tradition....   
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:41 pm

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
 
Starglider
Topic Author
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:00 pm

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
 
zanl188
Posts: 3436
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:24 pm

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 avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:55 pm

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!
 
Charlienoble
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:37 pm

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:51 pm

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]
"When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True Story."- Barney Stinson
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2104
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Sat Dec 25, 2010 2:28 am

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!
 
Starglider
Topic Author
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:02 am

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
 
Starglider
Topic Author
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Sat Dec 25, 2010 11:14 am

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
 
Charlienoble
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:37 pm

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Sat Dec 25, 2010 2:18 pm

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...
"When I get sad, I stop being sad and be awesome instead. True Story."- Barney Stinson
 
Starglider
Topic Author
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Sat Dec 25, 2010 3:51 pm

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.
 
Starglider
Topic Author
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:19 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:58 pm

Quoting Starglider (Reply 11):
(SAM 72000)

Oops!! I meant SAM 27000 of course.  
 
citationjet
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:21 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Mon Dec 27, 2010 3:57 pm

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
 
citationjet
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Air Force One Livery Question (Markings)

Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:03 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests