It's an oddball question, but but bear with me. Driving north this morning and watched an AS 737 in new livery take off towards west from PDX. From my distance of about a mile, and the angle of light, it looked easily mistakable the new LH scheme. Got me to wondering if there is regulatory oversight to maintain differentiation?

I 100% believe that there is no such thing.....

kdeg00 wrote:

It's an oddball question, but but bear with me. Driving north this morning and watched an AS 737 in new livery take off towards west from PDX. From my distance of about a mile, and the angle of light, it looked easily mistakable the new LH scheme. Got me to wondering if there is regulatory oversight to maintain differentiation?

You may want to alert the German Embassy, just to be safe:

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
+1 (202) 298-4000
4645 Reservoir Road NW
Washington, DC 20007

Regulatory approval for livery changes is only for nationalized airlines.

Private airlines can do as they please.

Heck no. The only thing that’s necessary is the operating carrier market by the door if it’s oainted different. Skywest horizon and Alaska all wear the same livery.

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Yes, you can paint a plane black.

Yes .. the Playboy DC-9 (and maybe others?) was painted all black.

FAA-approved paint?

All that matters is that call sign and what they file by , paint for most part is for the customers eyes

Karlsands wrote:

All that matters is that call sign and what they file by , paint for most part is for the customers eyes

Actually that is not always correct. Some aircraft are required to have certain finishes on the skin [not always paint] usually specified by the OEM.

Gemuser

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Meet Alsie Express, not only is the livery all black but it's also in a matte finish.



It's the night mode of turboprops!

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

If it comes down to the paint scheme being the deciding factor for aircraft visibility at night then you have much bigger problems to worry about in that aircraft and airport lighting are down. Aircraft all over the world currently have or have had all black liveries. The Air New Zealand "All Blacks" livery would be a nono then? What about Star Flyer Japan? Or the old Playboy DC9? Donald Trump's 757 is cutting it close too.

jaybird wrote:

Yes .. the Playboy DC-9 (and maybe others?) wats painted all black.

There was a DJ 737 VH-VOI that was black for a while there. As well as a few NZ aircraft.

Slightly off topic but I believe there are rules in the U.S. for general aviation aircraft for the size of the registration number so it's visible by ATC and perhaps other pilots. That can figure into the paint job. Older planes may be grandfathered.

They should hire me for that job. Same old Eurowhite livery? Denied.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Yes, you can paint a plane black.

#RoyalJordanian

cschleic wrote:

Slightly off topic but I believe there are rules in the U.S. for general aviation aircraft for the size of the registration number so it's visible by ATC and perhaps other pilots. That can figure into the paint job. Older planes may be grandfathered.

There are rules in every country regarding nationality markings, all building on minimim standard guidelines set out by ICAO.

I don't think a regulatory body needs to approve a livery change, but (for search and rescue) the color markings of the aircraft do need to be filed on the flightplan...

shamrock350 wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Meet Alsie Express, not only is the livery all black but it's also in a matte finish.

It's the night mode of turboprops!

That is badass!!!

There are probably regulations that airlines have to follow for marking doors, emergency windows, registration, etc but as long as they meet them, I doubt the specific livery matters that much. Just a guess.

The dark top US Airways was pretty dark too. I quite liked that livery.

kdeg00 wrote:

It's an oddball question, but but bear with me. Driving north this morning and watched an AS 737 in new livery take off towards west from PDX. From my distance of about a mile, and the angle of light, it looked easily mistakable the new LH scheme. Got me to wondering if there is regulatory oversight to maintain differentiation?

Nope, just N number standards:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 045-2D.pdf

There are many regulations pertaining to liveries. The painting process is regulated since it must follow the Airplane Maintenance Manual procedures. The paint must be approved. Some areas have stricter paint and color requirements such as the wing. Then there are many regulations regarding placards, door marking markings, etc. decals have an approval process. Flight control surfaces also have balance requirements that affect paint.

So in the end, there are many regulations but none as far as I know about the actual color scheme as long as the paint is approved,

Thank God most of the world is made up of countries which do not require airlines to seek and receive approval from government in order to change their livery. China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Now that is another story.

DL747400 wrote:

Thank God most of the world is made up of countries which do not require airlines to seek and receive approval from government in order to change their livery. China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Now that is another story.

Probably also the reason why airlines fro these countries have terrible liveries. In SV's case, however, is an exception.

DL747400 wrote:

Thank God most of the world is made up of countries which do not require airlines to seek and receive approval from government in order to change their livery. China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia? Now that is another story.

You might want to ask why the BA retro BEA A319 couldn't have authentic red upper surfaces on its wings...

shamrock350 wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Meet Alsie Express, not only is the livery all black but it's also in a matte finish.

It's the night mode of turboprops!

And don't forget the HiFly A343!

High visibility should truly be an airline safety high priority.

Color, Font size, or livery uniqueness does not need to be overly regulated by government agenicies.

I liked Howard Hughes’ rebranding of Airwest’s merged airlines to Hughes Airwest with his High Visibility Yellow in the interest of safety.

I guess that is why I can stomach (NK) Spirit to look at anyway. That font they use has got to go though.

KFLLCFII wrote:

kdeg00 wrote:

It's an oddball question, but but bear with me. Driving north this morning and watched an AS 737 in new livery take off towards west from PDX. From my distance of about a mile, and the angle of light, it looked easily mistakable the new LH scheme. Got me to wondering if there is regulatory oversight to maintain differentiation?

You may want to alert the German Embassy, just to be safe:

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
+1 (202) 298-4000
4645 Reservoir Road NW
Washington, DC 20007

Since when does one need to contact an embassy for a possible copyright infringement?

No, of course you were joking, but I found the question interesting nonetheless.

Has it ever happened that an airline got legal action based on copyright ingringement regarding to the livery?

Black is a poor choice of colour for thermal management reasons on the ground - gets hot a lot quicker in a black plane compared to a white one.

fabian9 wrote:

Black is a poor choice of colour for thermal management reasons on the ground - gets hot a lot quicker in a black plane compared to a white one.

Yes especially if flying in the tropics too besides being nearly invisible at night.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

High visibility should truly be an airline safety high priority.

Color, Font size, or livery uniqueness does not need to be overly regulated by government agenicies.

I liked Howard Hughes’ rebranding of Airwest’s merged airlines to Hughes Airwest with his High Visibility Yellow in the interest of safety.

I guess that is why I can stomach (NK) Spirit to look at anyway. That font they use has got to go though.

WHAT???!! Blasphemy! Helvetica forever!

dupe

KlimaBXsst wrote:

High visibility should truly be an airline safety high priority.

I liked Howard Hughes’ rebranding of Airwest’s merged airlines to Hughes Airwest with his High Visibility Yellow in the interest of safety.

Top Banana In The West!

KlimaBXsst wrote:

High visibility should truly be an airline safety high priority.

Color, Font size, or livery uniqueness does not need to be overly regulated by government agenicies.

I liked Howard Hughes’ rebranding of Airwest’s merged airlines to Hughes Airwest with his High Visibility Yellow in the interest of safety.

I guess that is why I can stomach (NK) Spirit to look at anyway. That font they use has got to go though.

Planes are visible through lights, radar, and ADSB

VHOGU wrote:

jaybird wrote:

Yes .. the Playboy DC-9 (and maybe others?) wats painted all black.

There was a DJ 737 VH-VOI that was black for a while there. As well as a few NZ aircraft.

Ummm who ever said Donald trump is cutting it close must also have the worst combover problems too

rta wrote:

There are probably regulations that airlines have to follow for marking doors, emergency windows, registration, etc but as long as they meet them, I doubt the specific livery matters that much. Just a guess.

There are certainly some regulations. The reg number needs to be a specified font and minimum size and in a specified location, there needs to be a contrasting border around all doors. And I think there's a rule that the name of the airline has to appear prominently on the airframe if they are part 121 (so when AA did the PSA retro livery, it still has to say "AMERICAN" on the side of the plane). There are other legal issues that aren't regulations. For example, AA can't a plane to look like a DL livery (not that they'd want to), but that's because DL would sue for copyright infringement and a whole bunch of other stuff.

But I'm not aware that regulators need to sign off. Most of the regulations about paint have good reasons for them and are not difficult to follow.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Yes, you can paint a plane black.

Oakley has a black plane or did sitting at SNA.

Here one...

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view ... ajaxhist=0

KlimaBXsst wrote:

High visibility should truly be an airline safety high priority.

I don't think it really makes a difference for visibility. Looking out the window I have seen aircraft at various distances and probably seen all US airlines that have existed since 1997. None of them seem any more or less visible.

Isn't all nearby traffic shown on the TCAS display also?

DocLightning wrote:

rta wrote:

There are probably regulations that airlines have to follow for marking doors, emergency windows, registration, etc but as long as they meet them, I doubt the specific livery matters that much. Just a guess.

For example, AA can't a plane to look like a DL livery (not that they'd want to), but that's because DL would sue for copyright infringement and a whole bunch of other stuff.

.

Just to nitpick, DL would sue for trademark infringement, not copyright. They'd probably just end up winning an injunction to force AA to change it. It would be difficult for DL to prove monetary damages.

How has no one mentioned the well-known-on-this-site all the black schemes of Air New Zealand?

ish2dachoppa wrote:

How has no one mentioned the well-known-on-this-site all the black schemes of Air New Zealand?

They have.

DocLightning wrote:

rta wrote:

There are probably regulations that airlines have to follow for marking doors, emergency windows, registration, etc but as long as they meet them, I doubt the specific livery matters that much. Just a guess.

There are certainly some regulations. The reg number needs to be a specified font and minimum size and in a specified location, there needs to be a contrasting border around all doors. And I think there's a rule that the name of the airline has to appear prominently on the airframe if they are part 121 (so when AA did the PSA retro livery, it still has to say "AMERICAN" on the side of the plane). There are other legal issues that aren't regulations. For example, AA can't a plane to look like a DL livery (not that they'd want to), but that's because DL would sue for copyright infringement and a whole bunch of other stuff.

But I'm not aware that regulators need to sign off. Most of the regulations about paint have good reasons for them and are not difficult to follow.

There is also a regulation that states the livery of commercial aircraft can not include any of George Carlin’s seven words you can’t say on TV.

Even NZ's ones aren't totally black. As far as heat absorption they likely are, but there's still a lot of high-contrast lettering and logos high up.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Regulatory approval for livery changes is only for nationalized airlines.

Private airlines can do as they please.

Dont think that is entirely correct. Air Asia and Jetstar come to mine where different branches ave had to have livery changes to meet the local requirements. The local regulator wanted a visual difference between aircraft so the public was not confused if it is an Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, India, Philippines, Thai, Malaysian Air Asia etc.

DocLightning wrote:

There are certainly some regulations. The reg number needs to be a specified font and minimum size and in a specified location, there needs to be a contrasting border around all doors. And I think there's a rule that the name of the airline has to appear prominently on the airframe if they are part 121 (so when AA did the PSA retro livery, it still has to say "AMERICAN" on the side of the plane).

I don't think the name has to appear prominently on the airframe. The regional operators all have their name painted near the door. I believe UA during the merger only painted their FAA certificate number on the airplanes that weren't in UA livery, that was enough to satisfy the regulatory requirements. You can see it in these two photos: https://www.netairspace.com/photos/N13138/United_Airlines/Boeing_757-224/MCO_KMCO_Orlando_International_McCoy/photo_26102/ and the titles of the plane: https://www.netairspace.com/photos/N13138/United_Airlines/Boeing_757-224/MCO_KMCO_Orlando_International_McCoy/photo_26103/

DocLightning wrote:

There are other legal issues that aren't regulations. For example, AA can't a plane to look like a DL livery (not that they'd want to), but that's because DL would sue for copyright infringement and a whole bunch of other stuff.

I'd agree with planecane, that they'd probably be more likely to sue over trademark infringement first before they sue on copyright infringement. Although most airlines could sue on copyright infringement if they wanted to.. The one notable exception is AA's flight widget thingy got rejected for copyright protection. (AFAIK, in some countries copyright protection is easier to enforce than trademark protection, so AA went and tried to register the copyright on their marks only to have it rejected.)

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Then how do you explain NZ's nearly all black fuselage. They use stobes o the planes to make them visible at airports at night. Note some countries probably do limit what they can look like. There also could be some specific things not allowed in certain countries. In the US for instance there are specific safety markings that have to be visible in certain areas of the airframes.

kdeg00 wrote:

It's an oddball question, but but bear with me. Driving north this morning and watched an AS 737 in new livery take off towards west from PDX. From my distance of about a mile, and the angle of light, it looked easily mistakable the new LH scheme. Got me to wondering if there is regulatory oversight to maintain differentiation?

Why would there need to be differentiation if you were a mile away?

Up close, can you see the difference?



Would LH be operating a 737 into PDX? Even if they had them?


How about between different aircraft manufacturers?

From a mile away at certain angles, can you tell the difference between a Delta A320 and a Delta 737-800. Even if you CAN, can everyone else?

Even better, how about a Delta MD-88 vs a Delta MD-90?
Not picking on you, just making you think......LOL

shamrock350 wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if at leas they have to pass a "visibility" test of some sort. Like a fully black aircraft is a nono, to prevent incidents at night (at the airport in particular). But likely nothing to do with copyright infringement or anything commercial.

Meet Alsie Express, not only is the livery all black but it's also in a matte finish.

It's the night mode of turboprops!

And very nice it looks too!