# Flying on Air Force One: Absolute, 100 % safe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 4, 2015, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191 "2015-03-04T11:55:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/1 "2015-03-04T11:55:02Z")
Air travel in general is considered a fairly safe means of transportation, but of course, accidents do happen and when they happen, they get a lot of attention. There are human errors, technical malfunctions and adverse weather conditions which may lead to a fatal accident. I was wondering whether these source of danger to air travel are virtually eliminated when it comes to the aircraft which is exclusively used by the President of the United States. Being an aviation layman, I’m making a number of assumptions/wild guesses. Please feel free to set things straight. **Pilots** The best pilots there are. Carefully trained, abundance of flying experience, nerves of steel. Think Chesley Sullenberger. No one who just barely made it through flying school, no health problems (carefully screened), no mental problems, no religious nut jobs. And not just one pilot, there is a sufficient number of back-up pilots on Air Force One who are equally qualified. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. \*\*Safety on the ground \*\* Air Force One may use every airport exclusively, absolutely no danger of collisions on the ground, no airport vehicles accidentally left on the runway. \*\*Aircraft maintenance \*\* The best money can buy. In an abundance of caution, every conceivable type of overhaul, repair or inspection is performed daily, before, after and - if at all possible and/or necessary - during every flight. A team of engineers and other technical specialists exclusively works on Air Force One, before, during and after the flight. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. **Weather** All the resources of the US military and the US government, Air Force weather squadrons, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA are available and on high alert before and during the flight too look out for high winds, storms, turbulences of all kinds, hailstorms, thunderstorms etc. which may pose a danger. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. \*\*Safety during the flights \*\* No danger of collisions in the air. All other flights are routed around Air Force One. All air traffic controllers, civilian and military are on alert and on the lookout for any aircraft whose pilot didn’t get the memo or who might be distracted. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. Question: What could possibly go wrong? ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/2 "2015-03-04T12:04:31Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > \*\*Safety during the flights > \*\* > No danger of collisions in the air. All other flights are routed around Air Force One. All air traffic controllers, civilian and military are on alert and on the lookout for any aircraft whose pilot didn’t get the memo or who might be distracted. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. > Question: What could possibly go wrong? This bit: That may well apply in US airspace (does it?) but elsewhere in the world it is just another aeroplane. I imagine that it always gets routed to avoid danger areas but shooting it down would be a considerable coup for any hostile organisation that managed it. ---
**Author:** ![Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cabin_fever_1/32/2908_2.png) [@Cabin\_Fever\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabin_Fever_1)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/3 "2015-03-04T12:15:51Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > Question: What could possibly go wrong? Post snipped for brevity… Having an armada of fighter aircraft escorting you helps somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/4 "2015-03-04T12:56:39Z")
Meteor impact ---
**Author:** ![The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e79b87/32.png) [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/5 "2015-03-04T13:00:37Z")
There’s no protection against unknown unknowns. That is, Air Force One is vulnerable to problems and failures that have never happened or even been anticipated, just like every other airplane is equally vulnerable to these types of faults. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/6 "2015-03-04T13:14:16Z")
Of all the aircraft in the sky, you would imagine that that one is the one right at the top of the list of targets for any terrorist, state sponsored or not. Whilst every plane carries some tiny risk of being the subject of a terrorist attack, Air Force One must carry a significant risk simply because of what it is. OTOH, the usual modes of attack are pretty much closed out. People and cargo are vastly more controlled. I would assume it carries significant countermeasures to SAM attack, and attack by a whole range of other mechanisms we might dream up. But 100% risk free - no. If ever Air Force One goes down, some form of enemy action would have to be by far the most likely reason. Ernst Stavro Bolfeld would by my first suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/7 "2015-03-04T13:37:54Z")
I guess the OP has never heard of O’toole’s Commentary on Murphy’s Law or Johari’s Window. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/8 "2015-03-04T13:55:41Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > **Pilots** > > The best pilots there are. Carefully trained, abundance of flying experience, nerves of steel. Think Chesley Sullenberger. No one who just barely made it through flying school, no health problems (carefully screened), no mental problems, no religious nut jobs. And not just one pilot, there is a sufficient number of back-up pilots on Air Force One who are equally qualified. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. While pilots for Air Force One (or Marine One or Executive One or any other One) are carefully screened and vetted there is always a non-zero chance of something suddenly happening to a pilot. Healthy young people with no known health problem have occasionally simply dropped dead. This sort of thing is why commercial airplanes have TWO pilots when only one person is actually essential to operate the airplane. And while there may not be _financial_ pressures there most certainly could be _political_ pressures to fly into hazardous areas (both weather and people-caused) for one purpose or another. > [@](#): > > \*\*Safety on the ground > \*\* > Air Force One may use every airport exclusively, absolutely no danger of collisions on the ground, no airport vehicles accidentally left on the runway. What, do you think they _evacuate_ an airport when Air Force One arrives? Nothing of the sort. Also - how do you think they refuel Air Force One, pixies? It needs a fuel truck, just like any other airplane. Plus various other support/service vehicles. If there’s snow you’ll still have snowplows operating to keep runways clear. Air Traffic Control does _not_ halt all proceedings for hours and hours to accommodate Air Force One. In fact, there’s even a recording of an O’Hare airport controller telling Air Force One to _hurry up_. Certainly, every effort is exerted to avoid collisions, but that’s true of any aircraft using an airport. Folks might be a little more careful with the PotUS around but there is still a non-zero, if very small, chance of a mishap. > [@](#): > > \*\*Aircraft maintenance > \*\* > The best money can buy. In an abundance of caution, every conceivable type of overhaul, repair or inspection is performed daily, before, after and - if at all possible and/or necessary - during every flight. A team of engineers and other technical specialists exclusively works on Air Force One, before, during and after the flight. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. Probably closest to spot-on, although stuff can still break for unforeseen reasons or due to manufacturing defect. > [@](#): > > **Weather** > > All the resources of the US military and the US government, Air Force weather squadrons, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA are available and on high alert before and during the flight too look out for high winds, storms, turbulences of all kinds, hailstorms, thunderstorms etc. which may pose a danger. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. Again, _political_ considerations may come into play here, resulting in a less than perfect safety profile for a mission. > [@](#): > > \*\*Safety during the flights > \*\* > No danger of collisions in the air. All other flights are routed around Air Force One. All air traffic controllers, civilian and military are on alert and on the lookout for any aircraft whose pilot didn’t get the memo or who might be distracted. No financial considerations/constraints, no corporate bean-counters nagging about costs. Actually, most flights in the US are NOT on a flight plan, particularly on good weather days. Granted, your average single-engine Cessna is generally not in the same airspace as jets like AF1, and the FAA does issue notices to stay clear of people like the PotUS, there have been occasions where, for security reasons, the flight plan of AF1 is not publicized (there was an incident where two British pilots crossing the Atlantic saw AF1 fly by them en route to the Middle East) but it’s not like air traffic control doesn’t exert considerable effort to prevent any aircraft from colliding. And, as noted, the US only controls US airspace. There are vast regions over the oceans with no air traffic control whatsoever, other nations control their own airspace, and so forth. Basically, AF1 is going to behave pretty much like a commercial jet in regards to interactions with air traffic control and following established routes and procedures for the same reason presidential motorcades tend to follow established roads - it’s the easiest and safest way to do things. AF1 certainly _could_ deviate from normal procedures but that won’t happen without a compelling reason. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/9 "2015-03-04T15:04:21Z")
It is a piece of equipment. Run and maintained by men and other equipment. It can fail. Though the probability is very small. ---
**Author:** ![SpeedwayRyan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@SpeedwayRyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpeedwayRyan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/10 "2015-03-04T15:25:40Z")
Because of all the things you listed, I think the possibility of aviation problems (for lack of a better term) has been basically minimized. You’re right – there are no “last in class” pilots, no maintenance has been put off, nothing has been compromised to save money across a huge fleet. But the possibility of outside problems is increased because you are essentially the most high-profile target aircraft in the country. It’s like saying Presidents are the safest people of all, because they have armed guards around them at all times and their food is very carefully prepared and their routes are carefully chosen and their cars are heavily armored. It’s true, but it’s true because Presidents are high-profile targets…if you are a President, your odds of being shot at or killed are significantly higher than, say, a plumber or a carpenter, right? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/11 "2015-03-04T15:33:34Z")
(political jab edited by author) But yeah, as far as aviation accidents go, AF1 is about as safe as you can get. They don’t have a to-the-minute schedule to keep, even for political reasons, and so can detour far around any weather-related problems. They also don’t land at any airport that hasn’t been secured. When the President flies to Europe, for example, he lands at a NATO base, not at Gatwick. ---
**Author:** ![Donnerwetter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Donnerwetter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donnerwetter)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/12 "2015-03-04T16:00:12Z")
The idea of my question was actually to exclude security issues and discuss only aviation matters. “Air Force One” thus becomes a metaphor for: How safe can aviation possibly be made if you have unlimited resources, are super-cautious and have total control of the environment. (If you explicitly put security into the equation, the POTUS, being the prime target for terrorists and hostile governments that he is, makes every place on earth he happens to be in exceptionally dangerous. For this reason, at this very moment, I’m probably safer than the President of the United States because I have no mortal enemies and I live in a more or less safe neighbourhood). ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/13 "2015-03-04T16:09:11Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#): > > There’s no protection against unknown unknowns. That is, Air Force One is vulnerable to problems and failures that have never happened or even been anticipated, just like every other airplane is equally vulnerable to these types of faults. > [@](#): > > There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. – Donald Rumsfeld People laughed at Rummy at the time. It made sense then as it does now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/14 "2015-03-04T16:16:56Z")
If only Rumsfeld had completed the thought - the Unknown Knowns, things you \*think \*you know but you’re wrong. Nothing is 100% safe, not even AF1. Even in the movies, it crashed in _Escape from New York_ and _Air Force One_, and was hijacked by terrorists in _Air Force One_ and _Air Force One is Down._ ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/15 "2015-03-04T16:19:20Z")
I’m assuming the OP means civilian type malfunctions, not hostile attack. The risk would be near-zero I guess. Perhaps orders of magnitude safer than commercial airlines on which you already have like a 1 in a hundred million chance of death. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/16 "2015-03-04T16:20:44Z")
I think the odds that it would vanish off people’s radar and nobody would notice are somewhat smaller than for standard civilian aircraft… ---
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/17 "2015-03-04T16:23:49Z")
Giant space lasers? ---
**Author:** ![buddy431](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@buddy431](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buddy431)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/18 "2015-03-04T16:33:55Z")
Could something conceivably go wrong? Sure. Heads of state have died in plane crashes before, both from [hostile action](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/6/newsid_2472000/2472195.stm) and from [non-hostile causes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash). But historically, travel was more dangerous for presidents than it is now, and yet of all the U.S. presidents who have died in office, it has either been from illness or from a bullet. The president is probably better off watching his cholesterol than worrying about the safety of Air Force 1. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/19 "2015-03-04T18:22:10Z")
> [@buddy431](#): > > Could something conceivably go wrong? Sure. Heads of state have died in plane crashes before, both from [hostile action](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/6/newsid_2472000/2472195.stm) and from [non-hostile causes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash). But historically, travel was more dangerous for presidents than it is now, and yet of all the U.S. presidents who have died in office, it has either been from illness or from a bullet. The president is probably better off watching his cholesterol than worrying about the safety of Air Force 1. The death of [Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Brown_%28U.S._politician%29) in [1996 in Croatia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Croatia_USAF_CT-43_crash) might be worth considering. The crash was ultimately judged to be caused by the crew’s lack of familiarity with an obsolete non-precision instrument approach technique they had to use due to Croatia’s outdated air traffic control infrastructure, plus being in a hurry (no idea why, but I could imagine being pressed to hurry by their VIP passengers or perceived schedule pressure). Similarities: USAF VIP transport, with VIP transport flight crew. Differences: Not the official White House VIP transport organization. Not Air Force One, or any aircraft as well equipped. I would guess an AF1 mission wouldn’t fall prey to these specific problems. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/20 "2015-03-04T18:24:59Z")
Other than attack by a hostile force, I’d say the biggest risks are microbursts of weather on take off or landing. Low risk of geese going through and shutting down _four_ engines like with Capt Sullenberger. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191.md?page=2)