# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/41 "2017-08-02T13:36:29Z")
Why would two brand new 747s sit in storage for 2 years just because the original buyer went bankrupt? Especially if they are cheaper than ordering new ones, as suggested by the article. Isn’t there another airline who is waiting for their 747 who’s happy to accept these instead for a slight discount? Or is nobody buying new 747s anymore? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/42 "2017-08-02T13:51:53Z")
So they are sort-of second-hand Russian aircraft. I think if they are going that way, they shouldn’t mess around - use the [Antonov An-225](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya). **Six** engines, and you can carry a back-up aircraft on top, just in case. ETA: It could carry an A340 on top if you could sort out the aerodynamics. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/43 "2017-08-02T13:58:27Z")
No matter how small the odds of a catastrophic failure of Air Force One in any given flight-hour … the odds of _ **just one** _ catastrophic failure approaches certainty given enough flight-hours … hehe … gotta love them statistical arts … ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/44 "2017-08-02T14:12:16Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No matter how small the odds of a catastrophic failure of Air Force One in any given flight-hour … the odds of _ **just one** _ catastrophic failure approaches certainty given enough flight-hours … hehe … gotta love them statistical arts … So what you’re saying is, given an arbitrarily small number ε\>0, you can think of a large enough number that multiplying it by ε still equals 1? Are there really enough numbers that there’s one large enough to do that? ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/45 "2017-08-02T15:03:49Z")
Geese. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/46 "2017-08-02T15:19:55Z")
Even with the best forecasting knowledge, some weather phenomena are hard to predict. [Wind shear](http://aviationweek.com/bca/wind-shear-has-it-been-tamed) can be unpredictable. \*Nothing \*is 100% safe. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/47 "2017-08-02T15:48:22Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Or is nobody buying new 747s anymore? Pretty much. According to [this](https://airwaysmag.com/industry/a-look-at-the-remaining-airbus-a380-and-boeing-747-orders-deliveries/), at the beginning of 2017, Boeing only had 26 orders outstanding, mostly for the freighter configuration. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/48 "2017-08-02T17:23:32Z")
If they wanted two new four-engined aircraft, they could have purchased a pair of A380s. Of course, they’re not made in America… ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/49 "2017-08-02T19:27:15Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > So they are sort-of second-hand Russian aircraft. I think if they are going that way, they shouldn’t mess around - use the [Antonov An-225](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya). **Six** engines, and you can carry a back-up aircraft on top, just in case. > > ETA: It could carry an A340 on top if you could sort out the aerodynamics. They were ordered by a Russian airline that went bankrupt, but they’re still U.S. manufactured airliners. It would be a massive public relations disaster to order Russian-made planes for use by the POTUS. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/50 "2017-08-02T19:53:22Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > So what you’re saying is, given an arbitrarily small number ε\>0, you can think of a large enough number that multiplying it by ε still equals 1? Are there really enough numbers that there’s one large enough to do that? Yes … 1/ε in fact … ---
**Author:** ![Weisshund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ba8739/32.png) [@Weisshund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weisshund)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/51 "2017-08-02T21:36:37Z")
Just wanted to mention, If the POTUS boards a piper cub for what ever calamitous emergency and the pilot is just some every day hobby pilot guy. That plane becomes AF1 at that moment. What could go wrong? ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/52 "2017-08-02T22:38:51Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > \*\*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. Where did you get this idea? There’s even a famous quote by Chicago O’Hare ATC telling Air Force One to get moving to avoid problems ("Air Force One I said _expedite!")_. While a lot of civilian aviation is now forbidden near Air Force One commercial flights still occur at the airports it uses. Chances of collision on the ground are low, but not zero. ---
**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:** [August 2, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/53 "2017-08-02T22:40:56Z")
> [@Weisshund](#): > > Just wanted to mention, If the POTUS boards a piper cub for what ever calamitous emergency and the pilot is just some every day hobby pilot guy. > > That plane becomes AF1 at that moment. > > What could go wrong? [Nitpick] Said airplane would be referred to as _Executive One_ - only Air Force aircraft get the “Air Force One” designation. Hence, you sometimes hear “Marine One” in reference to the President’s helicopter. [/Nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![Kropotkin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kropotkin/32/18045_2.png) [@Kropotkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kropotkin)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2017, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/54 "2017-08-02T23:30:58Z")
> [@Donnerwetter](#): > > Question: What could possibly go wrong? The Trumpenführer fires the flight crew? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/55 "2017-08-03T00:22:19Z")
There is a certain amount of built in redundancy for this reason (you can’t guarantee the safety plane travel, and accidents tend to be fatal). That is why Air Force Two exists, the VPOTUS and POTUS can’t be on the same plane at the same time. The UK has a similar policy with the royal family (which I never got I mean that’s the point of having a line of succession surely, you’ve got enough cousins lying around to take control if they Queen and family hit a mountain 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/56 "2017-08-03T00:34:27Z")
What could [go](http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-reagan-slips-and-falls-to-the-deck-of-the-news-photo/515129044?esource=SEO_GIS_CDN_Redirect#seattle-washington-president-reagan-slips-and-falls-to-the-deck-of-picture-id515129044) [wrong](https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pressofatlanticcity.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/c/a1/ca1b4e27-6ac7-5fb0-a321-2feef975b961/592e1bfa5c06d.image.jpg)? ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/57 "2017-08-03T02:05:48Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > No matter how small the odds of a catastrophic failure of Air Force One in any given flight-hour … the odds of _ **just one** _ catastrophic failure approaches certainty given enough flight-hours … hehe … gotta love them statistical arts … The probability \*approaches \*1 but never reaches “certainty.” ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/58 "2017-08-03T02:25:27Z")
nm-------- ---
**Author:** ![Hocus\_Pocus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/41988e/32.png) [@Hocus\_Pocus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hocus_Pocus)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/59 "2017-08-03T03:23:54Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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 the AF is unable to provide fuel at a particular location they will purchase fuel locally, test it, and seal the container as well as guard it until AF1 needs it. I would also note that since the last presidential assassination security has changed dramatically. At the time of JFK’s death there were approx. 100 Secret Service agents assigned to the White House. There are now 3,200 agents, along with 1,300 additional uniformed officers. Past history doesn’t necessarily indicate future performance. While I wouldn’t call POTUS completely safe, it’s a completely different ballgame since the last assassination. There’s also on factor that hasn’t been mentioned - POTUS himself/herself. These are political animals, and it isn’t uncommon for them to take risks at the expense of their safety. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2017, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191/60 "2017-08-03T03:36:46Z")
> [@Hocus\_Pocus](#): > > …There’s also on factor that hasn’t been mentioned - POTUS himself/herself. These are political animals, and it isn’t uncommon for them to take risks at the expense of their safety. Right you are: [http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2910/is-the-secret-service-responsible-for-keeping-the-president-from-getting-drunk](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2910/is-the-secret-service-responsible-for-keeping-the-president-from-getting-drunk) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flying-on-air-force-one-absolute-100-safe/714191.md?page=4)