65

Aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of at least 300,000 pounds add the word "Heavy" to their callsign. (Example: Lufthansa 415 Heavy in this video.) The current Presidential 747's have a maximum takeoff weight of 833,000 pounds. Yet, it flies (when the President is on board) with the callsign "Air Force One", not "Air Force One Heavy."

Why not?

60levelchange
  • 36,364
  • 4
  • 142
  • 163
Ralph J
  • 51,356
  • 17
  • 157
  • 249
  • 5
    100% purely anecdotal and probably not true, but: I had an instructor (retired controller) tell me he knew the guy who caused the rule change. This guy was working AF1, kept calling him "heavy" as required by the book, the pilot (an Air Force major) got offended and by the end of the day there was a new rule saying AF1 should not be called "heavy." It would be interesting to pore over old versions of the 7110.65 and see when the rule was added. – randomhead Mar 16 '21 at 14:45

2 Answers2

100

FAA JO 7110.65 Section 4 Radio and Interphone Communications specifically states that the "heavy" designator should not be used:

e. When in radio communications with “Air Force One” or “Air Force Two,” do not add the heavy designator to the call sign. State only the call sign “Air Force One/Two” regardless of the type aircraft.

randomhead
  • 15,219
  • 1
  • 42
  • 77
aeroalias
  • 100,255
  • 5
  • 278
  • 429
  • 2
    I speculate that the reason for only using the callsign, not heavy, is additional security against identifying the aircraft that POTUS is on. If it's never called heavy, the absence of the designation tells radio interceptors nothing. – Nij Feb 25 '17 at 07:41
  • 21
    @Nij I was under the impression the call sign of an aircraft is "Air Force One" if and only if the POTUS is on board. – Angew is no longer proud of SO Feb 25 '17 at 09:30
  • @Nij How should that work? Please elaborate. Even if, for some reason, the president could decide to fly with a Gulfstream exec jet (he can't, Secret Service won't allow), and the empty AF 28000 is starting at the same time from the same airport, the call sign AF 28000 gives away that AF 1 is a different plane right now... – Alexander Feb 25 '17 at 09:38
  • 3
    Yes, but if you called AF1H instead of just AF1, that immediately says POTUS is on the bigger of two (or one of the bigger among many) aircraft. By only ever saying AF1, there is never a hint as to whether it's an aircraft with Heavy designation or not. However, Alexander torpedoes the idea with the obvious deduction-by-elimination point. – Nij Feb 25 '17 at 10:01
  • 18
    @Angew: Not "an aircraft", only some aircraft: the call sign of any and all US Air Force aircraft that the president is currently on, is "Air Force One", only for the time the president is on it. (See the final climax of the eponymous Harrison Ford movie for a heavily dramatized but surprisingly accurate example – the only realistic second of the entire movie.) If it is a US Marines aircraft, the callsign is "Marine One" instead. For a US Navy aircraft, it is "Navy One". For a commercial aircraft, it is "Executive One". – Jörg W Mittag Feb 25 '17 at 10:22
  • 15
    A good example - when it was made very obvious - is how the plane flying Pres. Richard Nixon changed it's call-sign in mid-flight from "Air Force One" to SAM27000 (it's "real"/normal call-sign) at noon, when Nixon's letter of resignation took effect and Ford became President. Also the same system for "Marine One" - the helicopter... and if the President was on a navy-ship (or I assume a navy-plane), it would be "Navy One". – Baard Kopperud Feb 25 '17 at 13:54
  • 2
    @Alexander The Secret Service can't give orders to the President, they serve under him, not the other way around. If President Trump wanted to fly on his own private jet no one has the authority to stop him. – Ross Ridge Feb 25 '17 at 18:34
  • 12
    @Nij I seriously doubt the lack of heavy designation has anything to do with security. If that were the case why give the president his own call sign at all? If subterfuge was necessary they would simply leave its designator as it is when he's not on it and not paint it with special livery. The whole idea of the AF1 designator is to indicate its protected status. – TomMcW Feb 25 '17 at 19:05
  • it is not as if other aircraft are going to be allowed near it What does this even mean. – digitgopher Feb 25 '17 at 23:56
  • 5
    @digitgopher It means what it sounds like - no other aircraft will be allowed to follow closely enough to Air Force One for its wake turbulence to be a concern (at least not in the U.S., anyway.) – reirab Feb 26 '17 at 00:02
  • 1
    @reirab I'm unaware of any special separation rules for Air Force One. What ensures no other aircraft will be close enough for wake turbulence to be a factor? – digitgopher Feb 26 '17 at 00:55
  • 9
    @digitgopher do you think when AF1 flies, they let other planes get close enough to be in its wake? As for what ensures no other aircraft gets close, I'm sure the Air Force fighter jets that fly with it provide a good enough deterrent :P Edit: Here's an article mentioning the FAA is investigating a plane that came within 3 nautical miles of AF1 this month. – BruceWayne Feb 26 '17 at 04:20
  • 1
    @Alexander the President is the Secret Service's boss. He tells THEM what to do, not the other way around. They will strongly recommend that he doesn't fly any jet besides AF1, but he has the final word – Mennyg Feb 26 '17 at 14:00
  • 2
    @digitgopher I'm not sure about the specific rules, but most of the times I've seen where Air Force One was moving on the field, all other movement was stopped, even at major international airports. – reirab Feb 26 '17 at 21:32
  • @BruceWayne - can you check that link, please. At the moment, at least, the domain isn't found. – FreeMan Feb 27 '17 at 14:27
  • @FreeMan ah, odd... Here's a link to Bloomberg, hopefully it stays up. – BruceWayne Feb 27 '17 at 14:37
  • My understanding was that "heavy" was used to describe aircraft full of passengers or cargo. – Devil07 Jun 27 '17 at 05:01
  • 2
    @Devil07 your understanding is incorrect, it is based on the certified maximum takeoff weight and nothing else. – randomhead Mar 16 '21 at 14:47
  • @randomhead. I have revised my understanding of the term "Heavy" I know understand it to be: Heavy− Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or more whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight. LOL – Devil07 Mar 17 '21 at 05:12
  • 1
    @BruceWayne movement on an airport is indeed very limited when AF1 arrives and is on the ground, but there are no special separation rules for AF1 while airborne. digitgopher is entirely correct. You can watch ADS-B Exchange some time when the POTUS is flying into a large busy airport and see. (The point being, the increased wake turbulence separation required behind a heavy may well be relevant.) – randomhead Jun 22 '22 at 23:43
  • Similar ping @reirab. Nothing says that AF1 gets special separation beyond the standard 3 or 5 NM. Of course, if that separation is lost many people will be very interested, as BurceWayne's link alludes to. – randomhead Jun 22 '22 at 23:46
  • @randomhead I was assuming that taking off or landing behind it within the delay times that would normally apply to a heavy arriving or departing in front would be difficult to do when you can't taxi while it's moving anyway. Do they actually send arrivals or departures in/out within a few minutes of AF1? – reirab Jun 23 '22 at 00:25
  • @reirab operations in the Terminal environment are not limited to taking off and landing; aircraft may be climbing, descending, or in level flight while still within Terminal-facility-owned airspace (in which the "heavy" would normally be spoken by ATC). These aircraft are not restricted from flying during the time when AF1 is not on the ground. And as I said, you can see for yourself next time POTUS is arriving at or departing from a busy airport—there may be stragglers operating as the TFR is activated. – randomhead Jun 23 '22 at 01:30
  • @randomhead Yes, I'm aware that they don't clear out the whole terminal area before it enters, but the vicinity of the runway environment is where wake turbulence concerns are most important. Even farther away from that, though, I'd have assumed that no one would be following closely behind AF1, either inbound or outbound. Its wake shouldn't be especially relevant to aircraft arriving ahead of it or those departing while it's on approach under most circumstances. I will try to take a look at ADS-B Exchange sometime when POTUS is going in or out, though. Sounds interesting to watch. – reirab Jun 23 '22 at 02:08
28

The purpose of the "heavy" designator is create situational awareness because of its wake turbulence. There are also different separation requirements when following a heavy aircraft. Since all air traffic around Air Force 1 is likely to be heavily controlled, there's no need to call out that it's a heavy.

Steve Kuo
  • 1,558
  • 1
  • 9
  • 14
  • Also worth noting that there's only one aircraft of it's kind to worry about at a time. It's like tacking qualifiers onto a space shuttle on re-entry. – bobsburner Jul 26 '20 at 17:02
  • -1. Air traffic around busy airports is always "heavily controlled" but the "heavy"/"super" suffix is still used. What source do you have for the claim that AF1 receives any additional separation? – randomhead Jun 22 '22 at 23:47
  • @randomhead You should not be asking for a source when the answer is common knowledge. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1689/how-does-atc-protect-air-force-one – Anonymous Physicist Jun 23 '22 at 00:38
  • @Anon nothing in those answers, and nothing in the 7110.65, gives any indication that it is against the rules for an aircraft to be operating closer than 4NM of AF1 (but still 3NM or greater), wake turbulence considerations aside. Once you have a Heavy, Large or Small operating directly behind AF1 and 1000ft (or fewer) below, wake turbulence must be considered and more separation is required. Hence the purported benefit of the "super"/"heavy" designator—situational awareness for the pilot following—would still be applicable. – randomhead Jun 23 '22 at 01:22
  • @randomhead Read the link again. – Anonymous Physicist Jun 24 '22 at 00:02
  • @Anon obviously you see something there that I don't. Please quote exactly what part of the link is "common knowledge" and the source for a claim that ATC provides additional separation to AF1 beyond standard IFR separation. – randomhead Jun 24 '22 at 00:22