[joncrane]

Do you think it's possible that Air Force One Pilots are instructed to land at unconventional spots on the runway to foil potential threats? Perhaps even to land at different spots on the runway on different landings?

I know it sounds far-fetched, but my mom who was the "Cultural Affairs Officer" at the US Embassy in San Jose Costa Rica was instructed to take a different route from home to the embassy and back every day, and to try to depart at slightly different times each trip. This was in the late 80s when Costa Rica was a relatively safe place (it's even safer today).

[justusthane]

My uninformed intuition would be that trying to land the plane differently each time would introduce more risk than it would protect against (and what threats would it even protect against?).

[usrusr]

You might be right with that suspicion, but if the person responsible for procedures puts up a rule demanding unpredictable runway usage they have done their job Very Well. A cautious "this might not be such a good idea actually" however will make them seem weak in certain eyes and might even make them some personal enemies, for displaying lack of trust in the pilots' abilities. I suspect that nobody without the career instincts to intuitively know those things will come anywhere close to that plane.

[na85]

That's... not how military aviation works. The people flying the plane (Lieutenant-Colonels) are junior/subordinate to the people making the rules (usually 1- and 2-star Generals).

[dingaling]

Autolanding systems already do that, they incorporate 'dithering' so that they spread landing wear randomly over the runway surface

[criddell]

I've never been able to find it again, but I distinctly remember seeing video of Air Force One taking off from Sarasota on September 11, 2001. In my memory it was far louder than normal and climbed at a very steep angle.

I've always wondered if I was imagining that or if they really did act more aggressively to gain altitude quickly.

[joncrane]

I know in combat zones military cargo planes haul ass at much steeper angles than commercial flights because comfort is not an issue. Mostly to get out of rocket/missle range. Even small arms fire can damage engines.

on 9/11 it would have made sense to tell everyone to strap TF in we're going out hot!

[criddell]

I just searched for it and I found a story about Air Force One that morning in Sarasota:

https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20160904/anderson-morning-...

> Air Force One — the 747 that transports the President of the United States — took off in an unconventional direction and climbed nearly straight-up, like a rocket, at 8,000 feet per minute in the direction of the Gulf of Mexico. No one had ever seen such a steep and urgent ascent.

That's quite a trajectory for a 747.

[svachalek]

Wow, interesting. I used to work as a civilian for the Navy and if you needed to get to another Navy base you could usually hop on whatever plane was headed that way next. Kind of a fun experience and I thought they tended to take off more aggressively than commercial flights, but nothing like that!

[joncrane]

Nice detective work!

[Cthulhu_]

Maybe if they were landing in a risky country (the presidents have visited warzones like Iraq), but even then, they would ensure the airfield and a 10km radius around it would be clear and secure. If they cannot ensure that, how would landing in an unconventional spot improve security? Every part of an AF1 flight is tightly orchestrated on the one hand, and on the other, they would keep the exact flight route and timing a need-to-know secret.

[raverbashing]

> Do you think it's possible that Air Force One Pilots are instructed to land at unconventional spots on the runway to foil potential threats?

No. It's hard enough to nail a landing to pick the "right spot" especially when you don't need it

If there's a threat on ground the best thing you can do is stay on air, not try to land on a different spot of the same runway (but yes, given some types of obstructions you can try to use only part of the runway, I'm not sure if they prefer you landing after it or in front of it, but I think the latter makes more sense - depending on the type and position of obstruction of course)

[heyflyguy]

I politely disagree with you. Landings in an aircraft that you have flown for any length of time are not all that hard. In many cases I have been in aircraft that "land long" so as to not have to taxi 3 miles (literally) to get to the gate or parking area.

I would imagine there is a bit of risk mitigation with AF1 as it relates to taxiing on the ground. As you state (correctly I surmise) the best place for AF1 to be is in the air. The worst, is unprotected on the ground. The secret service is great, but I don't see them clearing a mile of taxiway in multiple directions for the safety of the aircraft.

Best to land long, turn off at taxiway and be at your destination with proper equipment nearby as soon as possible.

[raverbashing]

Thanks for your answer, you probably know more than me about the subject :)

But yes, I understand that you might want to land closer to the beginning or the end of the runway and that's easier the longer the runway is.

And if your taxi back was 3Mi, yeah, it was a long runway. Now, in something like 5000ft/1500m runway, you'll just want to touch down early and hit the brakes as soon as possible (not that the VC-25 should be landing at anything that short in a non-emergency setting)

[mhh__]

The full-blown practice of this (so things like losing a tail) is referred poetically referred to the Russian intelligence services as dry-cleaning (Proverka? I forget the exact russian term)