Talk:Marine One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rumor?

Is there a source for this? It really smells like a rumor: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.37.245 (talk • contribs)

Bill Clinton flew across the Grand Canyon in Marine One shortly before leaving office, and upon landing, was surprised to find a single Marine

Try www.snopes.com. (Born2flie 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

In his final days of office, while flying over and landing near the Grand Canyon, President Bill Clinton was stunned to find a Marine waiting on the rock ready to salute him.

If you read the article cited it says nothing about President Clinton being surprised or stunned. Editing to say what it really said. That is Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary of the Interior speaking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordancpeterson (talk • contribs) 11:49, 5 May 2007.

I'm really not sure the relevance of this to the article. - BillCJ 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"Speech by Bruce Babblitt" in the article is a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.146.71 (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Clinton confirmed this in an interview about Marine One to CBS news: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marine-one-flying-high/

"At the end of my term, I took Marine One to the Grand Canyon and protected another million acres of the Grand Canyon," Mr. Clinton recalls. "There has to be a young Marine waiting for the helicopter anywhere it lands. So we were landing on this early morning, and I looked out across this vast expanse of desert beyond the Grand Canyon, and there was this lonely Marine in his beautiful crisp uniform. So I took a quick picture of it, and I've got it up in my office in New York now. It's one of my most prized possessions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.66.12 (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Anacostia Naval Station

The role of Anacostia Naval Station is no where mentioned in this article. - Rollo44 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Number

"More than 800 Marines supervise the operation of the Marine One fleet." Where did the number 800 come from? ~ Rollo44 07:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixon Helicopter

According to the page on Army One and this Time article (last paragraph of that page), the vehicle in the photo is Army One, not Marine One. Anyone got confirmation to the contrary? -- 142.166.3.82 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is highly unlikely that the US Army would be flying any Sea King helicopters. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is true. They were owned by the USMC, but the Army supplied some crews until 1976, when the Marines were given full responsibility for presidential helicopters. Until then, some of the VH-3As did wear US Army makings. This is from a print source, but I'll try to find something online to link to. - BillCJ (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a link to a 1974 article by Time, and it clearly references the helicopter as Army One. Hope this helps. - BillCJ (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

I don't know how to go about adding the ever-popular "citation-needed" tag, but this statement needs one: "Television broadcasters are prohibited from airing live footage of Marine One while it is in the air over the White House." There are a bunch of first amendment and prior restraint issues in this statement - a citation would help explain it. The rest of the 'Current Operations' section could use a few citations as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.140.43 (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Livery Colors?

Is there an official explanation for the colors used on Marine One? In particular the presidential "White Top"? Why that particular design?--76.246.245.76 (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Its because the 'white tops' are the VIP helicopters and the ones with a green top are support helicopters. Thats what i heard on the discovery channel. Its on youtube I think.

Operational Procedures

Is there any official list of procedures involved in operating Marine One? For instance, must the rotors be completely stopped before the doors are opened? May the president ever board the helicopter while the rotors are turning? etc.--76.246.245.76 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Data lost over P2P network

[1] shouldn't we mention that? mabdul 0=* 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT THE P2P RUMOR??? Just google that...

Families

The intro says "Marine Corps aircraft carrying the family of the President adds the designator F to have its callsign become Marine One Foxtrot. Those carrying the family of the Vice President use the callsign Marine Two Foxtrot." But the the faa site says "When a member of the President's family is aboard any aircraft, if the U.S. Secret Service or the White House Staff determines it is necessary, state the words 'Executive One Foxtrot.'" and "When a member of the Vice President's family is aboard any aircraft, if the U.S. Secret Service or the White House Staff determines it is necessary, state the words 'Executive Two Foxtrot.'" (Emphasis added to each.) Awg1010 (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unclear history

The history section starts out like this: "The first use of helicopters for presidential transport was in 1957, when Dwight D. Eisenhower traveled on an UH-13J Sioux. The president needed a quick way to reach his summer home in Rhode Island; ... Eisenhower instructed his staff to look into alternative modes of transportation; a UH-34 Seahorse helicopter was commissioned."

Well, was it a UH-13J or a UH-34 Seahorse? From the following paragraph, it sounds like the UH-13J was used to fill in until the UH-34 was ready, but I'm just guessing. The article needs to clarify this.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me: after he used the -13J once, he told his staff to get a helicopter and they got him a -34. The current wordage doesn't suggest a temporary use to me. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's still not clear. It says "The president needed a quick way to reach his summer home in Rhode Island; Air Force One was too large for such short trips, while traffic would be disrupted by traveling in a motorcade. Eisenhower instructed his staff to look into alternative modes of transportation; a UH-34 Seahorse helicopter was commissioned." This sounds like the UH-34 Seahorse was the first use of the helicopter. If they had already been using the UH-13J, why did they need an alternative mode? It doesn't say he used the UH-13J once, it says he used the UH-13J first. Then it says he needed an alternative to Air Force One, so he switched (from Air Force One) to a UH-34. It's not clear.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. You're reading too much into it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement

The article states, "Television broadcasters are prohibited from airing live footage of Marine One while it is in the air over the White House." Considering that would violate the First Amendment and be considered "prior restraint," I definitely think a source is needed for that claim. As well, I've stood on the South Lawn while M1 was arriving and have seen live network news cameras shooting takeoffs and landings. Richard Nixon's departure at the time of his resignation, for instance, was shot live; he was still the president because Ford had not yet been sworn in. There is no source in the article for this claim, so I marked it. 64.38.198.56 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The prescence of cameras does not necessarily mean that they are broadcasting live (I've heard that they routinely record Marine One takeoffs and landings just in case it crashes, but never air it because its boring or B-roll at best). But I agree, it should be sourced. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Direct link to FAA Order 7110.65 vs link to its Wiki article

I would strongly advocate changing currently used direct link to the FAA website, and replacing it with a link to the Wiki article on the subject, which in turn contains the reference and direct link to the FAA website. This provides one unique place on Wikipedia to update the link whenever changes and amendments are made to the FAA Order (currently at least twice a year). Doing so will make it easy to clean up non-working links across Wikipedia in efficient and timely manner (e.g. before I changed the article here, the link was to the "R" version of the order which is several years outdated by now). In order to understand the magnitude of the problem, try searching for "7110.65" on the whole Wikipedia, you'll see how many pages come up with old and outdated references. I welcome any comments on this, although it really sounds like a no-brainer. cherkash (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I must have no brain, it seems. WP articles cannot be used as references, as you were doing, per WP policy and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As BilCat has said you cant use wikipedia as a reliable reference it has to go to the reliable source, also remember this is an encyclopedia, if the citation was reliable it still is it does not need to be continually updated and it does not need to be online. I have changed the ref to a USMC one which should be more stable as the FAA one is a generic address which could change with each edition and break the original citation attribution. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to appear redundant, but Bill and Milborne are correct. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why we need a link to the article? MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what you are saying, MilborneOne, directly contradicts Wikipedia policy: if a citation is not reliable now (i.e., when reader is reading the article), this is in direct contradiction with the first paragraph of WP:V. So it's not sufficient for citation to have been valid sometime in the past, since there's no way for the reader to independently verify it and thus she has to rely on the person who added it. So we are back to square one, having the need to update all the references in all the articles as soon as they become outdated. One way to avoid this (and to simplify the updating of references) is to have one place on Wiki (FAA Order 7110.65 in this case) that lists the most up-to-date external reference so that every article that uses this source can just link to that Wiki article which in turns links to the most up-to-date external source. And in case your citation is actually of an earlier version of frequently changing document (and in case it also needs to stay so), you can specify it at the point where you link to the article, like I did in my edits (I used the citation as '7110.65T' which will always tell the reader which version was used, even when "T" is not current anymore).

cherkash (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The citation being slightly out of date does not make it unreliable or an unverfiable source. The citation, in this case, is referencing some very specific information that hasn't changed between the recent version updates, and is unlikely to be altered significantly anytime soon. And if it does, it's not a big deal to fix the citation. Your concern about redundant updating seems pedantic anyway; just how many pages reference this order and would need updating anyway? You can always make a template for this, if the need is proven.

But in this case, the citation also has a link to the article, so we've covered both bases. I think this compromise should settle the issue, at least on this article. bahamut0013^words_deeds 00:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Bahamut0013 comments I think that cherkash has misunderstood something along the way. We have no requirement to update references. If it was good enough on the day it was created then we have no requirement to change or update it. One of the problems is that each time the reference is updated somebody will have to check that the supporting text has not changed when basically we have no reason to as it was already checked on the day the original citation was created. You also mention no way for the reader to independently check, the reference does not have to be online just reliable if you were that concerned I am sure that the relevant version would be in a library or archive somewhere but this is true of every reference to print material in wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One Too Large for a Trip from White House to Rhode Island?

That seems unlikely, because on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy traveled in Air Force One from Fort Worth, Texas, to Dallas, Texas. As David Wolper pointed out in Four Days in November, it was a gesture to civic pride. Apparently, Dallas would feel slighted if Kennedy flew to Fort Worth but then drove to Dallas. So, why wouldn't a flight to Rhode Island be feasible? Maybe because Rhode Island is so small, the tail fin would hang over the state line?? John Paul Parks (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Read the source, as the link is now updated to go to the original article cited. It could use another source to flesh out the details though, as the source is a bit unclear on the exact time frames involved, and the Bell UH-13J Sioux was an Air Force helicopter. Appearently the UH-13 was used to go between the hHite House and Andrews AFB, and the UH-34 was used in Rhode Island to get from the airport to the summer home. - BilCat (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of helicopters

The National Geographic Channel did a great special specifically on Marine One. In the documentary, it says that there are 35 choppers in the fleet, 4 different models. The link is below and it says this at 5:16 in. I don't know how to add links to videos in article so someone else can do that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY8vDFbzH4g Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a copied version of the National Geographic episode, On Board Air Force One. See Nat Geo's link here for the original videos and related info. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And the 35 relates to HMX-1 only a small number are used as "Marine One". MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MilborneOne, can you elaborate a little or be a little clearer please? Are you trying to say the 35 choppers are all of the same model (HMX-1)? What I took away after looking into it was there are 4 different models in the fleet, totaling 35 choppers.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I get what you're saying now. Duh. Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Only the VH-3D and VH-60N helicopters actually transport the Prez. The CH-46 and CH-53E helicopters are for support and can transport other VIPs. In addition, MV-22s began replacing the squad's CH-53Es this year. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, good info. But still, technically isn't the whole HMX-1 fleet considered to be the Presidential airlift group? I mean just like you said, the President does not travel on every model, but aren't they all considered to be part of that fleet? And I remember reading a few years back that Obama canceled an order Bush made to get all new choppers for this fleet citing that "the helicopters we have now are fine". Did something move forward anyways with these MV-22s? Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• The wording in the article accurately says HMX-1 operates 35 helicopters. VXX is the program to replace the VH-3s and VH-60s. The VH-71 won that, but was later canceled due to high costs. Read these wiki articles and the references used in them for find more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marine One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807225451/http://www.blm.gov:80/ca/news/2000/02/nr/babbitt_denver_speech.html to http://www.blm.gov/ca/news/2000/02/nr/babbitt_denver_speech.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Marine One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090627071822/http://www.dallasnews.com:80/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-helicopter_25edi.State.Edition1.2d6416c.html to http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-helicopter_25edi.State.Edition1.2d6416c.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090622214737/http://www.cagw.org:80/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12052 to http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12052

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)