Aircraft serial no

For example, airplane was the first aircraft ordered in FY , was the first example ordered in FY , etc. This system is still in use today.

It is important to recognize that the serial number reflects the Fiscal Year in which the order for the aircraft is placed, NOT the year in which it is delivered. Nowadays, the difference between the time the order is placed and the time the aircraft is actually delivered can be as much as several years. Throughout all of these changes the earlier fiscal-year serial number system remained unchanged.

This means that fiscal year serials with individual sequence numbers less than are filled up with zeroes to bring them up to 3 digits in length.

So is written as in official documentation. Sequence numbers greater than are written with 5 digits. In , the minimum number of digits in the sequence number was raised to four, so that the aircraft series started at This was done strictly for administrative purposes, even though these aircraft were never intended for USAAF service.

In most cases, they operated under their foreign designations and serials. For example, the Spitfires acquired in the UK under "Reverse Lend-Lease" were operated under their British designations and their British serial numbers. Rebuilt Aircraft Occasionally, USAF aircraft are extensively remanufactured to bring them up to modern standards or to fulfill completely new roles for which they were not originally designed. In many cases, these aircraft are re-serialed with new numbers relevant to their year of re-manufacture.

However, this rule is not always followed--re the rather grotesque modifications inflicted on some C aircraft which did not result in new serial numbers. If the transfer is anticipated to be permanent, it is usually the case that the transferred aircraft are given USAF serial numbers. Most often, the USAF serials of these transferred Navy aircraft are inserted within the regular sequence of numbers, but sometimes these new USAF serials are constructed by retroactively adding additional numbers at the end of the sequence number block for the fiscal year in which they were originally ordered by the Navy.

Unfortunately, the system is not always consistent. Furthermore, an aircraft is sometimes listed in a given FY block when it was actually ordered in a different FY. This is most often done for reasons of special convenience. For example, the serials of the two "Air Force One" VCs and might indicate that they were ordered ten years apart, whereas the actual difference was only seven years.

The Presidential VCs were ordered in FY under the serials and , but these numbers were changed to and by special order to create a series following the two earlier VCCs. When some civilian aircraft have been acquired by the USAF, either by purchase or by seizure, serial numbers have sometimes been assigned out of sequence, with their numbers deliberately chosen to match their former civilian registration numbers.

Other times, serial number allocation is done for reasons of secrecy, to conceal the existence of classified aircraft from prying eyes. For example, the serial numbers of the Fs were initially assigned in strict numerical order, but they were sprinkled among several different fiscal years. In other cases, the serial numbers e. Another odd example was the A-1 Skyraiders acquired from the Navy for use in Vietnam--they had USAF serial numbers constructed by taking the plane's Navy serial number Bureau Number and prefixing in front of it the fiscal year number in which the plane was ordered by the Navy.

Missiles and Drones During the s and s, it was common practice to include missiles and unmanned aircraft in USAF serial number batches. Consequently, it is not always possible to determine the total number of aircraft ordered by the USAF simply by looking at serial number ranges. In addition, if an Army aircraft of helicopter had a serial number with less than 4 digits, extra zeros were added to pad the number out to 5 digits. In FY , the Army went over to a new serial series for their helicopters, which started at and had continued consecutively since then.

The Display of Serial Numbers on Aircraft By , when the Army first began to acquire tractor-engined aircraft, the official serial number began to be painted in large block figures on both sides of the fuselage or on the rudder.

These numbers were so large that they could be easily seen and recognized from a considerable distance. At the time of American entry into the First World War, the large numbers were retained on the fuselage and sometimes added to the top of the white rudder stripe. By early , the letters "S. However, these prefix letters were not part of the official serial number, and were finally dropped in By late , the fuselage serial numbers began to get smaller in size, until they standardized on four-inch figures on each side of the fuselage.

In , the words "U. Army" were often added to the fuselage number, and in the manufacturer's name and the Army designation were also added to the display, but this was not always done. The three-line fuselage data block was reduced in size to one-inch characters in and placed on the left hand side of the fuselage near the cockpit. The data block not only displayed the full serial number, but also the exact model type and sometimes the aircraft's home base or the branch of the military with which it served.

The TDB eventually became the only place on the aircraft where the serial number was actually displayed. It was often true that the only other sort of identification shown was a unit and base identification code displayed on both sides of the fuselage or on the fin.

This made it difficult to identify the actual serial number of the aircraft, leading to a lot of confusion. O states that the Technical Data Block can be either on the fuselage side or near the ground refuelling receptacle. For a few years during the late s and early s, the serial number displayed in the Technical Data Block often carried a suffix letter, which was not actually part of the official serial number.

For a while the letter M was used for USAF aircraft associated with American embassies in foreign countries, but this use was discontinued in August The lack of a readily-visible serial number on Army aircraft began to be a serious problem, and on October 28, , shortly after the USAAF had been formed, an order was given that numbers of no less that 4 digits would be painted on the tail fin of all Army aircraft where feasible in a size large enough to be seen from at least yards away.

This was officially called the radio call number, but was almost universally known as the tail number. Since military aircraft were at that time not expected to last more than ten years, the first digit of the fiscal year number was omitted in the tail number as was the AC prefix and the hyphen. For example, Curtiss PB serial number had the tail number painted on its tail fin, Curtiss PK serial number had the tail number painted on the fin, and PB had painted on the tail.

Since the Army later Air Force used the last four digits of the tail number as a radio call sign, for short serial numbers those less than , the tail number was expanded out to four digits by adding zeros in front of the sequence number. For example, would have the tail number written as Consequently, in most situations for a World War II-era aircraft where the tail number is visible, you can deduce the serial number simply by putting a dash after the first digit, prefixing a 4, and you automatically have the serial number.

Unfortunately, there were many deviations from these rules--there are examples in which only the last 4 or 5 digits were painted on the tail, which makes identification of the aircraft particularly difficult. In the s, many airplanes left over from the World War II era were still in service, exceeding their expected service lives of less than 10 years. In order to avoid potential confusion with later aircraft given the same tail number, these older aircraft had the number zero and a dash added in front of the tail number to indicate that they were over 10 years old.

It was hoped that this would avoid confusion caused by duplication of tail numbers between two aircraft built over ten years apart. However, this was not always done, and it was not always possible uniquely to identify an aircraft by a knowledge of its tail number.

This practice was eventually discontinued when people started referring to the number 0 as being a letter O, standing for Obsolete. The requirement for the 0- prefix was officially dropped on April 24, Sometimes the tail number was cut down in length to five digits by deliberately omitting both of the fiscal year digits--for example would be presented on the tail as Sometime, one or more of the first digits of the sequence number would also be omitted.

This practice lead to a lot of confusion. Camouflage began to reappear on USAF aircraft during the Vietnam War, and this led to a change in tail number presentation. The letters "AF" were added directly above the last two digits of the fiscal year, followed by the last three digits of the sequence number.

The three-digit sequence number has a height of the AF and fiscal year letters combined and is sometimes called the "large" component of the tail number. For example, F-4E serial number had the tail number 67 small large. This could of course lead to confusion, since aircraft , , etc would have exactly the same tail numbers as under this scheme.

This would not ordinary cause a whole lot of difficulty unless of course some of these larger serial numbers also happened to be F-4Es which they were not. Unfortunately, the system was not always consistent--for example F-4D serial number had a tail number that looks like this: 60 small large.

It appears as if this number was obtained by omitting the first digit of the fiscal, and combining the remaining "6" with the "". Consequently, one often has to do a lot of educated guessing in order to derive the aircraft serial number from a knowledge of its tail number, and a knowledge of the aircraft type and sometimes even the version is required.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has noted different tail number presentations on recent USAF aircraft.

However, Air Mobility Command and USAF Europe aircraft still display the previous format for the tail number, with all digits being the same size and the first digit being the last digit of the Fiscal Year and the remaining 4 digits being the last 4 digits of the sequence number.

There is no AF displayed, just the name of the command a couple of feet above it. AMC regulations state that the tail number must be the last five digits of the serial number. If the serial number does not have five significant characters at the end, the last digit of the fiscal year becomes the first character, and zeroes are used to fill up the space to make five digits.

This would make appear as The Technical Order refers to radio call numbers on the fin, the full serial number only appearing within the Aircraft Data Legend block. In those rare cases in which the Air Force purchased more than 10, aircraft in a single fiscal year was such a year , aircraft with serial numbers greater than 10, would have both digits of the fiscal year omitted--for example the tail number of is , not An exception was the tail number of ECH serial number , which had its tail number displayed as , i.

Again, I would like to hear from anyone who has seen different types of serial number displays on Air Mobility Command aircraft. This was intended to discourage the unsafe practice of pilots of high-performance aircraft making low passes colloquially known as "buzzing" over ground points. Consequently, these numbers came to be known as buzz numbers.

Examining the "interest" asserted by Jordan assists in deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Federal courts may only adjudicate actual cases or controversies. The Article III doctrine of standing exists, in part, to prevent a litigant from raising another's legal rights.

See Allen v. Wright, U. Defenders of Wildlife, U. A party seeking judicial review must show "more than an injury to a cognizable interest. It requires that the party seeking review be himself among the injured". Sierra Club v. Morton, U. In district court and here, Layale has claimed lack of standing, questioning what "interest" Jordan asserts in the Aircraft. Layale maintains: Jordan's only interest is in the Operating Agreement between the alleged owners and Arab Wings ; and sovereign immunity does not attach to such an insignificant and attenuated interest, because such immunity does not apply to property the sovereign did not own, possess, or control at the time the court assumed jurisdiction over that property.

The interest Jordan is asserting is not made clear by its briefs or complaint, which repeatedly make statements such as "Layale has asserted a title interest in the Aircraft in which [Jordan] holds a sovereign interest". It appears that the sovereign interest at issue is that embodied in the Operating Agreement. At oral argument, when asked whether the interest Jordan asserts is that in the Operating Agreement, Jordan's counsel stated it was.

And, in its briefs, Jordan characterizes Layale's position as being that Jordan cannot have a sovereign interest apart from an interest in title. Jordan does not maintain that it is asserting the alleged owners' title and ownership interest: " [T]he FSIA provides immunity to a foreign state to protect its interests i.

Jordan asserts: its interest in the Aircraft is precisely the question, that by claiming immunity, it seeks to avoid litigating; and deciding its interest would reach the merits of the case. Layale counters that a mere assertion that integrity of a sovereign is at issue, without more, is insufficient to create immunity.

In any event, we need not decide standing vel non. A more certain resolution lies through the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Jordan presents several alternative bases for subject matter jurisdiction. Each fails. The first basis claimed is 28 U. That section provides, inter alia:. This is in contrast to subpart a , which vests the Supreme Court with "original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States".

See 28 U. The purpose of that revision was to allow district courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction "in those instances where foreign ambassadors, members of diplomatic missions, or members of their families will be subject to suit in the courts of the United States".

In sum, the revisions did not alter the Supreme Court's jurisdiction but merely allowed for non-exclusive jurisdiction over actions involving ambassadors, ministers, and consuls of foreign nations. It does not, by implication, confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal district court.

See Ohio v. Wyandotte Chems. It provides:. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all civil actions and proceedings against Layale does not contest that Jordan's Ambassador, who brings this action on behalf of Jordan, is the head of a mission.

Whether Jordan is correct that an action can be "against" an ambassador if he brings it in a "defensive" position is discussed infra in part II. The Maret, F. No relief "against" the Ambassador is sought in either this action or the underlying state-court proceeding. Whatever interest of Jordan in the Aircraft may be at issue, it is not an interest held by Jordan's Ambassador.

One point highlighted by the district court was that this in rem action was brought by, rather than against, the Ambassador. In the alternative, and because the parties focused on the definition of "against", we address it.

And the case law to which Jordan analogizes its position is largely unhelpful. Jordan asserts that, "in Leiter [Minerals, Inc. United States, U. The sovereign defensive position that the Supreme Court acknowledged in Leiter to protect the federal government's 'superior federal interests' logically extends to foreign sovereigns such as [Jordan]". In Leiter, the United States brought an action in rem to obtain federal declaratory relief regarding its title to mineral rights. Leiter, U. Leiter Minerals had previously brought an action in state court against mineral lessees of the United States seeking to be declared owner of mineral rights under land owned by the United States.

Similar to Layale's not suing Jordan in the pending state court action, Leiter Minerals did not name the United States as a defendant. The United States then brought a federal declaratory action against Leiter and others to quiet title in the mineral rights and for a preliminary injunction restraining Leiter from prosecuting its action in state court.

At issue on appeal was the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U. Central to the decision was that only a federal court could determine the title of the United States to the mineral rights. Lee, U. The Court did state that, in attempting to protect its property rights, "the position of the United States is essentially a defensive one [and therefore] it should be permitted to choose the forum in th [e] case, even though the state litigation has the elements of an action characterized as quasi in rem".

The Court made that statement, however, only in passing and as part of its conclusion that the injunction had been properly granted. Any extension of the "Leiter doctrine" has involved the application of the Anti-Injunction Act or another instance in which the federal government was found "more justified in seeking a federal forum than a private litigant". United States v. Commonwealth of Pa. It is true that, to a certain extent, any party that brings a declaratory action seeking to protect its interests can be said to sue in a "defensive" posture.

This, however, does not necessarily satisfy a statutory requirement that a proceeding be "against" that party. As discussed supra, the FSIA does not create jurisdiction. Jordan acknowledges this, yet asserts that "the FSIA, as well as the federal common law of foreign relations, present the court with cognizable federal questions for which subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U. Again, that section states:. Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act the property in the United States of a foreign state shall be immune from attachment arrest and execution except as provided in sections and of this chapter.

See supra at Jordan did not, however, raise this issue in district court. It goes without saying that this point should have been first presented there, so that it could have been properly and completely developed. For example, factual development may have been necessary.

It is far too late in the day to raise this point. Therefore, we decline to address this issue for the first time on appeal. See, e. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. Doleac, F. For example, concerning the Anti-Injunction Act, the Supreme Court extended the holding of Leiter to exempt actions brought by federal government agencies from the prohibition against injunctive relief.

NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co. As another example, several circuit courts have extended the Leiter exception to cases in which the United States is a party asserting a public interest other than federal title to property. Bizzell, F. Wood, F.