What’s your opinion of the airplane Logo for Airports?

[roadman65]

Lately for many decades, some airport logo trailblazers use the nose of the posted aircraft as an arrow instead of an arrow.

What's everyone's take? A good idea or bad one?

[kphoger]

Really?  I didn't know that.  I'm not in favor of the nose acting as an arrow.  That's way to subtle for easy comprehension.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/FGMqXDY5NvX1bqJK7
Look at the street sign.

Then look again.
https://goo.gl/maps/yaeAVnQi8Pse6849A


These are only countless examples in the Sundhine State.

[kphoger]

That's awful.

[LilianaUwU]

That's standard in Québec.

[formulanone]

I dunno, I'd say like 90% of the square green airport signs just point upwards, with only a few denoting a direction (probably more common for smaller airfields).

I'm noticing a bunch in Windsor, Ontario this week, which do seem to point in a direction that leads to the airport.

There's also an older standard (at least in the US) where the airplane appears at an angle, so an arrow is necessary.

[J N Winkler]

Lately for many decades, some airport logo trailblazers use the nose of the posted aircraft as an arrow instead of an arrow.

What's everyone's take? A good idea or bad one?

In the US, if the plane graphic is used alone without an arrow--bad, bad, bad idea.  In Britain the plane also points the way to the airport, but this only supplements other directional information on the sign, such as an arrow or a stub arm.

[Henry]

I strongly prefer an arrow under the plane symbol over the plane itself acting as an arrow. The "arrow plane", as it is, comes off as very tacky, and should not be used in any circumstance.

[jeffandnicole]

I think it's fine, as long as it's not a standalone symbol.  Still should use an arrow.  But it's subtle, like an exit tab. 

[KCRoadFan]

I'm fine with the plane icon pointing the way to the airport - as long as it has some sort of chevron right outside the nose to reinforce the direction.

[kphoger]

It wouldn't even have occurred to me that the direction it's pointing had anything to do with the location of the airport.  That's not at all obvious.

Unless...

... some sort of chevron right outside the nose ...

[roadfro]

Lately for many decades, some airport logo trailblazers use the nose of the posted aircraft as an arrow instead of an arrow.

What's everyone's take? A good idea or bad one?

The official take from FHWA, according to MUTCD Interpretation Letter 2-564(I) issued 5/25/2005, is that agencies can change the orientation of the airport symbol sign in this manner, but it still needs to be accompanied by the supplemental trailblazer arrow.

There's also an older standard (at least in the US) where the airplane appears at an angle, so an arrow is necessary.

Despite its widespread use, I'm not sure that that version of the airplane symbol was ever a MUTCD standard.

[roadfro]

https://goo.gl/maps/FGMqXDY5NvX1bqJK7
Look at the street sign.

Then look again.
https://goo.gl/maps/yaeAVnQi8Pse6849A

These are only countless examples in the Sundhine State.

I'm more bothered by the fact that they used white on blue, and put "Kissimmee Airport" in such small unreadable letters...

But it looks like that agency needs some sign design help regardless. Another sign for the airport at the same intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/kdzAUGazvjvj7bcTA  Wrong symbol (and not even the alternate symbol frequently used), awful lettering, arrow that barely looks like an arrow.

[Rothman]

I see them usually supplemented by arrows anyway, but have always liked the idea of just using the plane as an arrow.

[roadman]

The MUTCD requires that arrows be used with the airport symbol panel on trailblazer signs, and allows tilting of the airplane symbol as an additional means to denote the direction.  On a related note, does anyone else remember when different airplane symbols were used to distinguish general aviation airports from commercial carrier airports?

[kphoger]

On a related note, does anyone else remember when different airplane symbols were used to distinguish general aviation airports from commercial carrier airports?

I've seen this on maps, but I didn't realize the distinction had existed on signage.

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52841813416/in/dateposted-public/
Here is one in Lakeland, FL.  Above the shield you can see the plane acting as an arrow.

[kphoger]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52841813416/in/dateposted-public/
Here is one in Lakeland, FL.  Above the shield you can see the plane acting as an arrow.

And an actual arrow.

[hotdogPi]

Lawrence Municipal Airport. Plane points upwards, but there's an arrow to the right. (Straight is impossible here.)

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52841813416/in/dateposted-public/
Here is one in Lakeland, FL.  Above the shield you can see the plane acting as an arrow.

And an actual arrow.

Yes. Department of Redundancy Department 😀sort of.

[spooky]

In Massachusetts, I've seen a few instances of the I-5 sign rotated with an inset arrow within the plane symbol.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1002763,-70.678557,3a,75y,82.21h,78.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPfmmDJ6NF-8iJHleciarag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[ran4sh]

I have seen this in a few places in NC in the late 90s/early 00s. They were used without the required arrow plaques. These signs were in reference to general aviation airports, not commercial airports

I've never seen it anywhere else though.

I have stronger opinions about how airport names are listed on signs. Most commercial airports should be written as just "[city name] Airport" (or "[IATA code] Airport" if the public often refers to the airport by code as well as name/city). GDOT does it right, listing Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport as simply "Atlanta Airport" or "ATL Airport", never including the unnecessary parts of the name on the sign. Too many other states list airports as "[name] International Airport" when the "international" designation could be removed from the sign and people would still understand what the sign is referring to. The actual airport name is only necessary for commercial airports when there are multiple of them in the same area (e.g. Chicago, New York, etc)

Edit: To clarify my poll answer - I voted YES, because if done *in compliance with the MUTCD* it can actually be helpful.

[roadman65]

Newark-Liberty International used to be just Newark Airport on signs and was fine with area residents.

Tampa International Airport was signed Tampa Airport which never was an issue. Now it's been signed Tampa followed by a plane logo ✈️.

[hotdogPi]

The arrow here is inside the plane.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8100366,-70.8775263,3a,20y,142.06h,91.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOPo_RwujpcDWdTWwQN3xeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[Rothman]

The arrow here is inside the plane.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8100366,-70.8775263,3a,20y,142.06h,91.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOPo_RwujpcDWdTWwQN3xeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

That's a fun one, but hope you didn't miss the one three posts up from yours in this thread.