The nature of the airplane probably results in the need to waive some operational requirements which are normal for passenger carrying flight. These flights are just different, and still in the public interest. I would expect that the B-17 is characteristically unable to meet some of the "normal" requirements ( I opine exit and exit path design requirements, for example). That's all the more reason that requirements which can be met, seat belts first among them, should be met.

A seat belt with shoulder harness, then a life jacket saved my life once, because I was wearing both properly when the accident happened. And, on the other hand, I have refused certain operations in airplanes which were not equipped with a shoulder harness.

I hope that there is a continued interest of the importance of seat belt use. I have occasion to ride jump seat observer from time to time in an older aircraft, in commercial operation. It surprises me how often the pilots wear only the lap belt, when the shoulder harness is easily available, and perfectly suited.

There is a public service in these flights, they maintain a living heritage and act as a homage to those that were involved in their use. Whether a B-17 or UH-1, the risk that is imposed to the individual is a personal, accepted risk, it is necessary to be informed but it is the individual's decision, like parachuting... and the risk to others is manageable with any reasonable planning.

I'm not sure I fully agree with that: yes, there's a public benefit, but the risk of flying on such an aircraft as a member of the public buying a ticket, is different to that of a parachute jumper. The aircraft operator bears the full responsibility for ensuring the aircraft is operated correctly & to the standards required - the buyer of the ticket can only base their decision to fly on that expectation, they don't have the facilities, qualifications or experience to understand whether that confidence is misplaced or not. The solo parachutist takes that risk upon themselves, in the knowledge that the equipment is correctly made & maintained - the jump is under their control, in so far as that is possible. The aircraft passenger has no control, & therefore the operator has an obligation to make sure they manage those risks appropriately. The fact that we, as aviation professionals, may consider that a higher risk than for a normal passenger flight, makes no difference: to the man on the street, their expectation of safety is the same.

FAA regulations were not “relaxed” for this flight they were totally ignored. Yes modifications to regulatory requirements are necessary for these category of aircraft but I firmly believe they can be operated safely if the operating organization is serious about doing things right. Sad this was not the case here

The living history exemptions are in real danger if there are more preventable accidents killing paying passengers. The regulator does not have the expertise to provide fully functional oversight for these rare and unusual aircraft, the warbird community has to step up and self regulate.

BPF, `awaremanship` was sadly lacking in the B-17 case, in that if the pilot had put out a `Mayday` and flown the aircraft to land on the other runway (24?), instead of trying to crawl around the circuit, losing altitude and speed, it would probably have been a non-accident event.....

What I meant was that certain regulations which would ordinarily pertain to an operation carrying passengers for hire (Parts 121 and 135) were relaxed for Living History flights; however, as you point out, the regulations that did pertain to the operation were totally ignored.

That and the fact that they knew the aircraft was unserviceable and flew it anyway.

Indeed, the key items, include the shoddy FAA oversight and G knows how many times, they got away with it.

We are the aviation professionals. Sure, the FAA, and every other authority are important elements of aviation safety, but we pilots should be doing it right because we are professionals, not because the FAA could be overseeing that day. How many FAA inspectors of this era would have a working understanding of the systems of a B17? Few, I opine, the technical expertise for this vintage types lies much more with the operator than the authority. Do we, as taxpayers, want to be funding the cost to assure that the authority's inspectors are conversant with every type? We aviation professionals keep flying affordable in part by satisfying the safety system that we fly safely, rather than how we fly safely.

Where I agree with your reasoning, I think, the "improper procedures" for this case were that much way-off from proper practices, that even for a car, the "repairs" would not be acceptable. And it should be visible to all and everybody "what is going on here". Please correct me, when I am wrong, though this is what I read from the report.