Sally"B"s insurance (Merged)

[effortless]

Just heard on the news that Sally "B" has just been classed as a 737 for insurance purposes. This raises her premium by £1,000 a show. WTF is going on. She will not be flying this weekend.:* :*

[PPRuNe Pop]

That is a blow right now, so close to the show, but I would suspect that Elly will get it sorted but sadly not for the weekend show.

There is going to be more of this I think.

[treadigraph]

Absolute disgrace - more on the BBC news site:

BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/4517139.stm)

High time the Beurocrats (sic) were kicked in to touch - and they learned that Boeing have built more than just commercial jets...

[foxile]

Read something about this in FlyPast magazine a few months ago.

I dont have the details to hand (at work) but IIRC, roughly, it's all to do with the EU enforcing public indemnity insurance levels solely according to weight.

It puts the B17 in the same weight class as a B737 as they both fall in a what is a very broad band. There apparently exists a large number of narrower weight bands for lighter a/c but the greater the weight the wider the band. Hence B17 = B737. Not clever but hey it's the EU pen pushers again!

Somebody here must be able to furnish us with more details.... If not I will go and re-read.

[SPIT]

It makes one wonder how many of the EU Pen Pushers or insu people would be pushing their pens and making stupid quotes if they had NOT HAD the B-17s in the 40s.:confused: :* :*

[TimS]

I heard this (with increduality) on Radio 4 this morning and after a little more research it appears to be true.

In short, the only surviving flying B17 (SallyB) in the UK, which flies as a memorial to the 79,000 American airmen who lost their lives in WW2, has been grounded as a result of yet another ill thought out bit of EU legislation. A brief description below ....

EU Regulation 785/2004 imposes new minimum third party liability insurance requirements for aircraft operators, with bands according to maximum take-off weight. Other privately operated vintage aircraft come under Band 5, but Sally B, as the only B-17, comes under Band 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering £65 million in third party liability insurance cover (at the moment she carries a prudent £25 million). The legislation seems simply not to have taken account of heavy historic aircraft such as Sally B. For B-17 Operator Elly Sallingboe, this means having to find an additional £25,000 per year. That’s an astonishing £1,000 extra per flying hour, on top of the aircraft’s already extensive insurance premium. Keeping this unique historic aircraft flying has always been a massive struggle, fraught with difficulty. But a regulation of this magnitude is totally illogical, unjust and beyond comprehension.

.... I encourage you all to see their website on www.sallyb.org.uk (in which I have had no previous involvement, but this is bluddy ridiculous) and see if you can help - includng lobbying the very life out of your MP/EMP (assuming you are UK based) and anyone else you can think of to change this daft piece of legislation.

An appeal to the Mods (and Uncle Danny) - go and have a couple of beers before you move this (or even adopt the cause) - please.

How about a PPRuNe petition ??

TimS




F Me Mods - less than five minutes (boy can you guys drink fast!)

[TimS]

Sorry gents - I did a search for SallyB before posting my 'SallyB murdered by the EU' (which got moved here in record time) and found nothing - you used apostrophes !

MODs will no doubt merge - shame it couldn't get a bit of coverage on a more widely read forum.

My views on the EU become more rabid by the day - Mr Draper doesn't appreciate just how bad they are !

TimS

[soddim]

There is great lack of logic in the scale of insurance cover - it is not simply the weight of the aircraft that has the capacity to cause damage - if they used kinetic energy at normal cruise speed it would make more sense and that would reduce Sally B's premium in comparison with equivalent mass jets.

Perhaps more importantly, why should a historic aircraft be burdened with the same regulation as commercial aircraft?

[Thunderball 2]

I'm sure the Elly/Sally B team have left no stone unturned, but my first port of call would be my Lloyds broker. Maybe this is the best deal they can get, but have they asked for a "power-by-the-hour" insurance basis? An extra $40 mill Third Party Liability shouldn't cost £1,000 an hour. Appreciate that premiums don't scale downwards very well as hours reduce - people want a certain minimum total premium to make it worth their while handling the risk - but surely there's a sympathetic and imaginative underwriter somewhere within the Lloyds building?

[Maxflyer]

I understand that this is now becoming the norm in the US and a museum that houses warbirds has had to stop its displays because of prohibitive insurance costs. So in fairness it isn't only the EU that's doing it.

This thread is from Private Flying

Poor Show (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173522)

[jumpseater]

So what does this mean for the vulcan one wonders.....

[DragonflyDH90]

This is an bordering on criminal, if anything can be done regarding a petition submission I would be happy to sign.
Although on the other side of the world, in little New Zealand, I would be happy to support the cause.

Perhaps if Tudor "Flying Lawyer" is picking up this thread he can shed some light on the subject and any action that could be taken to amend or at the very least make an intelligent outcome of this stupid piece of legislation.

We all would appreciate your input Tudor.....

I realise that with this type of legislation its very much a case of majority rules, and unfortunately Sally B and the few others fit outside the neat little box that has been developed, but surely something can be done.

Why is it that people who make these types of rules just cant look outside the square, or perhaps they have and just dont care.

Anyway enough ranting by me, I hope it can be resolved.

Any ideas Flying Lawyer ???????

[treadigraph]

TimS, no need to apologise for highlighting elsewhere this emotive subject - I'm going to Ducksford (sic - I saw the weather forecast!) tomorrow and will make a point of joining the Sally B supporters group, but I object on principle to feathering ANY insurance or Political organisations' finances.

Thunderball hope you are right.

I can't stand the fact that Ellie and her team have overcome so many problems over the years - in particular the loss of Ted White, the original driving force behind Sally B - only to be potentially defeated by some Europrat. :mad:

[Eric Mc]

There appear to be exemptions available so before everyone starts losing their head over this - has anyone done any research to find out if Sally B can be exempted.

Don't forget its based on an EU Directive. The level to which it applies in each EU country will vary. THe UK tends to apply EU Directives absolutely to the letter. Other countries don't and make full use of the exemptions.

Is Pink Lady still flying in France?

This whole episode smacks of Sally B making use of an opportune marketing moment.

[Agaricus bisporus]

What utter b@llocks!

According to a quick websearch the B17 has a max TOW of 54,000lb.

At even the lightest weight I can find for a B737-100 its MTOW is 97,800lb, later models are far heavier.

My guess is that sally B operates with a ton or two of fuel plus 3? crew - she can't be much over 40,000lb ever. How the hell does that compare with a 737???

[TimS]

As I indicated in the excerpt within my original posting ....

"Other privately operated vintage aircraft come under Band 5, but Sally B, as the only B-17, comes under Band 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering £65 million in third party liability insurance cover (at the moment she carries a prudent £25 million)".

The actual bands are:

Band 1 < 500 KG 220 LBS 0.75 million SDRs

Band 2 < 1,000 KG 440 LBS 1.5

Band 3 < 2,700 KG 1,175 LBS 3

Band 4 < 6,000 KG 2,610 LBS 7

Band 5 < 12,000 KG 5,220 LBS 18

Band 6 < 25,000 KG 10,870 LBS 80

Band 7 < 50,000 KG 21,740 LBS 150

Band 8 < 200,000 KG 86,960 LBS 300

Band 9 < 500,000 KG 173,920 LBS 500

Band 10 > 500,000 KG 700

Avoirdupois conversations are rounded (the much loved EU doesn't actually publish them!)

They may be a band apart but the cost implications are similar.

[airsound]

Agaricus is right - the 737 comparison was an early guess by someone that turned out to be wrong. In fact, Sally falls into Band 6 of EC Regulation 785/2004, and a 737 is in Band 7. However, Band 6 includes aircraft such as the 110-seater Embraer 190, so I don’t believe the argument about comparative risk is any less strong.

Tim S is right too, but although B-17 Preservation (Sally B’s operators) should be able to get a competitive insurance quote based on the risks of this cover, there is in reality no competition. Virtually all aviation insurance in Britain (and probably the rest of Europe as well) comes back to one desk at Lloyds, no matter who the broker is.

B-17 Preservation are optimistic that we will find a fix to get Sally B airborne again in time for her annual Memorial Day flypast at the American Cemetery at Madingley near Cambridge, and then for the national celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, when she is due to fly over Buckingham Palace in a big formation on 10 July.

If we fail, she may never fly again in Britain. Even if we succeed, getting her airborne again is just the first step. We need to sort out the whole problem satisfactorily, or she will not be able to continue into the 2006 season in Britain.

So, anything you can do - especially right now giving some money, no matter how little - will help us towards that first step. As you know, the website is
www.sallyb.org.uk

And, of course, the other thing you can do is make as big, and as public a fuss about this as possible - including lobbying your new MP, or writing to the papers or the broadcasters. All of this is covered on the website. There will also be a petition to sign soon - you may already have seen it at Duxford this weekend.

Incidentally, it was me that you might have heard on Radio 4 ‘Today’, and that broadcast has resulted in a huge amount of support, and also the programme mentioned it again on Saturday. But when we tried to get some national tv companies (as opposed to regional) to follow it up, they said that an appearance on ‘Today’ is now considered to be the peak of a story, so unless anything had moved on, they wouldn’t take it any further. Wonderful..... Also, I got the story accepted by PA and Reuters (the two biggest press agencies), but as far as I know they didn’t manage to sell any of it to any of the papers today (Saturday) Does anyone know different?

One final thing. As far as I know, the Pink Lady folks are making dark noises about not being able to fly another season with this expense - and as things stand it looks unlikely that she’ll be allowed into UK to join the flypast over Buckingham Palace on 10 July. Let’s hope some answers are found for her too.


Finally finally, the ‘exemptions’ to EC Regulation 785/2004 apply to things like microlights, kites and balloons, so at first sight they wouldn’t be applicable to big fixed wing aircraft. However, you never know, there might be a chink of light there.....

Let’s not give up.....

Sean Maffett
AirSound Commentator
For B-17 Preservation

www.sallyb.org.uk
www.airsound.co.uk

[G-KEST]

It might be of interest to look at the thread below on a French forum. I think the problem is the same over there.
http://www.foxalpha.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5142
With luck and an awful lot of public support we may find the exemption route possible.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:yuk:

[TimS]

Sean,

Good to hear from someone directly involved.

My offer of any practical support I can offer is open - let me know if I can do anything.

I plan to make a donation to the role of honour on the aircraft in my recently deceased father's name (he trained in Canada for the RAF in 2nd World War, was a career [20,000 hrs + many years before he retired] commercial pilot and loved all things American, having been evacuated there).

Hopefully we can wind the enthusiasm of the many PPRunNe members up before this crazy regulation brings the airshows that so many members enjoy to a complete grinding halt.

TimS


PS I was disappointed to see that the petition was not yet available - I recommend that you give this an absolute priority - there are readily available internet functions to support this.

[Hanna Reitsch]

What's your conversion factor for lbs Tim ? Its a new one to me.

Hanna

[TimS]

F*** I've divided instead of multiplying !!

New one follows shortly.

God I'm embarrassed - I will never post when drinking again !

[Out Of Trim]

I agree with Hanna -

There is something very wrong with those weight conversions!

1000 kgs is around 2204.62 lbs I believe.:eek:

[TimS]

Band 1 < 500 KG 1,150 LBS 0.75 million SDRs

Band 2 < 1,000 KG 2300 LBS 1.5 million SDRs

Band 3 < 2,700 KG 6,210 LBS 3 million SDRs

Band 4 < 6,000 KG 13,800 LBS 7 million SDRs

Band 5 < 12,000 KG 27600 LBS 18 million SDRs

Band 6 < 25,000 KG 57500 LBS 80 million SDRs

Band 7 < 50,000 KG 115,000 LBS 150 million SDRs

Band 8 < 200,000 KG 460,000 LBS 300 million SDRs

Band 9 < 500,000 KG 1,150,000 LBS 500 million SDRs

Band 10 > 500,000 KG 1,150,000 LBS 700 million SDRs

******* I still think you should all contribute/lobby/support !!




Now I know why they stopped me doing the load sheets !

[Hanna Reitsch]

Sorry about all the flak you're collecting Tim - it seems a bit off thread and a bit much. My original remark was just being clever and most people have managed to ignore it I'm sure.

I wouldn't sign a petition - but that's personal. As for the other contributors I'm certain they hold sincere opinions - mostly pointing out their belief in the inanity of the EU Directive, so you'll probably get some body of opinion to wave at Brussels. Good Luck.

Hanna.

[Nopax,thanx]

It may have been looked into already, but how about putting the aircraft on a non-EU register? Plenty of foreign registered aircraft display in the UK as it is.

[SmilingKnifed]

In addition to the risk of Sally B's display ending, what implications do this directive hold for the Vulcan display? I sincerely hope this all gets sorted out soon.

[Tartan Giant]

Dear Charles, [my MP - C. Hendry]

Ref A: http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/news_frameset.php
Ref B: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_aviation_page.hcsp
Ref C: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_138/l_13820040430en00010006.pdf

Aviation is a major UK industry, carrying over 180 million passengers a year and over 2.1 million tonnes of freight. (CAA) - which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a WW2 flying machine called SallyB. Nor "third party" insurance flak that the EU are firing at her whilst pretending it has everything to do with her.

I am asking you via this letter to support the fight to get a national treasure, the historical bomber known as SallyB, to be freed from the paper flak (new insurance rates) that could do it more damage than anything fired at it during WW2.

It remains gratifying to know that the Luftwaffe failed to 'down' SallyB (the B-17 bomber operated out of Duxford, G-BEDF) from the skies over Europe during the last war, but VERY upsetting to know that EU bureaucrats are having a 'go' via a paper-work flak attack under the guise of new insurance rates.

I am referring to: REGULATION (EC) No 785/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 21 April 2004

on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Whilst nobody would argue an "air carrier" (BA, Lufthansa, Air France, etc) should hold adequate insurance. Flyable vintage aircraft must also hold prudent third-party cover, whilst delivering immeasurable nostalgia around UK airfields.

One just has to look at the first 3 Paragraphs of Regulation (EC) Number 785/2004 to prove beyond doubt that the proposal to lumber SallyB with an inappropriate insurance premium is staring you in the face.
Whereas:

(1) In the framework of the common transport policy, and in order to foster consumer protection, it is important to ensure a proper minimum level of insurance to cover liability of air carriers in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties.

[ Unlike any commercial aircraft, the historic SallyB is on a British Permit to Fly and:

[list]
it is not allowed to carry out commercial flights
it is not allowed to fly for hire and reward
it is not even allowed to carry passengers
it is not even allowed to fly over populated areas ]



(2) In the Community aviation market, the distinction between national and international air transport has been eliminated and it is, therefore, appropriate to establish minimum insurance requirements for Community air carriers.
-------------------

What else has been "eliminated" in this regulation is common sense: an ex-bomber which is impotent in all respects under para 1 and 2, makes a mockery of para 3 which talks about a level playing field as SallyB is not playing with other "Community air carriers".
-------------------

(3) Common action is necessary to ensure that these requirements also apply to air carriers from third countries in order to ensure a level playing field with Community air carriers.


Para 5 talks about the "Warsaw Convention". SallyB is not operating under anything to do with the Warsaw Convention, neither is it to the Montreal Convention talked about in para 6:

(6) Article 50 of the Montreal Convention requires parties to ensure that air carriers are adequately insured to cover liability under that Convention. Warsaw Convention of 1929 and its subsequent amendments will continue to exist alongside the Montreal Convention for an indefinite period. Both Conventions provide for the possibility of unlimited liability.

This proves there should be an exemption for SallyB, which was NEVER intended to be caught in this insurance cover umbrella.

(8) It is appropriate to take into account the fact that the European Civil Aviation Conference adopted on 13 December 2000 Resolution ECAC/25-1 on minimum levels of insurance cover for passenger and third party liability, which was modified on 27 November 2002.

It should be blatantly obvious to any intelligent reader such comprehensive insurance cover is not part and parcel of flights SallyB undertakes.


(12) Mandatory insurance should not be required for State aircraft and for certain other types of aircraft.

Whilst acknowledging SallyB has to have "third party" insurance, it should be considered under, "certain other types of aircraft" on a broader front than the present item (para 12).
The EU only considers these other types of aircraft (poor choice of word) as:

[list=1]
model aircaft <20 kgs
foot launched flying machines
captive balloons
kites
parachutes
aircraft <500 kgs

It can only sensible to back off from international and national established air carriers one siz fits all in each MTOM category and focus on the risk SallyB presents in the insurers calculation terms.
Let it be divorced from the crazy EU idea they invented viz: distinction between national and international air transport has been eliminated........... it makes NO sense in relation to a WW2 vintage B-17 bomber.

Article 6
Insurance in respect of liability for passengers, baggage and cargo

1. For liability in respect of passengers, the minimum insurance cover shall be 250 000 SDRs per passenger.

This 250,000 Special Drawing Rights is the same cover if you were on board a Cruise ship (2002 Athens protocol, adopted by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO)) the QE2 or the SallyB - the major stumbling block in this illusionary level playing field is that passengers are NOT allowed on the SallyB!

Those who ply the sea have been netted too:

http://www.lloydslist.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=LloydsList/Home&element=LloydsList/functions/archiveSearchResults

Athens protocol pressure places a heavy burden on cruise industry (subscribers only)
Wednesday February 02 2005 - Owners, insurers and banks are struggling with the concept of sky-high passenger liability limits as ratification is stepped up, writes Sandra Speares.

http://folk.uio.no/erikro/WWW/corrgr/barnes.ppt
See the Power Point presentation of a sister regulation to get a feel for EU insurance games.

(14) The insurance should cover aviation-specific liability in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties. Regarding passengers, baggage and cargo, insurance should include cover for death and personal injury caused by accidents and for loss or destruction of or damage to baggage and cargo. Regarding third parties, insurance should include cover for death, personal injury and damage to property caused by accidents.

All the above is entirely proper for a scheduled air carrier such as BA, Air France, etc but if the EU is serious about appropriate third party cover, then fine tuning should be permissible for limited flying historical wartime aircraft; as the risk is far diminished by the proven exposure of SallyB and its operating limitations.

(16) While the market practice of offering insurance on an aggregate basis may be conducive to insurability, in particular for risks of war and terrorism, by allowing insurers better control over their liabilities, this practice does not release an air carrier or aircraft operator from the obligation to respect minimum insurance requirements when the aggregate fixed by its insurance contract is reached.

When any Lloyds Syndicate consider insurance cover, the risk is carefully assessed. There just cannot be a level playing field placing SallyB amongst day-to-day commercial jet short and long haul airline operators, yet here is a ridiculous piece of EU regulation doing just that.

It is plain stupid to accept that paraded under Regulation (EC) Number 785/2004 as reasonable third-party insurance. I would hope all who read this agree - those further up the pecking order should, as a matter of conscience, not rest till the matter is resolved to the advantage of SallyB.



The EU has, within its own document, proven this regulation is in fact totally discriminatory in that SallyB has nothing to do with the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. SallyB is to do with reminding the free democratic world what price was paid in human life for our freedom.

[QUOTE](23) Arrangements for greater cooperation over the use of Gibraltar airport were agreed in London on 2 December 1987 by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in a joint declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries. Such arrangements have yet to enter into operation.

Para 23 proves once again how much divorced this EU Regulation is when considering the case for SallyB's exemption.

(24) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the introduction of minimum insurance requirements which can contribute to the objectives of the internal aviation market by reducing distortions of competition, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective,....

SallyB does not compete in the internal aviation market!

So the Regulation does indeed go beyond what is necessary.
It must therefore be proportionate to limit SallyB's third party insurance not just by its Max T/O Mass, but by the agreed limited exposure to risk in the 20-40 hours she flies per Show Season. To ignore that fact is a gross injustice, and the EU should be honourable enough and sensible enough to accept that fact. There is no shame in admitting a mistake, but a shameful humiliation to carry it.



4. Application of this Regulation to Gibraltar airport shall be suspended until the arrangements included in the Joint Declaration made by the Foreign Ministers of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom on 2 December 1987 enter into operation. The Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom will inform the Council of such date of entry into operation.

So a fully laden commercial twin jet could crash into a cruise ship in the bay (or tied up) being Gibraltar territory, killing hundreds, and EU Regulation 785/2004 is not even considered! Such is the stupidity of the logic grouping SallyB amongst jet commercial airliners. It proves the Regulation is ripe for amendment.

If anyone is in any doubt that we have lost power over our own UK destiny and Laws, one needs only to read the neutered views of the CAA.

--------------------------------

Unfortunately the EC Regulation does not allow for any exemption, and the CAA has no discretion in this matter.

Sir Roy McNulty CBE
Chairman 20th April 2005
---------------------------------
Unfortunately, as explained in Sir Roy McNulty’s letter to you of 20 April, the CAA has no powers in this matter.
R D Elder
Acting Group Director Safety Regulation - 21 Apr 2005

-----------------------------------


I urge all readers to take positive steps to lobby their MP/MEP. Make lamentable EU pen-pushers realise they do not write their Commandments in stone when it comes to remembering where freedom started.

Grounding this B-17 for the sake of some stupid, illogical insurance requirement would be to eradicate a memory worth far more than 100 times 250,000 Special Drawing Rights.


We will remember them.


Tartan Giant

[williamp]

Presumably this will include other large aircraft, like th Vulcan as well??

[Tartan Giant]

williamp

It appears no "heavy" aircraft, of whatever vintage, will escape this STUPID regulation........ unless the fools who wrote it agree a gigantic mistake has been made, and they have the guts and character to incorporate a section for HISTORIC aircraft more in keeping with risk versus insurance.

Cheers

TG

[WHBM]

(12) Mandatory insurance should not be required for State aircraft........ As ever the bureaucrats have managed to exempt themselves from such gross over-expenditure straight away :rolleyes:

[Compass Call]

Item in todays Telegraph says that the French have exempted the Pink Lady from this new European law. So it seems that the Pink Lady can continue flying.
If this is correct, why can't President Blair do the same for the Sally B??


CC

[Tartan Giant]

Compass Call

Whilst the French have some measure of national pride, and have a certain historical perspective, and are willing to honour the memories of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, President BLIAr will have nothing to do with UK history nor lift a pen in the defence of SallyB taking to the skies.
I hope his shame will rise above his dishonour and he will tell the EU regulation makers in this case to go to hell, and that SallyB will fly on her exsisting insurance.

If BLIAr can shove £40 million to the Russians to dismantle two nuclear submarines, squander £200 million on the Dome, and screw up to the tune of £8 BILLION during the Foot and Mouth disease of 2001, then there is money in the kitty to cover the small matter of third party insurance if needs be. Freedom costs money, and by hell BLIAr should learn from history.

TG

[Synthetic]

If had an IQ less than it's shoe size, and three sprogs, then it it would get funding.

Because it is historical and worthwhile, then it's stuffed. (rant off)


:mad: :confused: :}

[Tartan Giant]

It is time to tell the EU to back down and change that stupid regulation.

Today's Telegraph.


79,000 American airmen who died flying from here in the war.

What action are you taking to immortalise their memory?

The pen is mightier than the sword - can you prove it?

TG

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Urgent action needed on aviation heritage

Sir - Air shows are Britain's second most popular outdoor spectator activity and Second World War aircraft play a key part. But new EU insurance regulations (News, May 21) have made the cost of displaying some of these aircraft prohibitive.

While the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight of the Lancaster, Spitfire and Hurricane is maintained by the RAF, many others, such as the B-17 Flying Fortress Sally B (immortalised in the film Memphis Belle), are operated by private individuals and charities. Some of the Civil Aviation Authority's control in this area has been transferred to the EU, whose new rules (unintentionally, we believe) place the B-17 in the same insurance category as a 110-seat passenger jet. That has increased the B-17's insurance premium by £25,000, so this wonderful symbol of American support for European liberation was absent from VE Day celebrations.

As you reported, she will also not fly over the Memorial Day commemoration at the American cemetery at Madingley. Without a resolution to the problem, she will not even take part in the main July 10 commemoration of the end of the war.

These absences are doubly unfortunate, since she flies as a memorial to the 79,000 American airmen who died flying from here in the war. What an irony that aircraft that helped liberate Europe 60 years ago have been grounded by European bureaucracy. We call for urgent action by the Government and the CAA to have this threat to our aviation heritage reversed.

Raymond Baxter, Spitfire pilot and broadcaster, Lord Craig of Radley, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sqd Leader Neville Duke, DSO, OBE, DFC**, Harvey Goldsmith, Gerald Howarth MP, Martin Shaw, Actor, Paul Beaver, Broadcaster, Allen Burney, Editor, Aircraft Illustrated magazine, John Davis, Chairman, Air Display Association, Europe, Tony Edwards, BSc, MBA, CEng, FRAeS, Chairman, Air League, Ken Ellis, Editor, FlyPast magazine, John Farley, OBE, AFC, pilot, Dr Michael A Fopp, Director General, Royal Air Force Museum, Alex Henshaw, MBE, pilot, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Knight, KCB, AFC, FRAeS, President, Royal International Air Tattoo, Sean Maffett, aviation commentor, Jock Maitland, DFC (US), air display orgainser, Michael Oakey, Editor, Aeroplane magazine, Lembit Opik MP, Geoffrey van Orden MEP, MBE, Tim Prince, Chief Executive, Royal International Air Tattoo, Lord Rotherwick, Elly Sallingboe, Operator, B-17 Sally B, Allan Winn, Director, Brooklands Museum

----------------------------
Sir - The men of the 8th and 9th air forces of America who gave their lives in the battle for the freedom of the countries of the EU did not ask for insurance. I suggest that the EU might pay the increased insurance charges to keep Sally B in the air as a token of respect and gratitude.

David Hood, Stanford Le Hope, Essex

[G-KEST]

The letters in the Telegraph were excellent and will have brought the situation before many readers of the newspaper. The campaign is gathering momentum now.
I do hope the EU bureaucrats manage to see sense and create an exemption to limit the liability insurance requirement for "heritage" aircraft to a more acceptable and affordable figure. I understand that Gerald Howarth MP, chairman of the parliamentary aviation group of MP's, may be raising this matter on Tuesday in the House of Commons during the debate on transport matters arising from the Queen's speech.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tartan Giant]

All due acknowledgements to the Telegraph. (24 May 2005)

TG
-----------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=P8&targetRule=0#head2

Don't let EU regulations ground the Flying Fortress

Sir - The letter (May 23) concerning the plight of the Boeing B17 Flying Fortress Sally B underlines the attitude of the Government when faced with a silly regulation from the EU.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority said that it could not get involved in what was an EU matter and the aircraft will remain grounded - probably for good. Meanwhile, an identical aircraft, the Pink Lady, based in France, may continue to fly since the French authorities have chosen to turn a blind eye to the EU regulations.

Are we really that scared of the EU? Perhaps we should adopt the French approach and tell the wimps of Brussels where to shove their pettifogging regulations. The tens of thousands of aircrew who gave their lives flying B17s would certainly have something to say.

Peter Greenhill, Cockermouth, Cumbria
--------------------

Sir - The Sally B episode (News, May 21) should alert us all to the hideous extent to which European control over British laws has become dominant.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of a politically united European Community no one could have envisaged that such a domestic or internal matter as control of insurance would be anything other than a British responsibility.

---------------------
John Ball, Kenilworth, Warwickshire

Sir - Could the EU regulation that prevented the Sally B Flying Fortress from taking off possibly have anything to do with the valiant part she played in knocking the hell out of the last European Union?

Nikolai Tolstoy, Abingdon, Berks

[LowNSlow]

I applaud the French attitude to Brusselsand equally deplore the spineless attitude that the British Government and it's responsible Agencies have taken in this matter. For goodness sake let's have a bit of pride here.

Altough the Sally B is the case in point here, does this affect the other operators of wartime not-so-heavy metal?

PS Not wishing to diminish the sacrifice in any way but some of the numbers being quoted are wrong. The USAAF lost approx 32,000 men killed flying from the UK with just over 7,000 aircraft being lost.

[Hanna Reitsch]

Possibly the French aren't caving in - just their sole insurance broker's arm being twisted - allegedly.

Hanna.

[G-KEST]

Hello there,
Thought you might like to see what was said in the House of Commons yesterday. It all helps the campaign.
Cheers,
Trapper 69 _______________________________________________

Extracts from Hansard - Tuesday 24 May -

Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Con)

My third point relates to my principal passion outside politics, which is aviating. I have held a pilot's licence since I was 17, and I am very proud to represent the birthplace of British aviation, Farnborough. Sadly, the Gracious Speech does not refer to any form of aviation. On 16 October 2008, which is within the probable lifetime of this Parliament, we shall celebrate the centenary of Samuel Cody's first sustained flight from Laffan's plain, Farnborough. Britain remains to this day a world leader in aerospace, and the movers and shakers in that business were invariably captivated from their earliest years by the magic of flight.

Today, general aviation faces a range of threats. As early-day motion 141 and the letter in yesterday's The Daily Telegraph, which was signed by such legendary figures as Neville Duke and Raymond Baxter, testify, the wonderfully evocative vintage aircraft "Sally B", the B-17 immortalised in the film "Memphis Belle", is grounded thanks to new EU regulations, which demand that it be insured as if it were a passenger-carrying Boeing 737. How ironic that an aircraft that contributed to the liberation of Europe should be taken out of the sky by European bureaucrats. I hope that the EU will see the error of its ways and enable the B-17 to participate in the combined 60th anniversary VE-day/VJ-day celebrations on 10 July.


Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, LDem)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that example is typical of the kind of stresses faced by general aviation in the United Kingdom? This country should be a centre of global excellence for training tomorrow's pilots, but we face some serious legal restrictions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should listen to existing aviators and try to change that dangerous and negative trend?


Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Con)

The hon. Gentleman is right. We are making common cause because, as he has said, the Civil Aviation Authority, otherwise known as the "Campaign Against Aviation", is about to publish a new policy on charging for its inspection and licensing functions, the effect of which threatens to increase general aviation's costs by up to 170 per cent. I understand that British Airways and Monarch Airlines are driving that policy, because they want to see transparency of charging by the CAA. Today, I will do little more than serve notice that I intend to mount a vigorous challenge to that attempt to inflict severe damage on general aviation. I am delighted to be joined by my fellow aviator of 17 years standing, my aviating friend, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), and we hope that Government Members will join us.

The CAA is due to publish its proposals on 10 June, but we expect the victims to include those who organise air shows, because members of the Air Display Association Europe, of which I have the privilege of being president, could be put out of business by the vastly increased costs. British Airways and other airlines draw some 70 per cent. of their aircrew from the pool of those who have learned to fly by paying their own way or obtaining sponsorship from the Air League or the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators.

The airlines are apparently seeking to transfer about £1.5 million of CAA costs to general aviation, which is less than British Airways paid a few years ago to have absurd, politically correct graffiti, over which my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher put her handkerchief, painted on the tail fins of its aircraft. It is simply galling that an organisation which has just reported annual profits of £540 is intent upon inflicting such damage on general and sporting aviation. We—this includes me and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—pay about £5 million in VAT on the fuel that we consume as private aviators. British Airways pays no VAT on fuel or tickets, so we more than pay our way—I hope that Mr. Rod Eddington notes that point before he returns to Australia.

The issue is not confined to those of us who engage in recreational and sporting aviation. Air displays are the nation's second largest outdoor spectator sport, attracting 6.5 million people according to the 2002 figures. I hope that hon. Members will take the time to visit their local airfields, to attend an air display, to sign early-day motion 141 and to support me, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and some clandestine operators on the Government Benches in our attempt to resolve the matter.
:* :*

[treadigraph]

Thanks Trapper,

An email will be on its way to my MP a little later...

[Phoenix09]

An absolutely appalling reply in the Telegraph today from the Acting Head of the European Commission in the UK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU insurance rules

Sir - While it is regrettable that insurance costs have grounded Sally B (News, May 21), it is important to understand why the rules were introduced. After September 11, many airline companies found their cover to be inadequate and in several countries the state was obliged to assume the role of insurer. To prevent this happening again, new laws were approved by EU governments and the European Parliament introduced minimum insurance requirements that all aircraft owners are now obliged to take out. These rules were voted on by British ministers and MEPs, who were intrinsically involved throughout the legislative process. Indeed, the Government consulted industry beforehand.

Whether the owners of Sally B were invited to participate, and whether the Government took into account their views if they did, are questions only they can answer. Surely it is not being suggested that planes fly without adequate insurance?

Ian Barber, Acting Head of the European Commission in the UK, London SW1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not often these days that I get astounded by the attitude of others. I can't make up my mind whether he is just incredibly arrogant, ignorant, plain stupid or just very badly briefed.

[G-KEST]

This is the text of the Early Day Motion tabled by Gerald Howarth. If you all could lobby your own MP to support this then we might just manage to pressurise the government and through them the EU.
Cheers,
Trapper 69

EDM 141

B17 FLYING FORTRESS AND GENERAL AVIATION CHARGES. 18.05.2005

Howarth, Gerald
supported by 7 signatures of other MP's as follows -
Dismore, Andrew Duncan, Alan Loughton, Tim
Opik, Lembit Penning, Michael Waterson, Nigel


That this House, recognising that air shows are the UK's second most popular outdoor spectator activity, greatly regrets that the B17 Flying Fortress was forced to withdraw from the VE day celebrations owing to a £25,000 increase in its insurance costs, resulting from new EU regulations; notes with concern the threat to air displays and the operation of historic aircraft posed by a new charging regime to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Authority; and calls on the authorities to reconsider these increased charges in the interests of ensuring that general and sporting aviation in the UK continues to flourish and inspire a new generation.

[Tartan Giant]

Phoenix09

I agree with you - here we have an An absolutely appalling Acting Head of the European Commission in the UK who does not grasp the difference between a jet airliner loaded with pax/freight/mail/baggage that will fly thousands of hours/year and a historic B-17 ex-bomber that flies 20-40/year - with NO pax/freight/mail/baggage; and is not even allowed to fly over populated areas!

These are the tossers that think it is reasonable to whack on these 3rd party insurance charges.

He has the stupidity to add:
Surely it is not being suggested that planes fly without adequate insurance?

Of course "planes" (he cannot even get his terminology correct) must fly with adequate insurance - would he be pleased if his Ford Cortina was classed as an Aston Martin DB5 or a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost for insurance purposes?

What a dink!

TG

[passpartout]

How about the aerpolane is 'bought back' bay the USAF, given a military register, and then 'lent' to its previous owners??!!

Surely the USA would wish to see this token of appreciation for its losses over 2 World Wars still flying?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Define "adequate insurance" ?

The new EU rules have just changed my personal insurance bill for a 2-seat microlight from £85pa to £409pa, putting about 30% on my annual flying costs, primarily because I am now required to hold passenger liability insurance - is that really necessary for a purely private aircraft. I don't personally think so.

G

[Tartan Giant]

Sorry G

I am sorry to read about your new insurance charges G. How really stupid egh.

Define "adequate insurance" ?

In EU minds, enough to cover another 9/11 - as tarred with the same brush as those terrorists on 9/11. (no disrespect intended to those victims and familes affected)


Perhaps a nice letter to Mr Barber explaining the salient differences between your private 2-seater micro-light and an intercontinental scheduled passenger jet for insurance purposes?

http://www.cec.org.uk/about/london.htm

Ian Barber
Acting Head of Representation
Responsible for representing the European Commission and reporting to it. Overall responsibility for the UK Representation and the three Offices in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales' activities. Commission spokesman in the UK.

European Commission Representation in the UK
8 Storey's Gate
London SW1P 3AT
Acting Head of Representation: Ian Barber
Tel: 020 7973 1992
Fax: 020 7973 1900/1910
E-mail: [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------

All the best

TG

[G-KEST]

G

Define adequate insurance - depends who you talk to. The facts are that third party persons or property damage resulting from a light aircraft crash is exceedingly rare.

Up to now, aircraft third party insurance was optional. If you wanted to assume the risk yourself as an individual you could. Under the Civil Aviation Act the operator of an aircraft had always been faced with unlimited liability for damage and injury caused without proof of negligence. That is still the case as far as I know. Most folk preferred to offset some of that risk by taking out liability insurance to a reasonable amount of cover.

Passenger insurance is sensible as awards in the courts these days for injury or death are very high.

We have now a CSL (combined single limit) liability cover of 1.5 million GBP as opposed to the 1 million we had before the new EU requirements. Our costs have gone up by around 120 GBP per annum.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :mad:

[G-KEST]

The problem of insurance under the new EU rules for the heavier "heritage" aircraft such as "Sally B" is attracting support from MEP's in terms of alleviating the huge additional premium cost with no added value.

Release time: Immediate, Date: 25 May 2005, Issued by: Sir Robert Atkins MEP, Tel: +32 (0)2 284 5373

MEP campaigns to avert grounding of Memphis Belle plane

BRUSSELS, 25 May 2005 -- The famous 'Sally B' war plane, the only World War II B17 bomber in flying condition and the star of blockbuster film Memphis Belle, faces a dishonourable discharge thanks to a new EU Directive that has sent the plane's insurance bill soaring.

The Rt. Hon Sir Robert Atkins MEP, Deputy Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament and a member of the Parliament's Transport Committee, has taken up the case of the 'Sally B' with the European Commission.

Sir Robert said:

"I have already discussed the situation with Sir Roy McNulty, Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, and as a result of his advice, have tabled an urgent Parliamentary Question to Transport Commissioner Barrot."

"It appears that no-one spotted this flaw in the Directive when it passed through the Commission, Parliament and the Council of Ministers and unless it is rectified as soon as possible, vintage aircraft like the 'Sally B' will never fly again because of prohibitive insurance costs."

"I want the Commission to return the specific insurance requirements of these popular veteran aeroplanes to the Regulatory Agencies in Member States - in Britain's case, the Civil Aviation Authority. That way, minimal usage will only require minimal insurance, just like for veteran and vintage motor vehicles."

You could help the campaign hugely by contacting your own regional MEP's for your area and asking them to support this effort by Sir Robert and others in the EU parliament. In my opinion this is not a matter to divide on party political grounds. It is simply something that was missed in the drafting of the EU regulation.

Cheers,

Trapper 69
:yuk: :* :yuk: :* :hmm: :ooh:

[Heliport]

"I am now required to hold passenger liability insurance - is that really necessary for a purely private aircraft. I don't personally think so." I think it is.

Suppose your passenger is in his mid 30's with a couple of young children. You have an accident caused (just for example, no offence intended) by your negligence, and he's killed.

If you haven't got insurance, who pays the damages?
The amount of damages will reflect what he was earning, what he would have earned up to retirement, cost of bringing up and educating his two children etc

Even if you survived the accident, would your house & other capital be sufficient to pay the damages? Would you be paying for the rest of your working life? Even if you did, would there still be a shortfall?
If you were killed, would the value of your estate be enough to cover the damages or would there be a shortfall?

I know of one case which will probably hit the press before the end of this year where the person killed was a City wizz-kid in his 30's earning well over half a million a year, and with two young children. I'm told the claim is for almost £10 million. Even assuming that's a try-on, the true figure probably isn't very far short of that.


BTW, some people think the answer is to get your pax to sign a waiver agreeing that his estate won't sue you (or your estate) if he's killed by your negligence. I don't know about other countries but, in the UK, the agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

[G-KEST]

I agree wholeheartedly with Heliport on the subject of the need to carry passenger legal liability cover.

In the new regulation the minimum amount is 250,000 SDR's per passenger and this reduces to 100,000 SDR's for aircraft whose MTOM is less than 2,700 KG. Awards in the courts are usually considerably more, as he indicates. Do you wish to risk total financial ruin on your family by not having some cover in the remote possibility of an accident?
Since the start of civil aviation in the UK the law has imposed unlimited liability on the operator, without proof of negligence, for third party damage or injury caused by an aircraft. One either took out insurance or accepted the personal risk. Now it is not optional.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:{ :{ :ouch:

[BEagle]

Have just e-mailed David Cameron MP and asked him to support this EDM.

Currently there are 28 signatures: 19 Tory, 4 Lib Dem, 3 DUP....and just 2 from the gurning liars' gang.

See http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28329

[G-KEST]

Unfortunately my local MP is a member of the Government so he declined my invitation to add his signature to the EDM drafted by Gerald Howarth MP. I append a part of my emailed response -

Thank you for your letter dated 27 May reference XXX in very prompt response to my email.

I do appreciate your position as a member of the Government in terms of the difficulty of adding your supporting signature to an EDM drafted by a member of the opposition. However the subject matter was, I thought, not one to divide on party lines since the problems are due to the inadequate drafting of an EU regulation automatically part of UK law. This along with an impending consultation by the Civil Aviation Authority, an organisation independent of the Government, on their intention to increase their charges that impact on private, sporting and recreation aviation to a swingeing degree. Good ideas, in the shape of the content of some EDM's, are not the sole prerogative of the party in power as I am sure you would agree. There must have been many excellent EDM's generated by the Labour party during those lean years before 1997.

Sincerely,

At least his ears may have burned a little when he read it.
Cheers,
Trapper 69

PS - for Beagle: Your description of our elected Government while being fairly accurate is not likely to encourage other Labour MP's to sign the EDM. My compliments to the two brave souls who have.......so far.

[Heliport]

G-KEST

Does "unlimited liability on the operator, without proof of negligence" apply to passengers you take on a private flight?

[G-KEST]

Heliport: I believe the actual words are something like -
"strict liability of the operator to an unlimited extent, without proof of negligence, for damage done to persons and property by an aircraft". However I am not a lawyer nor do I have the Civil Aviation Act currently in force in my library but perhaps one of our number who is an expert in this field might give us the definitive answer.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Genghis the Engineer]

I accept your point Heliport, but there's a limit somewhere. I have always carried reasonable 3rd party cover despite it not being legally required under UK law (prior to 1 May anyhow), and felt that I was being responsible.

Yes, since I do own a multi-seat aircraft and regularly fly with Pax it isn't unreasonable to carry insurance to cover them, previously I didn't if I'm honest because it was so damned expensive. Maybe I was irresponsible, but like most people I spend my personal life balancing best safety against what I can afford.

I've no idea what the history is of passenger liability claims in the UK for small aircraft, nor whether it justifies the huge hike in insurance premiums, but would certainly be fascinated to see some published sums. If anybody can access the raw data, I'd be delighted to perform and publish some analysis on it!


In the meantime, I reserve the right to feel aggrieved at an overnight 30% hike in the costs of my personal flying (in that aircraft anyhow) in response to a problem which I'm unconvinced has been demonstrated to exist (bear in mind that UK CAA, who are not known for their libertarian tendencies, actively opposed this insurance requirement).

Here is an interesting statistic however (applying to microlights, I don't have the data to hand to compare for light aircraft). The UK has the best safety record in the world for microlights - last year's 7 deaths was the worst in 15 years, the usual average is about 3. Here, the 3rd party cover for a single seater costs (roughly) £180, and the full cover £409 for £1m combined liability - the absolute legal minimum you can get for about £290.

France on the other hand is subject to the same laws (and has a similar sized fleet of around 4,000), although it has a much worse fatal accident rate - 23 deaths last year was only slightly worse than average. Yet, it's possible to insure in France for (I've checked this) E60 for single seater risks only, and E450 for full 2-seat cover. So in France insurance is the same or slightly cheaper, whereas their fatal accident rate is considerably greater than ours. It may be true that French courts put a much lower value on a human life?, but that seems unlikely to me.

This rather suggests to me, EU rules or not (and I am a fairly rabid anti-European), that somebody in the UK insurance industry is profiteering. I suspect that the same is true for Sally B - the insurance company can quantify the real risks as they have for years, and I think that they would struggle to justify this £25k hike from genuine actuarial data.


In summary, you may be right that I should carry pax liability, but I remain deeply irritated by what I'm paying for it, and am NOT convinced that all of the blame rests in Brussels and their incompetent and corrupt Eurocrats. (Note: the last bit of that sentence was purely my personal opinion, and largely irrelevant to the argument - I just felt like slipping it in anyhow).

G

N.B. Does anybody know what Sally B's original insurance bill was? It would be very interesting to know what the £25k actually constitutes as a percentage.

[G-KEST]

STOP PRESS


B-17 Flypast at Madingley cancelled
Eurocharges keep Sally B grounded

It is with the greatest regret that in the absence to date of an exemption to the European regulation that puts the B-17 into the weight category of an airliner, boosting its insurance by an unaffordable 500 per cent, it will not be possible for Sally B to participate in the official Memorial Day flypast over Madingley

For the past thirty years, this has been this B-17’s most important and poignant annual engagement, carried out in honour of the 79,000 Allied airmen who lost their lives fighting for our freedom in the Second World War.

We are devastated not to be able to pay tribute to all those young men, especially in this 60th Anniversary of the end of the War. The idea that the aircraft that flew to liberate Europe and now flies in honour of all those young men who gave their lives for that cause, should be put out of action by the very people who owe their freedom to its existence, simply beggars belief.

We remain hopeful that a way can be found through this illogical and unjust law, so that Sally B’s 30th Anniversary season in this country might not be her last.
____________________________________

It is so sad that this memorial flypast cannot take place.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:{ :{ :{ :{ :mad:

[BEagle]

My MP David Cameron replied to me on Bank Holiday Sunday and advised that he was in the House when Mr Howarth made his 'excellent speech'. He will be reading the EDM and will get back to me.

Brussels today has been bruised by Les Grenouilles saying "NON!"; hopefully these absurd charges will be the next piece of over-regulation to be kicked firmly into touch.

There must be someone with sufficient spine to stand up to this Eurocratic nonsense - even amongst the liar's gang?

[PPRuNe Pop]

I e-mailed my MP, Paul Burstow, yesterday, and I have had a reply that he intends to sign the EDM.

[BEagle]

David Cameron, Prime Minister-in-waiting, signed on 7 Jun. Thanks, David!

Total is now 45; 35 Conservative, 5 LibDems, 3 DUP......and only 2 from Noo Labour.

[BEagle]

From the Daily Telegraph:


"Donors let the Sally B fly again
By Kate Devlin
(Filed: 16/06/2005)

A wartime bomber will be able to make one more historic flight despite European insurance regulations that have made it too expensive to fly.

Britain's only airworthy B17 Flying Fortress, the Sally B, will join Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters to celebrate the 60th anniversary of VJ Day with a flypast at the Blenheim Festival of Flight on Aug 14.

It was feared that the aircraft would be grounded after EU regulations put it in the weight category of an airliner, increasing its insurance five-fold.

Francis Rockliff, the festival's director, described the re-classification of the Flying Fortress as "European bureaucratic lunacy", but sponsorship by Virgin Atlantic and an anonymous American donor has made its appearance possible."

What has happened to Early Day Motion 141? Has it been debated? It has disappeared from the list of current EDMs.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

Which means lots of generous people are public spiritedly contributing to line the pockets of an insurance company's shareholders, paying for passenger liability insurance that isn't needed and won't ever need to be paid out on......

G

[TimS]

Good show on behalf of Branson's boys (and I am not normally his biggest fan) and the mystery yank. However I agree totally with Ghengis. Let's not forget that there is next year and the years after to deal with - lobbying to change this ridiculous law is still vital.

Get up earlier - so you can hate the EU for longer !

[Biggles Flies Undone]

Which means lots of generous people are public spiritedly contributing to line the pockets of an insurance company's shareholders, paying for passenger liability insurance that isn't needed and won't ever need to be paid out on......
It's not the passenger liability that is the problem, it's the third party limit.

As for passenger liability, anybody who carries passengers without it is a fool. It really is as simple as that.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Same applies - a B-25 does not represent the 3rd party risk of a 737 - it simply has less kinetic energy with which to do damage and the insurance premiums should reflect that nothing changed w.r.t. this on 1 May.

G

[Tartan Giant]

Hi Biggles FU,

I understand you focusing on the third party limit, but let's not forget these EU fools who missed the point are singing off this EU Commission hymn sheet when one of it's lackies mentions 9/11.

EU insurance rules

Sir - While it is regrettable that insurance costs have grounded Sally B (News, May 21), it is important to understand why the rules were introduced. After September 11, many airline companies found their cover to be inadequate and in several countries the state was obliged to assume the role of insurer. To prevent this happening again, new laws were approved by EU governments and the European Parliament introduced minimum insurance requirements that all aircraft owners are now obliged to take out. These rules were voted on by British ministers and MEPs, who were intrinsically involved throughout the legislative process. Indeed, the Government consulted industry beforehand.

Whether the owners of Sally B were invited to participate, and whether the Government took into account their views if they did, are questions only they can answer. Surely it is not being suggested that planes fly without adequate insurance?

Ian Barber, Acting Head of the European Commission in the UK, London SW1

The salient words are, "many airline companies found their cover inadequate".............. well, I'm sorry but that's their problem.

SallyB is NOT "an airline company" and whilst I agree with you it's a third party insurance issue, the risk factor and proportionate weighting MUST be applied.

SallyB and her like are special cases, and the EU must recognise one size does not fit all.

TG

[foxile]

and the EU must recognise one size does not fit all.

Ah, but surely that would be going against the whole ethos of the EU....:rolleyes:

[Biggles Flies Undone]

in several countries the state was obliged to assume the role of insurer That just goes to show how much these people understand :mad:

It was the war risks cover that was the problem. Insurers always expected that their biggest loss would come from passengers killed in a hijack - they never envisaged the potential for a two billion dollar third party claim. After 9/11 the level of third party (not passenger) war risks cover was restricted, but there is now a higher level available at a price.

None of the above has the slightest thing to do with the EU minimum limits, but with people like Ian Barber spouting stuff like that is there any surprise that the whole thing is a mess? :*

[Genghis the Engineer]

These rules were voted on by British ministers and MEPs, who were intrinsically involved throughout the legislative process. Indeed, the Government consulted industry beforehand.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it actually the case that everybody in the UK (industry, CAA, ministers, the lot) were in agreement that the proposed new insurance rules were inappropriate, and that at every level the UK voted against them.

But, due to qualified majority voting, we are saddled with them anyhow?

G

[G-KEST]

Hello there,
Good news for the 2006 season.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
____________________________________

14 October 2005
Hope on the Horizon for Sally B

As Aviation Insurers, Politicians, and enthusiasts rally to the cause of ‘living’ aviation heritage

In an unprecedented move, the immediate threat of permanent grounding to an important living piece of national heritage, B-17 Flying Fortress Sally B, has been temporarily lifted. On 29th September, aviation insurance underwriters came up with an affordable ‘stop gap’ solution to comply with a new controversial European Union regulation that had placed crippling financial demands on the operation of the 60-year old bomber. New legislation had put a burden of an extra £1,000 per flying hour on this national aviation icon. Sally B receives no direct state funding to keep her airborne.

Elly Sallingboe, B-17 Operator said: “Our fight to change this rule goes on, but we are delighted that the insurance world has again come up trumps with an affordable solution to help. Meanwhile, we wait for the EU to change this totally unrealistic law. “We thank Lloyds brokers Marsh, Sally B's broker Arthur J Gallagher (UK) and other London insurance companies and Lloyds Underwriters. The B-17 is now fully covered by third party liability insurance up to the 30th September 2006.

“With the help of politicians, the Civil Aviation Authority and our many friends and supporters, we have managed to get the ear of the Regulators in Brussels. It is now appreciated that an oversight has been made in this third party issue for Sally B.

“But, to change a law like this will take time. Once an EU law has been made, it takes years to reverse it. But, the pioneering work has now been done and I am confident that within the next 18 months this unjust law will be changed, not only for Sally B, but for vintage aircraft in general. Like Sally B, they are not commercial airliners, they are flying memorials loaded not with bombs but with memories. Such aircraft salute those who gave their lives for our freedom, a sacrifice that must never be forgotten”.

This has been a hard season for Sally B and her team, condensing as much work as possible in a season reduced to three months. But with dedication and enthusiasm, helped by loyal members and friends digging deep, the impossible has been achieved and on the 10th July Sally B joined the London flypast marking the 60th anniversary of the end of World War Two and has since flown proudly through her special anniversary year - her 30th flying season in the UK.

A petition seeking an exemption to the new EU regulations has now been signed by 25,000-plus people – all by hand. This will be presented to Downing Street in due course.

Thousands of B-17s, nicknamed Flying Fortress, flew daylight raids over German cities during the war. The aircraft is permanently based at the Imperial War Museum Duxford. It is backed by a registered charity and relies solely on charitable donations for its survival. This year it celebrate 30 year flying in the UK and its 60 birthday. To learn more, join the Supporters Club and/or make a donation to the Sally B Anniversary Appeal, please visit www.sallyb.org.uk. or contact Elly Sallingboe on 01638 721304

www.sallyb.org.uk

Sally B is one of a mere handful of survivors from the 12,731 Fortresses which were built, and her future in this country can only be secured through fundraising.

:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[Tartan Giant]

Hello G-KEST,

Brilliant news indeed.

I have been writing to MP's/MEP's about this very aircraft, and with all those others involved, share the hope that the EC will indeed make good their silly mistake ASAP and realise memories and sacrifice are more important than dumb regulations.

If I may, I could send you a PM of some of the letters for leverage.

To all those who gave their life's in the shadow of B-17's like SallyB, we salute you......... and we will remember you... forever.


Safe, happy flying

TG

[G-KEST]

TG,
By all means.
Cheers,
Trapper 69
:ok:

[Tartan Giant]

Roger!

Stand-by for incoming.

Cheers

TG

[Tartan Giant]

RIP Robert


he liked to finish telephone conversations with the wartime Morse Code sign-off: dit, dit, dit, dah, dit, dah.


dit dit dit dah dit dah

TG


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/18/db1802.xml

Robert Hanson
(Filed: 18/10/2005)

Robert Hanson, who has died in Albuquerque, New Mexico, aged 85, was the last surviving crew member of the Memphis Belle, perhaps the most celebrated aircraft of the Second World War.

Between November 1942 and May 1943 the Belle, a B-17, became the first American bomber to complete 25 missions over Occupied Europe and to return safely to the United States. At the time, the USAAF squadrons based in Britain - the Eighth Air Force - were conducting daylight raids without adequate fighter escort, and three in four aircraft were being lost within three months of entering combat. In all, 30,000 servicemen of the "Mighty Eighth" were to perish by the war's end.
The survival of the Memphis Belle was thus seen as a considerable fillip to morale, one exploited to full effect by the documentary-maker William Wyler, whose film of the crew in action enshrined the courage of ordinary young Americans. Hanson, the radio operator, and Bob Morgan, the aircraft's pilot, attributed their continued existence to two more prosaic factors: teamwork and sheer luck.

The crew of 10 had come together in the summer of 1942, and after the flight across the Atlantic were based with 324th Bomb Squadron at Bassingbourn, near Royston, Cambridgeshire. The B-17, or "Flying Fortress", was the USAAF's principal striking arm of the war, distinguished by its near 104-ft wingspan and protective armament of 13 Browning machine-guns distributed around the aircraft. The average age of a B-17's complement was 22.

That of the Memphis Belle named theirs for Morgan's girlfriend of the time, and had its nose decorated by a seductively-clad beauty copied from one of George Petty's lubricious paintings for Esquire. Hanson, meanwhile, inscribed the name of his new bride, Irene, by the window where he sat amidships.

Their first raid, on November 7, was on the dockyards at Brest. The main objective of the USAAF at the time was to hinder the German U-boat effort, and most of the Belle's other missions, carried out roughly every 10 days, were to the ports of France, Belgium and Germany. The defence was fierce, but in fact the most reckless of the Eighth's raids, such as those on the aircraft plants at Schweinfurt and Regensburg, in which one in six B-17s were destroyed, did not take place until after the Belle had finished her tour.

Hanson carried a rabbit's foot for luck, and on one occasion was writing in a logbook during a raid when he suddenly felt cold and sneezed. As he jerked downwards, a bullet passed through the air where his head had been and lodged in the book.

On January 23 1943, the squadron bombed the submarine pens at Lorient, France. By now, the German fighter pilots had discovered that the "Forts" were vulnerable to a head-on attack. They picked on the group of aircraft in which the Belle was flying, and for 25 minutes subjected it to constant assault. When an FW-190 came straight at him, Morgan was unable to dive because of B-17s below him, and was forced to pull up into the cannon-shell stream being directed at his aircraft. It blew the tail off, and set the Belle alight.

Morgan's only hope was to set the nose straight down in the hope of extinguishing the flames. As Morgan dived several thousand feet at high speed, Hanson was flung against the roof and then almost out of the gaping back of the aircraft; but the tactic worked, and the bomber was able to return safely to base. On another occasion, she landed bearing 68 separate rips in her fabric. For their part, the Belle's crew accounted for a total of eight Luftwaffe fighters and five more "probables".

Wyler's film The Memphis Belle (1944), which established the crew's fame when shown widely in the United States, was billed as a record of their 25th mission. In fact, he and his cameraman had flown on the penultimate raid, to Wilhelmshaven, and the documentary also incorporated footage shot at other times.

After successfully completing their last run, to Lorient, on May 17, and after 148 hours in combat, the crew was introduced first to the King and Queen, and then sent on a 32-city tour of America to raise spirits and sell war-bonds; they were accompanied by their mascot, a Highland terrier named Stuka. Hanson, in common with the rest, was awarded the US Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with three Oak Leaf clusters.

Robert John Hanson was born on May 25 1920. His mother died when he was young, and as his father, a road builder, was often absent, Bob and his two brothers were placed in an orphanage. From there they were rescued by a bachelor uncle who raised them at Garfield, Washington, where Bob became a star athlete at high school.

He won a baseball scholarship to university, but chose instead to go out to work, and in the summer of 1941 enlisted in the US Army. Determined not to become an infantryman, after the attack on Pearl Harbor he volunteered for radio training and transferred to the Air Force.

After returning home in 1943, he spent the remainder of the war as a radio instructor. When peace came, he found work as the district manager of, first, a food company and then a sweets manufacturer at Spokane, Washington. The Memphis Belle was kept on show in Memphis, and is soon to move to the National Air Force Museum at Dayton, Ohio. In 1990 Hanson and the other survivors were flown to England to advise on a fictional remake of Memphis Belle, starring Matthew Modine, Billy Zane and Harry Connick Jr.

A family man, with a high sense of ethics and a fondness for laughter, Hanson enjoyed golf and square dancing in retirement. To the end, he liked to finish telephone conversations with the wartime Morse Code sign-off: dit, dit, dit, dah, dit, dah. He died on October 1.

He married, in 1942, Irene Payton, who survives him with a son and a daughter. Another daughter predeceased him.