B-17 Crash
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,880 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
etudiant,
Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.
I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...
And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.
Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.
I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...
And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.
etudiant,
Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.
I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...
And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.
Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.
I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...
And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.
One can now pay to fly in Spitfires, Mustangs, Hurricane(Soon...) Blenheim, Lysander, Sea Fury, 109 and others...
Very few of them went along simply to enjoy the ride I would suggest
Snowflakes?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...y-regulations/
"SUMMERTIME IN THE European Alps is the so-called “killing season” for wingsuit BASE jumpers"
And of course if you have a spare $250,000 you can chance your arm in the Virgin Space Race. That is going to have one outcome - it will go until the first catastrophe. Let's hope no one on the ground dies.
Then there is ... the wannabe youtube star who got his girlfriend to shoot at his chest with a .50 calibre pistol to see if an interposed book would save him - it didn't.
https://www.buzz.ie/weird/video-depi...e-wrong-289828
I like the link name above "shot-dead-stunt-gone-wrong" - well as far as I can see the shot dead stunt worked!
I would go on a B-17 trip but I am an aeroplane nut. I don't think it should be sold to the unwary. I have turned down a bungee jump from a crane on an industrial site. Don't fancy that at all. No upside.
I'm sure I must've read more uninformed dross on PPRuNe before, but can't remember when! Chug, have you ever visited the amazing facility where these iconic machines were serviced to a very high standard? Proone, have you ever sat in the co-pilot's seat next to Mac and seen how gracefully he flew 'Nine-oh-Nine'. The ages (of both 'Nine-oh-Nine' and Mac) are completely irrelevant.
I'm sure I must've read more uninformed dross on PPRuNe before, but can't remember when! Chug, have you ever visited the amazing facility where these iconic machines were serviced to a very high standard? Proone, have you ever sat in the co-pilot's seat next to Mac and seen how gracefully he flew 'Nine-oh-Nine'. The ages (of both 'Nine-oh-Nine' and Mac) are completely irrelevant.
Last edited by Harley Quinn; 9th Oct 2019 at 18:15.
DaveUnwin,
You have no idea if any of this is uninformed dross! I don't care how amazing you think the facility is or how gracefully a 76 year old flew a 75 year old bomber, seven people are dead, six are injured and the aircraft is a burnt out hulk after crashing.
You have no idea if any of this is uninformed dross! I don't care how amazing you think the facility is or how gracefully a 76 year old flew a 75 year old bomber, seven people are dead, six are injured and the aircraft is a burnt out hulk after crashing.
Dave Unwin, my reservations are not about the servicing or the restoration of these veteran aircraft which I accept are to the high standards that you and Nutloose proclaim. They are instead that these aircraft do not meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements and cannot, no matter how much care and attention is lavished on them. They are allowed to fly by the authorities to meet public demand and sentiment. When an accident as terrible as this occurs then those authorities need to urgently reconsider the status quo. Things are likely to change now, just as they have when air displays have caused a great loss of life. You may see that as dross. I don't.
Actually Proone, I do. I have seen the aircraft being maintained, and once had the tremendous privilege of flying as Mac's co-pilot on 'Nine-oh-Nine'. If people want to fly in a WW2 aircraft, and possibly experience just a fraction of what their grandfather went through, who are you to say it's too dangerous? Its called informed risk. Nobody's making YOU fly in one, but why should you say other's can't?
Chug, "...these aircraft do not meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements and cannot, no matter how much care and attention is lavished on them" might just be the most redundant statement I've ever read. But as we're discussing a Boeing product it'd be remiss of me if I didn't ask if you think the 737 MAX met modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements?
megan, other than that modern aircraft crash and kill just as others have done, what is the point you are making? That life is inherently fraught with danger? In which case assessing that danger, ie risk assessment, is a necessary life skill. The unfortunates who died in those tragedies had places to go, people to meet, things to do. Very few of them went along simply to enjoy the ride I would suggest. Ditto those who drive cars, or chance their arm at Railtrack's unforeseen works above and below ground level. Statistically those you list drew the short straw as the odds were much more in their favour than those lost in this tragedy.
Chug, "...these aircraft do not meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements and cannot, no matter how much care and attention is lavished on them" might just be the most redundant statement I've ever read. But as we're discussing a Boeing product it'd be remiss of me if I didn't ask if you think the 737 MAX met modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements?
You are full of pejoratives, DU; dross, redundant statement, ludicrous, but offer no input other than it's your business and nobody else's if you want to fly as pax in a veteran a/c. Well go ahead then, but again I make the point that the authorities may in future have different ideas. You can then express your reaction to that in your usual way.
Actually Chug, I'm going to apologise. My tone was harsh. I don't post here often, and this thread clearly indicates why I don't bother (plus, I don't have time, as I've usually got some interesting flying to do). I was annoyed at some of the comments, and do consider them ill-informed, hence my language. For example if you'd ever met Mac, you would never have guessed he was in his seventies. Age is a number. Some people are old at 40, some young at 60. He also had over 7,000hrs in the B-17, and knew what he was doing. Sometimes, **** does just happen, and as Ernest Gann wrote, "no amount of paper will cushion a sudden impact between metal and stone." I honestly do believe its an individual's right to fly in a vintage aircraft, BASE jump, swim with sharks, ride a motorbike etc etc. That's my opinion. I suspect you don't, and that's your opinion. I was flying a sailplane in ridge and wave in the Black Mountains last weekend. At times, it was considerably more stressful than my flight as Mac's co-pilot! Perhaps I shouldn't do that either? 'Danger and delight grow on the same stalk' is an olde English proverb, which explains the appeal of adventure sports and roller coasters, and riding in WW2 fighters and bombers. Nevertheless, my language was intemperate, possibly because a man I knew who I both respected and admired, had just died.
Well, I want the opportunity to be able to fly in these sorts of aircraft, regardless of the danger or lack of adherence to modern airworthiness standards.
Collings have another hideously dangerous machine in their collection (sarcasm alert).
The design is nearly 60 years old.
It's so dangerous that it took a special act of Congress for them to be allowed to obtain it.
The passenger sits on an explosive seat, in a machine that weighs 30 US tons MAUW.
That passenger has an 18,000 lb thrust turbojet just behind them on either side - being fed by 2000 US gallons of jet fuel.
This entire, hideously dangerous machine can travel at just over Mach 2.
And God only knows - if I ever get the chance to fly in 65-0749 - I will grab it with both hands.
And if I died doing so - I couldn't think of a better way to go.
Very sad to hear of the dead and injured - but I fully agree with the sentiment of marvelling at a real WW2 bomber in flight, and the passion of those who restore them.
The safety of people on the ground is a perfectly valid consideration.
But if accidents like this and Shoreham lead to overzealous regulatory crackdowns - we will be much the poorer for it in my view.
Maybe part of the B-17 experience is appreciating that some very brave and frightened young men defended their country flying in machines that weren't massively over engineered, and rapidly churned out.
A decade later, but look at the interior of a Vulcan.
Black, full of wires, pipes, gauges and dials.
No concessions to comfort - beaten up and scratched and scarred.
The odd cushion, and piece of padding - insulation, but its designed for a purpose - as confronting as that may be.
Collings have another hideously dangerous machine in their collection (sarcasm alert).
The design is nearly 60 years old.
It's so dangerous that it took a special act of Congress for them to be allowed to obtain it.
The passenger sits on an explosive seat, in a machine that weighs 30 US tons MAUW.
That passenger has an 18,000 lb thrust turbojet just behind them on either side - being fed by 2000 US gallons of jet fuel.
This entire, hideously dangerous machine can travel at just over Mach 2.
And God only knows - if I ever get the chance to fly in 65-0749 - I will grab it with both hands.
And if I died doing so - I couldn't think of a better way to go.
Very sad to hear of the dead and injured - but I fully agree with the sentiment of marvelling at a real WW2 bomber in flight, and the passion of those who restore them.
The safety of people on the ground is a perfectly valid consideration.
But if accidents like this and Shoreham lead to overzealous regulatory crackdowns - we will be much the poorer for it in my view.
Maybe part of the B-17 experience is appreciating that some very brave and frightened young men defended their country flying in machines that weren't massively over engineered, and rapidly churned out.
A decade later, but look at the interior of a Vulcan.
Black, full of wires, pipes, gauges and dials.
No concessions to comfort - beaten up and scratched and scarred.
The odd cushion, and piece of padding - insulation, but its designed for a purpose - as confronting as that may be.
Well put tartare. People who pay money (and it's not cheap) to fly on these old war birds know it's potentially dangerous but do it anyway (hint - when you need to sign a liability release before they let you do something, it's a sure bet that it's not completely safe). Different people have different levels of risk acceptance. Some people sky dive, climb mountains, and countless other risky sports/hobbies because they enjoy what they are doing enough to counter the risks involved.
I drove race cars for 35 years - during that time 2 drivers who I knew died while racing, countless others where injured (including myself - I have a bit of a permanent limp due to damage done to my left ankle/foot when a mechanical failure put me into a tirewall at ~70 mph). I kept doing it because I loved it. I'm not some adrenaline junky - there are many activities that I won't do due to the risks - and I did everything in my power to make it as safe as possible, but I kept doing it.
I have cherished memories associated with those old war birds operated by the Commemorative Air Force and Collings Foundation - some of the Commemorative AF memories shared with my late WWII vet father (it was known as the Confederate AF in those days, before political correctness forced them to change the name), and I consider my memories of flying on Nine-O-Nine to be priceless. I've donated a fair amount of money to both CAF and Collings over the years to help keep those aircraft flying so that others can share those experiences. There is a place in Florida that has some two-seat (dual controls) P-51 Mustangs - next time I go to Florida I hope to go up in one.
I live a few miles from Paine Field - where there are two air museums stocked with WWII vintage warbirds - Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum and Historic Flight. Most of their aircraft are flight worthy, and when the weather is nice it's not uncommon to see one or more of them flying around the area and occasionally over my house. I get a thrill every time I see one fly overhead. And the sound - especially the multi-engine ones - is fantastic. Is there a risk one might fall out of the sky and injury someone on the ground? Sure, but that's also true of the hundreds of GA aircraft that fly out of Paine. And there are many Experimental aircraft that fly out of Paine as well - which by definition don't meet all the current airworthness standards.
New cars are safer than older cars - and the older cars don't need to be that old. I recently read that you're are twice as apt to be seriously injured or killed in an accident in a 10 year old car than in a new one, yet I don't hear any calls to ban older cars (nor would I agree with such a proposal).
The crash of Nine-O-Nine and the associated deaths are tragic, no question. Hopefully lessons will be learned that can make the continued operation of these classic warbirds safer. But the greatest tragedy of the crash of Nine-O-Nine would be if it resulted in the loss of the ability to fly these old warbirds and to share that experience with the younger generation.
I drove race cars for 35 years - during that time 2 drivers who I knew died while racing, countless others where injured (including myself - I have a bit of a permanent limp due to damage done to my left ankle/foot when a mechanical failure put me into a tirewall at ~70 mph). I kept doing it because I loved it. I'm not some adrenaline junky - there are many activities that I won't do due to the risks - and I did everything in my power to make it as safe as possible, but I kept doing it.
I have cherished memories associated with those old war birds operated by the Commemorative Air Force and Collings Foundation - some of the Commemorative AF memories shared with my late WWII vet father (it was known as the Confederate AF in those days, before political correctness forced them to change the name), and I consider my memories of flying on Nine-O-Nine to be priceless. I've donated a fair amount of money to both CAF and Collings over the years to help keep those aircraft flying so that others can share those experiences. There is a place in Florida that has some two-seat (dual controls) P-51 Mustangs - next time I go to Florida I hope to go up in one.
I live a few miles from Paine Field - where there are two air museums stocked with WWII vintage warbirds - Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum and Historic Flight. Most of their aircraft are flight worthy, and when the weather is nice it's not uncommon to see one or more of them flying around the area and occasionally over my house. I get a thrill every time I see one fly overhead. And the sound - especially the multi-engine ones - is fantastic. Is there a risk one might fall out of the sky and injury someone on the ground? Sure, but that's also true of the hundreds of GA aircraft that fly out of Paine. And there are many Experimental aircraft that fly out of Paine as well - which by definition don't meet all the current airworthness standards.
New cars are safer than older cars - and the older cars don't need to be that old. I recently read that you're are twice as apt to be seriously injured or killed in an accident in a 10 year old car than in a new one, yet I don't hear any calls to ban older cars (nor would I agree with such a proposal).
The crash of Nine-O-Nine and the associated deaths are tragic, no question. Hopefully lessons will be learned that can make the continued operation of these classic warbirds safer. But the greatest tragedy of the crash of Nine-O-Nine would be if it resulted in the loss of the ability to fly these old warbirds and to share that experience with the younger generation.
Dave Unwin, if you had been clear from the start that you had lost a dear friend who you admired greatly, had flown with and learned much from, you would have simply received my sincere condolences. As it is, I offer them now. In retrospect I can now see that you alluded to that but I didn't pick up on it at the time. So it is I that must apologise to you.
As for me, no apologies are needed. PPRuNe is, if nothing else, for the exchange of opposing views and would be a dull place indeed if all were in violent agreement. The only requirement is for mutual respect, a precious thing at risk of extinction sometimes.
Your chosen lifestyle, or mine for that matter, is of little relevance here I would suggest. Airworthiness is not merely for the protection of crew and pax (informed or otherwise!). It is also to protect others outside that bubble. Unlike Shoreham there were mercifully no fatalities in that regard, but there might have been if the aircraft had hit the building it impacted with greater force. Energy lost in striking the ILS array and in careering across the field might have allowed it to penetrate that building and hazard its occupants. According to Wiki (yes, I know!) there was at least one such occupant (unnamed there), who emerged from it and immediately set to work helping survivors from the inferno, suffering severe burns in doing so. Whatever the USA version of the George Cross is, I would humbly suggest that person, if the account be true, would be a very worthy recipient indeed.
As for me, no apologies are needed. PPRuNe is, if nothing else, for the exchange of opposing views and would be a dull place indeed if all were in violent agreement. The only requirement is for mutual respect, a precious thing at risk of extinction sometimes.
Your chosen lifestyle, or mine for that matter, is of little relevance here I would suggest. Airworthiness is not merely for the protection of crew and pax (informed or otherwise!). It is also to protect others outside that bubble. Unlike Shoreham there were mercifully no fatalities in that regard, but there might have been if the aircraft had hit the building it impacted with greater force. Energy lost in striking the ILS array and in careering across the field might have allowed it to penetrate that building and hazard its occupants. According to Wiki (yes, I know!) there was at least one such occupant (unnamed there), who emerged from it and immediately set to work helping survivors from the inferno, suffering severe burns in doing so. Whatever the USA version of the George Cross is, I would humbly suggest that person, if the account be true, would be a very worthy recipient indeed.