Author Topic: Firefly down (Read 1086 times)

palef · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2003, 07:45:35 PM »

Frenchy, I know where you are coming from but I tend to support Hazed.

I mean no disrespect to any pilots who have died or been injured flying warbirds when I say this - Stop crashing them before they are banned from the skys.

I am happy for a straight and level pass at an airshow of ANY warbird. I don't need to see the performance envelope displayed. These aircraft represent the peak of development of a particular class of aircraft and I want my son to be able to go to an airshow in 30 years time and see a piston engined WWII vintage aircraft flying.

The "safety concious" mentality that has become the norm these days will dictate that piston engined warbirds will be banned from flying before long if a new approach to display flying is not found soon.

palef

Ozark · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2003, 10:03:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cougar68
One of the people killed was =rix== from Warbirds brother. http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22371

Cougar

Dowding · « **Reply #17 on:** July 14, 2003, 03:07:45 AM »

I think to suggest that these planes are being in anyway flown irresponsibly, outside a safe envelope of operation is a massive disservice to the crews that maintain them, the pilots who fly them and those who work hard to find the money to put them in the air.

And what about the insurance companies that cover these near priceless aircraft? Do you think they'd provide cover if the danger was unreasonable? What about the aviation authorities in Britain? Arguably the most restrictive in the world, they are happy to let these planes display in the manner they do.

Watching the Breitling fighters (F4U, Spit, P51, F6F) do a close formation loop on saturday after watching the Firefly crash firsthand only an hour before did give me butterflies, I'll admit. But the sheer professionalism and skill they displayed made me realise, if I wasn't aware of it before, that these guys are the real deal. They take their jobs ultra seriously - they are not on a jolly, flying for the hell of it. I'm sure they are also aware that what they do is risky and potentially catastrophic, but do everything to minimise the risk to themselves, the aircraft and most importantly, the viewing public.

Personally, there is nothing better in the world than watching (and hearing) a flight of nine spits come barrelling in at full throttle at low level before pulling into some breath-taking manoever. The day such a sight ends will be a sad day indeed.

palef · « **Reply #18 on:** July 14, 2003, 04:41:11 AM »

Dowding, I'm sorry you took it that way. Read my post again.

"I don't need to see the performance envelope displayed."

I enjoy Airshows too. I went to Farnborough in '98 and had a ball - however some killjoy politician will stop these aircraft flying if pilots keep dying. If a solitary warbird crashes on a school it will be all over forever.

I mean no disrespect to the engineers or pilots and their skill and professionalism is without doubt.

Old machines, even those made of metal sometimes fail for no obvious reason. Metal fatigue is a strange beast.

palef

gatso · « **Reply #19 on:** July 14, 2003, 05:02:24 AM »

What Dowding said.

There's more Spitfires flying today than 20 years ago. The 'I want to go to an airshow in 30 years and see them flying' thing is frankly balls. Do you think there is really that little planning in putting on one of these shows that you think that you'd get a warbird flying into a school!

Spitfires are perfectly capable of doing aerobatics, as was the Firefly, as were the 3 other aircraft that have crashed killing people I knew.

It's not going to stop me restoring them, it's not going to stop me wanting to fly them.

Gatso

palef · « **Reply #20 on:** July 14, 2003, 05:28:15 AM »

As soon as it is too expensive to insure these aircraft they will not be allowed to fly. If they keep crashing and killing people, "public outcry" which is a useful political catch phrase used to justify ridiculous decisions by politicians, will ground them permanently.

I want to see them flying in 30 years - I want to you to keep restoring them Gatso - but I don't want excuses handed to politicians to ground them - and that is much more likely to happen if people keep dying.

Aircraft crash, it's a fact of life. But the supply of "original" WWII era warbirds is not infinite. Neither is the patience of "safety" minded politicians. Safety is a useful vote grabbing platform in any country.

There is nothing better than seeing these aircraft used how they are supposed to be. They evoke all sorts of emotions for all sorts of reasons and are having an increasing impact on the commercial sphere of aviation in general.

Highly public accidents at heavily patronised events have a negative impact on the perception of the safety of these events. The negative impact on aviation in general may be negligible, but someone at a large aerospace company will start distancing themselves from Warbirds due to image concerns.

I think a "she'll be right" attitude is not constructive in the long view in regard to this issue and the manner in which these airaft are displayed needs to change or everyone will miss out entirely. How does that benefit anyone?

You make a valid pioint about more Warbirds flying now than there were 20 years ago - however more aircraft and the potential for more accidents could easily equate to an "all WWII Warbirds are dangerous and must be banned" attitude. The people that make laws about these sorts of things are the same people who are adamant that speed kills and speed cameras and heavy policing (and the attendant taxation gains through fines) will fix it rather than improved driver education or skill.

Prove me wrong - I don't want to be right, but always expect the worst of lawmakers. Their goal is votes at the next election, they don't care about your passion or hobby. This may be heresy to some, but I am sure that many people can't see the difference between a statically displayed Warbird and a flying Warbird. Some of those people make laws to "keep the general public safe".

swoopy · « **Reply #21 on:** July 14, 2003, 06:05:12 AM »

These planes are taken apart every year then put back together again. If they werent suitible to fly then they wouldnt get a certificate.

And i dont think there is ever gonna be a 'public outcry' to ground em cause its the public that want to see em, the amount of people that turned up this weekend proves that.

gatso u get some pics of em flying, what to see those spits again.

Dowding · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2003, 06:23:43 AM »

palef - my post wasn't meant as a slam, just a frank statement of opinion. I actually agree with much of what you say and fully understand how certain politicians will want more restrictive measures.

But I don't think that will happen provided spectator safety is maintained at the high standard it is in this country. I also don't think any change is needed on the back of this latest tragedy.

Finally, in Britain there will come a point when government interference will no longer be suffered. This particular issue is the watershed for me.

mjolnir · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2003, 07:52:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Watching the Breitling fighters (F4U, Spit, P51, F6F) do a close formation loop on saturday after watching the Firefly crash firsthand only an hour before did give me butterflies, I'll admit.

Gave my wife the willies too, especially since they were almost right over the crowd when they went vertical. But I am going to correct you Dowding, the lead plane of the formation wasn't an F6F, it was a P-40. Damned impressive display by those guys, it was a shame they had to go when they did, I'm betting the audience would have enjoyed it more later that afternoon.

Dowding · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2003, 08:20:03 AM »

I couldn't remember what the 4th plane of the 4 was so I guessed at F6F.

Should have remembered it was a P-40 - I remember mentioning it to my dad during the display. And yes, it was an excellent display considering the mix of planes.

palef · « **Reply #25 on:** July 15, 2003, 12:59:22 AM »

Cheers Dowding - I'm glad we got onto the right wavelength.

Swoopy - the "public outcry" I am talking about seldom exists. It's an invented excuse by politicians for banning cool stuff like two-stroke motorcycles, and Concorde. It only takes a small group of outraged loudmouths with connections to ruin this sort of stuff.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone as it certainly wasn't my intention.

palef

swoopy · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:20:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by palef

I am talking about seldom exists. It's an invented excuse by politicians for banning cool stuff like two-stroke motorcycles, and Concorde.
palef

non of thiose in UK

and Dowdings a fool

Swoop · « **Reply #27 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:37:45 AM »

When did they ban two strokes?

gatso · « **Reply #28 on:** July 15, 2003, 07:00:07 AM »

They haven't.

Gatso

Eagler · « **Reply #29 on:** July 15, 2003, 10:54:54 AM »

didn't they die doing what they loved to do?

will we be so lucky or will we have our family standing round the bedside watching the clock, tapping their feet, waiting for the old geezer in the bed to finally draw his last breath ...................