I suspect you’re right.
My humble suggestions:
Rule nr 1: Stay at your assigned height.
Rule nr 2: Do not descend without clearance or a clear view of what is below you
Rule nr 3: Do not approach another aircraft when You are at a lower altitude (do not sneak up under someones belly)
Rule nr 4: You are Responsible for tracking everything above you or at the same level as you in at least a horizontal 180 degree arc.
Rule nr 5: If you are catching up to someone below you You are responsible for knowing where they are and not descending into their path.
RC-aircraft builders/flyers sometimes fail at this as well but in that case the consequences are not fatal (except maybe for their ego)
Not to mention rules (and penalties) for ATC, as they are meant to be in charge!
1 Like
I understand the sentiment but I whole heartedly disagree. Appreciation for anything - tangible objects like aircraft or less tangible things like music or a sunset - is a very subjective thing . To me , seeing these things doing what they were created to do - flying - is worth seeing them static one hundred fold . ( although I do enjoy static displays as well .) Ultimately the choice should be up to the ones paying the bills for the aircraft’s acquisition, restoration and maintenance. Planes of Fame has an original A6M with original Nakajima power and still fly it - it is , to my knowledge, the only one in the world still airworthy and I applaud their decision to do so . On the other hand, the late Paul Allen’s collection ( Flying Heritage? ) has numerous rare airworthy aircraft that they fly but have elected to not fly their Ki 43 - again , original Nakajima power and was flown briefly for a few yards by the original restorers. This is , of course up to them .
Regarding the unfortunate accident between the P 63 and B 17 , referring to the pilot as an idiot is certainly out of line and obviously inaccurate. You don’t get to fly any aircraft yet alone one like that if you are an idiot. On the surface it would seem to be the fault of the P 63 but as mentioned in the previous post it remains to be determined if ATC is culpable.
I would like to express my admiration for the people who fly these things and extend my sympathy to the families of the deceased.
Keep ‘‘em flying .
Richard
1 Like
Richard,
i guess we’re gonna have to agree to disagree.
two vintage aircraft are now scrap metal which will not now benefit future generations where as static displays will last regardless who owns them. there are plenty of videos out there of these old warbirds flying for people to enjoy when ever they like i just don’t think jeopardizing last few remaining aircraft from WW2 is worth the risk these days.
oh and i never referred to the pilots as idiots but they can make mistakes and tgere is a tendency for pilots to show off a little more than they should do.
Klaus
I was at the Heritage Lottery Fund when the Tank Museum placed a bid to restore their Tiger I. It was a close-run thing, because the HLF couldn’t afford the negative publicity of funding a restoration that led to the item being used and wrecked. In the end the grant was given, and at its first outing the old girl threw a rod through the side of its irreplaceable Maybach engine block! Lots of VERY expensive specialist welding followed…
Aircraft are far riskier, as almost any mid-air failure leads to complete destruction when it hits the ground. There are strong arguments against letting originals fly - surely we can just build replicas instead? As pointed out earlier, many so-called restorations are little more than an original data plate on a whole new plane. There’s a lot to be said for building a “new” B17 to fly and putting the WW2 ones in museums. After all, they weren’t exactly built for 80 years of flight hours!
My sincerest condolences to the family and friends of those who died in this horrific mishap.
Klaus - My bad in posting my sentiments regarding referring to the pilot as an idiot - it seems the actual term was dumbass . I didn’t mean to infer that it was you who made that statement but by my including it in my response to you it certainly seems that was my intent - my apologies.
Yep - agree to disagree is fine - the world would be pretty boring ( but perhaps more serene- LOL ) if we all thought alike …
Cheers- Richard
1 Like
Richard,
no worries mate, no harm done.
as Indiana Jones said: “that belongs in a museum”
Klaus
2 Likes
Woah! Two people on the internet disagree, accidentally offend each other, make peace, and agree to disagree with no insults! I’ve seen it all
8 Likes
perhaps there is hope for the human race afterall 
4 Likes
I think I saw this happen on an episode of Star Trek.
1 Like
We simply can’t live in a risk adverse world. Heck if we did all our highways would be closed.
No we have to ‘manage’ our risk. We owe it to those tens of thousands who died in these machines in wars to keep them going in honour of their sacrifice.
Learn the lessons of mistakes and do it better every time. But while humans are involved there will always be mistakes.
3 Likes
That was my word. It was my heartfelt and spontaneous reaction to seeing an accident that should have been avoidable.
Far too many accidents happen because someone was taking risks, was complacent about the risks involved, wasn’t paying attention. Another class of accidents is caused by greed, cutting corners on maintenance, not replacing worn out parts (water planing caused by driving on wet roads with worn out tires). There are many incidents and accidents where pilots have done things they should not have done and many other cases where pilots didn’t do what they should have done.
Sometimes age and other causes for diminishing capability comes into it.
Some people are overly cautious and some push the limits a bit too far.
It remains to find out the exact cause for this accident.
I still maintain my opinion …
Statistics show that some personality types are more accident prone than others …
I have my own rough grades for what can loosely be called intelligence, from high to low:
- Figures out what can go wrong and makes sure it doesn’t happen
- Can’t figure it out but learns from mistakes made by others
- Learns from his/her own mistakes
- Doesn’t learn from others, has to try it for themselves, once
- Doesn’t learn from own mistakes but tries it again in case it works the next time.
Robin they are called “accidents” for a reason. Some/many/most are caused by something that may have been foreseeable. Others are just plain accidents that no one could have predicted. I doubt anyone on this forum is qualified or has all the information the make definitive statements.
Lets all just temper our comments until the “experts” come up with an answer.
2 Likes
I said, i.e. wrote: “far too many”
We humans make rules and regulations to try and prevent avoidable mistakes.
Some systems are designed so that they can only be operated in a safe manner.
Some machinery requires the operator to squeeze two handles at the same time
to make sure that the operators hands are outside the danger zone.
The pay in some jobs is based on the amount of products cycled through the machine,
smart “dumbass” figures out that some duct tape on one of the handles will enable him
to move products through the machine a little bit faster.
All fine and dandy until “smart” operator gets his hand squashed.
Far too many accidents get booked on the “human error” account.
Edit: Almost forgot. A bus driver tried to kill me and my two kids one week ago.
Sweden has some roads which alternate between 2+1 and 1+2 lanes. The total width of the road is three lanes and each direction gets 2 or 1 lane. The directions are separated by a wire fence. The benefit is that there is only a 2-3 km wait before you get 2 lanes again and can overtake safely. The drawback is that dumbasses will take risks and cause accidents by trying to squeeze past one more vehicle before the 2 lanes merge into one again.
I had passed a bus, he was keeping the speed limit and I was slightly above and glided past him when we had 2 lanes. The next time we had two lanes the traffic ahead was going slightly slower, some heavy truck or something, so the bus caught up with traffic and tried to get past as many as possible, when his front wheel had passed mine he started to move into my lane, seemingly totally oblivious of the fact that he had been passing vehicles and that some of them where probably still at his right side. I braked hard and with a few inches to spare I managed to get out of it.
I would SO have loved to follow him to his next stop and beat the crap out of him but alas I didn’t have the time.
Would it have been an “accident” if he had managed to squeeze me against the barrier? Possibly causing a pile up when other cars slammed into me from behind?
And if ATC instructed the pilots of both aircraft to occupy the same space and given that neither aircraft could see the other because the the P 63 was coming from behind the B 17 in a bank with his low wings obscuring his view is he still a dumbass ?
1 Like
yes i see your point but there aren’t many of these machines left to make mistakes in.
1 Like
If that turns out to be the case I will rescind my words.
I strongly doubt that ATC was involved in this fast moving circus, there just isn’t any chance in a “very hot place” that any human ATC could keep up with so many planes swirling about in such limited airspace.
1 Like