CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tor lives]

fly the buggers!

Agreed....otherwise they are nothing more than glorified 1:1 models sitting in a dusty ol hanger or museum.
TOR

[Adam the Akrodude]

...and another demonstration why old aircraft shouldn't be flying.

What do you consider an old aircraft Brad? Is it from when built or airframe & engine time in service? What does "old" mean?

As long as a aeroplane has plenty of airframe & engine time left before a overhaul/rebuild is needed, isn't the last type in existence (i.e others in storage or in museums) what's the issue? I do agree that there needs to be strict regulation with operation of high performance ex-military aircraft that are very maintenance intensive. The Lightning crash in SA is a example of what I'm saying. Many Lightnings were lost to engine fire issues in service with the RAF - a very complex and very maintenance hungry aeroplane. Saying this though, of course there are organisations that can very successfully maintain and operate very complex and very maintenance hungry very high performance aircraft like the Collings Foundation. It can be done but requires the infrastructure, the experience and a shit load of money. Look how many operators of high performance ex-military prop and fast jets there are in USA - are they dropping out of the sky all the time? Of course there is risk, but as long as the risk is managed properly with sufficient maintenance and currency on type, what is the issue?

To point blank say old aircraft shouldn't be flying is just wrong Brad.

[BradG]

You know what I meant by old aircraft, I don't think I need to write 4 paragraphs explaining that. As I said Adam, the aircraft might be well maintained, but pilot experience is certainly not what it use to be when those aircraft were in service. Look in Aus, just in recent times we've had an F4U seriously damaged, a Yak seriously damaged and a Mallard lost with fatalities. How many more vintage aircraft will be lost in the next 20 years I wonder? Will the so called enthusiasts care then? Probably not.

[BradG]

fly the buggers!

Agreed....otherwise they are nothing more than glorified 1:1 models sitting in a dusty ol hanger or museum.
TOR

That's what CBO's and dusters are for.

[tor lives]

fly the buggers!

Agreed....otherwise they are nothing more than glorified 1:1 models sitting in a dusty ol hanger or museum.
TOR

That's what CBO's and dusters are for.

And aeroplanes are for flying
TOR

[Cap'n Wannabe]

You know about pilot experience, Brad? Flying's flying for the most part. Sure, some aircraft have their idiosyncrasies, but the all work exactly the same. How often *should* a pilot fly a particular aircraft to keep you happy? Once a day? A week? A month? You know, I took a 12 year break from flying. When I got back into the cockpit again, I was good to go in 1 hour. And I wasn't particularly experienced at the time.

Why did the F4U come a cropper? Certainly not the pilot's fault there...things are gonna break occasionally on aircraft - just ask TOR about his favourite, the A380...
And the Mallard? There's a lot more to that accident than simply pilot error. A lot more. In fact, in the vast majority of crashes where pilot error is a factor, it's generally the last hole in the swiss cheese to line up..

[Adam the Akrodude]

You know what I meant by old aircraft, I don't think I need to write 4 paragraphs explaining that. As I said Adam, the aircraft might be well maintained, but pilot experience is certainly not what it use to be when those aircraft were in service. Look in Aus, just in recent times we've had an F4U seriously damaged, a Yak seriously damaged and a Mallard lost with fatalities. How many more vintage aircraft will be lost in the next 20 years I wonder? Will the so called enthusiasts care then? Probably not.

Can the F4U really be considered old given it was extensively rebuild and essentially zero timed? It will be flying again soon enough anyway. So many "vintage" warbirds are not vintage at all, but built up from the data plate up. There are plenty of warbirds flying that have been rebuild after being wrecked in a accident. The Yak at Tyabb certainly isn't old at all. Mallard crash, well that was pilot error. Should we stop flying every type after some pilot screws up - no, or they'd be no flying anywhere. Flying involves some risk and it's how that risk is managed that is the important thing.

Operating aircraft of a certain age I think is a completely different discussion to high performance aircraft operation and currency/experience of the pilot. I do agree that extremely rare aircraft and of historic importance should not be flown. Just to suggest that "old aircraft" should not be flown is WAY too a simplistic statement.

[BradG]

You know about pilot experience, Brad? Flying's flying for the most part. Sure, some aircraft have their idiosyncrasies, but the all work exactly the same. How often *should* a pilot fly a particular aircraft to keep you happy? Once a day? A week? A month? You know, I took a 12 year break from flying. When I got back into the cockpit again, I was good to go in 1 hour. And I wasn't particularly experienced at the time.

Why did the F4U come a cropper? Certainly not the pilot's fault there...things are gonna break occasionally on aircraft - just ask TOR about his favourite, the A380...
And the Mallard? There's a lot more to that accident than simply pilot error. A lot more. In fact, in the vast majority of crashes where pilot error is a factor, it's generally the last hole in the swiss cheese to line up..

The more hours people have, the better. Lack of experience is dangerous. The F4U was pilot error, he forgot to put the wheels down.

Flying is flying is it? Hmm, well why don't you see if you can get yourself in the seat of a Mustang or Spitfire out here. I wonder if their owners will look at your logbook and say "ah, flying is flying" and let you take their warbird up.

[BradG]

You know what I meant by old aircraft, I don't think I need to write 4 paragraphs explaining that. As I said Adam, the aircraft might be well maintained, but pilot experience is certainly not what it use to be when those aircraft were in service. Look in Aus, just in recent times we've had an F4U seriously damaged, a Yak seriously damaged and a Mallard lost with fatalities. How many more vintage aircraft will be lost in the next 20 years I wonder? Will the so called enthusiasts care then? Probably not.

Can the F4U really be considered old given it was extensively rebuild and essentially zero timed? It will be flying again soon enough anyway. So many "vintage" warbirds are not vintage at all, but built up from the data plate up. There are plenty of warbirds flying that have been rebuild after being wrecked in a accident. The Yak at Tyabb certainly isn't old at all. Mallard crash, well that was pilot error. Should we stop flying every type after some pilot screws up - no, or they'd be no flying anywhere. Flying involves some risk and it's how that risk is managed that is the important thing.

Operating aircraft of a certain age I think is a completely different discussion to high performance aircraft operation and currency/experience of the pilot. I do agree that extremely rare aircraft and of historic importance should not be flown. Just to suggest that "old aircraft" should not be flown is WAY too a simplistic statement.

..and that's why I mention pilot experience. You can have that zero timed air frame, but realistically, how often will you fly it? There's going to be a difference between taking up your Cessna and taking up your Corsair.

[Adam the Akrodude]

You know what I meant by old aircraft, I don't think I need to write 4 paragraphs explaining that. As I said Adam, the aircraft might be well maintained, but pilot experience is certainly not what it use to be when those aircraft were in service. Look in Aus, just in recent times we've had an F4U seriously damaged, a Yak seriously damaged and a Mallard lost with fatalities. How many more vintage aircraft will be lost in the next 20 years I wonder? Will the so called enthusiasts care then? Probably not.

Can the F4U really be considered old given it was extensively rebuild and essentially zero timed? It will be flying again soon enough anyway. So many "vintage" warbirds are not vintage at all, but built up from the data plate up. There are plenty of warbirds flying that have been rebuild after being wrecked in a accident. The Yak at Tyabb certainly isn't old at all. Mallard crash, well that was pilot error. Should we stop flying every type after some pilot screws up - no, or they'd be no flying anywhere. Flying involves some risk and it's how that risk is managed that is the important thing.

Operating aircraft of a certain age I think is a completely different discussion to high performance aircraft operation and currency/experience of the pilot. I do agree that extremely rare aircraft and of historic importance should not be flown. Just to suggest that "old aircraft" should not be flown is WAY too a simplistic statement.

..and that's why I mention pilot experience. You can have that zero timed air frame, but realistically, how often will you fly it? There's going to be a difference between taking up your Cessna and taking up your Corsair.

That's why I mentioned risk management - operating the aeroplane within one's experience and capability - this is valid for any type of aircraft operation - be it a Cessna or a Corsair. There are plenty of people with heaps of currency on type in say a Cessna that have come unsuck and died. How can anyone pre-judge the level and currency of any pilot of any aeroplane? I'm still not getting what you are suggesting - should no high performance aircraft be flown by anyone?