BBMF Lancaster – Period uniforms

Here are the “crew” from RIAT not a great photo and the background ruins the effect but you get the idea.

I knew I had it somewhere…

This photo was taken at RIAT 03, during the Century of Flight display.

PA474 was static, but they had a group of reinactors board PA474 – most effective it looked. I’ve only the one shot, but they were milling about the entry door, Dambusters style, for a while.

Cheers!

Guys, I think you’re being a bit harsh with the poor chap!

The Swiss B-25 crew all wore period uniforms at Legends and this generated a great deal of enthusiasm in the crowd – I dont think the poor lad was criticising or suggesting a compromise in safety – just tossing his hat in the ring!

All the best

TT

Thankyou TT,

After following the incredible enthusiasm for the “How low can you go” thread, with hardly a murmour regarding safety I may add, over the past few weeks I never thought suggesting wearing period flying gear would have received such a negative hearing.

Safety is after all, about risk management, not risk avoidance.

Anyway, time to put this failed thread to bed……… before I get expelled :p

PS: anyone got a scan of the picture hanging in Dundee flying club of the Hunter at about 10′ flying very close to the hanger over the apron with an officer in the foreground? :diablo:

Guys, I think you’re being a bit harsh with the poor chap!

The Swiss B-25 crew all wore period uniforms at Legends and this generated a great deal of enthusiasm in the crowd – I dont think the poor lad was criticising or suggesting a compromise in safety – just tossing his hat in the ring!

All the best

TT

Murphy’s law would surely dictate that the day they didn’t don their bonedomes and Nomex flying suits would be the day (god forbid) that they needed them…

Andy – as various people have pointed out it’s your head and ultimately how you protect it is your choice . A balance of risk is taken in everything – examine for instance the airliner hours flown V’s number of accidents and you should come out with a tiny percentage . That is a balance also based on the fact that airliners have escape systems and airliner cabins are to some degree quite benign.
Compare that to the number of classic aircraft and warbirds lost and the figures
are quite grim. The point is that one flight might seem to be a comparitively small risk
to take but we cannot be sure that it’s not the occasion when the helmet protection is needed. Mod crews wear them because they have been proven to protect . Taking a risk for the purposes of supposed authenticity just isn’t worth it.

‘All the representative equipment’ – load a suitable bomb load -arm the guns strip out any equipment such as GPS which isn’t representative – repaint in matt paint where would you like to stop?

Who is the ‘we’ when you say ‘we’ don’t wear head protection as a rule? I have seen plenty of Moth pilots wearing helmets -plenty of warbird pilots wearing helmets – what value you put on your brain is entirely down to your own judgement.

An analysis of how many people have been A) protected by helmets or B) Not protected by wearing a helmet in many walks of life is going to be quite strong in the
‘B’ department. The FAA ran a successful safety campaign in the late 1940’s showing
a number of carrier accidents and the crews getting out alive having worn head protection . I have a feeling your views are somewhat bucking the trend.

Please note the “as a one off” part of the original ‘suggestion’ offered David.

I don’t think there was anything contained in the original comment either suggesting arming guns, loading bombs, removal of non-period equipment, removing obvious safety equipment or re-painting in a matt finish……… please allow me to pick up and pass your rattle back into your pram :p

“the we don’t” refered mostly to the larger part of the general aviation community pilots, who as far as I can see don’t in large numbers wear protective headgear. There are obvious merits in the regular wearing of helmets in certain aeroplanes performing certain types of function. Protective headgear aboard airliners may have saved a few lives over the years, even in supermarkets on Christmas eve, but its not going to happen. Getting away from the point again.

Please forgive me for making such a ridiculous and wholey unsafe suggestion that it would be nice to see the BBMF climb aboard PA474 and perform a flypast in period flying gear. Maybe she should be grounded if its that dangerous.

I will continue to stand in the corner facing the corner with my pointed (safety) hat on until further notice…..

And to be fair, AndyG’s original point was about period gear and crew bus, not wearing helmets or not.

I think the reason why not, and I one I agree with, is the fact that PA474 and its crew are part of Today’s RAF. They aren’t ‘pretending’ or acting, they are a current facet of a modern air force, with the role of commemorating the brave crews and the aircraft of W.W.II. The BBMF are not aiming at an authentic W.W.II look, but acting as a serving unit with the job of commemoration.

Cheers

We’ve had the “safety” debate before. There is no debate! Safety first..

Seeing these aircraft in the air is historical enough for me. What equipment/uniform/protection the crews wear is irrelevant.

It might not look right for the purists but they are not flying in them. Safety of the crew comes first everytime.

BP.

I broke my bonedome in a forced landing just after Christmas. I wouldn’t be typing this if I hadn’t been wearing it. It was insured and has been replaced.

OK, cost may be a consideration for some people. But I don’t begrudge a penny of the original cost, as it saved my life!

BBMF wore original leather head gear until they were influenced by Spencer Flack’s accident in the Sea Fury. The only reason he survived, when the canopy would not open, was that he smashed the canopy with his bone dome protected head!

They had reenactors board PA474 at the RIAT Century of flight in 2003 – in the static.

As serving RAF crews, I’m quite happy for them to wear bonedomes, and the smart BBMF gear.

The concept of “you don’t need a bonedome’ it’s safe enough” is one that I don’t think anyone can really support for long. If you want, fly with or without whatever equipment you wish. Let others make their own judgements or follow the guidance of their operators.

Interesting thoughts.

Yes I know who flys it….BTW

We don’t wear head protection in Cessna’s, Chipmunks, Moths, RV’s or privately operated Warbirds as a rule. Come on, its hardly a major safety issue on a one off basis.

An analysis of how many avgas powered fatal air accidents would have been survivable with a helmet worn would have to be conducted to demonstrate your point of safety.

We could always not fly, thats safe isn’t it?

Though, getting away from the point abit.

Yes we could always go to East Kirby, but what is so wrong about seeing a Lancaster take to the air with all the representative equipment,including the correct clothing on board?

Who is this “we” dont wear head protection, i do and have done since one saved my life in a Tiger Moth! i wear one in a Moth, in a Chipmunk, in a Stearman, in a Harvard, in fact in anything i fly. And so do many if not most of my friends who fly that type of aircraft. many time’s i have been chastised by people who tell me “it dosent look right!” i dont care, its my head and its the only one im gona get!! i have also lost two friends in accidents who would probably still be here if they had been wearing one!

‘All the representative equipment’ – load a suitable bomb load -arm the guns strip out any equipment such as GPS which isn’t representative – repaint in matt paint where would you like to stop?

Who is the ‘we’ when you say ‘we’ don’t wear head protection as a rule? I have seen plenty of Moth pilots wearing helmets -plenty of warbird pilots wearing helmets – what value you put on your brain is entirely down to your own judgement.

An analysis of how many people have been A) protected by helmets or B) Not protected by wearing a helmet in many walks of life is going to be quite strong in the
‘B’ department. The FAA ran a successful safety campaign in the late 1940’s showing
a number of carrier accidents and the crews getting out alive having worn head protection . I have a feeling your views are somewhat bucking the trend.

The BBMF is maintained by and flown by current RAF personnel. I don’t see any need for the crews to actually try and represent the guys that flew these machines .
The overriding need is always for safety and why take unnecessary risks for the sake
of apearing to be soemthing they are not i.e a wartime crew.
As for reinactors -I prefer the aircraft to star! I always feel that they represent
a somewhat manicured image .

Interesting thoughts.

Yes I know who flys it….BTW

We don’t wear head protection in Cessna’s, Chipmunks, Moths, RV’s or privately operated Warbirds as a rule. Come on, its hardly a major safety issue on a one off basis.

An analysis of how many avgas powered fatal air accidents would have been survivable with a helmet worn would have to be conducted to demonstrate your point of safety.

We could always not fly, thats safe isn’t it?

Though, getting away from the point abit.

Yes we could always go to East Kirby, but what is so wrong about seeing a Lancaster take to the air with all the representative equipment,including the correct clothing on board?

East Kirby is your best bet, they have an original Ford WOT Crew Coach for the job as well

The BBMF is maintained by and flown by current RAF personnel. I don’t see any need for the crews to actually try and represent the guys that flew these machines .
The overriding need is always for safety and why take unnecessary risks for the sake
of apearing to be soemthing they are not i.e a wartime crew.
As for reinactors -I prefer the aircraft to star! I always feel that they represent
a somewhat manicured image .

Sounds more like an idea for East Kirkby to me.

Moggy