Fatal accidents – an owners view

A big issue however with some of the recent crashes mentioned is that they occurred at an airshow where thousands witnessed it, and millions more saw it on the TV news, unlike the crashes mentioned above. These airshow crashes are very traumatic for everyone involved, from the familes, to the owners to the public who witnessed them. I’m halfway round the world but I still get a chill thinking about the Firefly crash, the RR Spitfire crash and even Mark Hanna’s fatal crash, among others.

Seconded. I was at Red Wing earlier this year, and not a day goes by where I don’t think about the Red Tail failing to return to the field.

In the end, all anyone has to go by on this topic is their personal feelings. If I were involved in some sort of accident, I would like to think the machine would be rebuild if possible, and if not that salvageable parts would be used to keep others operational.

Many of the warbirds flying today have killed people. You know those little black cross symbols by the canopy. But thats great, it even makes the airframe worth more…

Its a funny old world.

Continuing the Historic car parallel, a few years ago quite a famous record-breaking car was exhumed from Pendine sands in Wales. I do not know the type, but it was called ‘Babs’ . There had been a fatal crash, and I think the driver was killed by the drive-chain.

It was buried for over 30 years, before being recovered and rebuilt. The fact that it can still be seen, does more to keep alive the memory of the driver than any plaque or reference book, once the trauma of his passing has faded.

When these sad events occur, perhaps it is best if the remains are quietly put into storage, and a decision postponed, and wounds allowed to heal.

I must say that I do agree with HP on this. The idea of scrapping the remains of airframes that have had fatalities connected with them seems an extension of the Princess Diana-hysteria to me.

There are probably a number of combat veteran machines that reside in museums that have had crew die in them – I can’t think of any of hand but I am sure there must be. But we wouldn’t consider scrapping them – would we?

Clearly we as a community need to be respectful to the crews that have lost their lives, and the families, but I am not convinced that consigning the bits to the furnaces is the correct way to go about this.

Well said Hairyplane,i agree 100%.
As much as i have sympathy for the victims families & assuming the victims themselves never said one way or another that they would want the plane scrapped i can’t see scrapping as being justified.
Also if the aircrews do NOT own the aircraft then they are priviledged to be flying these rare aircraft and should be grateful enough to recognise that other people should have the same opportunities if the airframes are re-buildable.

Problem is the same with Historic Racing Cars.Usually they are rebuilt after acccident .
There was years ago a very rare Aston Marting buried in Germany.Many years later, the widow and/or the heirs agreed to sell the wreck which was rebuilt.

One important historical vehicle will remain

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Well said hairyplane.

I wouldnt actually want the firefly rebuilt after the fatal accident because of the families wishes. However if the RNHF have any sense at all they will strip out any savageable parts that are servicable so they can have another go should an airframe become available or to trade for parts for other projects.

just my opinion but then why do we go on building these aircraft to fly when the are getting old and the risk can become greater. Dont get me wrong as for me the more aircaft in the air the better but surely this raises the Static / flyable debate yet again.

What are your views.

Mark12, you make a good point about the insurance angle. But in the case of the RNHF, would their aircraft be insured? I don’t think the military insure their aircraft in the regular way a civilian owner would. Or am I incorrect?

DaveH

I am sure the UK military do not insure their historic aircraft hulls. I was taking a more general view of the UK Warbird movement.

Whereas in the UK it is I believe usual practice to comprehensively insure the hull of a civil operated historic Warbird, in the US this is far less common. There the concerns, post fatal crashes, are are more focused on litigation over product liability and blame.

Mark

If we burn al the planes who have had a fatal crash, there wouldn’t be much warbirds around. Some of the planes who fly today might have had a accident while they where in service.

J.V.

Indeed this is true. The P40K restored by the Alpine Fighter Collection still had the remains of the pilot in it when recovered from the Aelutian Islands. The lovely restoration featured here this week of the Halifax in Canada is another example – no-one has shown shock that a plane in which six men lost their lives is being rebuilt. I think this is because of the rarity factor and the need to preserve our heritage.

A big issue however with some of the recent crashes mentioned is that they occurred at an airshow where thousands witnessed it, and millions more saw it on the TV news, unlike the crashes mentioned above. These airshow crashes are very traumatic for everyone involved, from the familes, to the owners to the public who witnessed them. I’m halfway round the world but I still get a chill thinking about the Firefly crash, the RR Spitfire crash and even Mark Hanna’s fatal crash, among others.

Sure, such an event is shocking to all, but I don’t think that it is a good idea to hastily dispose of the wreckage, if it can later be rebuilt or incorporated into a restoration. As I said, warbirds aircraft are an important part of our heritage and serve as ‘living’ history. If they can be rebuilt or used after a crash, I say please do. One it is destroyed, it’s gone forever.

Mark12, you make a good point about the insurance angle. But in the case of the RNHF, would their aircraft be insured? I don’t think the military insure their aircraft in the regular way a civilian owner would. Or am I incorrect?

Well said Hairyplane. I agree 100%. This is something that has to be said.

Now, where is the queue for the Falcon? 😉 😀

If anybody else flies my aircraft – and many do (pilots please form an orderly queue)
Hairyplane

Nobody could be more orderly than me sir!

Moggy
Orderly to the gentry.

Great post too.

The case for PV202

When Spitfire PV202 crashed in April 2000, the instant ‘word on the street’ was that the aircraft remains were to be disposed of.

I wrote a reasoned letter to a previous owner, who still I believe had a financial interest, suggesting donation to a worthy museum for a static rebuild to a single seater would be a more fitting memorial to the two pilots.

I am more than delighted that the eventual outcome will see the aircraft flying once again.

Mark

Interesting thread – The point that comes home to me is the notion that private owners should be able to do what they like with something , it’s their
decision whereas the Swordfish Trust and indeed the RN seem to be under some critism for their choice to scrap the Firefly.
Simply put a lot of this comes down to rarity and value. In the 1950’s and 60s if a ‘warbird’ crashed it was simply smelted. With the engineering knowledge and ability of various rebuilders nowadays the amount of wreckage remaining is largely irrelevant to the process.
As for the notion that if you going to die you might as well be doing something you enjoy ! Well having dealt with someone who was badly burnt in an acident I can assure you that the way to go simply isn’t fireballing in an aircraft or indeed impacting earth at great speed.
Forget all notions of your glorious last moments being in an aeroplane
plummeting to earth – the way to go is sitting outside the hangar on a beautiful summer day with a glass of wine in your hand and the sight of some vintage aeroplanes next to you and gently just pass away!

This is the first I have heard that the airframe is to be smelted. That is something I am not happy to hear. I still believe that airframe should not fly again, but the salvageable parts should go to other projects. Don’t look for logic in my viewpoint there as it is obviously an emotive subject for me.