Dear readers,

I have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes regarding the pathetic EC785/2004, not least letting our government know what a weak of load puppets they really are.

I would like to share just one exchange with you (more if you want) with one such servant.

————–
Answer to Ms Grace Hansford: UK Department of Transport.

I wish to make clear that the comments I make in my letter are purely my own, and as such are not precipitated by the owners and operator of SallyB, and are therefore not part of their own policy handling in this matter.

The operator of SallyB has been keeping friends of SallyB up to date with developments at: http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/news_frameset.php
—————

To: Ms Grace Hansford

Dept of Transport

Zone 1/28

76 Marsham Street

London. SW1P 4DR

Subject: EC Regulation 785/2004 as relating to a B-17 called SallyB

Your Ref : 02/019542/05

Date: Sunday, 23 October 2005

Dear Ms Hansford,

Thank you for your reply to my letter which was dated the 18th Sep 2005 to Karen Buck, with yours of the 19th OCT 2005.

A month to reply, and in politics, is a long, long time. Did it take that long in the ODPM/HSSD to answer letters?

Your second paragraph echoes of familiar EC incompetence in that you mysteriously refer to the template of EC785 by mentioning, “air passengers and consignors of baggage and mail” which of course has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the B-17 called SallyB.

You partially acknowledge the facts with a passing mention that, “Sally B does not carry passengers” – good point! Nor does it carry baggage, nor does it carry mail, nor does it operate to the Rules and Regulations required of a commercial jet airliner, 24/7.

I am not unfamiliar with the differences between the B-17 SallyB and a commercial airliner, having spent 38 years aviating, and well over 20,000 flying hours sharpening such knowledge (years of it in Command of BA’s B737’s) so reminding me that I am, “not comparing like for like” is patronising in the extreme: but in this particular case your pronouncement is rather wonderful, for you fall into the same trap as those in the EC who made the original mistake formulating EC785/2004, and the sound of a shooting yourself in the foot can be heard from here.

It certainly is NOT “like for like”. That is the whole point!

So why has the EC thrown a one size third-party insurance blanket over airliners and this historic bomber? In a few words Grace – a great big silly mistake, that’s why.

You say the Regulation applies to all Member States, so why did the French government turn a blind eye to the Regulation?
I have it on good authority that, “a spokesman for the company said the French government had not enforced the rule and Pink Lady was flying as normal.”

I know some more detail, but I will leave you to do the homework on the Pink Lady.

You say SallyB flights for flying displays and commemorative events involve, “significant third party risks” – if that were remotely true then I would have but few qualms about SallyB being inflicted with the same punitive insurance premiums AIRLINERS of the same weight category have to pay these days.

I strongly suggest even airliners hardly offer “significant third party risks”.

MRSA deaths running at 5,000/year in the UK present a significant third party risk. There are not that many deaths world-wide on airliners over the last 10 years, so your significant risk theory for SallyB is a load of poppy-**** I’m afraid Grace.

It will surprise you to know (you fail to mention it in your argument) that in the USA
B-17’s operators offer flights to passengers for a fee of $395.
Thus after suffering 9/11 the American government still has not recognised this, “significant third party risk” that you elude to! What is the matter with them? Passenger flights on B-17’s! Gosh.

Look here and learn more Grace: https://secure.eaa.org/B17/securejoin_B17.html

You have the temerity to bring the age of this WW2 bomber into the equation; this has absolutely NOTHING to do with EC785/2004.

Don’t you know the makers of the regulation did NOT factor the age of the airframe into the new insurance scheme? I am afraid your lack of knowledge of the tapestry of this ridiculous EU Regulation is showing through Grace.

If age be the only difficulty the government has in this matter, then let it be no difficulty at all, for it is not taken into account for insurance purposes by the one-size-fits-all by weight alone Regulation EC785/2004.

Given the age of Concorde when she was around, did that figure in third-party insurance premiums?
There are aircraft certified to fly that are 65 years old (DC-3) and there are B747–2/3’s flying that are 27 years old.

You might latterly succumb to agree to the fact that the cowardly terrorists who committed the atrocities of 9/11 did not take one blind bit of notice about the AGE of the airframes.

Your assertion that it is the “weight of the aircraft” that is the master issue, is but another echo of the EC mantra, and is an appalling simplistic distillation of aviation insurance risk.

The one and only reason the makers of EC785/2004 made WEIGHT the only factor was for simplicity in solving the Kinetic Energy equation in a crash scenario. To be crude, they thought the bigger the ‘plane the bigger the hole – but even that does not hold true. Trust me, I was a Flight Safety Officer in both the military and my civilian life (CAA Safety Instructor as well) for years.

There are other factors that determine survivability and damage, over and above the MTOW of a particular aircraft. It could crash 3 minutes after take-off or 10 hours and 3 minutes (greatly reduced weight) after take-off; MTOW is a misnomer.

I therefore will not agree with your statement, “that an aircraft of this size could cause considerable damage in an accident” for several obvious and logical reasons.

1. It all depends where the “accident” happened.
If the SallyB made a controlled wheels-up landing on the runway at Manston, the only damage would be to the underbelly of the aircraft and props, with minor scoring of the runway. Nobody need even get hurt, and third-party claims would not be difficult to count.

2. If the SallyB was hijacked and somehow terrorists happened to fly it into the Empire State Building, it could be argued it would suffer roughly the same fate as that of an Army B-25 which flew into the 79th floor on the building on the 28th July 1945 and only 14 died.
So where and how an aircraft crashes is important in trying to envisage what sort of “considerable damage” it may have caused to itself and other property.

May remind you of the Airbus that was recently involved in an “accident” in the USA when it’s nose-gear was locked down, but canted at 90 degrees to the aircraft’s longitudinal axis. Nobody was hurt, and only minor damage to the runway ensued. Weight had little to do with it.

The very sad catastrophe of the British Airtours B737-236 on the runway at Manchester on the 22 Aug 1985 where 55 people lost their life, had nothing to do with aircraft weight, yet considerable damage (‘write-off’) was caused, not least the devastating loss of life.

The “weight of the aircraft” has a minor part to play in most “accidents” and this spurious EC regulation, and your overt endorsements, do not help improve nor protect the safety of people on the ground nor their buildings or property and it is asinine to think so.

You should know that the airline you fly with, and where, has far more relevance with having an accident than the mere age of the aircraft. The fatal crash today, 20 miles North of Lagos of a B737-200 illustrates the point. The African continent has never been the safest area of the world to fly as a passenger.

It is unworthy of the Department of Transport to offer up the age of an aircraft as a major factor in support of an EU Regulation which deals with the MTOW as the only determinant for insurance purposes.

That is what this argument is about, and the fact SallyB is not a commercial airliner. Where is this level playing field quoted by the EU/EC?

Rather than blindly agreeing with everything that Brussels dreams up and forces upon us, I suggest it would be more patriotic, and in the best interests of the British people, and more particularly our brave American cousins who died for us whilst flying B-17’s from our bases, that we formulate our own third-party insurance risks as applicable and proportionate to the limited sort of flying SallyB does; which in the long run will encapsulate other vintage aircraft as a by-product.

You say, “we must not forget the main reason for the Regulation which is, after all, to protect people and property on the ground following an accident”.

If I may say so Grace, that is just not true.
Protecting people and property comes way before any crash or payment of any insurance premium.

The MAIN reason this Regulation was formulated was from the precipitous outflow of the American litigation culture that followed 9/11 and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the protecting people and property.
It was ALL to do with governments relinquishing their responsibility in combating terrorism. Had the terrorists been apprehended before they boarded, the world and the EU would never had invented these new exorbitant insurance rates covering all types by mere MTOW(Mass) alone.

Let me quote from this source. http://www.csoonline.com/read/050104/flashpoint.html

the court also made a revolutionary declaration with respect to foreseeability. The court stated that, typically, a criminal act (such as terrorism or hacking) severs the liability of the defendant, but that doctrine has no application when the terrorism or hacking is reasonably foreseeable. The court went on to note that the danger of a plane crashing if unauthorized individuals invaded the cockpit was a risk that the defendant plane manufacturer should reasonably have foreseen—indicating that terrorist acts are indeed foreseeable.
————————————

It may be reasonably foreseeable that a large commercial airliner might be highjacked and flown into a major building, but it just cannot be reasonably foreseeable that SallyB would be highjacked for the same purpose – that is what the makers of EC785/2004 have assumed, and it is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong of them and totally improper use of unelected political power.

Let me remind you what your own Department of Transport uses to measure public safety risks near an airport in the UK.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_508135.hcsp

6.3.4 In order to define risk contours, analysis is based on forecast numbers and types of aircraft movements 15 years ahead. The risk contours will be remodelled about every seven years. They will also be remodelled if a significant expansion of an airport is approved which has not already been assumed in the modelled risk contours.

6.3.5 Public Safety Zones correspond closely to the areas within which the modelled individual risk of death per year by aircraft accident exceeds 1 in 100,000. Individual risk near an airport is calculated by reference to three components:

· the annual probability that a crash will occur near a given airport (ie the product of aircraft crash rates and the number of movements);

· the theoretical distribution of these crashes; and

· the theoretical size of the crash area and the likelihood of fatal injuries within this area.

This analysis takes account of evidence drawn from historical data that different types of aircraft have different crash rates, as well as other factors
——————————————————————

So how many B-17’s fly in/out of Heathrow every day do you know about Grace?

Whilst this is an insight of the risk equation around a UK airport, some imagination is required to foresee a highjack event away from the same airport.

Using your analogy of, “an aircraft of this size could cause considerable damage” one cannot help but notice that a B-17 has never been highjacked anywhere in the world, nor been flown into a building.

Can you explain how that fact equates to a, “significant third party risk” please?

The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committees Report Aviation Safety, highlighted a few concerns, not least interference from across the English Channel here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_503567.hcsp

European institutional arrangements

(k) We view both the existing Joint Aviation Authorities and the proposed European Aviation Safety authority with some concern. The United Kingdoms aviation industry has a proud safety record and very high standards of regulation: both have at least the potential to be undermined by membership of these organisations. Accordingly we recommend that the Government should clarify whether the European Aviation Safety Authority would have legal power to impose the standards it proposes, and the Government should seek an undertaking before joining the Authority that the safety standards of the United Kingdom will not be adversely affected (paragraph 35).
————————————————————————–

Raising third-party insurance premiums in the UK years after 9/11 does not diminish the risk of accidents one little bit, does it Grace?
In the same way as increasing the cost of cigarettes does not put smokers off their disgusting habit; just more money into the government’s tax coffers.

Using an aircraft’s MTOW as the core identifier for insurance purposes is just ridiculous, but highly convenient and easy for the government/EU as a stealth tax (IPT). £1BILLION/year is creamed off UK air passengers!

The assertions in your letter of the 19th Oct 2005 remind me of what Mr Richard Norton-Taylor said before a Select Committee, in as much as your department is but the media mirror of the EU HQ in Brussels, and just re-transmits the dictatorial orders that are to be followed, come what may.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/347-vi/0051006.htm

Memorandum submitted by Mr Richard Norton-Taylor, Security Affairs Editor of The Guardian
Excerpt:
I also find disturbing Mr Campbell’s suggestion that “after Iraq and Kosovo, the media needs to reflect whether it has not provided a kind of template to dictatorial regimes in how to use the Western media to their own advantage”. The suggestion that we should somehow tailor our reporting to benefit the government’s propaganda interests is not only wrong in principle, it will also be counter-productive and weaken our credibility with readers or viewers.

The one note of optimism is that the lengthy process to amend EC875/2004 has begun, and I would hope you and your department get behind those trying to change this unfair, and unreasonable legislation rather than offer quaint excuses for its existence.

Let us never forget we owe our freedom and a lot more besides to those young American’s who flew B-17’s from our airfields during WW2, and it should not be the Department of Transport’s position to sit back and do precious little, as I and many others see it, to keep the B-17 SallyB flying under appropriate and proportional third-party insurance cover.

I would say it is your DUTY to get the Regulation changed.

I would like to see some letters from your department, duty bound, going to the EC to lubricate the machinery of this particular political engine, and ask that EC785/2004 be amended ASAP in favour of this B-17 Official Flying Memorial SallyB, in the light of the arguments you are now more accustomed with.

Yours sincerely,

Captain XX XXXXXX XXX