While everybody is consumed with the age of the planes; keep in mind there have been spectacular crashes with modern jets and their advanced avionics.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/this-f- ... net-crash/

Yes, this was almost 35 years ago; the F/A 18 Hornet was less than a decade old and almost two decades away from completely supplanting the F-14 Tomcat. While flight control systems are leaps now vs. then, this was a state of the art plane.

There's actually two Wikipedia pages for airshow incidents; this is the 21st century one..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... st_century

In short order, we've had "adverse" problems with an old locomotive (had nothing to do with its age); old planes (maybe had something to do with its age) and comedian Jay Leno has third degree burns from and old car (age, or something else).

Mechanical power can go against us. We take a risk every time we turn a wheel. The old adage railroad rules were written in blood tells us we often are blind to those perils until they experience them.

Because they were treating them like toys.

Not that they were flying, but they were being used to create a spectacle.

All sorts of poor decisions (and negative outcomes) comes from that type of mindset.

Some years ago, I was headed to work and came to an intersection, where the vehicle in front of me put on the left turn indicator and began to turn, applying the brakes in a somewhat abrupt manner I struck the vehicle. When the local police arrived; the officer issued me a citation for "careless driving". Now while the collision was my fault as all rear-end collisions are the fault of the colliding operator, I disagreed with the charge and availed myself of the right to due process.

As it turns out, Pennsylvania has a principle in case law (routinely ignored by the constabulary, knowing few people are aware of it and fewer will contest it) that the "mere occurrence" of an accident does not, absent other evidence (witness testimony, the panicked application of brakes resulting in skid marks, air bag deployment, etc) support the issuance of a moving violation. I don't lack for contentiousness and prevailed.

The same principle applies here. There is absolutely no evidence that the planes were being treated "like toys" (which would be not just careless, but reckless, not just without proper regard for safe operation, but willful disregard). As for the assertion of being used to produce a "spectacle"; since the definition of spectacle is "a visually striking performance or display", it is both applicable and meaningless; because you imply that a spectacle is inherently unsafe. Every steam locomotive operating is a "spectacle"; but the overwhelming number of steam operations are safe.

The simple fact is that you have no basis to libel the deceased. Having attended the World War II weekend at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum for many years; and spoken to the pilots and crews and seen the great care and affection put into the proper maintenance and operation of these aircraft, I think this unlikely. The pilots aren't some guy off the street with a VFR single engine license and a minimum number of hours; they experienced and tested-often military or commercial pilots-the latter was the case with the P-63 pilot.

Instead of the unhinged, rash reaction of a reflexively indignant viscera; here's the preliminary thoughts of a former USAF Thunderbirds commander; now at the Air Safety Institute, using his knowledge and experience to consider the likely and unlikely causes of the crash. Nowhere in this video does he even mention the willful disregard for safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumZ1jc74f4

People make mistakes. Things don't always go to plan. You might want have a little compassion and understanding, whatever the cause, they paid with their lives. One of the men killed was a new grandfather; a child will grow up without his love, advice and counsel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumZ1jc74f4

The deceased were not treating their machines as toys. The Air Boss who was orchastrating the entire affair was treating the planes and their crews as toys.

Well then who was this "they" Ed referred to? Last I checked it "they" was plural and so the Air Boss must have had help of the pilots in this behavior; unless you think it was the concessioners that were participating in this plot, perhaps?

Again, nothing to support this contention.

But of course there's better insight from the RYPN aviation experts, who obviously are more knowledgeable than the guy that commanded the Thunderbirds and is just dickering around with possibilities; when our resident experts have made declarations of malfeasance.

Perhaps you'll share your depositions and expert opinions to the FAA and NTSB when thet solicit them.

To pull the situation back to a railroad type situation - trains following a Train Dispatchers Train Orders into a collision.

It happens.

Again, nothing to support this contention. This thread is filled with wild speculation by uninformed people rushing to judgment.


"Quick to judge,
Quick to anger
Slow to understand

Ignorance and prejudice
And fear

Walk hand in hand"

Rush, Witch Hunt Moving Pictures, 1981

I did not see where anyone had posted this already, so here is a link to an excellent video about the P-63F that also provides the story of how it came to be privately owned. It was the prototype for an order of aircraft for the Soviet Union that was cancelled with the end of the war. You must of course go through the YouTube mandatory advertisements to get to view it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruoDK2MlAlg

PC

It would appear Ed has crossed into Troll land.

Incorrect.

My point is that the owners of the objects were treating the objects as toys in that they gave callous disregard to their use.

When you start with the idea that these objects should be used for entertainment in unrealistic ways (how common was a dogfight involving a B-17 and P-63 really?) it colors the decisions all the way down.

That cavalier attitude results in deadly outcomes that also destroy the objects in question.

The mindset of "we're putting on a show" goes hand in hand with "the show must go on", which leads to all sorts of situations that cause problems like "well, the FAA says all engines must be working on takeoff but #4 is on the fritz so we'll just shut it down once we're off the ground".

Many people may be taking safety seriously, but I'd argue that if the starting point is "we want to show off" then they're all just answering the wrong question.

I'm not sure whether the last time I saw preserved railroad equipment used in a "realistic" way was either the brief out-and-back run of N&W 611 without an auxiliary tender and a matched Powhatan Arrow set out of Roanoke in the late 1980s, or the hodgepodge random "mixed trains" on the Gettysburg.

Let's look at Strasburg: Mismatched cars (a parlor car and diner, and sometimes a business car, on a short line?), a Decapod handling a passenger train on an hourly departure.....
Grand Canyon Railway: Freight steamer and F40FH's on a mostly-stainless consist. (It's a passenger service, not a heritage railroad any more.)
Railroad Museum of New England: CN heavyweight coaches behind N&W-styled GP9's.
Cass: Passenger-riding cars behind geared steam?
Any number of rail rides nationwide: A "dog's breakfast" of passenger equipment/cabeese and a random switcher pulling it.
Mainline steam excursions: Often at restricted speeds (40 mph or less) with a random selection of available operable cars. (UP can be an exception if they use 844....)
Reading & Northern: Only if you wish to recreate the essence of the Reading Rambles sixty-plus years ago. A freight hog on a passenger special on a railroad that barely had much passenger traffic in its heyday?
The closest I can come to "realistic" were some (not all) of the EBT steam trains. Most particularly a run I seem to remember with a Mikado, several hopper cars, and a BRB&L coach bringing up the rear. Possibly Wilmington & Western with 98 on a good day (sans caboose). Or the RDCs on the Seashore Lines in southern New Jersey (when they run).

"Unrealistic operation" is a pretty poor choice of a hill to die on in this discussion.

The B-17 and P-63 were NOT dog fighting. They were doing flybys.

Exactly.

Such comments betray the ignorance of the commentator about the subject in question.

I've been to vintage air shows, and have mostly been impressed by the scale of control involved. "Stunts" are done by modern replicas or experimental aircraft, not vintage planes. "Dogfights" at anything approaching realism are far too dangerous to do at most air shows. Some planes may do what pass as "dogfights," but they're as realistic as the "military re-enactments" where shooters raise their guns as they pull the triggers, as a safety factor, and few if any people drop to the ground with mortal wounds to die hours or days later.

Unfortunately, the very crash we're discussing here had too many aspects of "realism" in that regard.

The core of the problem for many people is that the CAF used to pride themselves for a bunch of 'seat of your pants' types in a group riddled with whimsy.
They would all wear cowboy hats, go with the name of "Confederate Air Force," a name which was just fine back when they came up with it, have whimsical blood chits on the back of their flight suits and all called one another "Colonel," which seems to be last of this whimsical stuff they have retained.
They've been rebuilding themselves as a more professional organization ever since. The name change was inevitable for political correctness.
Whether it is deserved or not these days, some still view them in the "set of you pants" mold from which they were originally cast as a group.
They had many high-profile (and usually 100% fatal) accidents where the last flying examples of some types (and common other types) were crashed by CAF crews in the 80s and 90s. I doubt anyone in the media is even aware of that, or if they even care.
For the media, this is a "Man bites dog" story that makes for an unusual headline, and I doubt it means anything else.
For the airplane fans, it mostly means the loss of two rare flyable aircraft. Sure, many airplane fans will say it's about the people, but they wouldn't hardly comment if those men were killed in a van crash going to show, now would they?
For some in the public, and yes, I have read this, it's about "a bunch of older white men having fun at what has to be someone else's expense".
For those who once flew a Piper Cub and now has their own YouTube channel, it's all about the clicks for their videos of their 'expert' commentary.
But for those who stood there and watched it happen with their own eyes, it's about a horrible tragedy that never should have happened.

Yet you have made that point repeatedly without appearing to listen to those who disagree. At least in this case, you state what you seem to believe is a fact, long before we've heard from the NTSB as to what the facts are.

Just saying; both are sort of trollish...

Just a couple of weeks ago, there appeared to be over all consensus accidents have to be investigated and facts discovered before corrective action can be taken.

It would seem we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

Bob