He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"

Dan Jones · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:56 pm

About twenty some years ago I picked up two old couples from a fishing lodge in northern Saskatchewan with a DeHavilland Beaver on floats. Now that airplane (my airplane that summer) was pretty scruffy. She needed a paint job pretty badly, had a few zinc chromate colored patches on her skin here and there, had one rear door off of a completely differently painted airplane, and had an engine that used a gallon of oil an hour. Some it burnt but most it pushed, as she seemed to be in a constant state of inhibation with fresh oil dripping off her everywhere (ten minutes after you tied up to a lodge's dock there'd be two acres of oil slick out front!) But she made all her power, rumbled like a Caddy, and never failed to haul a rookie's overload out of the water and over the trees, and she forgave me my many, many mistakes.

Anyway, when it was time to board these four fairly senior citizens, the first couple got in without a word, then the gent of the second couple climbed in. The fourth passenger, a seventy-ish older gal got on the float, stopped, looked at me and quietly asked "Is this an old plane?"

Just for a moment, in the back of my mind flashed "Compared to you?" but instead I said gently "You could call it that, I suppose."

She asked "Is it safe?"

I said "Of course. That's how it got to be this old."

That seemed to more than satisfy her. She climbed in, buckled up and they all had a nice, low level, sightsee flight home.

I even got a tip.

Dan

K5DH · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:04 pm

Saying that all old airplanes should be grounded because they're old and unsafe is exactly like saying that all old cars should be taken off the road because they're old and unsafe. Of course, the same person who says such a thing also looks longingly at that beautiful, fully-restored '57 Bel Air that just cruised by, wishing for all he's worth that it was him driving it. Double standard? Yep.

Someone above said that we should just ignore those people and walk away. The problem is that if enough people start barking that same line, someone in the government is going to get wind of it and start making it even more difficult for us to keep flying "those old relics". I'm not sure how to do it, but we need to educate the general public about our "old relics" and how we lavish more love, care, and attention on them than any airline gives their airborne buses (because that's what airliners are, just buses that move through the air instead of on the ground).

Cheers,
Dean the opinionated

Russ Blow · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:14 pm

Wow I had no idea I was risking my life each time I flew the L 4. As slow as it is I could probably get out and walk away before the crash.

Seriously though I would rather fly in a properly maintained 65 or 70 year old aircraft than some of the 20 year old spam cans I see flying around the airport. Now those things scare me.

JohnB · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:27 pm

The person that said that is ignorant. Does he realize the annual inspection process...not to mention the professionalism of the owners?
He knows less about aircraft than I do about quantum physics.
Ignore him.

As k5dh said, those of us with old cars hear the same thing. "No, ABS, airbags or stability control? The thing is a death trap and shouldn't be allowed on the road".
They only get more incensed when they learn it doesn't have a catalytic converter.
Usually said by a Prius, Subaru or Accord owner who see cars as disposable appliances.

It takes all kinds.

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:32 pm

Quote:

Ignorance, just palin ignorance.

What's Sarah got to do with it?

:axe:

sorry 67cougar, couldn't resist...

cco23i · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:40 pm

Chris Brame wrote:

Quote:

Ignorance, just palin ignorance.

What's Sarah got to do with it?

:axe:

sorry 67cougar, couldn't resist...

Why bring politics into a comment made by a brain dead reporter.

Scott

Chris Brame · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:53 pm

Sorry Scott, just kidding - no harm meant. (Besides, the media haven't been kind to her either.)

Dudley Henriques · **Posted:** Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:20 pm

The people who push the "old airplanes are unsafe" agenda are in my opinion misguided and don't understand the aircraft/regulation/maintenance/owner/pilot equation at all. It's an old argument and doesn't reflect real world thinking.
The bottom line is that the airworthiness of any aircraft is something that by both regulation AND common sense, is a determination made on a flight to flight basis with a direct responsibility to the pilot in command of that aircraft.

It's a given, and airplane 101 that aircraft age. It's for this exact reason that the above applies. Consideration of age alone as a factor pointing to accident potential is a flawed premise, as all aircraft if maintained properly, are in a constant state of "rebirth". The ultimate aim of all aircraft maintenance is geared toward pro active accident prevention.

When a good solid maintenance program is applied to a vintage war bird, and this program is coupled with an upgrade program, the condition of a vintage war bird can easily EXCEED the condition it was in the day it rolled off the production line.

As an aside, but closely related to all I've commented on above, I should add that in ADDITION to all this, most war bird pilots and owners take the extra step of actively reducing the size of their war bird's v/g envelope , especially the upper and far right side parameters, as their aircraft age.
So everything considered here, I would actually and realistically place the average war bird in the category of the best maintained and safely flown aircraft in the entire world aviation fleet.

Dudley Henriques

cco23i · **Posted:** Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:13 pm

EXACTLY! What is sad is these idiots will sit there and say "it's an old airplane and it's unsafe" and not have a clue or want to know how much time and effort it takes to keep these airplane in the air AND safer (in my opinion) than civilian commercial aircraft.

Scott

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

I wouldn't get too upset about it. People believe lots of stupid stuff and sometimes its about aircraft.

I'd have jumped right in and reminded him about the AirBus that went down in the Atlantic last year. That fact alone would have or should have been enough to shut him up on the spot.

51fixer · **Posted:** Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:48 pm

PinecastleAAF wrote:

I wouldn't get too upset about it. People believe lots of stupid stuff and sometimes its about aircraft.

I'd have jumped right in and reminded him about the AirBus that went down in the Atlantic last year. That fact alone would have or should have been enough to shut him up on the spot.

Compare the hours on the clock of most airliners. Tens of thousands compared to ?
Most T-6s have 5-10K.
T-28s have 4-15K
Mustangs with 2-5K
WWII fighters didn't gather hours like an airliner or transport does. Even use in a foreign airforce usually saw limited hours flown.
Trends are followed. The FAA will issue ADs if an unsafe condition develops that is likely to be repeated on other aircraft.
Several operating C-47/DC-3s have I don't even know the amount but it seems more time flying than I've been alive.
Design standards are higher for most combat aircraft so thats saying they are stronger.
Even newer 737s are showing fatigue cracking on the fuselage as did their earlier brothers. Airliners have to carry a load WWII aircraft typically didn't, Pressurization. Even the few that were, like the B-29, don't operate using it anymore.

Warbird Information Exchange

He said,"Planes that old should be grounded!"

Who is online