Warbird Information Exchange

Hi Scott,

Some random thoughts on the topics being thrown around in this thread:

You and I are on the same page with risk having similar backgrounds. It’s apparent some have not lived a similar lifestyle you and I have experienced. There are varying degrees of risk takers and I don’t cast any who have chosen the safer route in a bad light, not at all.

Life is risky. When a person makes a broad brush decision to stop doing something -or not do something at all- because it is perceived to be unsafe, which may be the case in some respects, they start down a slippery slope with a rocking chair at the bottom that has their name on it. The Warbird industry is no different. We, in almost every case, do all we humanly can to mitigate all perceivable risks in every way imaginable and accept that in spite of our best actions there is still a chance of catastrophe. That’s life! Heck, last week I was forced off the freeway at 75 mph while riding my motorcycle. I won’t stop riding because of that but I did learn something about riding from it…a lesson I lived to use. Some are not always so lucky.

With every risk there is reward or we would not embark upon the risky behavior, correct? The reward in flying these relics is reminding -or outright teaching- people of our heritage and honoring those who used these instruments of war to save our way of living. This isn’t a perfect world. Bad things are bound to occur in spite of our best efforts. Losing the Belle is a painful reminder of that. Losing Don Hinz in the Red Tail was a painful reminder of that. Unfortunately the list could go on adnauseam but in the end, I doubt any of the participants who were involved in, or perished in these crashes would do anything any differently. That’s a very telling and very powerful statement about the passion and value of flying these antiques.

Where Museum piece(s) abound, I think the risk of flying an example is well worth taking. A one off is not as easy a study. I admit I am torn in those instances.

I agree with almost everything you wrote but one. Hear me buddy: Please do not get into any airplane anytime with any pilot to go for a ride. Scrutinize your pilot carefully and examine the airplane with a jaded eye. Do not get in the airplane unless you are perfectly comfortable with the answers you get and what you can see of the machine. Discretely speak with honest third party individuals about the health of the airplane. I have true life accounts to corroborate the value of such inquisitions. While boarding the airplane, if the pilot does not give you specific emergency instructions, ask for them. If they have none to offer, cordially decline the ride and get out of the airplane…they know not what they do and value your life at least as little as they value their own. Most Warbird pilots that are worth their weight will give you everything you need to know -and more- to give you the best chance of survival in an emergency situation. Most will also inform you that the risk of flying in a Warbird is significant and you do so at your own risk. The fact that in nearly every case a passenger is required to sign a hold harmless should be telling the signee something…

Respectfully,
John
CC Red Tail

"I've also read some of these waivers they sign. They're really flimsy..."

Such waivers, whether you're signing them at a ski slope, a bungee site or a warbird ride, have virtually no legal strength if contested by a competent lawyer. They're no better than somebody saying, "I told him it was dangerous..."

"Reading Ray's lengthy and very much appreciated comments, I seem to sense an unspoken undercurrent of deep frustration with the fire crews saying they couldn't get their trucks into the field, yet they just successfully landed a B-17 out there... I know, different ground pressure, etc, but it almost seems like Ray was gritting his teeth while describing it."

A firefighter's job is primarily to save lives, secondarily to keep a fire from causing ancillary damage and third to do the best they can to save the primary structure that's burning without endangering themselves. Their job is -not- to risk themselves saving a burning tractor-trailer's cargo, or the Corvette in the garage of your burning house, or a burning warbird. So once these firefighters saw/learned that everybody aboard was safe and that the burning aircraft wasn't endangering anything else, their job was pretty much done, other than doing the best they could to put the fire out with what equipment they could get to the site and without endangering themselves around a presumably gasoline-filled airplane. None of them signed on to save a B-17 come what may, and it was probably just an old airplane to them anyway.

I do believe they got two of their larger vehicles stuck trying to make it to the site, by the way, so it's not like they were sitting on their hands

There weren't any easy roads nearby to access the B-17.
Plus the foam trucks were not really able to drive over the wet-soft brown soil.
Obviously, he put down (succesfully) where he could in the primary interest of crew safety. If he had landed back on airport property, the airframe outcome would have been different. He landed about 7 miles south of the airport, without any direct roads to the farm area.
(Just what I saw when flying overhead.) FYI
VL

Completely fair point, wouldn't challenge a bit of it... that was just the impression I got from reading his comments, and perhaps the emotion of the Belle's loss might have put a slight edge there. No one was hurt in the plane OR on the ground, as the firefighters prudently kept a wide perimeter around the aircraft once the flames really took hold... at that point, everyone was pretty much just a spectator.

Cheers,

Lynn

The comment about "riding in a 70 year old aircraft" really dosn't have a whole lot of meaning, heck most of the AF tankers were made in the late 50's to early 60's. Maintenance is the key to aircraft longevity.

Scott

_________________
Scott Dunkirk
AZGCLHU Inc.

http://arizonagroundcrew.org/

1940's Army Air Force ground crew living history
(A 501 C 3 organization)
(IYAMYAS)

"Yes sir, it's suppose to look like that"

Maybe your KC-135's- (Last one built in 1965) but my KC-10A's were all built in the late '70's/80's...


Scott

_________________
1942 Dodge WC-51 Weapons Carrier
I am a reenactor, have been since the early 1980s, and I am an aviation enthusiast, PILOT, A&P mechanic, and military vehicle owner. I have restored cars, trucks, and antique radios. These are MY hobbies- What are YOURS?.

Vlado, just curious if you noticed if it looked a bit more wet around where she came to rest? From the aerial photos of LB in the field it appears that there is a pretty nasty wet hole that basically surrounds the plane. Appeared the nose made it past the wet area, but the wingtips/tail were still in it.

You Got that right . Look at the Buff for example, Some of those -52s have been flown by the "new pilot" His Father, and his Grandfather. I saw an interview where a you aviator was standing in front of a Buff, and he said that it was neat that not only had his Father flown this particular B-52, but his Grandfather had flown the same plane, now he was flying it. 3 Generations flying the same airframe . Granted, it had been overhauled a few times, and the warbirds on the circus now have been overhauled, some more than others.

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

If I might make a suggestion here.
If we are going to continue to debate the future of warbird flight in light of this incedent, let's make a new thread.
Maybe we can leave this thread open for further updates on Liberty Belle information. It would be easier to keep track of since this thread is already thirteen pages long...

Thanks.

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Flew nearby again today. Many fields have standing water. This indicates the ground is still very saturated, as well as in the landing area.
VL

Just found out that a WIXer - Rod S. was in the back seat of the T-6... he posted this over on the RV forum: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/s ... post550989

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

Some excellent info in that thread too, especially about field conditions... and there's a good overhead shot which I don't think I've seen before where a pumper looks stranded in the mud near the aircraft. The fire crews certainly tried...

Lynn

The website has a "Donation" button through Paypal it looks like. I am sure every dollar helps at this point in time. I plan on joining the Foundation, as that allows you to both 'donate' & get something in return.

I went to the site Tuesday to assist the salvors in the disassembly and recovery of Liberty Belle. and then drove the crew truck and support trailer back to Georgia.

What's not obvious from the pictures is that the landing was down hill, the initial contact point was drier, and it became muddier the further you went down the slope. By the time she came to rest, she was sunk in to the hubs.

Even Tuesday morning, there were still parts of the site where you would sink ankle deep into the mud, and we had to carefully stage and position the recovery equipment.

Chuck

_________________
Best Regards;
Chuck Giese --- Volunteer helping to restore B-17G 44-85734 "Liberty Belle".