C'mon folks. Blame is, IMHO, irrelevant.
Anyone here
want to believe that either of the pilots or the aircraft crews were
deliberately or
knowingly negligent?
Anyone
want to believe that either aircraft was operated with an
intent to take unreasonable risks with the aircraft, crew or audience?
Anyone here
not want to see both aircraft back in the air, with the least cost distress and incontinence* to the operators?
If there is anyone of that mindset, the door's open, please use it.
I, like many others, feel for Bill and the Lone Star team. I'm 100% certain that neither pilot or maintainence crew
intended to take risks or shortcuts whatever actually happened.
We are all quick to sound off about the venality of lawyers and insurance companies and their rapaciousness and lack of support of their 'customers' at other times; here, clearly it's in no one's interest to do anything but try and sort the problem's results out as quickly, cheaply and cooperatively as possible.
It's been a poor year's start for vintage aircraft safety with accidents all over the world; but thankfully injury and death as a result has been a lot less - so far. The lesson clearly is we still need to try harder to prevent accidents, and it's adequately been demonstrated already in 2008 that no-one's able to assume they're 'safe'.
Like many others I'd love to see both aircraft back where they belong; and I'd also be happy to help, if I can, with that.
That's the objective, not playground level blame-games dressed up as adult behaviour.
Your mileage may vary.
*Should be 'inconvenience', but I'd have wet myself, at the bill if not the accident, so I'll let it stand.
