Mon May 05, 2008 2:02 pm
There's already probably 50 offers of donation on this thread. If each person actually ponied up $50, you're already at $2500. I know that is probably a very small number relative to repair costs, but given the very narrow reach of this website I think we can do substantially better. Offering a raffle for a ride? I think we could generate a lot of interest and revenue at $10 per ticket at airshows.
Best wishes on a speedy recovery to you (mentally), and both planes involved.
Chuck
Best wishes on a speedy recovery to you (mentally), and both planes involved.
Chuck
Mon May 05, 2008 2:04 pm
Mr. Greenwood wrote:
I just hadn't gotten around to you yet
Mudge the right wing, gun totin', cig smokin, pro war, tatoo wearing, Nascar watching, garlic eatin', nose wheel flying, Hillary hatin, W votin', misspellin', T-28 lovin', onion breath, rasslin' fan, forest cuttin', carbon using, SUV drivin', global warming disbelieving
I have been amazed that I haven't heard a barrage of critisisim. Despite being mostly a bunch of right wing, gun totin, cig smokin, pro war, tatoo wearing, Nascar watching, garlic eatin, nose wheel flying, Hillary hatin, W votin,misspellin, T-28 lovin, onion breath, rasslin fans (that's about all I can think of, help me out) WIX folks have been nice.
PS. Forrest cuttin,Carbon using, SUV drivin, global warming disbelieving! See Jack, I can write it but my heart's not really in it.
I just hadn't gotten around to you yet
Mudge the right wing, gun totin', cig smokin, pro war, tatoo wearing, Nascar watching, garlic eatin', nose wheel flying, Hillary hatin, W votin', misspellin', T-28 lovin', onion breath, rasslin' fan, forest cuttin', carbon using, SUV drivin', global warming disbelieving
Mon May 05, 2008 4:24 pm
"the phone rang at 3:10 am with someone trying to buy the plane"
Well what time of the early morning would you like us to call?
Well what time of the early morning would you like us to call?
Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 pm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 0589&key=1
the preliminary ntsb report is out. seems pretty clear cut, and an unavoidable risk when you land old, blind (in the landing configuration) aircraft together on one runway.
if i were bill, that report would make me feel a lot better . . .
the preliminary ntsb report is out. seems pretty clear cut, and an unavoidable risk when you land old, blind (in the landing configuration) aircraft together on one runway.
if i were bill, that report would make me feel a lot better . . .
Tue May 06, 2008 2:33 pm
Bill...Sounds to me like there wasn't a lot of "avoiding" you could have accomplished. If the Hurri driver admits to crossing the center line into "your" space.
Mudge the relieved
Mudge the relieved
Tue May 06, 2008 6:09 pm
Sounds like the Hurricane was at fault. I'd assume that holds up (which doens't mean it really will hold up in court or in the friendly hands of your insurance carrier) Bill should get the Spit fixed without a lot of trouble.
Now its time to figure out all the damages........
Mark H
PS: Of course if they don't want to pay, then time to call in the lawyers.
Now its time to figure out all the damages........
Mark H
PS: Of course if they don't want to pay, then time to call in the lawyers.
Tue May 06, 2008 8:13 pm
skybolt2003 wrote:the preliminary ntsb report is out. seems pretty clear cut....
P51Mstg wrote:Sounds like the Hurricane was at fault
Mudge wrote:Bill...Sounds to me like there wasn't a lot of "avoiding" you could have accomplished. If the Hurri driver admits to crossing the center line into "your" space.
I can't believe you guys are rushing so quick to judgement. A preliminary report is just that - preliminary. A LOT of things can change between that and the final report. Also, just because a pilot says a brake failed, doesn't necessarily mean it did. It must be tested and inspected. Did he improperly use the brake? How many hours of Hurricane time did he have and could it have impacted his familiarity with the braking system? Did the Hurricane pilot make a radio call to indicate that he had crossed the runway centerline? That could affect assessment of blame. What was briefed at the formation briefing? What were the ROE's regarding sequencing and separation of landing aircraft? These are just a few examples of the many answers we don't have. There are many, many factors involved here, so we must be very careful not to make a rush to judgement. Let's wait the year or so it takes for the final report to come out before assessing fault (if there is any).
P51Mstg wrote:Sounds like the Hurricane was at fault. I'd assume that holds up (which doens't mean it really will hold up in court or in the friendly hands of your insurance carrier) Bill should get the Spit fixed without a lot of trouble.
Now its time to figure out all the damages........
Mark H
PS: Of course if they don't want to pay, then time to call in the lawyers.
Again, don't rush to judgement. Also, even if it IS the Hurricane pilot's fault (and I'm not necessarily saying it was), it might not matter and may not pay for Bill's repairs. Case in point, Oshkosh 99, Howard vs. Doc in the Bearcat/Corsair collision. Who's fault was it and who got to pay?
Tue May 06, 2008 9:22 pm
Warbird1...you sound like you might be a lawyer. EXCUSE US for using a, seemingly, "official" US Government report to base our posts on.
Mudge the contrite
Mudge the contrite
Tue May 06, 2008 11:09 pm
*slaps Mudge*
take THAT, youse!
I can't believe they would put an inexperienced pilot in the cockpit of that hurri at an airshow. I'm willing to take his word as evidence that the brake failed. I am crossing my fingers and hope that Bill's repairs find funding, HOWEVER it occurs. I'm sorry for the Hurri pilot, and especially for the Lone Star fellas (even if I AM from Louisiana and am supposed to hate all Taxans.) Despite the common American need to place blame, I think it's entirely possible that this really was just one of those things that happens in life, and that the brakes DID fail due to unforseen circumstance, and we shold all basically just be happy nobody got hurt, aside from Bill's nose, which we all know won't be noticed (just kidding Bill)
My offer still stands, Bill. I'm sure everyone ELSE who offreed support would say the same. FEEL THE HOPE, FELLA! And don't let this ground you.
take THAT, youse!
I can't believe they would put an inexperienced pilot in the cockpit of that hurri at an airshow. I'm willing to take his word as evidence that the brake failed. I am crossing my fingers and hope that Bill's repairs find funding, HOWEVER it occurs. I'm sorry for the Hurri pilot, and especially for the Lone Star fellas (even if I AM from Louisiana and am supposed to hate all Taxans.) Despite the common American need to place blame, I think it's entirely possible that this really was just one of those things that happens in life, and that the brakes DID fail due to unforseen circumstance, and we shold all basically just be happy nobody got hurt, aside from Bill's nose, which we all know won't be noticed (just kidding Bill)
My offer still stands, Bill. I'm sure everyone ELSE who offreed support would say the same. FEEL THE HOPE, FELLA! And don't let this ground you.
Tue May 06, 2008 11:17 pm
Mudge wrote:Warbird1...you sound like you might be a lawyer. EXCUSE US for using a, seemingly, "official" US Government report to base our posts on.
You're going to the bank on "Official" Preliminary?
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Just because someone gets a traffic ticket after an accident doesn't mean that they are 100% at fault.
How about the mechanic that might be responsible for the brake failure? Did the pilot ensure he had good brakes before he took off or did he take off with a known defect? Did the brake hose fail because it was defective from the hose manufacturer? Maybe the contractor built the runway outside of FAA specs with too much/too little of a crown? Could errors or omissions in the briefing have been a causal factor? Maybe an incorrect or improper landing clearance from the tower or airboss?
Fault will be certain when the checks clear at the bank, which could be years away. I hope not, but it is possible.
Tue May 06, 2008 11:18 pm
The idea of a raffle for a ride sounds like a good idea, however if I recall correctly, isn't there a very strict weight restriction which would make something like that nearly impossible?
I'd be happy to contribute anything I could spare, I'd love to see her flying some day, and so far I haven't had that chance.
I'd be happy to contribute anything I could spare, I'd love to see her flying some day, and so far I haven't had that chance.
Tue May 06, 2008 11:29 pm
bdk wrote:Mudge wrote:Warbird1...you sound like you might be a lawyer. EXCUSE US for using a, seemingly, "official" US Government report to base our posts on.
You're going to the bank on "Official" Preliminary?This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Just because someone gets a traffic ticket after an accident doesn't mean that they are 100% at fault.
How about the mechanic that might be responsible for the brake failure? Did the pilot ensure he had good brakes before he took off or did he take off with a known defect? Did the brake hose fail because it was defective from the hose manufacturer? Maybe the contractor built the runway outside of FAA specs with too much/too little of a crown? Could errors or omissions in the briefing have been a causal factor? Maybe an incorrect or improper landing clearance from the tower or airboss?
Fault will be certain when the checks clear at the bank, which could be years away. I hope not, but it is possible.
you, sir, are messing with my zen.
*shakes fist*
I'm headed to NorCal sooner than I thought. You ever make it up there let me know.
Wed May 07, 2008 12:19 am
Speaking of lawyers and checks, it is fortunate for all that this incident didn't happen in Houston. There would be 30 to 40 folk laying out there on the runway with various injuries sustained during the 2 seat accident. It's the only place where I've seen a bus accident and people get ON the bus. "Out of Service bus accident injures 732!" is the headline.
Still waiting for marching orders Bill, but you're going to have to get your own cell phone
Chunks
Still waiting for marching orders Bill, but you're going to have to get your own cell phone
Chunks
Wed May 07, 2008 12:29 am
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.
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.
Wed May 07, 2008 2:50 am
After reading the various posts related to the incident I have a few thoughts.
First, and most importantly, I am glad no one was injured and I wish the best to everyone involved. It could happen to any of us at any time.
Second, the generousity of the people on WIX is unmatched. The various offers and fund raising ideas are very noble.
Third, the need to raise money for airshow participants to repair their own aircraft should as a general rule be unnecessary. Hull insurance is available for the various airframes. It is expensive and has high deductibles, but available. Several of my fellow warbird owners have taken me to task for "wasting money" on hull insurance over the last few years, telling me that spending 20-25k a year for hull, means that I will "rebuy" the aircraft over several years. The fact is, that I can't really afford to properly self insure all of my aircraft so I buy the hull coverage and put 50k-75k aside for the deductible. The other option is to self insure, but if one decides to go that route and then you can't afford the repairs, you have to be prepared to part with the airframe. Frankly, if one can't afford to fully maintain, manage and insure (commercially or self), you shouldn't have it in the first place.
Fourth, the greatest financial danger lies in the liability part of the equation. I have a million dollar limit because that's all that's available for purchase at any cost. I would gladly pay for a 3-5 million dollar limit if it were made available. With the value of the other airframes I can easily see a scenario where the maximum liability is exceeded. God only knows what happens if you hurt a person. How can you put a value on that? (and yes I know, that an attorney can come up with a value).
There is much to be learned from any incident. I have been fortunate enough to learn from others as well as my own.
Once again, I wish the best for those involved in this mishap and hope that whoever is involved in the inevitable incidents later this season are equally as lucky.
Eric
First, and most importantly, I am glad no one was injured and I wish the best to everyone involved. It could happen to any of us at any time.
Second, the generousity of the people on WIX is unmatched. The various offers and fund raising ideas are very noble.
Third, the need to raise money for airshow participants to repair their own aircraft should as a general rule be unnecessary. Hull insurance is available for the various airframes. It is expensive and has high deductibles, but available. Several of my fellow warbird owners have taken me to task for "wasting money" on hull insurance over the last few years, telling me that spending 20-25k a year for hull, means that I will "rebuy" the aircraft over several years. The fact is, that I can't really afford to properly self insure all of my aircraft so I buy the hull coverage and put 50k-75k aside for the deductible. The other option is to self insure, but if one decides to go that route and then you can't afford the repairs, you have to be prepared to part with the airframe. Frankly, if one can't afford to fully maintain, manage and insure (commercially or self), you shouldn't have it in the first place.
Fourth, the greatest financial danger lies in the liability part of the equation. I have a million dollar limit because that's all that's available for purchase at any cost. I would gladly pay for a 3-5 million dollar limit if it were made available. With the value of the other airframes I can easily see a scenario where the maximum liability is exceeded. God only knows what happens if you hurt a person. How can you put a value on that? (and yes I know, that an attorney can come up with a value).
There is much to be learned from any incident. I have been fortunate enough to learn from others as well as my own.
Once again, I wish the best for those involved in this mishap and hope that whoever is involved in the inevitable incidents later this season are equally as lucky.
Eric