Why An Ordinary Citizen Shouldn't Be Allowed to Fly....

[Ztex]

Why An Ordinary Citizen Shouldn't Be Allowed to Fly A Fighter Jet For Fun..

Disclaimer....This blog post contains a hot political issue...

My reasoning for bringing it to this forum is because of the impact something like this could have on our community if the politicians get some big ideas about machines of war...such as fighter jets in the hands of "ordinary people".

We must be very careful and keep this discussion to the airplane side of things...any untoward, nasty or overtly political comments will be removed and the thread will be shut down...

If you guys think I'm way off base for posting it...let me know and I'll pull it down.
Z


Here we go...
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-e ... t-fly-f-14

"A fighter jet sitting on a military base tarmac presents no danger to us, but a 75-year old actor with the keys to it very well would. Here’s an idea: maybe we shouldn’t allow him anywhere near it."

[The Inspector]

My first aviation job was in 1966 in Anchorage AK. The guy who owned the FBO where I worked flew L-188s for WESTERN in and around the state and owned a P-51 and other lesser warbirds. (he gave me my P-51 ride that Summer) and I asked him once 'why do you climb in, strap in and just sit there for 3 or 4 minutes?'
his answer summed it all up, 'before I do ANYTHING in this S.O.B., I want to be 10 minutes in front of it.'

[bdk]

Except the only possibility of flying an F-14 now would likely be in Iran, if in fact any are actually still flying.

He ignores the fact that not every pilot is allowed to fly a fast jet. You need a license, a type rating & a medical.

So what about limits on performance cars? Should we require a special license to drive a Ferrari, a Z06 or a Roush Mustang?

[SaxMan]

I doubt anyone outside of the warbird world would read this article and come up with the idea that folks shouldn't fly powerful planes. Planes fly and sometimes they come down where and when they're not supposed to. If there is something to be learned, it usually gets passed on and adapted by pilots so that flying ends up being safer than it was before the accident.

[Chuck Giese]

Sure, I'll bite. I actually read it before I got around to WIX tonight.

I think one would have to have to be pretty paranoid to believe that blog would have any effect on warbird ownership. I personally don't see any value to discussing it, but it's pretty easy to skip over this or any other uninteresting topic.

YMMV, and probably does.

[muddyboots]

Except the only possibility of flying an F-14 now would likely be in Iran, if in fact any are actually still flying.

He ignores the fact that not every pilot is allowed to fly a fast jet. You need a license, a type rating & a medical.

So what about limits on performance cars? Should we require a special license to drive a Ferrari, a Z06 or a Roush Mustang?

Not touching this with a ten foot pole taped to a yard stick.

[RobC]

It's kind of a stupid argument since there is nothing to prevent a 75 year old actor from buying and flying his own 747, and we know how much damage they can do.

[CrewDawg]

I believe, like I'm sure many others here do that as long as a pilot passes the required medical exam and flight currency reviews, that he or she should be able to fly whatever aircraft he or she is rated in. We all hope that pilots will have the integrity and self awareness to recognize when it's time to stop flying - but we know that not everyone does. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no first hand knowledge of any accident or incident, but I know that the there is a public perception that forms when you have multiple deadly warbird accidents involving pilots that are 60+ years old. That being said, I'll bet that Jimmy Leeward could have run circles around me (I'm 43 and and suffer from Dunlops disease - my belly Dun Loped over ma belt!). I'll bet the same could be said for the pilot of the L-29 that crashed here in Texas recently, but that's not what the public hears in the evening news reports.

Just my .02 cents.

[T33driver]

RobC summed it up succinctly and perfectly.

Good call Muddy...

[12XU2A3X3]

love george takai, totally disagree with him here

[fritzthefox]

Y'know, all the fencing skills in the world aren't going to save a 75-year-old Sulu when a pissed off Klingon decides to strafe him in his F-86.

[old iron]

So what about limits on performance cars? Should we require a special license to drive a Ferrari, a Z06 or a Roush Mustang?

Sure. We have special licenses for those who drive buses, or tractor-trailers. Might there be a special license for driving a car capable of 250 kph, with requirements of no violations of sense and responsibility in driving, no limiting medical conditions, etc. Being the person whose life could be ended by this guy, sure, there should be limits.

[The Inspector]

Let's not forget very high performance 'sport bikes'.

[Ken]

In the wake of the recent shooting, there have been some very well stated and thoughtful commentaries. This was not one of them. This one, despite the title, barely touches on warbirds and is so superficial and fact-less as to be barely noticed. It would leave the average citizen to believe that a civilian could not operate a retired fighter/bomber - something we know to be untrue. I doubt a productive discussion will come of this, but one would have to discuss the recently registered MiG-29 and other machines currently flying legally, as well as videos of Twilight Tear on the firing range and Special Kay testing her hardpoints. Denial of the Collings' F-105 might also come up. Cross your fingers and hope that aircraft don't somehow find their way into the current debate. The waters are far too muddy as it is.

Ken

[p51]

As a historical re-enactor, I've heard the whole, "a person doesn't need ____" question countless times. And I don't even mean guns, either. People have applied that to former warplanes, Jeeps, what have you. One smug lady asked how it was legal for us to own WW2 wool uniforms. Really, how do you respond to that? Thankfully, another spectator took her to task on that and left us out of it. I grew up doing civil war re-enacting and my dad built his own 6-pounder field gun. We used to run into people all the time who went bonkers at the idea that almost anyone can own one and there's no registration like there is for breech-loading artillery. Once they saw how long it took to load and fire it, some questioned us even then, about how nobody needs one. As a ten-year-old at an event way out in the sticks, I honestly asked one man, "If you don't think we need this stuff, why'd you drive way out here to watch this re-enactment take place, then?" Several people applauded that as the guy skulked off, outwitted by someone a quarter of his age.
In a recent editorial, someone went out of their mind when they found out you can buy a tank if you have enough money and no permit is required (true, just as long as the armament isn't fuctional). Said writer didn't seem to grasp that a Sherman tank is no more dangerous as a bulldozer, because hardly any have working weapons (and those who do have full registration with the ATF). Just like how none of the current flying P-51s is dangerous unless it crashes into you.