OD/NG wrote:
Here is an excellent no-nonsense, non-speculative summary of all the information we know so far regarding this tragedy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpv-xxYQ8-oI've met Juan, the person who produces this, in real life. He is an excellent source for aviation news and one of the few on youtube that I give complete credibility and veracity to. His youtube channel is one of the best and most informative regarding current events in Aviation. He is a military Veteran as well as a current 777 Capt for a major airline. You can take everything he says to the bank.
I recommend this video, especially for non-aviation people, to help understand this incident.
I'm going to disagree with you on this and make a sort of different point to the overall. Times have changed, and with internet access EVERYBODY can easily see public comments. Years ago, nobody had a clue about places like WIX and usually only folks deeply involved in a subject took part in the discussions. Little to no harm came from that, but no longer.
The problem now is lawyers and lawsuits. They search the internet for statements matching their perspective to win their clients cases. Early in this thread people simply repeated most current reported facts such as number of those killed, an engine seen off by an informed witness and the like. A certain amount of speculating used to be OK, but now one has to be legally perfect in expressing themselves for the greater good of the community. Yesterday, somebody who volunteers with the CF called the local TV station and gave an interview. During it he said a LOT of things that a lawyer will devour in lawsuits for liability. There was no overall explanation of the dynamics of Warbird flights for the public and how it all works. Taken at face value I can see how the majority of people would immediately think it's a horrible idea to allow. I wouldn't doubt if this fellow's statements become key in litigation later to the detriment of the Warbird community.
I dislike the fellow's videos because he presents himself as an expert,
without taking the time to consider how and what he says. Is there a script? No, he just starts and talks. In other on-line groups I take part in this same video is going wildly viral and it's frankly amazing how little the general public knows about aviation and moreso Warbirds. I've seen people outraged because the aircraft isn't in it's original paint scheme, others who freaked out at "such an old airplane is still allowed to fly!". All things that lawyers can and WILL use to the detriment of aviation. Better to have just shut up, smiled and nodded and not gone on record making statements at all. Even in our threads here folks need to take care of what and HOW they say things. The wolf is truely at the door for Warbirds in many ways already. My personal experience in lawsuits and later criminal offenses against myself has changed and tempered everything I say everywhere. You simply wouldn't believe what lawyers can and do get access to use and how they twist it to their advantage. A "jury of your peer" means every day people, not pilots, A & P's and aviation enthusiasts.
My long winded point being- watch how and what you say these days. Bland statements to update an unfolding situation are fairly safe, general statements as to difficulty in a situation are good...but once you cross the line to things like, "He should have" or" you're supposed to.." you're opening the door to interpretation that could damage or end many things in aviation.
It's a terrible shame what happened, and many folks here knew the people and organization involved. Knowledge helps prevent future incidents for sure- but these days it's best not to have these discussions in public......
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
They should, instead, keep up with stories of the "BRAND NEW " Airliners that NOSE DIVE & Kill every one on board ! 
