USMCmech
Well-Known Member
The Collings B-17 accident has entered the chat.
Despite that horrific crash, there are very few passenger fatalities in warbird flying. Given the small numbers involved its really hard to make rational analysis of the risks involved. At the end of the day, the kind of people who want to fly or ride in warbirds understand that they are much riskier than even normal GA much less 121 operations.
Seggy is 100% right, there is ZERO rational reason for continuing to fly 75 year old airplanes. Except we are not rational creatures, the sight and sounds of these mechanical works of art flying is part of what inspires us to be in this business in the first place.
A while back the Kings put out an analysis that GA flying was the equivalent of riding a motorcycle when it came to risk. We can debate the math, but at a fundamental level it's true. There is no rational reason to have two wheeled "donor cycles" on any public roads (or off road trails either). Every year hundreds of bikers are killed by car drivers who weren't paying attention. However the fun of riding a bike is worth it to a large number of people.
I'm perfectly fine with warbirds being on the far end of the risk spectrum that is still considered normal ops. Past that and we are into military and special cases like helicopter power line maintenance, ag flying, and air tankers that need special oversight.
Last edited: