New EU airshow insurances grounding the planes.
Discussion
Sadly this is no laughing matter. EU Regulation 785/2004 imposes new minimum third party liability insurance requirements for aircraft operators, with bands according to maximum take-off weight. Other privately operated vintage aircraft come under Band 5, but Sally B, as the only B-17, comes under Band 6, the same as a commercial Boeing 737, requiring a staggering £65 million in third party liability insurance cover (at the moment she carries a prudent £25 million). The legislation seems simply not to have taken account of heavy historic aircraft such as Sally B. For B-17 Operator Elly Sallingboe, this means having to find an additional £25,000 per year. That’s an astonishing £1,000 extra per flying hour, on top of the aircraft’s already extensive insurance premium. Keeping this unique historic aircraft flying has always been a massive struggle, fraught with difficulty. But a regulation of this magnitude is totally illogical, unjust and beyond comprehension.
This year is Sally B’s 30th of flying in this country without any official funding, thanks to a dedicated team of volunteer professionals, Supporters Club members and charitable donations. But instead of being a year of celebration, the future of this important and well-loved piece of our national heritage is seriously threatened. Despite this, Elly maintains a positive attitude, saying: “We are not giving up, but actively lobbying the Government to grant us an exemption. I’m not saying the rules are wrong, but there should be scope for exemptions for aircraft such as ours. Your readers can support our efforts by protesting in writing to their MPs - contact details can be found at www.theyworkforyou.com/mp. They can also help by making a donation to Sally B’s own charity, The B-17 Charitable Trust. We will do everything humanly possible to find a solution, and I can confirm that Sally B will fly this year, so enjoy her while you can and see exactly what this country could lose forever because of this law.” Elly says she has great faith in the British public coming to Sally B’s aid, even if the Government doesn’t, in the form of sponsorship and those much-needed charitable donations to The B-17 Charitable Trust.
As the official US Army Air Force Second World War Memorial Flight, Sally B flies in memory of the 79,000 US airmen who lost their lives in Europe during the Second World War. As well as the aircraft’s 30th Anniversary in the UK, 2005 is her own 60th birthday. It is also the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and Sally B’s mission is to educate young and old of this important period in history. I would hope that there will be a national outcry if Sally B is lost to this country because of this new Euro law, and her loss to today’s and future generations would be a great tragedy. It's rather ironic that she maybe grounded by a law passed by a europe that would not have been possible had it not been for those 79,000 airmen that she flies in commemoration of ...
I'm astounded but not entirely surprised. Since the news a month ago about the CAA increasing air display authorisation charges, it's only been a matter of time before the finances start to bite. Let's not forget that every historic aeroplane takes a lot of money just to maintain in an airworthy condition, and that's before you even think about getting it up in the sky. Add your ever increasing fuel costs, your ever increasing (even more so now) insurance costs, and factor in the public's constant demand for lower prices at the gates, which impacts the money available to organisers for contributions towards appearance money... and you can see why Sally B's days as a flying memorial might appear to be limited.
>> Edited by The Wiz on Thursday 5th May 20:30
This year is Sally B’s 30th of flying in this country without any official funding, thanks to a dedicated team of volunteer professionals, Supporters Club members and charitable donations. But instead of being a year of celebration, the future of this important and well-loved piece of our national heritage is seriously threatened. Despite this, Elly maintains a positive attitude, saying: “We are not giving up, but actively lobbying the Government to grant us an exemption. I’m not saying the rules are wrong, but there should be scope for exemptions for aircraft such as ours. Your readers can support our efforts by protesting in writing to their MPs - contact details can be found at www.theyworkforyou.com/mp. They can also help by making a donation to Sally B’s own charity, The B-17 Charitable Trust. We will do everything humanly possible to find a solution, and I can confirm that Sally B will fly this year, so enjoy her while you can and see exactly what this country could lose forever because of this law.” Elly says she has great faith in the British public coming to Sally B’s aid, even if the Government doesn’t, in the form of sponsorship and those much-needed charitable donations to The B-17 Charitable Trust.
As the official US Army Air Force Second World War Memorial Flight, Sally B flies in memory of the 79,000 US airmen who lost their lives in Europe during the Second World War. As well as the aircraft’s 30th Anniversary in the UK, 2005 is her own 60th birthday. It is also the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, and Sally B’s mission is to educate young and old of this important period in history. I would hope that there will be a national outcry if Sally B is lost to this country because of this new Euro law, and her loss to today’s and future generations would be a great tragedy. It's rather ironic that she maybe grounded by a law passed by a europe that would not have been possible had it not been for those 79,000 airmen that she flies in commemoration of ...
I'm astounded but not entirely surprised. Since the news a month ago about the CAA increasing air display authorisation charges, it's only been a matter of time before the finances start to bite. Let's not forget that every historic aeroplane takes a lot of money just to maintain in an airworthy condition, and that's before you even think about getting it up in the sky. Add your ever increasing fuel costs, your ever increasing (even more so now) insurance costs, and factor in the public's constant demand for lower prices at the gates, which impacts the money available to organisers for contributions towards appearance money... and you can see why Sally B's days as a flying memorial might appear to be limited.
>> Edited by The Wiz on Thursday 5th May 20:30
Deester said:
Scary thing is, there is no requirement for private planes to have any insurance at all.
Quite legal to fly without it.
Not any more....
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_aviation/documents/page/dft_aviation_033038-01.hcsp#P22_758
...our insurers presented the bill for a princely
£180 to increase our third party liability in
the Yak to £3M last month. Sadly, I suspect that's
going to be a drop in the bucket compared to how
Yak rates are going to go up next year though...too
many have been broken recently..
I think the point may be that in 25 years of working in aviation (including 5 years in searchand rescue)I have only ever seen 3 air crashes, all were at displays or practices for displays including two fatals.
Displays are dangerous, more to do with the pyschology of pilots than the actual displays themselves, interestingly both fatals were during practices when pilots are showing off to compatriots.
If I was in risk management I would consider air displays a very high risk activity.
>> Edited by willmcc on Thursday 5th May 21:15
Displays are dangerous, more to do with the pyschology of pilots than the actual displays themselves, interestingly both fatals were during practices when pilots are showing off to compatriots.
If I was in risk management I would consider air displays a very high risk activity.
>> Edited by willmcc on Thursday 5th May 21:15
willmcc said:
I think the point may be that in 25 years of working in aviation (including 5 years in searchand rescue)I have only ever seen 3 air crashes, all were at displays or practices for displays including two fatals.
Displays are dangerous, more to do with the pyschology of pilots than the actual displays themselves, interestingly both fatals were during practices when pilots are showing off to compatriots.
If I was in risk management I would consider air displays a very high risk activity.
>> Edited by willmcc on Thursday 5th May 21:15
Out of interest, at what point in the 25 years did
those accidents occur? - back in the good-old-bad-old
days, or more recently, since the zero-tolerance (not
meant in a bad way) safety culture has taken hold?
I've only seen one crash in about as many years, that was two Russian Migs.
Near accidents, when BBMF's Lanc slewed off the runway at Mildenhall, and an Italian Starfighter nearly ran off the runway at St Mawgan in 1993.
Last year was one of the safest years for display flying I thought, didn't hear of any crashes.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 5th May 21:45
Near accidents, when BBMF's Lanc slewed off the runway at Mildenhall, and an Italian Starfighter nearly ran off the runway at St Mawgan in 1993.
Last year was one of the safest years for display flying I thought, didn't hear of any crashes.
>> Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 5th May 21:45
First one was in Abingdon in 87 I think second was in italy the next year.
I don't feel that any were in the good old days, as a professional in the aerospace industry all shows are a waste of time and effort, we sell or buy (now) aircraft on cost per KM basis or payload per launch either way it has nothing to do with shows, I have always hated them they are the PR and public face of the industry.
Another example is the Airbus crash at the French show, he took a really safe aircraft and overid the systems to make the show better and ended up killing 6 people.
I love aircraft but I hate airshows.
I don't feel that any were in the good old days, as a professional in the aerospace industry all shows are a waste of time and effort, we sell or buy (now) aircraft on cost per KM basis or payload per launch either way it has nothing to do with shows, I have always hated them they are the PR and public face of the industry.
Another example is the Airbus crash at the French show, he took a really safe aircraft and overid the systems to make the show better and ended up killing 6 people.
I love aircraft but I hate airshows.
willmcc said:
First one was in Abingdon in 87 I think second was in italy the next year.
I don't feel that any were in the good old days, as a professional in the aerospace industry all shows are a waste of time and effort, we sell or buy (now) aircraft on cost per KM basis or payload per launch either way it has nothing to do with shows, I have always hated them they are the PR and public face of the industry.
Another example is the Airbus crash at the French show, he took a really safe aircraft and overid the systems to make the show better and ended up killing 6 people.
I love aircraft but I hate airshows.
Interesting - but do you think the problem is with
trade shows - Farnborough, Paris - where there is
a commercial imperative to demonstrate the product
to it's best ability, as opposed to a vintage or
aerobatic display?
The display pilots I know are also the safest pilots
I know - but I don't know any that display to sell
the kit they fly....
having attended many air shows in a professional basis they are always a PR exercise. I went with our team to announce a multi BILLION order deal at Farnbourgh two years ago. No-one in our team cared a monkeys about the show that was going on outside, this was all about costs, commercial sales are about reducing cost, miitary sales are far more poltical but either way the decision is made way before the display pilot takes to the air.
The probem with shows is the human element, people love to show off, and doing that in an aircraft will eventually lead to disaster.
Back to the original theard, is insurance going up? yeah
Is it deserved?
Probably that's my point.
I love seeing aircraft in a show but after Abingdon when I watched two Phantom pilots die 30 yards away I am not such a great fan.
beer plus internet do not mix
>> Edited by willmcc on Thursday 5th May 22:12
The probem with shows is the human element, people love to show off, and doing that in an aircraft will eventually lead to disaster.
Back to the original theard, is insurance going up? yeah
Is it deserved?
Probably that's my point.
I love seeing aircraft in a show but after Abingdon when I watched two Phantom pilots die 30 yards away I am not such a great fan.
beer plus internet do not mix
>> Edited by willmcc on Thursday 5th May 22:12
I was at Abingdon on Monday, A wheel and undercarriage leg fell off the Chinook while it was doing its reversing trick on its rear wheels 
It recovered back to Odiham safely.
Farnborough is a trade show, only been once. Was a bit boring. It's o.k if you want to buy a biz jet or a SAM but not much else.
Mmmmmm Now Utterly Butterly wingwalkers, that's another story
It recovered back to Odiham safely. Farnborough is a trade show, only been once. Was a bit boring. It's o.k if you want to buy a biz jet or a SAM but not much else.
Mmmmmm Now Utterly Butterly wingwalkers, that's another story
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff