Should historic aircraft carry fare paying passengers?
Discussion
Are you talking UK specifically or generally?
Is post prompted by this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4990973...
Dreadful news.
Is post prompted by this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4990973...
Dreadful news.
In short, NO!
You can never eliminate risk entirely, nor IMO should you. The more you eliminate risk, the more stupid stuff people will do to experience it because humans operate at a defined level of acceptable risk.
If you are concerned about the handful of people who unfortunately have accidents in historic aircraft you should be up in arms about the numbers that get hurt on stairs, let alone in cars.
You can never eliminate risk entirely, nor IMO should you. The more you eliminate risk, the more stupid stuff people will do to experience it because humans operate at a defined level of acceptable risk.
If you are concerned about the handful of people who unfortunately have accidents in historic aircraft you should be up in arms about the numbers that get hurt on stairs, let alone in cars.
Of course they should still take fare carrying passengers. Why not? A couple of accidents make big headlines, but in the grand scale of things it is fairly insignificant.
Anyway, anyone undertaking such a pleasure flight should be aware of the risks - same as if you went for a drive in a vintage car with no seatbelts or airbags and a fatigued body.
I would happily take the risk, and it should be my choice to make, not some legislation.
The only legislation should be that the operators need to pass certain inspections to ensure aircraft are airworthy.
Anyway, anyone undertaking such a pleasure flight should be aware of the risks - same as if you went for a drive in a vintage car with no seatbelts or airbags and a fatigued body.
I would happily take the risk, and it should be my choice to make, not some legislation.
The only legislation should be that the operators need to pass certain inspections to ensure aircraft are airworthy.
Before taking a trip in a 1962 DHC-2 floatplane, the two things I considered were:
1) It’s been flying for 40 years apparently without crashing, so what are the chances of it crashing while I’m in it?
and
2) If it did crash, my chances of getting out would probably be not much less than any newer small aircraft.
Primarily considering 1), I took the flight and really enjoyed it.
A few months later, the same aircraft crashed, doing exactly the same sightseeing flight, after an engine fire, killing all 6 on board.
Old aircraft like these are relatively simple, and often fastidiously maintained, but unfortunately, if your number’s up, its up.
1) It’s been flying for 40 years apparently without crashing, so what are the chances of it crashing while I’m in it?
and
2) If it did crash, my chances of getting out would probably be not much less than any newer small aircraft.
Primarily considering 1), I took the flight and really enjoyed it.
A few months later, the same aircraft crashed, doing exactly the same sightseeing flight, after an engine fire, killing all 6 on board.
Old aircraft like these are relatively simple, and often fastidiously maintained, but unfortunately, if your number’s up, its up.
I've visited quite a few aircraft restoration places through work, and you'd be shocked at how much new material there is on a restored "historic" aircraft. Basically new airframes using a certain percentage of castings, brackets etc. that can be proved to be from the same original 'plane to keep the ID. These places have to be spot on with detailing the history of all the parts they use, getting old parts NDT tested and everything logged. Indeed one well known UK based company got in to hot water a couple of years ago and had to spend a lot of time and effort getting all it's logs up to scratch. I'd have no issues with jumping in something that's been restored in the UK. I might get a chance to fly in something next week- fingers crossed- and don't have any qualms about it.
However I have seen some right old shonky airframes that have been in continuous service, never been restored and are still "airworthy"... I know they get looked after and have proper service schedules but I'd definitely be thinking twice about getting airborne in one of those.
I've also come across volunteer groups that are "restoring" aircraft with the intention of getting them in the air- bunches of ex-RAF types and enthusiasts that "know what they're doing" but seem more intent on playing with their big toy and being in charge (with all the internal politics that go along with too many chiefs and not enough Indians) and you do wonder if things are getting done by the book or they're just winging it.
However I have seen some right old shonky airframes that have been in continuous service, never been restored and are still "airworthy"... I know they get looked after and have proper service schedules but I'd definitely be thinking twice about getting airborne in one of those.
I've also come across volunteer groups that are "restoring" aircraft with the intention of getting them in the air- bunches of ex-RAF types and enthusiasts that "know what they're doing" but seem more intent on playing with their big toy and being in charge (with all the internal politics that go along with too many chiefs and not enough Indians) and you do wonder if things are getting done by the book or they're just winging it.
Edited by lufbramatt on Friday 4th October 09:23
In the late 80's / early 90's the wife and I took a pleasure flight in a DH89 Dragon Rapide from Caernarfon Airport up and around the Menai Straits, Bi Plane, wicker chairs with lap belts, it creaked and groaned throughout the flight but that just added to enjoyment, but then I love flying.
Worth every penny and would go in it again given the chance. Guess it comes down to how much you like flying and what's available.
I would certainly go in one of the two seat spitfires in a heart beat after seeing a work colleagues video from his trip but would probably have to lose a stone or two.
Worth every penny and would go in it again given the chance. Guess it comes down to how much you like flying and what's available.
I would certainly go in one of the two seat spitfires in a heart beat after seeing a work colleagues video from his trip but would probably have to lose a stone or two.
Eric Mc said:
Why do you think the risk is greater now than previously?
menguin said:
The planes are older? 
Also, there is obviously an ambition to continually improve aviation safety, and the older technology embodied in these aircraft is falling further and further behind what we now consider to be acceptable for passenger-carrying aircraftI would imagine that it may eventually be the insurers, rather than the aviation authorities, who ultimately draw the line, though.
I had a trip in one of the two seat Spitfires from Biggin Hill yesterday. It was stressed in the preflight video that this plane was initially built in 1941 and they do all things possible to mitigate risks but a certain risk remains, but so does driving there on the M25 and other roads during the rush hour.
I was given all the emergency instructions on how to release the canopy and get out then use the parachute but would I have been able to or would blind panic have taken over.
Have to say it was a fantastic experience and would love to go again but doubt my pension would stand it.
Makes you appreciate the bravery of all sides in fighting in the air in something that is surprisingly small when your in though.
I was given all the emergency instructions on how to release the canopy and get out then use the parachute but would I have been able to or would blind panic have taken over.
Have to say it was a fantastic experience and would love to go again but doubt my pension would stand it.
Makes you appreciate the bravery of all sides in fighting in the air in something that is surprisingly small when your in though.
trev540 said:
I had a trip in one of the two seat Spitfires from Biggin Hill yesterday. It was stressed in the preflight video that this plane was initially built in 1941 and they do all things possible to mitigate risks but a certain risk remains, but so does driving there on the M25 and other roads during the rush hour.
I was given all the emergency instructions on how to release the canopy and get out then use the parachute but would I have been able to or would blind panic have taken over.
Have to say it was a fantastic experience and would love to go again but doubt my pension would stand it.
Makes you appreciate the bravery of all sides in fighting in the air in something that is surprisingly small when your in though.
We were at Duxford several years ago when a two-seater Spitfire landed after giving a flight to the grandfather of a family watching near us. It was a baking hot day and it must have been rather warm in the cockpit. With grandson hopping up and down anxious to talk to grandpa and the rest of the family busily snapping away with phones and cameras the aircraft taxied over and stopped not far away. I was given all the emergency instructions on how to release the canopy and get out then use the parachute but would I have been able to or would blind panic have taken over.
Have to say it was a fantastic experience and would love to go again but doubt my pension would stand it.
Makes you appreciate the bravery of all sides in fighting in the air in something that is surprisingly small when your in though.
It took over twenty minutes before the canopy could be slid back, it had somehow jammed shut and the poor chap inside was beginning to get quite distressed.
Let us see what the NTSB come up with as the cause. It may not have been aircraft age related.
As long as the aircraft are inspected, maintained and operated correctly there should not be a massively greater risk than a modern aircraft. There will however be some greater risk due to the standards the vintage aircraft were built too. Partly due to wartime expedience and partly due to a lack of knowledge in certain areas. We have learnt the (very) hard way how to make aircraft safer. The survivability in modern aircraft is also probably better when an accident does occur.
There is a thread on this subject on Pprune. The number of paying passengers lost in historic aircraft accidents since the early 80's is very low.
My understanding of the recent JU 52 accident was that it was a very hot day, therefore the effective density altitude was greater than normal. The aircraft wasn't going to clear the mountain ridge ahead as it was effectively at it's ceiling. When they tried a tight turn in the valley they stalled and ran out of sky before they could recover. There was also a head wind coming over the ridge. The ridge also had a large hole in it. These two factors suggest that the air may have been pretty turbulent and could have caused the wing drop whilst they were flying on the limit. The age of the aircraft most probably had no bearing on the accident.
So, as long as the aircraft is operated correctly and people make an informed decision before climbing aboard then there is no reason to ban them.
As long as the aircraft are inspected, maintained and operated correctly there should not be a massively greater risk than a modern aircraft. There will however be some greater risk due to the standards the vintage aircraft were built too. Partly due to wartime expedience and partly due to a lack of knowledge in certain areas. We have learnt the (very) hard way how to make aircraft safer. The survivability in modern aircraft is also probably better when an accident does occur.
There is a thread on this subject on Pprune. The number of paying passengers lost in historic aircraft accidents since the early 80's is very low.
My understanding of the recent JU 52 accident was that it was a very hot day, therefore the effective density altitude was greater than normal. The aircraft wasn't going to clear the mountain ridge ahead as it was effectively at it's ceiling. When they tried a tight turn in the valley they stalled and ran out of sky before they could recover. There was also a head wind coming over the ridge. The ridge also had a large hole in it. These two factors suggest that the air may have been pretty turbulent and could have caused the wing drop whilst they were flying on the limit. The age of the aircraft most probably had no bearing on the accident.
So, as long as the aircraft is operated correctly and people make an informed decision before climbing aboard then there is no reason to ban them.
Edited by Tempest_5 on Wednesday 9th October 22:07
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff