So you are a fan of 'stuffed and mounted' never to see the air again.

Yes. Because time and time again we are being shown that operating these things is both quickly destroying them and killing people.

Each time it happens the proximal circumstances may differ (maintenance practices / situational awareness / component failures), but the shared factor is that they were being operated for reasons that, when you peel away all of the trappings, amount to "because it's fun" or "it impresses people".

Operating a historic aircraft to raise funds for its continued operation is like an ouroboros. It's eating its own tail in a cycle where it's just a matter of time until something catastrophic happens.

Does operating railroad equipment do the same thing? Yes. But when you look at the non-financial cost & benefits of it the tradeoffs are much more palatable. Yes, there's always the chance of a catastrophic accident, but in 70+ years of railroad preservation and interpretation there hasn't been one yet.

My point is that the people and organizations that own these things need to step back and take a hard look at what they're doing through the lens of "is this objectively the right thing to be doing with irreplaceable artifacts filled with human lives?".

Because if they don't, I guarantee their insurance companies will be. I know that if one of my family members was killed by one of these crashes as a bystander their life insurer would QUICKLY empty the treasury of the owning organization and anyone else involved.

Ed, bluntly you know less about insurance than you do about aviation, but in neither case do you do the wise thing and remain silent. Have you ever considered just zipping it when you don't know what the hell you are talking about? Ignorance is excusable; obstinate ignorance is just obnoxious.

Life insurers do not have recourse against anybody that causes the death of an insured, even if the death is intentional. In fact, some policies have a "double indemnity" rider which specifies that if the death of an insured is caused as the result of an accident, the policy will pay double the face value. The reason is that until healthy young people started dying of "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome", "suddenly" and "unknown causes"; most people under 30 or so who died, did so due to an accident, so it was a reasonable bet.

As for the crews, their policies may or may not have an "aviation clause" which invalidates the payment based upon engagement with specified activities of private aviation,
https://www.insuranceopedia.com/definit ... -exclusion

but they may buy a limited number of policies that don't have the exclusion; or deal with a specialized broker.

https://www.mypilotlifeinsurance.com/private-pilot.php

Aviation may cause a policy to be "rated up".

https://policyscout.com/life-insurance/ ... -insurance

Now, I would guess that unless there is intentional, wanton disregard of safety rules, a person enters an air show at their own risk; even though few visitors are killed or injured in these incidents, but I'll leave it for an attorney to comment on that, even if the entry ticket specifically disclaims liability; and in the cases where an accident gives rise to liability-whether or not death or injury would be compensated by the air show, a liability insurer or the individual pilot/pilot's estate.

(Some of us know our lane, and stay in it).

So if a B-17 fell on my wife at her office (without attending the airshow) you're saying MetLife would be like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ guess we're out some money? And even if the insurer didn't come after the owner, what are the odds that a survivor will?

That's my point.

Also, you're missing my point: people need to step back and look at what they're doing from outside perspectives and decide that it's still the smart thing to do.

So if a B-17 fell on my wife at her office (without attending the airshow) you're saying MetLife would be like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ guess we're out some money? And even if the insurer didn't come after the owner, what are the odds that a survivor will?


What did I write? Was it unclear?

Life insurers have no claim against any party that causes an insured's death. Period (your dismay not withstanding). Unless you die engaging in an excluded activity or the beneficiary murdered you, they simply get the death certificate and pay, although for large policies or deaths occurring prior to the expiration of the two year incontestable period there might be further inquiries to ensure that the policy application wasn't fraudulently executed or the policy wasn't taken out in anticipation of suicide . If there's an exclusion, you don't get paid.

So even in a world where big Pharma didn't get an exemption from liability; Met life wouldn't have a claim against Pfizer for deaths resulting from jab induced cardiomyopathy. Assuming there was no space flight exclusion for Christa McAuliffe and she was insured, her insurer didn't have a claim against NASA for its O-ring malfeasance.

A plane crashing into a building is a totally different matter than being in an airshow. The FAA requires operators to carry liability insurance. See Title 14 CFR Part 205—Aircraft Accident Liability Insurance Requirements.

I would assume that if there was a known improper mechanical condition or some violation of proper operating practices, you have a tort claim or punitive damages, but that would be a question posed to an attorney.

Its would be a lot easier to just say you object to the operation of the airplanes for your own idiosyncratic reasons rather than drag on the thread with these ridiculous notions and argumentative hokum.


"Also, you're missing my point: people need to step back and look at what they're doing from outside perspectives and decide that it's still the smart thing to do."

I know these idioms and metaphors seem clever to you, but they are completely without substantive, actionable meaning. What the foxtrotting hotel is "outside perspectives" other than your demands?

Pro Tip: Don't sling bovine excrement before an MBA. We're the masters of it and know how to take it apart like cheap Happy Meal toys. Worse, I was an auditor so I know self-important clap-trap when I see it.

I'm fairly certain "these people" engage in serious reflection from the time they start the restoration, when they train and test and when they sit in flight safety briefings. Most of them are professional aviators.

Your signature fits your thought processes perfectly. I would hate to meet you in real life. The Downer's downer.

Somebody just shoot me, please!

Two guys were arguing about this at the Boeing model railroad club swap meet in Kent, WA this month and one guy had an interesting counter to the other guy trying to compare warbird flights to running trains at museums and tourist railroad. He asked, "How would you feel about running steam locomotives if there'd been as many destroyed in boiler explosions as warbirds crashed in the same timeframe?"
You could argue that it's not a fair comparison, but I have to admit as a train and warbird fan (and having ridden and operated both types), it was food for thought.

The NTSB has released their preliminary report on the collision:

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-releases-preliminary-report-on-fatal-texas-midair-collision/

An update on this topic:

Collings Foundation Ends Wings of Freedom WWII Aircraft Tours
https://theaviationist.com/2023/12/02/c ... -aircraft/

Excerpt:
The Collings Foundation, whose Wings of Freedom tour brought World War II aircraft to airshows across the United States offering rides aboard the B-17G, B-25, B-24 and P-51D, has decided to permanently ground its aircraft and put them on display at the Foundation’s American Heritage Museum. The decision comes in the wake of the 2019 B-17 Flying Fortress accident, which caused the death of five passengers, the pilot and the copilot.

If we want to have any of these historic aircraft left to actually see in person, I think this is for the best.