Veteran Warbirds.

[simon]

Over recent years there have been a number of fairly well publicised fatal crashes involving vintage and in cases rare warbirds (In some cases now "Extinct" warbirds, at least flying ones anyway!), including last year a Fairey Firefly and the CAF's Casa built He111, in each case the two crew onboard were killed.

With the increasing ability of newbuild flying replicas, is the time approaching where it may be appropriate to consider grounding veteran aircraft over a certain age to preserve not just the airframes for future generations, but also the lives that may be claimed in the event of more crashes?

Or do you feel that it would be wrong to ground perfectly servicable aircraft all the while they can continue to amaze and thrill the crowds at airshows and historical events?

I'm not saying yet that either is my preferred option, so please don't savage me if you think I disagree with your own point of view, this is all in the interest of friendly debate! ;)

Your views please, Gentlemen...

[Romantic Technofreak]

Better keep them grounded. Flying them is irresponsible, if it is either to the crews or to the material.

[GregP]

The warbirds are the property of their owners. If the owners want them grounded, so be it ... until the aircraft get sold to someone else. But to ground otherwise-airworthy aircraft legally because someone thinks they are valuable pieces of history? That's just plain WRONG.

If I owned one, I'd own it for one reason only, to fly it. If I could NOT fly it, I would base it in some country in which I COULD fly it. If I couldn't find a single place in the world to fly it, I'm not sure what I would do, but I would NOT display it for the public's consumption, I can tell you that.

[Corsarius]

Some MUST be preserved in flying condition for posterity at least!

Look at 'the last' lancaster (well, I think it's the last) flying in the battle of britain memorial flight.

This aircraft has been modified with dual controls, as a 'real' lanc only had one set of flying controls. Not something you would want to do with such a valuable peice of machinery!

[andyo2000]

There are problems with both ideas. If you ground the planes, their not planes anymore, they're just pieces of metal that have a history. And if you fly them, there will always be the inevitable crash of valuable artifacts. So which is best? I think maybe their owners should take a little extra care. Certainly make sure everything's working perfectly, making sure the surfaces are sturdy, the controls are tight and in no danger of breaking, etc. Maybe also, the owners should make sure that each flight is safe, no dangerous-weather flying, no stunts in non-aerobatic aircraft, etc.

Airplanes, no matter how old, were meant to be flown.

[BigGorilla]

If it's my plane, it's my decision to fly it or not. No-one else should have the ability to tell me to fly it or park it somewhere where they can look at it.

[simon]

true in many respects however what if your plane crashing causing the deaths of a number of spectators? Remember you wouldn't just be risking your own life, but potentially those on the ground as well.

As an aside I was talking with my dearly beloved about this recently and she pointed out a couple of factors which I hadn't really thought about.

Firstly due to the nature of the aircraft involved these crashes would recieve far more publicity than might normally be the case for a less newsworthy aircraft.

Secondly, the odds are that these aircraft are if anything better maintained than the average modern civilian light aircraft. The logic is simple, if you've spent £20,000 on a light aircraft if it is destroyed in a crash and you're able to walk away then you're only £20,000 poorer. If you've spent £2,000,000 on a genuine WWII vintage Spitfire however..... we'll you'll be slightly more inclined to keep everything in perfect order!

Interesting views so far, keep em coming...