[ARC5] "Hot Dogging" in Warbirds Again

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

On 10/2/07, David Stinson <arc5 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> OK- I stand corrected on some things.
> Like "what's a P-48?"
> I shouldn't write while I'm still "hot."
> Or before I've had my second pot of coffee.
> But I won't unsay a single thing about being irresponsible with warbirds.
> It happens way too often and I'll keep waving my arms about it
> even if I'm the only one.

Yes, coffee is the great clarifier. I swear by it.

I'm a big fan of ownership rights, sure, but ownership doesn't excuse
stupidity. I'm a firm believer in responsibility and accountability as
well. If you're not up to the task, park it.

Right up there near the top with sympathy for the family and loss of
the plane is the damage this does to the 'flying warbird' approach by
handing yet more fuel to opponents who want everything on static
display. Numerous hangar and museum fires, the Windsor Locks tornado
and so on prove that even static display isn't completely safe.

Worst of all - this and other similar accidents don't need to happen.
Completely preventable compared to losing an engine or wing at 5000
feet. None of it is good, but the stupid stuff is difficult to
understand.

High performance aircraft are far less forgiving of the least little
infraction. The Jeff Ethel P-38 crash comes to mind. A talented,
experienced pilot who made one simple mistake and compounded it with
another. Lack of aircraft-specific time or otherwise, it still can't
be undone. And the world is a worse place for the losses, on all
levels.

~ Todd,  KA1KAQ