Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 4:31 pm
Code: Select all
Fast forward to this. Carrying passengers in antique jets.Page 3 of 4
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 5:17 pm
The only time the media tells the truth, is by accident.
She was not a rated pilot. She was not receiving or logging dual instruction.
She should not have been on board, or so I was told for decades, upon
threat of licence suspension and/or revocation.
She was not a rated pilot. She was not receiving or logging dual instruction.
She should not have been on board, or so I was told for decades, upon
threat of licence suspension and/or revocation.
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:57 pm
"She should not have been on board, or so I was told for decades, upon threat of licence suspension and/or revocation."
It could have been an AVRO 504K and it would have been legal.
Anyone hazard a guess as to why...?
J
It could have been an AVRO 504K and it would have been legal.
Anyone hazard a guess as to why...?
J
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Thu May 21, 2020 10:58 pm
PS Their crewmen travel with them between show sites also...
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 12:17 am
Different rules for different people. You're still allowed to live in Canada, John?
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 3:46 am
Different rules?
Of course different rules. They are in the military. She was no different than the crewmen who ride between shows. With the proper authority, they could even legally take you with them...
Everybody knows that...
As for still living in Canada: of course; I have tenure!!!
Of course different rules. They are in the military. She was no different than the crewmen who ride between shows. With the proper authority, they could even legally take you with them...
Everybody knows that...
As for still living in Canada: of course; I have tenure!!!
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 4:55 am
This video has a clip that appears to show an object getting sucked into the engine just prior to the pitch up:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866/
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866/
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 2:37 pm
Two thoughts:
1) re: "different rules" ... well, as long as everything worked out ok
2) re: FOD ... remember, turbine is reliable, piston is unreliable
1) re: "different rules" ... well, as long as everything worked out ok
2) re: FOD ... remember, turbine is reliable, piston is unreliable
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:10 pm
"different rules ... well, as long as everything worked out ok"
Andrew: I don't understand the thrust of your statement.
In the military, members of the force routinely fly in military aircraft. It was the same in your father's day as in mine. The PR people - as with the technicians - routinely fly in the Tutor. It is not classified as an "antique" aircraft. The venerable T-33 had its first flight in 1952 with the last one being retired in 2005.
?
Andrew: I don't understand the thrust of your statement.
In the military, members of the force routinely fly in military aircraft. It was the same in your father's day as in mine. The PR people - as with the technicians - routinely fly in the Tutor. It is not classified as an "antique" aircraft. The venerable T-33 had its first flight in 1952 with the last one being retired in 2005.
?
Re: Snowbird crash May 17, 2020
Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 7:32 pm
I understand there is considerable risk when a passenger is carried in an antique single-engine
turbine aircraft operated by a civilian, but this is not the case when it is operated by the military.
This is crystal clear to me. Threats received loud and clear, and are in the rear view mirror.
turbine aircraft operated by a civilian, but this is not the case when it is operated by the military.
This is crystal clear to me. Threats received loud and clear, and are in the rear view mirror.