bdk wrote:
I am neither the decider OR the definer of what "airworthy" means.
Rats, and I thought you had the tablets of stone. Who has got the tablets?
Quote:
Certainly the FAA does not require an aircraft to actually fly to be considered "airworthy."
Nah. However 'airworthy' but not flown - isn't.
I'd rather see aircraft inhibited/conserved/laid up properly than pseudo 'airworthy'. It's just good engineering practice, and good museum practice. Flyable is good for flying aircraft. For static aircraft it's not. I'd hope the Yanks aircraft are inhibited, with lifed material marked. Paperwork aside, if it hasn't flown for a year, it's going to take a bit more than gas 'n go.
Quote:
For some reason I find myself frequently defending Yanks against the perception that they don't fly anything. There just aren't any absolutes there. I'd like to see more of their stuff fly but I'm just glad that they are open 6 days a week to the public for a nominal fee. It really is a fantastic collection and should be appreciated for that fact alone.
It is a great collection, and excellent it's accessible to the public. The restoration work done is most impressive.
The problem is the claim that they're all airworthy, but (mostly) don't fly. People just tend to pick at the discrepancy.
Just my opinion, of course.