sdennison wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
sdennison wrote:
Well stated but the reality is?
The reality is what its always been and always will be concerning the passenger egress issue. It's always a judgment call. You have to consider, as the issue relates to small children that as you have suggested, if egress becomes necessary, there is always the possibility that a youngster might not make it out, go through the process of parachute deployment, and make it to a safe landing.
All this having been considered, as is the case with ALL airplanes not just a Warbird, the ultimate and most useful way to deal with potential bail out is to minimize the risk down to an acceptable risk factor. You boil this down a bit further and it becomes apparent that providing the passenger chute or no chute, with a safe flight involves the providing of an aircraft in tip top condition and a pilot flying it safely within the aircraft's flight envelope.
In the end analysis, there isn't any magic bullet to guarantee complete safety for any passenger, even a child as is being discussed.
All you can do is as I have said, provide as safe an environment as humanly possible
minimizing the risk factor.
FWIW, I guess I've given a ton of rides to youngsters in T6's, T34's etc. without incident.
[quote]
Well said, the point in this discussion is to have the pilots use your rational. I question, from the pilots I know who take kids for rides, do they use this train of thought.
Not limited to kids, I have opted to fly in a Mustang, T-6, T-34, Harvard without a chute. But I am a 61 year old fart and somewhat a fatalist. However, I have a lot of flying I want to do and am going to change some of my viewpoints. The kids, however, don't have that perspective. A parachute in the rear seat of a Mentor does not make a child seat in a Dodge Caravan.
Dudley Henriques
[quote/]
Some pilots don't use rational process. Thankfully most I've known do, especially in the Warbird community.
One thing that's worth mentioning about Warbird aircraft specifically. The media has a tendency toward referring to Warbirds as "old aircraft" and relate this to condition. On the face this might be true as to the date of manufacture, but for the average Warbird being actively flown today any semblance to an "old" aircraft is grossly misstated.
Just using a single example , and I could quote many, I would feel completely safe climbing into Beasley's 51 and flying it simply because I've seen the absolute quality Rich Palmer puts into that "old airplane" of Jim's. I doubt if there's a bolt or a nut on Jim's airplanes that Rich hasn't had a scope on either replacing it or manufacturing a new one if he didn't find it in perfect condition.
"Old" as relates to an airplane is a relative term for sure, and with a guy like Palmer looking after your hide, old becomes NEW in a heartbeat!
Dudley henriques