Bad news for the Collings Foundation from Boeing Field

Warbirdnerd · **Joined:** Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:34 pm **Posts:** 2923

From their Facebook page:

Quote:

It is with deepest regret to inform you we are now unable to do local flight experiences in the historic B-17 Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberator at Boeing Field in Seattle.

A decision was by Winnie Sargent, King County Risk Manager,
telephone: 206-205-0672, and Harold Taniguchi, Director of Transportation King County, telephone: 206-684-1441, to increase the aircraft coverage from $5,000,000 to ...$15,000,000 of insurance for each aircraft (300% increase from last year). We were unable to comply with this demand. Our insurance company cannot provide this astronomical level of coverage. $15,000,000 is the requirement for commercial airlines.

Apparently, one of their reasons is they dont make enough money from the tour.

Over the past twenty-two years with over 2,600 stops including over eighteen stops at Boeing Field, we have never previously encountered such an outlandish request.

This year, we had to conduct the local bomber flight experiences at Renton Field at a huge increase in costs to the Collings Foundation due to having to shuttle the planes back and forth.

Unless this decision is reversed, the Collings Foundation will not be able to return to Boeing Field and it is very likely that no historic aircraft, and in particular B-17s, will ever fly out of Boeing Field again.

Big thinkers there in King County. We feel sad for Seattle Museum of Flight and all the WWII Veterans who have always looked forward to seeing their aircraft land at Boeing field.

Nice work King County...

Mark Allen M · **Joined:** Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm **Posts:** 7812

Mudge · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:01 pm

IMHO...I think the "dim bulbs" who made this decision, didn't want Collings at the field any longer (for whatever lame reason) so they put out a number that they knew was impossible for Collings to comply with.

Mudge the cynic :butthead:

spookythecat · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:35 pm

I know there were issues regarding Aluminum Overcast as well. I'm not sure what the resolution ended up being as they did do flights from BFI. I wonder if EAA ponied up this one time since they were already on the schedule.

Pat Carry · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:55 pm

Bureaucrats with nothing else to do. Morons!

JohnB · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:49 pm

Par for the course from the west side of the state.

Rule #1 of bureaucrats everywhere...CYA.

Hopefulkly the MoF wil talk some sense into people...and the release above gives their numbers. Give them a call.It's a free country (sortof, kinda...) .
Their PR person is Rochelle Overshock at 206-296-6515...hopefully some aviation media will give here a call and ask for an explanation of the increase.

Also, I wonder what that means for the guys selling biplane rides in front of the museum?

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:35 pm

That action is becoming more and more the 'norm' with King County, that's among the reasons I never go to Seattle any more.
I'm fairly certain that COLLINGS and other operators will be warmly welcomed by KPAE in Everett and KBVS in Mt. Vernon, I know I enjoyed seeing Sentimental Journey fly over my house out of KBVS last Summer as did my 'nuts about airplanes' across the street neighbor and his wife (every year they spend the entire week @ KAWI for the EAA fly-in), every time SJ went over we all were out in the street getting 'airshow neck'.

andyman64 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:59 pm

isn,t it high time we take the power away from the insurance companies no one can do anything anymore with out insurance this is because of they're cult of fear mongering that they immerse the public in! the simple fact of the matter is that the average human being goes through they're life with very little need for insurance the insurance companies know this but come up with ridiculous statistics every year does anyone ever research the claims made by the insurance companies NO! they have ruined flying, motorcycling and i,m sure many other activities for everyone but the rich!

wendovertom · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:06 pm

They are welcome in Wendover, Utah ANY TIME!!

And regardless of it being out of the way and a little more sparsely populated :wink:

The 100th, 306th, 379th, 384th, 388th and 457th bomb groups trained here! How historic can you get!!??

Tom P

JohnB · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:28 pm

andyman64 wrote:

isn,t it high time we take the power away from the insurance companies...

Looks like the county government is at fault here by setting high limits.
Yes the insurance companies make money, but then again, they'll be doing the payout if something bad happens...like Reno.
I can't see a reason why the county would increase the requirements by 300%...other than the nanny state trying to protect us from ourselves.

gary1954 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:38 pm

I wonder if this subject is worthy of television news coverage up there.

hang the expense · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:56 pm

Whats next? Banning extra large soft drinks? Oh wait...

The Inspector · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:32 pm

Doubt it-currently the 'we can only focus on one item at a time' County Council is busy taking shots at a developer who wants to build an arena just South of the Clink (NFL) and the safe (MLB), and already owns the land for it and will put up better than 85% of the cost out of his own pocket, to bring the NBA back and maybe the NHL to Seattle and these clowns are whining over the shade of white to be used in the lane divider striping and other stupid stuff, the developer would like the County (which has the funds) to finance about 15% through Muncipal Bonds 'but we couldn't do THAT' why not? you did it for the now gone Kingdome, the Clink, and the Safe jerkwhistles!!!! :bs:

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:53 pm

I really hate to raise the following questions, because I am on the side of the Collings foundation in this, and it is both un-American and un-Wix to suggest that your opponent in an argument is anything but evil, incompetent, stupid, or a combination of all three. Still, I just can't shake these questions:

Is it really inconceivable that, in the worst case scenario, an aircraft the size of a B-17 with pax aboard could create a liability greater than $5 million, considering potential loss of life and property both aboard and on the ground?

If not, isn't the locality operating the airport the next deep pocket that the victims and their families (i.e. plaintiffs) would look to after the owner-operator's insurance was exhausted?

And then isn't it kind of reasonable that a county risk manager might see the flights as being underinsured, and not be willing to stake his or her job on the worst-case event not occurring? Just so some folks can have airplane rides?

If the worst case, greater than $5 million loss scenario is conceivable but really very unlikely, then why is it cost prohibitive to insure? Is andyman making a good point that perhaps the insurance companies are to blame for not setting rational premiums?

Could the Liberty Belle incident have anything to do with this, altering somewhat people's calculus of the odds that even an impeccably maintained and operated B-17 can come to grief, under circumstances that could easily have been tragic?

Just food for thought.

August

gary1954 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:02 pm

hang the expense wrote:

Whats next? Banning extra large soft drinks? Oh wait...

That was good Tom, I almost spit my coffee.

I sent an email to Winnie Sargent, King County Risk Manager with my opinion and it wasn't rude as I have been known to be, and did suggest that perhaps booking a ride on a B-17 would be worth a look into before the hammer is dropped on the firm 15Mil

Warbird Information Exchange

Bad news for the Collings Foundation from Boeing Field

Who is online