RE: B52 crash? again???
 

[/quote]
Hmm, nice debating technique, but no bearing on what I said. Here's mine:

First, I say IF - do you have different info from Milliways? Was he wrong? Has the guy put in multiple large birds or not?

I refer to a RECORD of failure. That excludes stuffing just "one large model"

There are guys in most every club that have a record of failure. They consistently can't handle what they are doing. Nobody around me says "It's great that he keeps trying" Most say, "I'm gonna stand behind you when he flies".

IIIIIFFFFF this guy has shown a pattern, then it's time for someone to say whoa.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Gazzer, You nearly got away with that one - Tin Tin is Belgian.
Dave.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Love the picture, not seen it before though:D

OK, how many flights have been made by the man with large airframes? 50 + with the Buff and lots with the Victor, the actual number I don't know. However, the argument was to place in context that out of 3 very unique models, one survives and has a whole lotta hours on it, one hit the deck after 50 + flights due to pilot error, and one we don't know what the cause was......

Not really a pattern in context, I've just read several threads on here, experienced flyers losing their jets, most in less than 10 flights...... should they be banned or allowed to carry on? How many have crashed more tjhan opne jet??

I know there are a few at the field who would rather be in the club house when someone is flying, not everyone has the aptitude sadly, and in different disciplines too.;)

But there is not a pattern of crashing in my mind that constitutes a concern about this pilots ability, and of course, back to certification, (which you did not mention in this post, another good debating tecnique:D) the pilots are certified in flying to display standard, as I understand.

However, I could concede the MORE flying non spectator would be useful and a program of flight training including the use of sims, would enhance the abilities of all. I suppose it could be true to say that if the models are getting larger, than more full size type practices would be advantageous.:eek:

I hope that allows us to agree to a view, as I have not got any pictures to post showing winners, losers or agreement!!

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Gazzer,
I have a set of wings, sheeted, but not covered for a Facet if they will help you out you are welcome to them.
TOmmy

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Tommy

Send him the wings or the thing will never be finished!!. He's too busy posting!!

John

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Doc,

That is a really kind offer, and to be frank I would love to take you up on it,;)

Shall PM you if I may.....

John,

If I get my Facet plans to you and Doc gets me the.........:DJoking..... possibly!:)

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

OK, they are not being nor will they be used. Just PM me and I can get them out to you.
Tommy

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Gazzer

Send me the fuselage, all the parts, plans and instructions and I will build it for you. You can't go on posting forever without being a turbine stick!!

John

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

John,

Whilst being so sorely tempted to take you up on the offer, I feel I must complete this one myself, as that way I may know how to rebuild it should the worst happen.....[:@]

All I can say is thanks guys, it does show that there is a tremendous amount of support out there for people who are newbies in this environment and lots of positive encouragement. I feel honour bound to say that this kind of support may also help Gordon Nichols at what must be a pretty depressing time. Bad enough for a model to go in, that it was that big and expensive and then the "non believers". Contrasting with the support I am getting......[:-]

Doc and John, your offers and support most kind and very much appreciated. One day there will be something I can do to return the favours!!!

Well, off my soap box, my neighbour just dropped round some slices of pre cut aluminium for which to mount the Wren, now with FOD guard....... peach of an item that, so might just get some "further work" done on the babe,;)

No cores today so much for the post office making money....:)

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

How bad was the airframe? As a side over all of this I really would have loved to see it if he ever brought it to the US.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Well, you need to substantiate this "50+" number. Some RCU searching shows a report that the first flight was 5/30 last year, and the last flight was reported here on 9/3. That's almost exactly 3 months, which means the B-52 flew an average of more than 4 times a week for its lifetime. I doubt the thing was flown on that kind of timeline.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

JohnG

I appreciate your sentiment but this is what I have gleaned. I doubt there is official substantian (is that how you spell it?). I am happy to believe the sources I have been told by, but can't substantiate it further and I appreciate that from your view. If anyone can I would be pleased to hear either way....

But the original question did not solely refer to the big Buff but to all his large aircraft, and the Victor certainly is a large airframe and did a lot of the rounds. Even I saw it fly 4 times!!! It was the pedigree and capabilities that were in question, so the Buff is not the only airframe in the equation.

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Sara at Wren tells me the plane was flown a good 45 times, so that's close enough. I still wouldn't blame the LMA for taking a pass on a 3rd go.

There are various things about this project that should cause concern. The weight. The need(?) for 8 engines, and the added weight & complexity. Even the judgement of flying in less than excellent weather in front of a crowd and near populated area (1st crash). Now another mishap. Two points make a line - where does it point to?

I do get to review aircraft design reports from time to time on a model/giant scale - some this big, nothing this heavy. The builder of something this size has a responsibility to be educated on aircraft engineering enough to design a reasonable structure and airplane. As does the LMA if they are going to approve one. But if responsibility was a bowl of soup, you wouldn't split it into two smaller cups for the designer and LMA. You'd get a 2nd bowl of soup. The fact that the LMA reviewed and approved this in no way lessens the owner's responsibility for safety.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Gazzer, you forgot to mention the Bovril on the crumpets , crumpets without Bovril ? Unthinkable !!!!
Chris

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Chris

For God's sake stop posting Gazzer about crumpets.You'll only start him off again. The man has two models to build!!:)

John

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

..To bloody right...MARMITE...:D... this is getting worse...[:@]

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

John G,

I think two things are in my mind reading your posts, that of risk and education. Maybe both need reviewing in the light of information. Despite the crash, the proximity of things, no one was hurt, that may not just be fortune but some planning and foresight.

However, not reviewing things in the light of the latest information and reports would be a bad move.

In respect of drawing a line, again, yes, the designer, builder and pilot take a share of responsibility for the creation, and flying, but there are flight line directors to supervise and take responsibility for aircraft being allowed to fly.

That the pilot thought it was OK and the flight line director did, means that opionion was at least 50% that the conditions were suitable.

Like I say, no way am I suggesting that the pilot does take some responsibilities but he is not doing so in isolation, that is to say his opinion is not the final one, and those tasked with certification and permissions must also have the right skills and experience to do so.

I personally like crushed banana on my crumpets and a tip from our cousins has me eating scotch pancakes and maple syrup as a dessert...... hmmmmmmmmmmm pancakes.......

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

..Really..;)..:D

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Hi

You guys seen this thread?

[link=http://www.bmfa.org/dcforum/DCForumID2/1182.html]BMFA Forum[/link]

and from the first crash;

[link=http://www.bmfa.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1016&forum=DCForumID2 &viewmode=threaded]BMFA forum[/link]


And don't forget it carrys 5 UK gallons of fuel................

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Not a flame, but merely an observation based upon your post.

In the civilian full-size world, the pilot is the final authority over whether:

A) An airplane is safe to fly.
B) The conditions are safe to fly in.

This authority cannot ever be delegated to the control tower, A&P, Inspectors, government aviation authorities, etc. It is always the pilot's responsiblity and his is the final word over whether an airplane takes off the ground or not. Others may offer opinions about whether the conditions are suitable for flight, but the final decision and responsibility for that decision always rests solely with the pilot. He cannot delegate that authority or responsibility for a safe flight to anyone else.

As a pilot, I would not want it any other way. The tower can say the conditions are safe to fly in and the mechanic can say the airplane is safe to fly, but if I, the pilot, believes either the conditions or the plane is unsafe, then it's my responsibiltiy to make the right decision and stay on the ground until the conditions have changed.

Dan

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Once is accidental ....twice is coincidental .....three times is call it a day ;)


i havnt read all the other messages as there are too many.

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

...your missing some good info ..have a read..;)

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Marmite? you savage !!!

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Dan,

Sure were not talking flame here, and your points are set out clearly...... But;)

I am not talking about abbregating responsibility here. What I am saying is that if a flight director said the weather was too bad to fly and someone did and an accident resulted, the pilot would be labelled as reckless.

However, if the flight director and the pilot agree the weather is suitable and the plane crashes, then it is down to the pilot, but he is likely not to be called reckless. In the model world over here, it is the flight line directors authority that says it can fly or it can't. Whilst the ultimate responsbility, I agree has to be the pilots, if in the case as above, the flight director allowed the flight to go ahead, then the conditions could not have been innapropriate to fly in.

Else why have a flight director??? It is not simply a point of view role, but a marshaling and authorative role.[:-]

Chris,

You either like it or you hate it........ Marmite is an acquired taste, but I love it, but best on toast, not crumpet.........[:'(]

Livinabox,

Get out of your box and have a read!!!!! Once was pilot error, two is unknown, and 3 is being debated here to an extent!!!:D

Gazzer

Gazzer

RE: B52 crash? again???
 

Were any accidents caused by structural failure? If not then maybe the builder does have the background to build the thing. Can someone state the causes of the crashes? Mike K.