Nobody will care until there are no more airworthy (or potentially airworthy) airframes left in the world. Buy 'em, fly 'em, crash 'em, move on to the next toy.

Money DOES talk, and I'm convinced it talked a bit too persuasively in some cases.īut hey, what do I know. Personally, I think it is a gross insult to the memory of the pilots who lost their lives fighting wars in these aircraft, to allow them to be damaged or destroyed due to the inexperience or foolishness of their owners.Īnd on that topic, I have met a few of these people with lots of money and classic aviation toys, and most of them were pretty ordinary pilots, low hours, sometimes only a PPL - but enough money to buy the expertise they need. What I am talking about is the moral responsibility of those who own these aircraft, to preserve them for the nations that originally flew them. The losses of those years (60's-80's) WILL come back to haunt us. Not for the rest of us, at any rate.Īnd yes, the rate of hull loss is less these days - but then, there are lot less of these aircraft around now, and they are increasingly expensive to restore. Sure, the rich might get them flying again, but that is pretty pointless if they all end up wrecked. Over the years I have watched several warbirds crash at European airshows, in many cases at the hands of pilots who only seemed to have a passing knowledge of aerobatics and display flying. This has nothing to do with capitalism, it's actually about protecting our heritage so that our kids and grand-kids can see these aircraft too. Now, if you owned an old house or building that was designated as a 'heritage' site, you wouldn't be allowed to do ANYTHING to it - change the plumbing, put in a new power point, whatever - without written approval from the appropriate authority (the Heritage Trust in the UK). The owners may legally be able to trash their toys if they want (or if they simply can't help themselves), but that is only because the law offers no protection. These aircraft, as well as being rich boys toys, are part of our collective heritage. If they paid for it they can break it if they want.thats capitalism What a (predictably) immature and asinine comment. Lamont currently sits on the Warbirds over Wanaka Community Trust Board of Trustees.Don't criticise the successful. Lamont, who has been involved with Warbirds over Wanaka since its inception in 1988, told the court today landing zones were available on the seal and grass. He said Dovey's radio communication that he was about to land on grass went unheard.Įarlier in the week, Dovey told the court he had landed on the grass at the airport hundreds of times without fault. Lamont said the display director was in charge of the on-the-ground action on the day and best practice was for pilots to tell the director what they planned to do. 'That was not documented - that was a discussion and I drafted the flying programme to allow that 10 minutes,' he said. were how much time he had for the display and then he informed me that they would need so much time to set up and that was the 10 minutes I allowed. However, he said that was from a verbal chat. In the High Court at Wellington today, experienced pilot and Warbirds board member John Lamont said he had known the platforms needed to be moved into place for another display. The crash caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.

Pilot Arthur Dovey escaped unharmed when his World War II Yak-3's wing hit a mobile platform while landing on grass at the 2018 airshow.

A Yak-3 at the Warbirds Over Wanaka air show.

Warbirds crash