So, because one man failed to stop a determined 15 year old the rest of us should pay? Where was the instructor and what was he doing? I wasn’t there. What do you expect flight instructors to do? Stand armed guard over every new student they take on? This teen had been in flight training some time, been an obedient and well-behaved student, and gave no indication that he was this troubled.
Give us the credit for learning from mistakes - changes have been made. New students are not permitted keys to airplanes until they solo. But at some point they have to solo. You’re making much of this teenager’s being fifteen - but if it were a month later and he was 16 (and thus legal to drive a car or fly a plane on his own) what difference would it have made? If he were 18?
Tell us, at what age do YOU think flight training should be permitted? Come on, speak up - you have so many solid opinions on everything else.
The perpetrator’s age is not nearly as important as the fact that he was suicidal - and that can happen at any age.
Actually, we’re still using many of the same materials. A gentleman at my field is building a biplane out of wood - airplane grade spruce, the same stuff they used in 1917. About the only concession to modern materials he’s made is the wing covering - I believe he’s using Ceconite instead of cotton and dope. The basic design for the Cessnas I fly dates from the late 40’s/early 50’s. The Pipers I flew are from the 1970’s. Frankly, I find the older models Cessnas to be of a sturdier construction. If my forced landing had been in the Piper I most likely would have sheared the landing gear off at the very least.
The older airplanes were considerably heavier - and that’s an important consideration. Force of impact is mass multiplied by velocity. A Stearman biplane is heavy, easily twice the weight of the airplanes I normally fly. A Stearman colliding with something at 80-100 mph is going to cause a LOT more damage than a 4-seat Cessna or Piper at the same speed - and those 4-seaters aren’t much faster than the old biplane.
I’m not entirely certain how things are in regards to gas tank placement, but the Stearman is a cloth-covered airplane, so there is less structure between the tanks and the outside world to resist rupture. The antique rag-wing planes using cotton-and-dope — well, that doping agent was notoriously flammable, which is why the darn things burned up so well. One factor in moving to metal wings was the fire resistance - it was so much harder to get a fire going, and if you did have a fire you at least had a chance to get out.
My field recently had a fire in a Cessna 150. Darn thing burned a good ten minutes before it was put out. The metal cowling and internal firewall contained it nicely - the upholstery wasn’t even singed. Mind you, that was with a full load of fuel AND the doofus who ran off in a panic didn’t even shut off the fuel lines. Try that with a WWI vintage plane you wouldn’t even have toothpicks left.
An acquaintance of mine crashed his Vari-EZE (1980’s composite design, VERY modern) into a lightpole at well over 110 mph after a forced landing. Lightpole 1, plane 0. There was no damage to the pole, and no fire. (Unfortunately, considerable damage to the pilot, but he’s back to walking again) Yes, it’s a lighter, faster, more fuel efficient 2-seat airplane than the 2-seat Stearman - and it only weighed about 500 lbs. That’s less than most motorcycles, isn’t it? Crap, I think the Stearman is over a ton - it would definitely knock over a lightpole.
To sum up - a modern small airplane has so much less mass than your 1917 biplane that in a crash the force of impact will be considerably less. AND there is far, far less chance of fire.
As I pointed out above, it’s not JUST farther and faster that counts. Birds can fly at 40 mph -when they hit a window, though, it’s usually they that get hurt, not the glass. Run a car into a window at half that speed - bye-bye window, almost no damage to car. If you’re in a car accident would you rather collide with a motorcycle or a truck? Mass can count just as much, if not more, than the speed of an object.
Even in a worst-case sceanario - a small plane landing on a road and getting into a head-on collision with a car or truck - the car/truck is MUCH more likely to survive, but the airplane will be demolished and the occupants almost certainly killed. (That’s why the guy I mentiond above opted for the lightpole rather than on-coming traffic)
It was an improved knowledge of aerodynamics that enabled the design of trainer planes that were more stable than their predecessors. With that sort of stability - which is of great aid to the new student - usually comes less agility and manuverability.
Let’s compare some things, shall we?
WWI fighters could fly upside down - try that with a Cessna the engine quits.
WWI fighters could withstand 5 or 6g’s, maybe more - they had to, in order to complete some of the dogfight manuvers. Try that in your average small general aviation airplane today you’ll snap the wings off.
WWI fighters had enormous engines, enabling them to make very tight level or climbing turns. Try that with the planes I fly you’ll either lose altitude, stall the wings, or break something. Either way, you won’t be going forward much longer.
WWI fighters - and later WWII models - had considerable horsepower. The engine gave them their speed, and the mass of that engine gave them enormous momentum. Some of the airplanes I’ve flown have been under 50 hp. They just don’t have the power to achieve much speed.
Yes, modern planes are lighter - so they can’t hit things as hard. They’re more fuel efficient - so they commonly carry less fuel. They’re much less likely to burn on impact.
Can SOME small planes perform fighter plane manuvers? Yes. In fact, the Cessna Aerobat I used to fly could, indeed, perform airshow manuvers - loops, rolls, immelmans, etc. And when I flew it above a freeway I had trouble keeping up with the cars below, they aren’t very fast at all.
Heck, the one time someone at my field taxied one of those into the side of a hangar all that happened to the hangar was scratched paint - broke the main spar of the wing, though, had to replace that half of it. Any time a small plane smacks into something at any speed the plane suffers the most damage.
For now I’ll overlook the slur of being called a liar. However, I am more than willing to state MY credentials in this discussion: I am a small plane pilot. I have been flying since 1995, primarially in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. I have a couple hundred hours of flight time. I have flown above Chicago numerous times and am therefore famillar with the airspace and the air traffic control system in that airspace. I have been to Meigs field in person - the first time in 1983, shortly after moving to Chicago, 12 years prior to taking my first flight lesson - and thus have personal first-hand knowledge of the airport in question. Having had a forced landing, and having volunteered to help pick wrecked airplanes off crash sites, I have some first hand knowledge of what happens to airplanes when things go wrong, and what sort of damage they do and do NOT do.
On what authority do you speak, sir?
Perhaps YOU consider 15 a “child” - but that’s not “child” in the sense of 5 year old. 15 is “young man” territory. I know 15 year olds who are a foot taller than me, 100 lbs heavier. They’re also just as smart as I am, and just as fast.
As I said - at what age do YOU think flight training should occur?
A flight student, by definition, is able to touch the controls of an airplane. If the age of this person is an issue, then at what age can we trust anyone? If that’s not the issue, then the real issue is how can you tell who is going to be dangerous at the stick before they ever get into the cockpit? Any suggestions? We’d love to hear them.