WIX Archives

Re: Discussion Topics? 2 of 2

Posted by Scott WRG Editor on Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:18:40 AM

In reply top Discussion Topics? 2 of 2 posted by Paul McMillan on Sat Feb 16, 2002 09:21:40 AM

I do agree that this is a touchy subject. However, I believe that if a family wants say so in wiether a plane flies again or not then they should retain control of it. In most cases I would assume the planes remains would become part of the estate. The family can donate them to a museum if they want, thats fine. But if they sell them then thats it. The new owner can do with them as he pleases (except do something crass like advertising the plane as a widow maker or something similar). When people die in car wrecks, regardless of the value of the car, we don't make memorials out of them. They are objects, really nothing more. There are numerous Mustangs flying that have killed thier owners, but the either still fly or are being rebuilt.

The point is, if a family is going to be effected because thier relative was killed in a warbird then I would think that seeing ANY warbird of that type would be distressing.

However, I do believe that military deaths are different. Take Karen's Dean for example. I think the remains of his aircraft should be made as a memorial to him. He was flying for his country and died doing his duty, regardless of the exact circumstances. He should be honored.

I think warbird memorials are approriate for those lost in combat. I will even concede that warbird racer memorials are approriate for those that raced them. But we don't make memorials out of Cessna 172's for those that die in them, do we?

One thing I think would be respectful is to dedictae a warbird restoration to the fallen pilot. Put his name on it somewhere. Because when it comes right down to it. The pilot obviously loved warbirds, flying warbirds. I think it is actually disrespectful to the pilot to do something that he probably would have fought against if he was living.

Just my opinion.

Scott

Follow Ups: