PRESS RELEASE UK’s last B-17 Flying Fortress, Sally B, grounded by European Regulations On the eve of the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the end of World War Two, new European regulations have grounded the UK’s much-loved Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress, Sally B. This is because of crippling new EU third party liability insurance requirements, based on aircraft weight, which have placed Sally B in the same insurance category as a commercial airliner. The effect is an increase in liability insurance of almost five hundred per cent, which is the equivalent of a staggering one thousand pounds extra per flying hour, on top of the already incredibly high running costs. But unlike a 737, Sally B operates for only twenty hours a year, is on a Permit to Fly, and can neither fly commercially, carry passengers, fly for hire and reward or fly over built-up areas. Elly Sallingboe, head of the aircraft’s operating company, said ‘In this anniversary of the end of World War Two, Europe has managed to ground the last B-17 in the UK. This is a bitter setback to the B-17 Team and Members, who have put in over a quarter of a century of relentless hard work and dedication to keep Sally B in the air. It seems the Government is powerless to grant an exemption to this new regulation, which is destroying historic aviation in the UK. It is particularly upsetting when you think that Sally B flies as a memorial to over 70,000 Allied airmen who lost their lives in the skies over Europe. The aircraft is ready to fly, and we will do everything humanly possible to find a solution.’ So what are we doing about it? We have begun a national media campaign to spread awareness of the aircraft’s plight, raise the additional funds and continue our fight for an exemption. We are positive that a short-term solution will be found so that Sally B can continue flying this season, starting with the Memorial Day Flypast over the American Military Cemetery at Madingley on 30 May. This is undoubtedly her most important and poignant event of the year, when we pay tribute to all those young men who sacrificed their lives for our freedom, and especially as we mark the 60th Anniversary of the end of the War. You can help us Lobby your MP to get this unjust law changed – their details can be found at www.theyworkforyou.com/mp or MPs can be contacted by fax at www.faxyourmp.com Sign our petition Every signature counts. Click here to download and return the petition by 6th June. B-17's address is on the bottom of the petition. Everything depends on the public’s reaction to our campaign and their generosity in making donations to The B-17 Charitable Trust. But if no permanent solution is found, this will be Sally B’s last season flying in this country. We also desperately need the public’s help. Details of how to support us can be found on our How you can Help page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Above taken from http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/news_frameset.php If anyone wants to sign the petition the please download it and signit - get your family to sign it - get your cat/dog to sign it and post it back to them. This really needs to fly - why should a 2000 flight hours a year 737 cost the same to insure as a 20 flight hours a year B-17. The B-17 also doesn't usually fly over large residential areas - It doesn't even fly in high wind or heavy rain.. Out of both - I reckon I know which is better maintained as well. It's a piece of UK/US history that deserves to fly - As they say themselves "Sally B flies as a memorial to over 70,000 Allied airmen who lost their lives in the skies over Europe" Please, please.. please download it, sign it and post it to them. Simon/~Flibster
why does it "deserve" to fly ? Air travel can be extremele dangerous in planes which are built to much older specifications. As you said, it doesnt fly in high wind or rain! This is the UK! When will it fly ? Why would it fly ? What purpose would it serve ? Wouldnt it just cost the UK taxpayer lots of money for no real use? They belong in museums now, where there going to carry on being history, rather than deteriorate by being used past when they should be. Besides, if people ar really that bothered then a private collector will buy some and fly that!
Wouldnt cost the Tax payer anything, its a privately owned plane (your other point corrected too) What they are campaigning is that it is because of the insurance bands being set by the planes weight the B-17 is in the same insurance band as a commercial plane that flies 2000hrs year over cities and carries passengers when the B-17 flies 20hrs year, not over built up areas, and doesnt carry passengers
It it in private hands - if you bothered to read the site then you would have figured that rather than just jumping on the "well it's old it should be recycled into tin cans" bandwagon.. Do you say the same things about windmills that are still working? Steam Traction Engines? Classic cars? It flies as a tribute to the 79000 *I think it was* US Airmen who lost their lives over Europe supporting the UK. Aircraft which are statically displayed in museums rot faster than ones that are actively flown as they have to activly restore and repair the aircraft - they also have to comply with the CAA regulations - just as the 737's do. Go away - read the http://sallyb.dcgservices.com/ site. Atomic - Thank you very much.
It would be very sad to see yet another aircraft with as great historical significance as this to be consigned to rot in a hanger somewhere. As with all machines of this calibre, nothing does them justice other than giving them the space to perform as they were designed. Exactly as with historic race cars, seeing static displays can never do them justice. seeing Sally B, or the last remaining Lancaster etc actually flying at airshow in the UK has been something I've enjoyed over the past few years. if this is the case however, i believe that many more restoration projects will be hampered, as i'm sure this will affect other airplanes too. The Vulcan bomber (possibly one of the most amazing aircraft to witness in flight) was one I was hoping to see fly again soon, but if it's based on weight, then i suppose we can forget that too. Sorry if this is a bit ranty for a first post, I was preparing a project log, but this caught my eye as it's dear to my heart. This is a piece of beauracracy that only a VOGON could come up with! Al
The Vulcan is affected by this..However the rebuild of it is still on. I just want to hear/feel the power from the 4 Olympus engines as it goes up at 80° - levels out and utter silence rains down.. Superb aircraft... oh there's 2 flying Lanc's...1 in the UK with the BBMF and 1 in Canada. Simon/~Flibster
Errr..the Lanc and the B-17 are two totally different aircraft...plus the post was in responce to MG Man... Plus - I started the damn thread anyway! The Avro Lancaster is a British Heavy bomber powered by 4 Merlin Engines The Boeing B17 is a American Heavy Bomber powered by Pratt and Whitney radial engines Lancaster: B17: Damn..Now I remember why I hardly post here... Simon/~Flibster
Krikkit - The fact that these are the last <insert plane of choice> in the UK is exactly the point.... I figured there are several examples stateside, but how many? anyway, how many people will want to travel to the US or Canada or <wherever> just to see a specific plane.(ok there are a few, and my dad probably would have...) The B-17 had a really important role in WWII, based in the UK, despite being a yank bird, and so did the Lancaster (different planes and countries/same job). therefore they have national significance. The other point is ANY flying examples of these planes are to be cherished, regardless of location, as their numbers will only diminish over time. Flibster - I was at the last (and many others leading up to it) public display flight of XH558 before her airframe license expired. The amazing sound is something I will never forget, and severely hope another will fly. I didn't know there was a Lanc in Canada tho..... Al
Well thanks, now I see that the Lanc and B17 are two different planes - i've not been paying attention, as if I thought about it, I knew they were anyway. As for not posting on here, someone (i.e. me) doesn't read the thread completely in a solid state of mind, posts a criticism against you and suddenly it's not worth posting here? And yes, I know you started the thread - that doesn't mean you read it all.
Sadly another Vulcan will not fly. However - XH558 will fly again. See http://www.tvoc.co.uk/ - Yup - XH558 is in the process of being rebuilt.. Simon/~Flibster
You do realise that they only needed £1000 extra to pay for the insurance. I hardly think all this publicity and lobbying is worth £1000. If they own that sort of aircraft and cant afford that extra then its time to sell or ground.
only fly it for an hour then. im sorry but its not like they are a charity. they own it they pay for it, they cant afford to then sell it. as for it being in the same group as a 737 i totally agree, it may be less air time. But its a hell of a lot more rickity and dangerous. Hence more insurance.
Gotta agree with Dom_ here- their plane, not ours, so why should we petition and fight hard for some rich git to carry on using his plane that we're basically gonna point at in the sky? It's a nice thing to have and all, but it's really not worth it in my opinion- the war finished 60years ago and planes don't last forever. <A88>
Its not just a plane, its a piece of history. For the sake of one EU regulation, it seems a shame that if they dont get the money it'll be grounded for ever...
[nostalgic] with the right maintanence planes and other such engineering wonders (modern and old) can be kept forever. Its people who dont last forever and any of these old planes flying again would be a wonder. I just wish the same could be said for the Turbinia, Wonderful ship and WAY ahead of her time. Now is had its guts ripped out and is sitting in a museum in Newcastle when she should be out zipping up and down the Tyne. [/nostalgic] Ship
