Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic. May 14, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: Pandemic: The Wyoming Air National Guard will be doing a fly over of regional hospitals throughout the state on Friday to honor health care workers.  At the same time, some of the emergency centers set up for the Pandemic are standing down. They'll remain ready as a reserve, should the virus revive, but they are not going to be maintained on a standing basis.

Lex Anteinternet: May 14, 1920. Flights

Lex Anteinternet: May 14, 1920. Flights:

May 14, 1920. Flights

 "General William Mitchell, Chief of the Air Service today formally opened the big air tournament at Boling [ie. Bolling] field, the first of its kind to be held. Congressman P. P. Campbell accompanied General Mitchell on the opening flight."  May 14, 1920.

Lex Anteinternet: May 8, 1920 Endings

Lex Anteinternet: May 8, 1920 Endings:

May 8, 1920 Endings

On this day in 1920, the Luftstreitkräfte, the World War One equivalent of the Luftwaffe, more or less, officially came to an end.

Disassembled German aircraft on display in London, 1918.

The organization, not surprisingly, had gone through several names and structures before achieving its final one in October 1916.  It did not include naval flyers, who remained in the navy, and its association with the German army was organizational such that it was part of the army.  It oddly did not include every German army pilot, however, as Bavaria retained an element of organizational control over men recruited from its territory, including at least theoretically its own air force.

After the German surrender it basically came to an end and its one and only commander, Ernst von Hoeppner, left his appointed position as its chief in January 1919 as part of the dissolution of the force in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles which prohibited the Germans from having military aircraft.  After that point it existed on paper until this day in 1920.

Ernst von Hoeppner, the commander of the Luftstreitkräfte from October 1916 until January 1919.  He returned to the cavalry branch from which he had come and retired in November 1919, dying from the flu at age 62 in 1922.

The German government did field aircraft as late as 1920 when it put down the Ruhr Rebellion, but those aircraft and their pilots were at least theoretically in the Freikorps.

On the German air arm and symbols, an interesting thing to note is how the stylized cross borrowed from the Teutonic Knights has evolved in the German air arm. From 1914 to 1915, it was the full cross pattée associated somewhat inaccurately with the Medieval crusading order that was painted on the sides and wings of German aircraft.  In reality, the Teutonic Knights only occasionally employed this style of cross, but it was heavil adopted by the German crown after unification of the country during the Franco Prussian War.

German cross pattée originally used on German aircraft.

In 1915, the cross pattée was slimmed down a bit for some reason.

Cross pattée used from 1915 until March 1918.

In March 1918, it was made a simple straight cross.

German aircraft symbol from March 1918 until the end of the war.

The revived Luftwaffe continued to use the simple cross throughout its existence from 1935 until 1945, in a modified form that added emphasis to the lines, but when the post war Luftwaffe was recreated, it went back, with the rest of the German military, to the cross pattée.

Lex Anteinternet: May 7, 1920. Races

Lex Anteinternet: May 7, 1920. Races:

May 7, 1920. Races

Collegiate airplane race activity at Mitchel Field, Long Island, May 7, 1920.

On this day in 1920 the first ever Collegiate Airplane Race occured in New York.

Collegiate airplane race participants J.T. Trippe (1899-1981) and George Willard Horne, who flew for Yale at Mitchel Field, Long Island, May 7, 1920.

Collegiate airplane race participants Robert K. Perry and Harry Goodman, who flew for Williams College at Mitchel Field, Long Island, May 7, 1920 

 Collegiate airplane race participants Lansing Colton Holden, Jr. (1896-1938) and Zenos Ramsey Miller (1896-1922), who flew for Princeton at Mitchel Field, Long Island, May 7, 1920.

collegiate airplane race participants Joseph Ferdinand Lersch and David Amos Royer, who flew for University of Pennsylvania at Mitchel Field, Long Island,

Due to a large drop in flights the FAA has announced that it's cutting Tower hours by 50% at the Natrona County International Airport . . .

which means that the tower will now be manned for 8  hours rather than 16.

P51 in foreground, NIA Tower in background.

The airport is open 24 hours a day, but it only has tower personnel now for 16 of those hours.  While this is due to the drop in flights caused by the Coronavirus Pandemic, there's concern that the 8 hour subtraction will become permanent as that's the history of such things.

The Natrona County International Airport is the largest airport in Wyoming and has major infrastructure.  Indeed its so large that, sadly, some of its original runways are closed.  They unnecessary but they've also fallen into disrepair.  Something like this doesn't help keep the airport be what it is, let alone help it obtain what it should be.

Additionally, while the news article I read didn't go into it, this seems odd as the only major cost savings associated with reducing hours by 50% would be to reduce tower personnel by 50% as well.  But didn't the government want employers to keep everyone on the payroll that they could?

Lex Anteinternet: Trains, Planes and Automobiles. . . and the Coronavirus

Lex Anteinternet: Trains, Planes and Automobiles. . . and the Corona...:

Trains, Planes and Automobiles. . . and the Coronavirus Pandemic

Unless you have a special interest in them, you probably haven't been thinking much about means of transportation lately.



Indeed, you probably haven't been going anywhere much, for that matter.



But because we have a special interest in the topic, and have dedicated blogs on two of the three title items here, we've been thinking about them a little, and we're seeing some interesting things going on.

Burlington Northern Train in Wyoming.

Let's take the oldest topic first, trains.  We have a companion blog that's just dedicated to that topic.  Have the railroad been impacted by the COVID 19 Pandemic? We'll, here's a recent industry magazine headline on what's going on.

US rail traffic falls off a cliff

AAR information shows Intermodal traffic dropped 20% and carloads plunged more than 23% for the week ended April 11

So indeed, it would appear so.



Regionally, at least one of the railroads has been furloughing employees.  Coal is collapsing, there isn't really anywhere near as much oil shipped by rail as there once was and oil is down anyway, and we're entering what appears to be a pretty deep recession.



Not a cheery scenario for the railroads right now at all.



So what about air then?

Denver International Airport B Concourse.

Not looking super either.

Air travel has decreased 96% due to COVID 19.  That's a whopping  huge decrease to say the least.

96%.

Flights locally have been reduced 50%.  No need for all of the old ones, and it's not like they were flying out of here every few minutes as it was.  Cheyenne cancelled a run to Dallas it had (until they cancelled it, I didn't know that they even had one).  

As a minor plus, Cody's airport is going to receive $18,000,000 in the form of a grant, which was a surprise to them, but that is fairly minor in comparison to what's otherwise going on.

Well, all this shouldn't impact automobiles, that old standby, right?

Pontiac Super Chief

Well there'd certainly be good reason to suspect it wouldn't.  Oil is below $20bbl and now at an all time historic low.  Prices at the pump have been dropping.  Should be great for cars, right?

Nope.  Sales of automobiles have crashed.  People just aren't going out and buying, and in a lot of places, of course, they can't.  And they likely don't want to either.

Hired automobile rides, such as Uber, are also down, not surprisingly.

Interesting times.

In surprise, Cody airport awarded $18 million by federal government

In surprise, Cody airport awarded $18 million by federal government: Yellowstone Regional Airport officials knew they’d be getting a financial boost from the federal government’s new Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. But they were …

The FAA rescinds the Collings Foundations Exemption allowing for carrying passengers.

The Nine O Nine, the Collings Foundation B-17 that crashed with fatal results in October, 2019.

The FAA has barred the Collings Foundation from carrying passengers, finding that its approach to maintenance was poor, which it also found contributed to the October 2019 crash of its B-17, Nine O Nine.

The entire decision is as follows:

RESCISSION OF EXISTING EXEMPTION AND DENIAL OF PETITION TO EXTEND EXEMPTION

This decision rescinds the relief that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) previously granted to The Collings Foundation (Collings) from §§ 91.9(a), 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), which allows Collings to operate certain aircraft for the purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire for living history flight experiences (LHFE). The FAA had granted such relief in Exemption No. 6540 and extended this relief for successive two year periods. The most recent exemption the FAA issued was Exemption No. 6540P, on March 22, 2018. This decision also denies the petitioner’s request for extension and amendment, submitted on August 29, 2019, and supplemented on November 8, 2019. 

Rescission of Exemption

Exemption No. 6540P authorizes Collings to use ten aircraft to conduct LHFE operations in various locations across the country. Specifically, the relief contained in Exemption No. 6540P allows Collings to conduct operations with civil aircraft that either have experimental or limited category airworthiness certificates for the purpose of carrying passengers for flight in historical aircraft. This relief was granted in conjunction with specific conditions and limitations with which Collings was required to comply. Further information about the FAA’s policy for Living History Flight Exemptions can be found in the FAA’s 2015 policy statement (the “FAA Policy”).

On October 2, 2019, Collings operated a Boeing B-17G (registration number N93012, serial number 32264) under Exemption 6540P in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, during which it undertook an emergency landing and crashed, causing a fire and resulting in fatal injuries to five passengers and two crewmembers onboard the aircraft.2 Findings from the accident investigation establish that 13 persons were onboard the aircraft at the time of the accident. No seat with a seatbelt on the aircraft existed for the Collings Foundation Crew Chief.

 Based on a review of the relevant records and other evidence, the FAA has determined Collings was not fulfilling several requirements of the exemption. Condition and Limitation No. 4 of the exemption states, “[i]n order to participate in Collings’s program and operations, persons must initially, and on an ongoing annual basis, receive training appropriate to their position on the contents and application of Collings’s manual system, safety and risk management program, and the conditions and limitations set forth in this exemption.” Similarly, Condition and Limitation No. 7 provides as follows:

Collings must document and record all ground and flight training and testing. The documentation and records must contain, at minimum, the following information:
a. Date of each training or testing session;
b. The amount of time spent for each session of training given;
c. Location where each session of training was given;
d. The airplane identification number(s) in which training was received;
e. The name and certificate number (when applicable) of the instructor who provided each session of training;
f. The name and certificate number of the pilot who provided each session of testing; and g. For verification purposes, the signature and printed name of the person who received the training or testing.

While Collings produced some training records for maintenance personnel and pilots, the evidence indicates that Collings did not train the crew chief who was onboard the B-17G that was involved in the accident on October 2, 2019. The applicable General Operations Manual states that crew chiefs are assigned to every passenger flight aboard the B-17, B-25, and B-24. Crew chiefs must assist the flightcrew with duties as assigned during each flight. Such duties include, but are not limited to, assisting flightcrew with checklists and handling emergencies,as well as assisting flightcrew and maintenance personnel in preparation for each flight and helping with ground operations and ramp safety. See Collings Foundation LHFE General Operations Manual at 15 (rev. 1.2, Sept. 10, 2017). Crew chiefs are required to be familiar with all documents that must be on board the aircraft and must be “trained by the [pilot in command], [second in command], another Crew Chief or the [Director of Maintenance].” Id. In an interview with the FAA on March 2, 2020, the crew chief verified that he received no initial training and was unaware of basic information concerning operations under the exemption. Instead, he only received on-the-job training. This lack of training indicates Collings failed to fulfill the terms of Condition and Limitation Nos. 4 and 7.

Condition and Limitation No. 5 states, “Collings must maintain and apply on a continuous basis its safety and risk management program that meets or exceeds the criteria specified in the FAA Policy for all operations subject to this exemption. This includes, at a minimum, the Collings SMS Manual, used as a basis for an equivalent level of safety.”

 The evidence establishes Collings did not comply with its Safety Management System (SMS) program. First, the crew chief Collings employed stated he was unaware that a safety and risk management program existed. This absence of awareness and lack of training establishes that Collings failed to maintain and apply on a continuous basis a safety and risk management program that met or exceeded the criteria specified in the FAA Policy. Moreover, the Collings Safety Management System Manual states that hazards should be identified and corrected as a matter of daily routine because identifying and eliminating or mitigating hazards is essential to preventing accidents, incidents, and injuries. See SMS Manual at 10, ¶ 6.1 (rev. 1.2, Sept. 10, 2017). The SMS Manual also emphasizes the performance of audits that cover, in part, “general operations, aircraft maintenance, record keeping, operational procedures, [and] observation of flight operations.” Id. at 15, ¶ 6.5. The SMS Manual further requires a culture of safety exist at Collings Foundation. See id. at 6, ¶ 4. As described below, notable maintenance discrepancies existed with the B-17G, yet the Collings Director of Maintenance signed inspection records—dated as recently as September 23, 2019—indicating no findings of discrepancies. No records or evidence of the completion of periodic audits exist with regard to this aircraft. In addition, the pilot in command of the B-17G was also the Director of Maintenance; as a result, Collings did not have a structure to ensure adequate oversight of his decisions to conduct passenger-carrying operations such as the October 2 flight. This indicates Collings lacked a safety culture when operating the B-17G. As a result, Collings did not fulfill the requirements of Condition and Limitation No. 5.

Condition and Limitation No. 6 states as follows: Collings must maintain all aircraft subject to this exemption in accordance with the— a. Collings General Maintenance Manual; b. Maintenance requirements as specified in the appropriate type specification sheet, as amended; c. FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that meets the requirements of § 91.409(e), (f)(4), and (g); and d. Appropriate military technical manuals.

Inspection of the engines on the B-17G N93012 established magneto and ignition failures existed. Regarding engine 4, to prevent the magneto “P” leads from separating from the magnetos, someone had attempted to rig the magneto leads in place with safety wire. Inspection and testing of engine 4 left magneto revealed the movement of the safety-wired lead caused grounding to the case, which rendered the magneto lead inoperative. In addition, the right magneto of engine 4 was found unserviceable. The cam follower was worn beyond limits and the point gap was less than half the measurement required by service documents. When tested, the magneto produced weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders. All spark plugs were inspected and required cleaning and all electrode gaps were out of tolerance; therefore, further engine inspection indicated signs of detonation and associated damage. An inspection of engine 3 showed all spark plugs electrode gaps were out of tolerance, fouled, and revealed various signs of detonation. Further inspection of this engine revealed problems with the cylinders. As a result of these findings and other information, the FAA questions whether the engines were inspected adequately and in accordance with the applicable maintenance requirements.

The discrepancies noted above indicate maintenance, or lack thereof, occurred in a manner contrary to maintaining aircraft in accordance with the General Maintenance Manual (GMM). The GMM incorporates by reference inspection procedures for individual aircraft, as described the Aircraft Maintenance Manuals. See General Maintenance Manual Rev. 1.1 at 19 (Sept. 10, 2017). Moreover, the records memorializing the inspections and maintenance performed on the B-17G lack key information and, in some cases, indicate maintenance was either not performed at all or was performed in a manner contrary to the applicable requirements. See Ground Check Inspection Form #15: Accessory Inspection, Engine Number Four Fourth (25 Hour) (Sept. 23, 2019); Ground Check Inspection Form #17: Ignition System Inspection, Engine Number Four Fourth (25 Hour) at ¶¶ 11-13 (Sept. 29, 2019). In addition, maintenance records indicate the removal of wires and no further repairs or adjustments, even though a wire was burned and arcing. See NL93012 B-17G Flying Fortress Flight Report (May 11, 2019). The same record, as well as a record from the following day, indicates flights with passengers occurred in the aircraft. See id.; NL93012 B17G Flying Fortress Flight Report (May 12, 2019). As a result, Collings did not fulfill the requirements of Condition and Limitation No. 6.

In addition, Condition and Limitation No. 22 requires compliance with all conditions and limitations set forth in FAA Exemption No. 6540P. The lack of compliance discussed above serves as a basis for the FAA to rescind the exemption.

Under Exemption No. 6540P, Collings received relief from the following regulations:

Section 91.9, which prohibits operations of a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

Section 91.315, which prescribes, in pertinent part, “No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.”

 Section 91.319(a)(1) and (2), which state, “(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate— (1) for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or (2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.”

Section 119.5(g), which prescribes, in pertinent part, “(g) No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person may operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation of any deviation or exemption authority, if issued to that person or that person’s representative.”

 Section 119.21(a), which prescribes, in pertinent part, “(a) Each person who conducts airplane operations as a commercial operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire in air commerce, or as a direct air carrier, shall comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part....”

The FAA’s Decision:

The undersigned finds that allowing Exemption No. 6540P to continue in effect until its previously established March 31, 2020, expiration date would not be in the public interest and would adversely affect safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and (g), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Exemption No. 6540P is rescinded in full, effective immediately

Decision on Petition to Extend Existing Exemption

This decision also responds to the petitioner’s request, dated August 22, 2019, to amend and extend Exemption No. 6540P. The relief provided by Exemption No. 6540P is described above. The petitioner requests to extend this relief and to add an additional B-25 aircraft to the exemption for operations beginning in January 2020. Moreover, on November 8, 2019, Collings submitted an additional request to the FAA, in which Collings sought to add another B-17 to exemption 6540P.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

In its petition to extend Exemption No. 6540P, the petitioner states that all of the aircraft requested are either limited or experimental category and that none of them has a standard category equivalent. Petitioner also states that all of the aircraft have been U.S. operated, none of the aircraft are currently in U.S. military service, and all of the aircraft meet the criteria of being “fragile” as there are less than 1% of each type still in service.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has determined good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent.

Although the FAA did not seek comment on this extension, the FAA received over 1,500 comments supporting the renewal of Exemption No. 6540P. Most of these comments were from individuals who cited the historical and sentimental value of allowing living history flights to continue. Some individual commenters strongly urged the FAA to not renew Exemption No. 6540P because of safety concerns regarding the operations Collings has conducted.

 In considering the request for further extension of Exemption No. 6540P, the FAA assessed the current risk to the safety of U.S. registered aircraft, FAA-certificated airmen, persons paying for carriage, and the public at large in determining whether granting relief to Collings would be in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. 44701(f). As noted in the previous section regarding rescission of Exemption No. 6540P, the FAA has determined through ongoing investigation that Collings has not been operating in compliance with the conditions and limitations of the 6540P exemption issued to Collings. In addition, the FAA continues to gather facts that indicate Collings lacked a commitment to safety, insofar as Collings did not take seriously its safety management system program. Based on the totality of facts the FAA has gathered, granting an extension to Collings’s current authority to operate and permitting Collings to add an aircraft to its exemption would adversely affect safety.

The FAA is mindful that flight in these historic aircraft is meaningful to some members of the public; however, the FAA is required by statute to ensure that any exemption the FAA grants would be in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. 44701(f). Given the facts of the accident on Oct. 2, 2019, and the subsequent evidence of Collings’s lack of compliance summarized in the Rescission section of this document, the FAA has determined that granting the exemption from §§ 91.9(a), 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) would not be in the public interest because of the adverse effect on safety.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is not in the public interest because it would adversely affect the safety of Collings Foundation’s U.S.-registered aircraft, the FAA-certificated airmen that would be participating in the operations, the passengers on board the aircraft, and others involved in or affected by the operations. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition for renewal of Exemption No. 6540P issued to The Collings Foundation is denied.

 Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 25, 2020

Lex Anteinternet: February 1, 1920 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the South African Air Force formed

Lex Anteinternet: February 1, 1920 The Royal Canadian Mounted Polic...:

February 1, 1920 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the South African Air Force formed.

On this day in 1920 the recently merged Royal North West Mounted Police and the Dominion Police Force officially became the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Mountie of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, circa 1930s.

This is undoubtedly confusing for people who associate the Mounties, as they are called, with the 19th Century, but the RCMP celebrates its 100th anniversary today.

The confusion is no doubt created by the fact that the well known prior police force, whose troopers were also called Mounties, the North West Mounted Police, dated back to 1873. The NWMP was formed to patrol the Canadian West and adopted the famous scarlet color as the Indian population associated it with authority due to the British Army.  The NWMP came to ultimately wear a uniform that for all practical purposes is the one we associate with the RCMP today.

Troopers of the NWMP  at Fort Walsh, 1878 in early uniforms with British style "pill box" caps.

It was the NWMP that established the reputation of the Mounties for "always getting their man" and brave, risky, solitary action.  They also established the Mounties appearance, adopting, unofficially at first, the Stetson hat that still prominently features in the RCMP uniform.

Mountie of the North West Mounted Police in the Yukon, 1917. This Mountie is carrying a Ross rifle, formerly the rifle of the Canadian Army, and is riding a stock saddle. Stock saddles were the norm for Mounties for much of their mounted history.  His Stratchcona boots, adopted by Canadain volunteers during the Boer War and still used by the RCMP today, are also easily identifiable in the photo.

In later years the North West Mounted Police was renamed the Royal North West Mounted Police in 1904, bringing the name close to that of the RCMP. During the Boer War it contributed men to volunteer forces that served in South Africa and in 1918 it contributed two units directly to the Empire forces in Europe, and then in Russia, over the objection of the Canadian military which felt that there was no need for cavalry to be sent at that time.  The sending of Mounties in fact blurred their purpose somewhat as it caused a force which was military in organization but a police force to actually take on a military role for a time while also putting a strain on police functions in Canada itself, as the war had so depleted the number of men serving in the RNWMP.

Dawson, Yukon Territory.

While the North West Mounted Police covered the vast Canadian west, in the east the Canadian federal police force was the Dominion Police Force, which had been formed in 1868.  We hear a great deal less about it, no doubt because its role was less dramatic.  During World War One it was folded into the Canadian Army for a time. Following the war the decreased need for a force of the type of the North West Mounted Police and the increased need for a central Canadian police force caused the merger of the two, which officially became the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on this day in 1920.

Royal Canadian Musical Ride at the Wyoming State Fair, 2012.

The RCMP has existed ever since, although its no longer a mounted service and its famous scarlet uniform is now only a dress uniform.  It's final existence in its original frontier form was waning even at the time of its creation. Even so, all Mounties were required to learn to ride until 1966, a fact which reflects Canada's vast wild nature.  At the same time, following its creation, it took on many of the same duties that the Federal Bureau of Investigation occupies in the United States while also retaining provincial policing duties, often by contract with local entities.

Purely coincidentally, today is also the date that marks the formation of the South African Air Force which holds the status as the world's second independent air force.  I.e., it was a service separate from the Army.  The Royal Air Force holds the status of being the world's first independent air force, acquiring that status on April 1, 1918.

Airco D.H.9, several of which were given by the United Kingdom to the Dominion of South Africa.

The date cold legitimately be debated as in reality it marks the date on which Col Pierre van Ryneveld was appointed the South African Director Air Service with the task of creating the South African Air Force.  South African had been given several military aircraft for the purpose of creating an air arm, and his task was to do that.  Interestingly, Van Ryneveld was not in South Africa at the time and had just been recalled from the UK to assume his new duties.  He returned at the controls of a Vickers Vimy, which he flew all the way from the UK with co-pilot Quintin Brand. Both Van Ryneveld and Brand were knighted for the feat.

Van Ryneveld left, and Brand right, February 1920.

Van Ryneveld commanded the new South African Air Force officially until 1933 and then unofficially until 1937 after which time he was the head of the South African General Staff, a position he occupied until 1949.  The dual role existed as no replacement was chosen for his air force role until 1937.  He died at age 81 in 1972.  Brand, who as also South African, remained in the RAF and returned to the UK to resume his duties with it.  He played an important and successful role as an RAF commander during the Battle of Britain but was on the wrong side of the internal British tactical debate on the "Big Wing" theory and was sidelined and retired in 1943, during the midst of the Second World War.  Following his retirement he married for the second time at age 50, marrying the sister of his first wife who had died in 1941.  The couple retired to what was then Rhodesia in 1950 and he died at age 74 in 1968.

Lex Anteinternet: Friday Farming. Farming Airman.

Lex Anteinternet: Friday Farming. Farming Airman.:

Friday Farming. Farming Airman.

United States Air Force photograph, Airman 1st Class Jonathan Whitely photographer)

Today In Wyoming's History: January 20, 1920. Bert Cole back in the air.

Today In Wyoming's History: January 20: 1920  Bert Cole, who was the pilot in the incident that resulted in the loss of the life of Maude Toomey on the January 14, was already back in the air, piloting for a stunt.

I'm frankly a little shocked. That seems awfully soon.