Might have been a simple safety plus prudence-driven decision.

Perhaps DAY was the best field available versus schlepping a sick bird
across the northern Dayton suburbs to FFO. With as high a profile as the
Dayton airshow is, you are smart not to risk a prang on the way over all the
playgrounds and residences. This is like choosing to fly a lonely route when
with hung ordnance. Suburbanites mourn their dead, seek compensation for
their losses, and vote. Fishes in the sea and lizards in the desert do not.

Support availability is nice, but if my choice is avoiding a high-visibility
mishap by taking the nearest capable runway versus landing at a field with
all the whistles and bells, I'll let the techs and the yellow gear follow me
wherever I go.
--
Mike Kanze

"Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance can be
tolerated only in race horses and women."

- Lord Kelvin


"Jim" wrote in message ...
Returned home late last night from a trip to the Dayton airshow. One
seemingly minor incident raised my curiousity.

A two plane detachment of F-117s were sent to the show. As is quite
typical one aircraft departed intending to provide flybys at other
regional shows before returning to Dayton for a final flyby and landing.

Shortly after departing however he experienced a loss of one engine.
Aircraft recovered at Dayton. I wonder why he would RTB to a civilian
field when WRI-PAT is so near. With this aircraft considered to be a high
value asset wouldn't the increased security of a major military airfield
have made more sense?

So a question for all is what criteria would have been applied here? Ed,
being USAF do you have any comments. Should note here that monitoring the
frequencies there were no other systems failures mentioned.






ACC USN ret.
NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR
67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85
&
74-77

Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval)