B17 crash at Bradley

[BobbyHowie]

Something's been bugging me. We know 909 reported a problem with no4 but something else caught them out. There was an earlier eyewitness saying it was no3 - has this been completely proven to be false? There were reports they were working on 1 or 2 engines prior to take off.

Had a flight in Aluminum Overcast years ago and I'd jump at the chance to do it again. All passengers know the risk. Such a tragedy for all concerned.

[capngrog]

Attempting to Go Around?

I've been looking at a lot of photographs of the crash site, and it appears to me that the B-17 was mostly airborne when it hit the de-icing facility ground storage tank. Looking at the photo below, note the "box" of the box truck closest to the crash site. There appears to be a gash just below the roof of the "box", yet the truck cab is unscathed. The right side of the "box" is gone, and the rear is displaced aft at its right side. Other photos show a lack of skid marks on the taxi way immediately in front of the crash site. As shown in previous photos posted in this thread, one of the plane's engines went into a building some distance from the crash site itself. This was a high energy impact.

It would be interesting to see an aerial photo of the initial touchdown point (reportedly 1,000 ft. short of Rwy 06) and the tire marks through the grass, to determine, if at some point, the tire marks disappear, indicating the aircraft had become airborne at that point. If the pilots were attempting to bring the aircraft to a stop, I would think that the impact would have been much less violent than it was. Wild-guessing at a touchdown speed of around 80-85 kt., significant speed should have been bled in the approximately 2,000 ft. (straight line distance) between the point of touchdown and the point of impact.

That's just my theory, and probably incorrect at that.

Regards,
Grog

[capngrog]

Theory Update

Well, I just had another look at the NTSB B-Roll on the crash site, and from 2:54 - 3:00 of the video, fairly light tire/skid marks are shown leading from the movement area to the crash site. I may have to adjust my theory on this crash or just consign the whole thing to the "Dust Bin Of Flawed Theories" (DBOFT).

Time (and further NTSB investigation) will tell.

Regards,
Grog

[filejw]

Originally Posted by capngrog

I've been looking at a lot of photographs of the crash site, and it appears to me that the B-17 was mostly airborne when it hit the de-icing facility ground storage tank. Looking at the photo below, note the "box" of the box truck closest to the crash site. There appears to be a gash just below the roof of the "box", yet the truck cab is unscathed. The right side of the "box" is gone, and the rear is displaced aft at its right side. Other photos show a lack of skid marks on the taxi way immediately in front of the crash site. As shown in previous photos posted in this thread, one of the plane's engines went into a building some distance from the crash site itself. This was a high energy impact.

It would be interesting to see an aerial photo of the initial touchdown point (reportedly 1,000 ft. short of Rwy 06) and the tire marks through the grass, to determine, if at some point, the tire marks disappear, indicating the aircraft had become airborne at that point. If the pilots were attempting to bring the aircraft to a stop, I would think that the impact would have been much less violent than it was. Wild-guessing at a touchdown speed of around 80-85 kt., significant speed should have been bled in the approximately 2,000 ft. (straight line distance) between the point of touchdown and the point of impact.

That's just my theory, and probably incorrect at that.

Regards,
Grog

Well always a possibility they do have video of most of the sequence so we should find out .

[Airbubba]

The third crewmember, variously referred to as a steward, flight engineer, loadmaster and now mechanic has been released from the hospital.

He does indeed have an A and P license. Hope he can shed some light on what happened but as Pilot DAR points out from personal experience sometimes folks are totally amnesic to an aircraft mishap event.

From the Hartford Courant:

Mitchell Melton, a Collings Foundation mechanic from Texas injured in the deadly B-17 bomber crash last week at Bradley International Airport was released Tuesday from the hospital, according to a fundraising Facebook page started by family.

“Mitchell was released to go home today, lab results came back perfect and tests were normal,” read a 4 p.m. post Tuesday on the #FIGHTLIKEMITCH fundraiser page. Melton worked for the foundation that owned and operated the 75-year-old Boeing B-17. The plane’s pilot, co-pilot and five passengers were killed. Melton was among six people on board who were injured in the crash. A man working at the airport was also injured as he tried to help after the plane caught fire.

https://www.courant.com/breaking-new...jd4-story.html

The B-17 PIC Ernest 'Mac' McCauley appears to be in the lower left corner of this picture from Facebook.

[Airbubba]

Dear supporters,

Please join the Collings Foundation in our thoughts and prayers with those who were on the tragic flight of the B-17 Flying Fortress “Nine-O-Nine” on Wednesday, October 2nd. We will be forever grateful to the heroic efforts of the first responders at Bradley International Airport and the assistance of all local agencies in the days after the crash.

The Collings Foundation team has been and remains fully cooperative with officials to determine the cause of the crash and we will comment further when facts and details become available. We have suspended the Wings of Freedom Tour for the remainder of the 2019 season and the aircraft have returned to our winter maintenance base in Florida.

The mission of the Collings Foundation remains steadfast in the goal of making history come alive as we have for over 30 years. Since 1989, the Wings of Freedom Tour has touched the lives of millions, as we have made visits to over 3600 communities in that time. Tens of thousands have flown aboard our Living History Flight Experiences (LHFE) on the B-17, B-24, B-25, and A-1E and flight training on the TP-51C, TF-51D, and TP-40N. In the past week we have received many stories on how powerful and life-changing the tour has been for families and as we move forward, and we expect there are thousands more who have been touched by the Wings of Freedom Tour.

In the coming months, federal agencies will be reviewing the LHFE program for not only our organization, but many other organizations nationwide who continue to fly vintage aircraft as a part of their educational mission. As these reviews take place, we feel it is important for the voices of those impacted by the Wings of Freedom Tour over the years to be heard. We need to let federal agencies know that the LHFE program is important to you and other American citizens as an educational tool.

Please take a moment to add your comments to the current docket regarding the renewal of the Collings Foundation LHFE program with the FAA at the Federal Register. You may do so online at the following link:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FAA-2001-11089-0096

As you write your comment, please review the tips for submitting effective comments from Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

Thank you for your support of our living history mission.

Best regards,
Rob Collings
Executive Director

_________________________________________

This message requesting comments in support of the LHFE exemption extension has been posted on social media and sent out in email. - Airbubba

[Airbubba]

Here is the August 22, 2019 request to the FAA for renewal of the Collings Foundation's LHFE letter.

T H E C O L L I N G S F O U N D A T I O N
P . O . B o x 2 4 8 , 1 3 7 B a r t o n R o a d , S t o w , M A 0 1 7 7 5

PETITION FOR LHFE EXEMPTION RENEWAL AND ADDITIONAL
AIRCRAFT

August 22, 2019

Dear Administrator Elwell,

The Collings Foundation is requesting renewal of existing exemption from
FAR 91.9, 91.315, 91.319(a), 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) of Title 14 CFR to
allow the Collings Foundation to operate certain aircraft for the purpose of
carrying passengers for compensation or hire under the LHFE program IAW
FAA policy posted on 7/21/2015ID: FAA-2015-0517-0001.

The Collings Foundation has been operating under the exemption and now
LHFE program since 1997.

Aircraft Requested for Exemption:

The Collings Foundation has been operating under Exemption 6540 since
1997 and the current revision is 6540P with an expiration date of March 31st
2020.

Aircraft Currently on the LHFE exemption and requested for renewal:

Boeing B-17 N93012 serial number 32264
Consolidated B-24 N224J serial number 44-44052
North American B-25 N3476G serial number 44-28932
McDonnell Douglas F-4 N749CF serial number 65-0749
McDonnell Douglas TA-4J N524CF serial number 153524
Grumman TBM N9590Z serial number 91733
Bell UH-1E N911KK serial number 153762
North American F-100F Super Sabre N26AZ serial number 56-3844
Douglas EA-1E Skyraider N188RH serial number 135188
Lockheed T-33 N648 serial number 51-6953

Additional aircraft is duplicate type, but new tail number:
B-25N N7946C serial number 44-28938

 All of the aircraft requested are either Limited or Experimental
category.

 None of the aircraft have a standard category equivalent.

 All of the aircraft have been U.S. operated.

 None of the aircraft are in U.S. military service and are over 50 years
old.

 All of the aircraft meet the criteria of being “fragile” as there are less
than 1% of each type still in service.

We respectfully ask that this be processed expeditiously as the new
additional aircraft to the LHFE is needed to be operated January of 2020,
before the renewal date of March 31st 2020.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
Robert Collings
Executive Director
Collings Foundation

[filejw]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Dear supporters,

Please join the Collings Foundation in our thoughts and prayers with those who were on the tragic flight of the B-17 Flying Fortress “Nine-O-Nine” on Wednesday, October 2nd. We will be forever grateful to the heroic efforts of the first responders at Bradley International Airport and the assistance of all local agencies in the days after the crash.

The Collings Foundation team has been and remains fully cooperative with officials to determine the cause of the crash and we will comment further when facts and details become available. We have suspended the Wings of Freedom Tour for the remainder of the 2019 season and the aircraft have returned to our winter maintenance base in Florida.

The mission of the Collings Foundation remains steadfast in the goal of making history come alive as we have for over 30 years. Since 1989, the Wings of Freedom Tour has touched the lives of millions, as we have made visits to over 3600 communities in that time. Tens of thousands have flown aboard our Living History Flight Experiences (LHFE) on the B-17, B-24, B-25, and A-1E and flight training on the TP-51C, TF-51D, and TP-40N. In the past week we have received many stories on how powerful and life-changing the tour has been for families and as we move forward, and we expect there are thousands more who have been touched by the Wings of Freedom Tour.

In the coming months, federal agencies will be reviewing the LHFE program for not only our organization, but many other organizations nationwide who continue to fly vintage aircraft as a part of their educational mission. As these reviews take place, we feel it is important for the voices of those impacted by the Wings of Freedom Tour over the years to be heard. We need to let federal agencies know that the LHFE program is important to you and other American citizens as an educational tool.

Please take a moment to add your comments to the current docket regarding the renewal of the Collings Foundation LHFE program with the FAA at the Federal Register. You may do so online at the following link:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FAA-2001-11089-0096

As you write your comment, please review the tips for submitting effective comments from Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

Thank you for your support of our living history mission.

Best regards,
Rob Collings
Executive Director

_________________________________________

This message requesting comments in support of the LHFE exemption extension has been posted on social media and sent out in email. - Airbubba

Kind of tacky but I suppose the guy has an operation to run.

[mnttech]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Here is the August 22, 2019 request to the FAA for renewal of the Collings Foundation's LHFE letter.

Interesting, the P-51C-10 (TP-51C) is not listed.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by mnttech

Interesting, the P-51C-10 (TP-51C) is not listed.

It appears to me that the TP-51C, TF-51D, and TP-40N are probably covered under flight training regulations, not the LHFE exemption for carrying passengers for hire.

From the Collings Foundation note above:

Tens of thousands have flown aboard our Living History Flight Experiences (LHFE) on the B-17, B-24, B-25, and A-1E and flight training on the TP-51C, TF-51D, and TP-40N.

[mnttech]

Airbubba,
Thanks, that makes sense. I do have an hour logged in the P-51

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by filejw

Kind of tacky but I suppose the guy has an operation to run.

Plus the wolves are out to get them currently, as can be easily seen by just perusing this thread. I think he is asking for a minimal show of support, to ensure the entire effort does not get destroyed in a knee jerk reaction.

[pattern_is_full]

Originally Posted by capngrog

I've been looking at a lot of photographs of the crash site, and it appears to me that the B-17 was mostly airborne when it hit the de-icing facility ground storage tank. Looking at the photo below, note the "box" of the box truck closest to the crash site. There appears to be a gash just below the roof of the "box", yet the truck cab is unscathed. ....

That's a good spot.

However, the wingtip of a lightly-loaded B17 sits about 10-12 feet (3-3.8m) above the ground even when parked (just about where that gash is) - so the height of the gash doesn't mean the aircraft was still airborne. Not to mention any variation based on pitch or roll attitude (right wing high/low, tail down or still up). Don't judge by the height of the collapsed aircraft's other wing in that photo....

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/media-...17-crowds-005/

[capngrog]

Originally Posted by pattern_is_full

That's a good spot.

However, the wingtip of a lightly-loaded B17 sits about 10-12 feet (3-3.8m) above the ground even when parked (just about where that gash is) - so the height of the gash doesn't mean the aircraft was still airborne. Not to mention any variation based on pitch or roll attitude (right wing high/low, tail down or still up). Don't judge by the height of the collapsed aircraft's other wing in that photo....

https://www.dailyrepublic.com/media-...17-crowds-005/

I agree. I should have pointed out that the height of that wingtip "on the gear" was probably close to the height of the gash. What I can't understand is that the aircraft apparently bled little speed after it touched down, and rolled on for a little over 2,000 ft. before violently impacting objects in the de-icing area. The right hand swerve from the touchdown point (reportedly near the runway centerline) could be due to damage to the main gear resulting from the impacts with the glide slope (VASI?) /approach structures ... or perhaps due to power up on the functioning engines. I think the major potential flaw in my "go-around" theory is why in the world such an experienced pilot would elect to go around after having hit runway approach structures? There was plenty of runway left ahead of him. I guess when the NTSB figures out the reason for the swerve to the right, we'll have gone a long way to understanding this crash. I also want to admit that notwithstanding my "theory" on this crash, I still don't have enough information to understand what went wrong on 909's last flight. God Bless those who perished on her.

The "flight engineer" survived, and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about events. The other surviving PAX are obviously aviation-oriented (some are even pilots), and their input will also be most valuable.

Regards,
Grog

[phiggsbroadband]

.
The NTSB video clearly shows two curving skid marks for most of the distance from the lights to the de-icing area. If he was too fast at the threshold, the wings would still be producing significant lift, so the braking action would be minimal. This is beginning to look a lot like a very big ground-loop accident.
.

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by phiggsbroadband

.
The NTSB video clearly shows two curving skid marks for most of the distance from the lights to the de-icing area. If he was too fast at the threshold, the wings would still be producing significant lift, so the braking action would be minimal. This is beginning to look a lot like a very big ground-loop accident.
.

Not sure I would call a mishap where the plane hit the localizer antenna and approach lights a thousand feet before the runway threshold a ground loop accident.

[RetiredTooEarly]

It always amazes me to see, over many decades, the number of Pilots who go around and/or continue on after some sort of altercation with ground equipment in its many shapes and forms!

Have seen in Australia a couple of incidents where Heavies have demolished an antennae array at the other end of the runway on takeoff due being too heavy, tailwind etc. and boldly soldiered on into the skies!

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Not sure I would call a mishap where the plane hit the localizer antenna and approach lights a thousand feet before the runway threshold a ground loop accident.

Exactly. The aircraft being so low on final, in clear weather, with two experienced pilots and a known engine problem suggests it was unable to maintain flight. No idea whether there was some adjacent more open area to ditch in, free from the runway approach lights.

[Australopithecus]

A go around after contact with structures or a very hard landing is never a good idea. However, the Australian incident you almost cite was a result of incorrect take-off performance data. Once you are dragging your tail through the weeds at the end of the runway it’s obviously too late to stop. Its not a case of boldly soldiering on, more a case probably of opting not to kill everyone right that second.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by etudiant

Exactly. The aircraft being so low on final, in clear weather, with two experienced pilots and a known engine problem suggests it was unable to maintain flight. No idea whether there was some adjacent more open area to ditch in, free from the runway approach lights.

There isn't much open area around Bradley - most of it is either developed or forested. The only clear areas may have been some of the open area between the runways.