|
video of plane
Here is a advertising video of the plane that crashed
Al |
Originally Posted by neilki
(Post 10585645)
With respect, and a conversation I've had with our fine ATC colleagues offline; relaying details OF any emergency is third on a list of the one thing I care about. Flying the airplane. ATC have a tendency to get very inquisitive and often we don't have time to relay multiple requests for the same information.
In the immediate vsh of the departure airfield ATC are perfectly capable of looking out of the window and exercising their judgment without taking valuable attention of a crew likely (likely in this sad case) to be working at their capacity.) I was flying in the NE yesterday afternoon and there certainly was wide awareness over the radio of Bradley being mostly closed. Especially in an airplane without FDR/CVR I think it’s essential you communicate the nature of your emergency even if it’s only to give a clue to the NTSB where to start looking. Im sorry and with all respect but “return to the field to blow it out” does not tell me anything. “Return to the field, engine fire number 4” is exactly the same number of words and takes the same amount of time to communicate. |
Or is 'blow it out' related to doing a high power engine run, perhaps with leaning, to 'clean it out'?
|
With respect, and a conversation I've had with our fine ATC colleagues offline; relaying details OF any emergency is third on a list of the one thing I care about. Also with respect, you missed the point of my post. The pilot did not declare an emergency and the controller had to drag some details out of the pilot, in order to determine if he should direct the traffic on final to go around. Of course flying the aircraft comes first, but there were two pilots and one of them did have time for the “communicate” part of the saying. If he had just said “Returning for an emergency landing on runway 6. Standby.” all would have been clear from the start. To be fair, I think the controller should have said in his first response “Are you declaring an emergency?” |
Originally Posted by B2N2
(Post 10585701)
Especially in an airplane without FDR/CVR I think it’s essential you communicate the nature of your emergency even if it’s only to give a clue to the NTSB where to start looking. Im sorry and with all respect but “return to the field to blow it out” does not tell me anything. “Return to the field, engine fire number 4” is exactly the same number of words and takes the same amount of time to communicate. There would have been virtually no thought given to a potential NTSB investigation, nor the immediate gratification demanded by casual observers or unscrupulous media. None, whatsoever. The NTSB can and will get to the bottom in due time and have done so with much less information. |
Listening to the LiveATC.net tapes it seems obvious that BDL knew that there was an emergency aircraft inbound. Some of the verbiage from the aircraft may have been cut out on the LiveATC recordings since more than one frequency was being scanned. We may eventually find out more when the ATC transcripts are released.
If they knew the plane would crash at the deice fluid tank farm perhaps they could have responded sooner but it seems to me that they had the fire crews out next to the runway for the disabled plane. Like the controller, I wouldn't know if an engine out on a B-17 was an urgent problem. I've flown four-engine planes where we shut down one or two motors at times to save gas. Some opinions from earlier in this thread:
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10585198)
A B-17 can fly just fine on three engines (and even with 13 people, they would not have been 'heavy' since there are no guns or bombs), so clearly there must be more to it than a simple engine failure.
Originally Posted by filejw
(Post 10585276)
I presume you are right but it will be interesting to find out why they landed / impacted short of the R/W. Should be able to fly on 3 engines .
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10585370)
Like most aircraft of that era, the B-17 was only marginal on all engines...on three with a full load it would be a handful.
|
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK
(Post 10585724)
Alright, this is quite wrong on a few levels. Any communication of emergency status are for ATC assistance and the fire services, if needed. (Perhaps they had a flight control or other problem they couldn’t diagnose or understand immediately.) They would be saturated with keeping the thing flying and not worried about efficeint syntaxes. There would have been virtually no thought given to a potential NTSB investigation, nor the immediate gratification demanded by casual observers or unscrupulous media. None, whatsoever. The NTSB can and will get to the bottom in due time and have done so with much less information. A statement is made. A response is required. The appropriate response requires information. Thats simply how communication works. ATC needs to respond. To what? A medical emergency from one of the passengers? Ambulance required, A technical problem that requires return but no assistance? A technical problem that requires return and special handling like the longest runway in case of brake failure of flap malfunction? A technical problem that has the potential to turn into a dire emergency?! Requires priority handling, all first responders in crash positions, all other traffic diverted etc etc etc. How can you claim that THAT is not appropriate? |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10585370)
One thing that bothered me back then was the free fuel that airshows provided, which always meant full tanks. We operated with the complete 1945 kit, including all guns and full bomb racks. The bombs were hollow, and the .50 belts had no powder, but it still added up to about the civil maximum weight for most departures. Like most aircraft of that era, the B-17 was only marginal on all engines...on three with a full load it would be a handful. Memory says that when I took my ride, the guns were wooden mock-ups which would weigh a small fraction of the 'real thing'. and only one had an ammunition belt. There were a few 'bombs' in the bomb bay, but just a few - not a full load. Granted, that was ~20 years after you flew it and Nine-O-Nine had been repaired a couple times during that interval. |
The NTSB's B-Roll video for TV stations to use in their voiceover reports. Some clues perhaps in these new scenes.
|
Saw a beautiful example stripped back to base metal in Palm Springs a few weeks back.
Got a full tour inside and out ! That Ball Turret !!! The money raised all goes towards the full restoration. The guys seemed to suggest that it will be restored to full flying condition ! El Grifo |
Looks like something was dragging for quite a run on the B-Roll and in a right hand arc (in direction of flight).
|
3rd Oct 2019, 16:08, B2N2 posted:
"Especially in an airplane without FDR/CVR I think it’s essential you communicate the nature of your emergency even if it’s only to give a clue to the NTSB where to start looking." |
B-roll clearly shows feathered prop
Notice the engine emended in the shed in the b-roll was feathered and not turning |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10585802)
Memory says that when I took my ride, the guns were wooden mock-ups which would weigh a small fraction of the 'real thing'. and only one had an ammunition belt. There were a few 'bombs' in the bomb bay, but just a few - not a full load. Granted, that was ~20 years after you flew it and Nine-O-Nine had been repaired a couple times during that interval.
Perhaps after the runway overrun in ‘87 they lightened the ship a bit. The expander tube brakes wouldn’t quite stop you if you applied them much above 60kts on the landing roll, and there was some joking back then about not being able to jettison load over suburban Pittsburgh if the going got tough. The bomb bay doors were locked shut in fact. The b-roll shows a powerplant in the quonset hut with a feathered prop. |
The Connecticut State Police have released the names of the victims.
Police released the names of those killed in the crash on Thursday:
Police released the names of those injured in the crash:
https://www.wfsb.com/news/names-of-v...02ec67428.html Flight crew certificates: Ernest McCauley https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0b52341310.jpg Michael Foster https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....03c0ffb49a.jpg Mitchell Melton https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ce70df86a9.jpg |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10585878)
I think we had typical sightseeing/ferry weights of 52,000 lbs and recall thinking at the time that it was just about twice a DC-3 weight on just about twice the power, although we never used the highest permissible manifold pressure-I think owing to the detonation considerations but certainly for the reliability factors too. |
Misfueling in the accident chain?
|
Today's update from the Hartford Courant.
NTSB investigating whether B-17 that crashed at Bradley International Airport Wednesday had engine troubles prior to takeoffhttps://ci6.googleusercontent.com/pr...OFQFJKXJTI.jpgEmergency crews respond to a WWII B-17 bomber crash that happened just before 10 a.m. at Bradley International Airport Wednesday, Oct. 2, 2019, in Windsor Locks. (Kassi Jackson / Hartford Courant) Investigators are trying to determine if the vintage World War II-era plane that crashed Wednesday at Bradley International Airport, killing seven people and injuring seven others, had engine troubles prior to takeoff, law enforcement sources said Thursday. Sources said concerns about the B-17 bomber’s engine stemmed from interviews with survivors of the crash. National Transportation Board member Jennifer Homendy confirmed that in a Thursday afternoon press conference, but said that those interviews are not official reports. Also, investigators are looking into the performance and fitness of the pilots — both of whom died in the crash. Such an examination is conducted in most federal crash investigations. Homendy said that pilot Ernest McCauley, 75, had 7,300 hours of flight time on the B-17. That may have made McCauley the most experienced B-17 pilot in the nation. He’d been flying for Wings of Freedom for 20 years, Homendy said, and co-pilot Michael Foster, 71, had been a volunteer pilot for the Collings Foundation for five years. Authorities sifted methodically through wreckage at the airport Thursday morning. A team of NTSB investigators were on the runway and surrounding area on the southern end of the airport, reviewing impact marks that the massive Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress, owned by the Collings Foundation, made in the ground and examining the remains of the aircraft. Homendy said that the 75-year-old plane’s last “major inspection” was in January. “That inspection is called a continuous airworthiness inspection. From there, there are requirements to have progressive inspections,” Homendy said. “We do not know the quality of those inspections, we do not know if any issues were identified. We will be looking at that as part of the investigation.”Homendy said that the NTSB has requested training records for the pilots and other crew members, as well as air traffic transcripts from the Federal Aviation Administration and flight records for the plane. The board has also received a number of videos and photos from the public.The Collings Foundation said it was cooperating with investigators. It could be up to 10 days before the NTSB, charged with investigating serious transportation accidents, files a report on their investigation and another 12 to 18 months before they make any determinations on the cause of the crash. “Our mission is to determine what happened, why it happened and to prevent it from happening again,” Homendy said. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal was quick to call for an investigation into the plane.“I think there is a real need for scrutiny and oversight here … It’s a vintage airplane and it needs to be properly maintained. If there were defects and improper maintenance it is a very strong red flashing light for others flying these planes,” Blumenthal said. Trouble reported shortly after takeoffHomendy said that the plane hit the ground about 1,000 feet short of Bradley’s runway 6. The plane crashed at 9:53 a.m., Homendy said. That’s just minutes after the plane took off. |
NTSB briefing October 3, 2019 by Member Jennifer Homendy.
|
Originally Posted by wrekless
(Post 10585573)
There is a rumor in another forum that the plane may have been fueled with Jet A, either directly or that the truck had been misfueled.
Originally Posted by moosepileit
(Post 10585947)
Misfueling in the accident chain?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.