B17 crash at Bradley

[ShamrockF]

I understand there are multiple injuries following a vintage B17 crash at Bradley.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/nyregion/bradley-airport-plane-crash.html

I hope they're ok.

[Rotorhead1026]

A bad business! Here's some background (https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-historic-airplanes-bradley-airport-20190930-tj2w7ua3wbgjrh4qbmvo5udygu-story.html).

[barry lloyd]

A bad business! Here's some background (https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-historic-airplanes-bradley-airport-20190930-tj2w7ua3wbgjrh4qbmvo5udygu-story.html).

The Hartford Courant is not available to those of us on the European side of the Atlantic, apparently.

[Retired DC9 driver]

More here,
https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-windsor-locks-bradley-international-airport-plane-crash-20191002-jfkph65krrfhxlrlb3eehksdiu-story.html

for those behind the UK Firewall, here is some of the text,At least two people have died and more were seriously injured in a fiery plane crash at Bradley International Airport Wednesday morning.
A vintage plane crashed about 10 a.m., bursting into flames and sending up a large plume of smoke that could be seen for miles. Sources say it crashed into a shed as it was trying to land.

[Lake1952]

Toured the interior of that same plane last Spring at KFMY in Florida. These aircraft would give rides to paying passengers each afternoon and one could also buy a seat on the re-position flights to wherever the next stop on the tour was. So more likely than not, there were passengers aboard in addition to the flight crew. Very sad day.

[ATC Watcher]

If it is their B17 , the 9-0-9 , a video of the aircraft is here : B17 Collings Foundation
Very sad for the casualties and for thge loss of this beautifully restored aircraft..

[Piper_Driver]

My condolences to the casualties. I toured the aircraft when it was on the west coast along with the B24, B25, and P40. Sad to see another one go.

[Airbubba]

N93012, a B-17G in this picture by Brian Lockett:


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x600/boeing_b_17g_flying_fortress_n93012_nine_o_nine_deer_valley_ arizona_april_13_2016_brian_lockett_b0e864e2ef4ef815ceb105b0 216002e739fd120c.jpg

BDL Tower switches N93012 to departure after takeoff. A short time later the plane reports entering downwind. They are cleared to land runway 6, wind calm. Tower asks 'How's your progress for runway 6?' Two voices on the B-17 reply 'We're getting there' and '[something] downwind now'.

I've attached an audio file of the tower transmissions from LiveATC.net to this post.

[Rotorhead1026]

Here's the text from the Courant background article ...https://www.courant.com/resizer/w2H2H3NF9eWhQ8nDBRyErYscSo4=/800x639/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/66E2C6VO25FBPI6GNXBSFG62KU.jpgThe B-24J, foreground, and B-17G were the four-engine heavy bombers American airmen flew against German industrial sites, rail yards and other targets in World War II. The bombers and three other historic airplanes owned by the Collings Foundation are scheduled to arrive at Bradley International Airport on Monday. (Collings Foundation)Two World War II fighter planes and three bombers will be at Bradley International Airport through Thursday.

The historic aircraft, owned by the Collings Foundation of Stow, Mass., will be open for tours through Thursday at Tac Air, 85-205 Combs Gate Drive, just off Route 75 in Windsor Locks. Flights aboard the aircraft are also available.

The aircraft are a B-17G Flying Fortress heavy bomber, a B-24J Liberator heavy bomber, a B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, a P-51 Mustang fighter and a P-40 Warhawk fighter.https://www.courant.com/resizer/ak2NAcSSxV48qS7mqd_aygLDH_o=/1400x0/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/KGUH732Y45DJ7PFUZL6YXY2QKM.jpgPeople wait to board and view a B-17G bomber at Waterbury-Oxford Airport earlier this month.The airplanes will be open noon to 4 p.m. Monday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Tuesday and Wednesday, and 9 a.m. to noon Thursday. The cost is $15. Flights are available. For details check the Collings Foundation website, www.collingsfoundation.org (http://www.collingsfoundation.org/), or call 978-562-9182.


[Related] Hartford office tower owner Shelbourne Global Solutions adds to rapidly expanding holdings downtown with Allyn Street parking lot » (https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-shelbourne-global-allyn-street-parking-20191002-zo6ezbp6izgxtpmkny763jpaii-story.html#nt=interstitial-auto)The B-17 an B-24 were the backbone of the Allied bomber campaign against Nazi occupied Europe. Army Air Forces crews flew the bombers from bases in England and Italy. The bombers also were used the Pacific theater.

The two-engine B-25 was a land-based bomber, but became well-known when Army pilots flew the bombers off the pitching deck of the aircraft carrier Hornet to attack targets in and around Tokyo in 1942, months after the attack on Pearl Harbor thrust the U.S. into World War II. The raid, led by Col. Jimmy Doolittle, was was a morale booster for a beleaguered U.S. and was later made famous in the book and movie “Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo,” starring Spencer Tracy as Doolittle.https://www.courant.com/resizer/mzqYga_zdzyjgd45baZt3FJzHaI=/800x600/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/I7YSFCOTDRET7P4EGN26TDBNMQ.jpgHamilton Standard logo on a B-24 Liberator propeller blade.The P-40 was made famous by the Flying Tigers, American fighter pilots who fought for the Chinese against the Japanese. The airplane continued in service later into World War II.

Lt. Eugene Bradley, for whom Bradley airport is named, was flying a P-40 when he crashed on the airport grounds and was killed during a training mission in 1941.

The P-51 Mustang was the premier Army fighter of World War II and had the range to escort bombers deep into Europe for attacks on German cities and industrial centers. The Collings Foundation P-51 is painted to represent a West Virginia Air National Guard aircraft. The West Virginia Air Guard was the last Air Force squadron to fly P-51s and retired its Mustangs in January 1957.

David Owens can be reached at [email protected].

[Retired DC9 driver]

What a tragedy, for the crew, passengers and this beautiful aircraft..

[Lake1952]

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/world-war-ii-plane-crash-connecticut/

[obgraham]

What a sad day, especially for the injured or killed, and also for the aircraft.

I've been up in Nine-O-Nine twice. Got to sit in the left hand pilot seat for 10 minutes and make a couple of gentle turns in her. What an experience!

[Airbubba]

From the Hartford Courant:

At least two dead, multiple people injured, after vintage plane crashes at Connecticut’s Bradley International Airporthttps://www.courant.com/resizer/bCsWdv6ugBkqTqTrMAJImi3WJU4=/32x32/top/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/tronc/00b5a261-65d7-4e30-a820-a3072fd780dd.png (https://www.courant.com/hc-christine-dempsey-staff.html)By CHRISTINE DEMPSEY (https://www.courant.com/hc-christine-dempsey-staff.html#nt=byline) HARTFORD COURANTOCT 02, 2019 | 11:46 AMAt least two people have died and more were seriously injured in a fiery plane crash at Bradley International Airport Wednesday morning.
A B-17 bomber crashed about 10 a.m., bursting into flames and sending up a large plume of smoke that could be seen for miles. Sources say it crashed into a shed as it was trying to land.
While there is no official word on the number of deaths, sources say at least two people have died and three others have critical injuries.Laura Nolan said she was driving east on Route 20 when she saw the World War II-era plane flying unusually low."He was treetop level when I saw him," Nolan said. "And one of the engines wasn't spinning."
As the plane passed by, Nolan said, the roar was "thunderous."
And then, the plane crashed.
"I saw the smoke in the rearview mirror," Nolan said. The smoke was dark black, she said.
Nolan, a former Granby paramedic, went to the airport to offer help to the first responders. She was sent away, though, and by about 11 a.m. the other waiting ambulances had been sent away as well, she said.She saw emergency vehicles from across the area, including from the Ambulance Service of Manchester, Hartford-based American Medical Response, Pratt and Whitney Fire Department and Suffield Fire Department. Nolan said she also saw a Life Star helicopter land near the crash site.=startThe amount of people that were flooding in here was ridiculous,” Nolan said.https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/784130320635457536/KT85ey2V_bigger.jpg (https://twitter.com/Bradley_Airport)Bradley Intl Airport@Bradley_Airport (https://twitter.com/Bradley_Airport)We can confirm that there was an accident involving a Collings Foundation World War II aircraft this morning at Bradley Airport. We have an active fire and rescue operation underway. The airport is closed. We will issue further updates as information becomes available.298 (https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1179400959987986432)
10:21 AM - Oct 2, 2019 (https://twitter.com/Bradley_Airport/status/1179400959987986432)One patient was flown to Hartford Hospital by Life Star helicopter, a hospital spokesperson said late Wednesday morning, and five more were on their way by ground ambulance.The airport confirmed that the plane is a Collings Foundation World War II aircraft. The airport is closed; the Federal Aviation Administration said it has put in a ground stop for flights destined for the airport.Numerous fire departments from the area were called to the scene, causing area towns to scramble to line up coverage. At least two dozen emergency vehicles were at the crash site.
At least one victim was being airlifted from the scene at 10:50 a.m.The plane is one of five -- two World War II fighter planes and three bombers --- that are at the airport this week for tours and flights.The most recent fatal crash of a vintage war plane happened in Fredericksburg, Texas in November 2018. The pilot and a passenger in a P-51D Mustang fighter aircraft were killed when the plane, which had just participated in a flyby, crashed into a nearby parking lot.

[Airbubba]

Local news reports now say that the number 3 engine (the right inboard engine) failed and there were 13 people onboard.

[India Four Two]

I’ve just listened to the Live ATC audio.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbdl/KBDL-App-Oct-02-2019-1330Z.mp3

18:41 “We would like to return to the field.”
22:40 Crash alarm in the background.

Another example of a pilot reluctant to declare an emergency. Why is that?
The controller has to drag information out of the pilot.

“You said an immediate landing?”
”When you get a chance, yeah.”

”Do you need to be on the ground right now?”
”If possible.”

[etudiant]

Just a tragedy and a disaster for the Collings Foundation. They rely on these flights to fund their efforts to keep these heritage aircraft alive. Their B-17 and the B-24 do a fall round down the East, hopping from airport to airport, offering short flights to give people a sense of the experience..
I've flown on that bird, The brief hop from Westchester Airport to Manhattan and back, it would be brutal in a crash because there are not really great safety features for such an event.
Afaik, it was one of the first flights of the day, so the aircraft may have had more fuel than usual on board, which would exacerbate any problems.
My condolences and RIP for the victims. I hope it does not also kill the Collings Foundation.

[gearlever]

Another example of a pilot reluctant to declare an emergency. Why is that?



Would the outcome be any different?

R.I.P.

[hans brinker]

Would the outcome be any different?

R.I.P.
Even if it would not, that is the wrong way to look at it. If the next pilot could be helped by declaring an emergency, he should not feel reluctant because others didn’t.

[gearlever]

Even if it would not, that is the wrong way to look at it. If the next pilot could be helped by declaring an emergency, he should not feel reluctant because others didn’t.

All I'm saying is things developed very fast IMHO. So aviate, navigate, communicate got stuck somewhere before communicate.

[jugofpropwash]

A friend's relative was a passenger on the plane. They haven't heard anything yet.

[India Four Two]

Would the outcome be any different?

If an emergency had been declared, the controller would have “rolled the equipment” a few minutes sooner. That might have made a difference.

[capngrog]

Just a "nutshell" distillation of the information currently available:

"On another subject, some bad news. This morning, around 1000 hr. lcl, the Collings Foundation B-17 crashed at Bradley Field Connecticut. I googoled "B-17 crash Connecticut" and got the bad news. It was a Collings Foundation B-17 with three crew and ten PAX on board, and there are reported fatalities as a result of the crash at BDL. An aerial photo shows the remains of the plane up against a ground storage tank (reportedly a de-icing facility) just outside of a hangar. Almost the entire fuselage appears to have been consumed by fire. Reportedly, the airplane encountered difficulties soon after takeoff and was trying to return to Bradley. What a shame."

Prayers for all involved.

Grog

[Airbubba]

I’ve just listened to the Live ATC audio.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbdl/KBDL-App-Oct-02-2019-1330Z.mp3

18:41 “We would like to return to the field.”
22:40 Crash alarm in the background.






Here's an excerpt of the LiveATC clip with the conversation and the post-accident approach cancellations. Number 4 engine (not number 3 as an eyewitness earlier reported) is indeed mentioned in the B-17 transmissions.

[Airbubba]

Another update on casualties from the Hartford Courant:

Sources told the Courant that five people have been confirmed killed in the crash and authorities fear the number will go higher. Rescuers searching through the wreckage have not reached the front of the airplane, where the pilot and co-pilot were seated.
Three of the victims taken to Hartford Hospital are in critical condition, said Dr. Jonathan Gates, chief of the hospital’s trauma department, in a separate press conference. Two have moderate injuries, and one was described as “minimally injured.”

[finfly1]

[,First, thanks to those who posted ATC links.

Great respect for the approach controller with 4 or 5 jet inbounds and a joyriding 'Stang all over the air. Solid, respectable job, though I can see why some EU pilots have fits over the informal tone sometimes used.

Finally, having enjoyed rides on comparable aircraft (17, 24, 25, 29, and others) I hope the NIMBY crowd which appeared after the Trimotor [type] crash in Switzerland, (many of whom I doubt could tell a cylinder from a frying pan) do not rise in opposition to the continuation of these incomparable displays of living history. Hard to describe why I need to blink repeatedly when I see those actual crew members from the 40s, gazing at or touching the aircraft which formed such a pivotal part of their lives.

[MichaelKPIT]

Hard to describe why I need to blink repeatedly when I see those actual crew members from the 40s, gazing at or touching the aircraft which formed such a pivotal part of their lives.

So true. I wonder if that Mustang was also a part of the Collingsby Foundation group due to be there. From the Courant: "Two World War II fighter planes and three bombers will be at Bradley International Airport through Thursday.

The historic aircraft, owned by the Collings Foundation of Stow, Mass., will be open for tours through Thursday at Tac Air, 85-205 Combs Gate Drive, just off Route 75 in Windsor Locks. Flights aboard the aircraft are also available.

The aircraft are a B-17G Flying Fortress heavy bomber, a B-24J Liberator heavy bomber, a B-25 Mitchell medium bomber, a P-51 Mustang fighter and a P-40 Warhawk fighter."

Full article here: https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-historic-airplanes-bradley-airport-20190930-tj2w7ua3wbgjrh4qbmvo5udygu-story.html

[Mozella]

Would the outcome be any different?

R.I.P.

Perhaps. It's impossible to tell for sure, of course, but that isn't the point.
I was trained as a U.S. Navy Fighter Pilot and very early on I was told that when things so South, declare an emergency, stop asking permission, and start telling the controllers what you intend to do. You don't ask for permission to land, you TELL them you're landing. And you don't ask for a runway which will make their job easy, you TELL them what runway you are going to use and you start heading that direction without waiting for someone to say it's OK. You certainly should NOT ask them to accommodate your emergency "when you get a chance", especially if they aren't even aware you are involved in a potentially fatal emergency. In this case, the controller might have thought one of the passengers had to go to the bathroom or something, or that someone left their luggage behind. Why rush?

Let the tower worry about sorting out any traffic problems. Let them apologize for making things inconvenient for others. You job is to take care of your crippled aircraft and that's all you should be worried about. Saving seconds or minutes can make all the difference.

Even if you're not bold enough to take charge, at least tell the tower that you're having an emergency. Generally speaking, once the ground guys know you're in trouble, they will pull out all the stops to help you resolve the problem quickly and safely. But if they are unaware, how can they help?

[Wabbot1]

In that aerial photo, it looks to me like the rudder trim tab is set for a lot of left rudder.

[w1pf]

My son-in-law (at Collins Aerospace, off to the side of the end of 06) says one of his co-workers was on the apron earlier in the day, and he said they were having engine problems with the B-17. I do not know if this person understands the usual handling of an R-1820, so apply sufficient salt.

[Super VC-10]

Wikipedia article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2019_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress_crash

[tdracer]

What a sad day, especially for the injured or killed, and also for the aircraft.

I've been up in Nine-O-Nine twice. Got to sit in the left hand pilot seat for 10 minutes and make a couple of gentle turns in her. What an experience!

Plus one on the sad day.
I flew on that aircraft about ten years ago when it was in Everett - it was a priceless experience.
Finfly1, agree on the hope this doesn't stop or seriously discourage this sort of activity. When I took my joyride on Nine-O-Nine, I keep thinking what a shame it was that my WW II veteran dad wasn't alive to come along - he would have absolutely loved it. He wasn't a pilot, but he was quite familiar with the B-17 - when I was a kid we'd watch the TV series 'Twelve O'clock High' (based on the movie of the same name) and he was always talking about what a great aircraft the B-17 was.
On my ride, there was a father (roughly my age) with his teenage son. Before takeoff, his son appeared seriously bored - messing with his phone. But five minutes into the flight the kid was completely enthralled - started using his phone to video everything. Quite literally living history.

[capngrog]

Listening to the tower conversation with the B-17 (N90312CF), the pilot reported: " garbled ... number four engine. We'd like to return and blow it out". This sounds like there was a fire involved, but that should not have caused a control problem with the airplane unless the fire was well advanced. As to my speculation, well here goes. There may have been a massive oil leak in the No.4 engine resulting in rapid loss of engine oil pressure and ability to feather the propeller. The leaking oil may have caught fire. Inability to feather an outboard engine (in this case, no.4) would cause serious control problems. End of speculation.

Nine-O-Nine was a beautiful airplane, and its loss was a disaster. The loss of lives aboard was a tragedy. God bless.

Grog

[RJ Kanary]

My younger brother bucked rivets inside of that aircraft repairing damage that occurred after it went off the end of the runway at Beaver County Airport in 1987. Sad loss of life today. :(

[NWA SLF]

Latest from Hartford Courant is 7 dead, 7 injured. A few years back a friend, Navy WWII veteran, UDT, had the opportunity to ride in a B-17, not sure if it was this one. He was so proud of having the opportunity. Hope this incident doesn't stop having these opportunities for veterans and the children, grandchildren of these veterans. Even though Jerry was a diver, the B-17 flight was something he talked about right to his last days.

[JLWSanDiego]

9-0-9 is the screen photo on my phone since 2013 after my ride out of Ramona CA with my fathers flag, a B17 bombardier in WWII. RIP to passengers and crew 🇺🇸

[Longtimer]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49909735

[Airbubba]

Here's another edit (not mine) from LiveATC.net including the tower and approach clips in the posts above along with the ground control conversation. This link will play on a phone or tablet. The .zip files I posted above seem to only work on a computer, .mp3 is not a valid extension for a PPRuNE attachment.

https://forums.liveatc.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=15603.0;attach=10529

American 622: Is that one of the vintage aircraft over there?
BDL Ground: Yeah, it crashed.
American 622: Damn.

[Loose rivets]

Mindful of all the psychology, I think, 'We're going in the Hudson' was perhaps one of the most memorable lines ever transmitted, not least of all because it left the ATC guy in one of those bewildered states that was not helping anybody.

[Wunwing]

cpngrog.
The blowing out statement suggests to me that they may have had fouled plugs on the engine.
That would also explain why they didn't declare an emergency.

On the Connie for one example, fouled/non firing plugs are an engine shutdown condition.
Wunwing

[tdracer]

cpngrog.
The blowing out statement suggests to me that they may have had fouled plugs on the engine.
That would also explain why they didn't declare an emergency.

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.
I briefly talked with the pilots when I took my ride - they were unpaid volunteers - commercial airline pilots that flew the Collings aircraft just for the joy of it.
So sad...

[RickNRoll]

It's time to stop flying the public in these old machines. As wonderful as they are, they are not safe for the transport of passengers. If you want to risk your life, go ahead. The risks when flying on one are worse than flying on a modern passenger plane and the public may not know that.

[capngrog]

cpngrog.
The blowing out statement suggests to me that they may have had fouled plugs on the engine.
That would also explain why they didn't declare an emergency.

On the Connie for one example, fouled/non firing plugs are an engine shutdown condition.
Wunwing

That may be a more logical explanation than an engine fire, but it would have involved a "routine" engine shut down and feathering of the prop. As tdracer pointed out, a lightly loaded B-17 should have been able to easily climb out (not just maintain altitude) on three engines. As tdracer said, I too believe that there was something else going on besides a "simple" engine failure.

Regards,
Grog

[Pilot DAR]

I speculate that more than just fouled plugs or an straight forward engine shutdown are involved. Shutting down and securing one of four engines should not rattle experienced pilots. If an outboard engine were to have been on fire, and would not feather, the sense of urgency to get on the ground, coupled with a plane with lots of drag from the stopped prop would challenge most pilots, and turn an event from bad to worse. I have empathy for pilots watching the ground come up at them, and being unable to arrest a descent.

[ZFT]

It's time to stop flying the public in these old machines. As wonderful as they are, they are not safe for the transport of passengers. If you want to risk your life, go ahead. The risks when flying on one are worse than flying on a modern passenger plane and the public may not know that.

I too have had the pleasure of experiencing a B17 flight but unlike you I hope there is not an over reaction to this tragedy.

I clearly understood the risks involved and these risks were again clearly spelt out before the flight.

Passengers on these flights are not typical naive pax but are fully aware of the risks.

[Airbubba]

Scanner audio of the first responders arriving at the scene.

https://youtu.be/rPC58RjNBH8

[eggplantwalking]

Listening to the tower conversation with the B-17 (N90312CF), the pilot reported: " garbled ... number four engine. We'd like to return and blow it out". This sounds like there was a fire involved, but that should not have caused a control problem with the airplane unless the fire was well advanced. As to my speculation, well here goes. There may have been a massive oil leak in the No.4 engine resulting in rapid loss of engine oil pressure and ability to feather the propeller. The leaking oil may have caught fire. Inability to feather an outboard engine (in this case, no.4) would cause serious control problems. End of speculation.

Nine-O-Nine was a beautiful airplane, and its loss was a disaster. The loss of lives aboard was a tragedy. God bless.

Grog
Complete loss of oil would not be a problem due to a broken line or an engine problem as the oil tank has a stand pipe of a few gallons of oil which is only available to the feather motor for feathering. All aircraft with the big round engines have this safety feature incorporated into the design and we regiously check the feathering system before every flight.

[eggplantwalking]

In that aerial photo, it looks to me like the rudder trim tab is set for a lot of left rudder.
Exactly as it should have been with the number 4 engine not producing power. The crew had compensated correctly with trim for the loss of the engine power with LH rudder trim to reduce rudder forces; making control of the aircraft more manageable.

[Airbubba]

Complete loss of oil would not be a problem due to a broken line or an engine problem as the oil tank has a stand pipe of a few gallons of oil which is only available to the feather motor for feathering. All aircraft with the big round engines have this safety feature incorporated into the design and we regiously check the feathering system before every flight.

Years ago I had an R-1820 failure of the oil line that sends the oil to prop dome to adjust the propeller pitch. There was something called a b-nut that cracked as I recall. The oil was being pumped out onto the hot cylinders and you could see the smoke. We had a potentially unfeatherable engine that was about to seize but we got it shut down in time and went back to home plate.

[Airbubba]

NTSB Member Jennifer Homendy gives her initial brief in the first 12 minutes of this clip. As usual, not a lot of detail in this first on-scene presser.

https://youtu.be/HZOSVXOwOgU

[filejw]

NTSB Member Jennifer Homendy gives her initial brief in the first 12 minutes of this clip. As usual, not a lot of detail in this first on-scene presser.

https://youtu.be/HZOSVXOwOgU

True but one detail is they hit an approach light stanchion then went off course into the deice facility tanks. Very sad...

[Peter Fanelli]

It's time to stop flying the public in these old machines. As wonderful as they are, they are not safe for the transport of passengers. If you want to risk your life, go ahead. The risks when flying on one are worse than flying on a modern passenger plane and the public may not know that.

Ok, back away from the keyboard and go and have a snickers. You're contradicting yourself and making me ashamed to be Australian.

[Airbubba]

True but one detail is they hit an approach light stanchion then went off course into the deice facility tanks. Very sad...

Actually at about 3:15 in the video she said that the plane impacted the instrument landing system stanchions. I presume she means the localizer antenna poles for runway 24.

[MichaelKPIT]

Listening to the ATC communication posted by Airbubba. When asked “why do you want to return?” it sounds very much to me like “fire (pause) number 4 engine. We’d like to return to the field and blow it out.” Also I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned yet, but looking at Google Maps satellite view of KBDL and figuring out from the news clips where it came to rest, that seems a long way off to the right of the runway, and very near the beginning. (We know they were using 6)
——————-
Ok disregard - I hadn’t seen the bit about hitting the stanchion when I typed that.

[filejw]

Actually at about 3:15 in the video she said that the plane impacted the instrument landing system stanchions. I presume she means the localizer antenna poles for runway 24.
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 .

[b1lanc]

RIP to all who perished. This aircraft regularly flies overhead as it performs the circuit to KMHT often with a 51 or 24 in loose formation. It occasionally does a fly-by over KBED on way south and north - a regular in the NE US. Very sad.

[Airbubba]

It's time to stop flying the public in these old machines. As wonderful as they are, they are not safe for the transport of passengers. If you want to risk your life, go ahead. The risks when flying on one are worse than flying on a modern passenger plane and the public may not know that.

Last year at an airshow my wife wanted to buy me a ride on one of these warbirds but I declined. Early in my aviation career I was nearly killed by a P-51 that cartwheeled on landing in a crosswind. I was standing on the ramp and the prop broke off and went in front of me, the fuselage slid behind me inverted and started to burn. We were unable to rescue the two occupants. The backseater was a spectator who came out to the airport and was offered a free ride by the owner. I would have taken the ride if it was offered to me that day.

Are these warbirds in the experimental category? Is there a B-17 type rating even though there was never a civilian version (e.g. the C-130 and the L-382)? Are these rides Part 91? Or are they something else since money changes hands? Are they like the shoe selfie helo rides or are they more regulated?

I'm guessing that there is no requirement for a CVR or FDR even though the plane carries 10 paying pax, has four engines and weighs over 40,000 pounds.

[Chiefttp]

I’ll speculate that if there was a fire, the tower would have seen the smoke inflight and rolled the trucks. It seems that there wasn’t any sense of urgency on the pilots or ATC’s part so perhaps the inflight fire scenario may not have occurred.

[b1lanc]

Last year at an airshow my wife wanted to buy me a ride on one of these warbirds but I declined. Early in my aviation career I was nearly killed by a P-51 that cartwheeled on landing in a crosswind..

This aircraft is a regular at my airport. I've never felt the urge to pay the $ for a ride (though if the Canadian Lanc were to come here I would reconsider:). Had a PBY blow an engine on a low fly-by many years ago. Landed safely and had a bucket out front collecting $28K for a new engine. But, I'll ask a simple question. These aircraft are complex. The crews who flew them during their operational time frame knew them inside out (at least the ones that survived). I'm not sure you retain proficiency part-time anymore.

[mickjoebill]

TI’ll speculate that if there was a fire, the tower would have seen the smoke inflight and rolled the trucks. It seems that there wasn’t any sense of urgency on the pilots or ATC’s part so perhaps the inflight fire scenario may not have occurred.

In the previously linked radio exchanges between first responders... “District 5.. three and myself heard that plane go overhead and it didn’t sound good”
EAOA

Mjb

[pattern_is_full]

My only connection to 9-0-9 is that I used her markings on a model many moons ago.

Not that that amounts to a hill of beans - the human losses take priority, as will the search to find what broke.

Damn....

[GordonR_Cape]

Last year at an airshow my wife wanted to buy me a ride on one of these warbirds but I declined. Early in my aviation career I was nearly killed by a P-51 that cartwheeled on landing in a crosswind. I was standing on the ramp and the prop broke off and went in front of me, the fuselage slid behind me inverted and started to burn. We were unable to rescue the two occupants. The backseater was a spectator who came out to the airport and was offered a free ride by the owner. I would have taken the ride if it was offered to me that day.

Are these warbirds in the experimental category? Is there a B-17 type rating even though there was never a civilian version (e.g. the C-130 and the L-382)? Are these rides Part 91? Or are they something else since money changes hands? Are they like the shoe selfie helo rides or are they more regulated?

I'm guessing that there is no requirement for a CVR or FDR even though the plane carries 10 paying pax, has four engines and weighs over 40,000 pounds.

Juan Browne (blancolirio) has a video on this crash, and explains that these warbirds fly under a Living History Flight Experience LHFE category: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/05/22/2012-12383/living-history-flight-experience-lhfe-exemptions-for-passenger-carrying-operations-conducted-for
The LHFE policy provided a way for the private owner/operators of historically significant, American-manufactured large, crew-served, piston-powered, multi-engine, World War II bomber aircraft to conduct limited passenger carrying flights, for compensation, as a way to generate funds needed to maintain and preserve these historically significant aircraft for future generations.

[First_Principal]

In a different country but nevertheless it may be of some interest...

Some years ago I was involved in an operation that offered rides to the general public in a WW2 C-47. Many of the people involved concurrently worked for world-renown carriers and so the pilots, the flight training, and also the maintenance guys all knew their stuff.

'Our' operation was in fact run as any airline would run; it required, and obtained with not some little effort, a full Operating Certificate as required by law and thus we were measured against the necessary standard for such operation.

Thus while you could posit that there could be increased risk in operating an elderly aircraft on line nevertheless we went to great lengths to ensure as best as able that the machine was operated as it should be, and maintained to the highest possible standard. While this could obviously not guarantee there would be no issues we felt the risk was mitigated as much as possible, at the same time as providing the public a rare opportunity to experience flying 'as it was'.

Along with the first class maintenance and pilot crew, our cabin staff were also first class. Although I no longer recall our passenger briefings exactly, I'm sure they were also of a much higher standard than you might get at a circus ferris-wheel or some other such thing that - to my mind - involves just as great a level of risk to the public, or possibly more. IOW while I'm not attempting to compare these things directly I am suggesting that we all take risks in life, and that to shut down all classic a/c flying due to a perceived high risk of failure seems to me a singularly uninformed and rather knee-jerk reaction to this terrible accident.

With specific regard to this tragedy I note that during the course of our operation we had two engine failures (R-1830 twin wasps), one of which was in-flight and was handled calmly and competently by the crew of the day - as we would expect because it was something we trained for extensively. After all it's a not uncommon thing to expect in any such a/c, even when they were new! I would imagine that the pilots on this machine also trained for such events and so whatever happened here may well turn out to be more than 'just' a simple engine failure. More likely it will be a series of things that, both tragically and hopefully, we will be able to learn from and help further mitigate the risk of flying such machines in the future.

FP.

[Airbubba]

Juan Browne (blancolirio) has a video on this crash, and explains that these warbirds fly under a Living History Flight Experience LHFE category: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/05/22/2012-12383/living-history-flight-experience-lhfe-exemptions-for-passenger-carrying-operations-conducted-for

Thanks GordonR_Cape, that answers some of my questions. I haven't been around general aviation much in recent years and didn't know that this category existed.

[Airbubba]

In a different country but nevertheless it may be of some interest...

Some years ago I was involved in an operation that offered rides to the general public in a WW2 C-47. Many of the people involved concurrently worked for world-renown carriers and so the pilots, the flight training, and also the maintenance guys all knew their stuff.

I'm assuming that was also the case with these folks in BDL but that recent fatal Convair 340 crash in South Africa raised some doubts in my mind about these historic aircraft operations. According to the accident report the pilots weren't properly licensed for the 'maintenance test flight with passengers' and did no checklists for an engine on fire. And they were supposedly senior instructor pilots for a 'world renown carrier'.

Even if there was no CVR or FDR, perhaps there is video from inside the plane on the GoPros or phones of the survivors as with the South Africa mishap.

[ZFT]

I'm assuming that was also the case with these folks in BDL but that recent fatal Convair 340 crash in South Africa raised some doubts in my mind about these historic aircraft operations. According to the accident report the pilots weren't properly licensed for the 'maintenance test flight with passengers' and did no checklists for an engine on fire. And they were supposedly senior instructor pilots for a 'world renown carrier'.

Even if there was no CVR or FDR, perhaps there is video from inside the plane on the GoPros or phones of the survivors as with the South Africa mishap.

from what I've read, I doubt "well maintained" could be used to describe the Convair's condition!

[Wunwing]

All the surviving B17s worked as fire bombers for much longer than their military service, so I expect that there is a civilian rating for them.

The SA Convair was being positioned to a museum but had been operated as a normal pax op (I assume charter) up to the time of the attempted delivery.

Wunwing

[Australopithecus]

​​​​I flew 909 as a pilot in ‘86 and early ‘87. It blew an engine at my then home airport (CYXU) after an airshow. My regional gave them hangar space and tech support to sling the replacement, after which they offered to check me out, since they needed another pilot and I had lots of big round engine time. (As a result I have that type rating on that (now unused) ATPL. I was able to fly 909 in four airshows and a several ferry flights back then. I flew with Ed Lawler, an ex-Pan Am pilot and ex-Grumman test pilot in WWII.

We used to dine at the airshow performer's bbq on Friday night in some hangar, burgers and corn on the cob. Blue Angels and Bob Hoover and USMC Harrier pilots and F-15 guys and little old us. New mown grass, Pitts Specials, Jungmeisters , Wacos and that Shrike cooling on the flight line, P-51’s and other hot singles. Going home day, Monday morning all the private guys in their -51’s and Texans wanted to fly formation with us. It was a bit fraught, because we could not evade anyone at 120 kts. We had to rely on the crew chief training the upper turret .50’s at them to promote some psychological spacing. It always worked,

The B-17 is hardly a complex aircraft: it pretty much is like any 1930’s design. If you can fly a DC-3 or Twin Beech you can pretty much fly a B-17. When I flew it there were additional oil pressure gauges mounted inboard of each nacelle, and there was a fetish about checking them every few seconds...unlike anything I ever felt flying any other radial engine aircraft*

* by the time your brain registers zero oil pressure it’s probably already too late.

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.

All day today I have been drifting back to memories of the dedicated crews and enthralled airshow patrons that I met during those two summers. I can think of few things finer than a chance to demonstrate America’s legacy, both technically and as an icon of freedom. The prospect of doing that on fine Indian summer weekend in New England, the birthplace of American patriotism, would have been all too real to anyone so lucky to fly those planes of the greatest generation. Deeply saddened.

On edit: “Twin Beech” means what it always did: Beechcraft 18

[rcsa]

​​​​I flew 909 as a pilot in ‘86 and early ‘87. It blew an engine at my then home airport (CYXU) after an airshow. My regional gave them hangar space and tech support to sling the replacement, after which they offered to check me out, since they needed another pilot and I had lots of big round engine time. (As a result I have that type rating on that (now unused) ATPL. I was able to fly 909 in four airshows and a several ferry flights back then. I flew with Ed Lawler, an ex-Pan Am pilot and ex-Grumman test pilot in WWII.

We used to dine at the airshow performer's bbq on Friday night in some hangar, burgers and corn on the cob. Blue Angels and Bob Hoover and USMC Harrier pilots and F-15 guys and little old us. New mown grass, Pitts Specials, Jungmeisters , Wacos and that Shrike cooling on the flight line, P-51’s and other hot singles. Going home day, Monday morning all the private guys in their -51’s and Texans wanted to fly formation with us. It was a bit fraught, because we could not evade anyone at 120 kts. We had to rely on the crew chief training the upper turret .50’s at them to promote some psychological spacing. It always worked,

The B-17 is hardly a complex aircraft: it pretty much is like any 1930’s design. If you can fly a DC-3 or Twin Beech you can pretty much fly a B-17. When I flew it there were additional oil pressure gauges mounted inboard of each nacelle, and there was a fetish about checking them every few seconds...unlike anything I ever felt flying any other radial engine aircraft*

* by the time your brain registers zero oil pressure it’s probably already too late.

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.

All day today I have been drifting back to memories of the dedicated crews and enthralled airshow patrons that I met during those two summers. I can think of few things finer than a chance to demonstrate America’s legacy, both technically and as an icon of freedom. The prospect of doing that on fine Indian summer weekend in New England, the birthplace of American patriotism, would have been all too real to anyone so lucky to fly those planes of the greatest generation. Deeply saddened.
On edit: “Twin Beech” means what it always did: Beechcraft 18 Beautifully written - poignant and moving. Thank you.

[ironbutt57]

All the surviving B17s worked as fire bombers for much longer than their military service, so I expect that there is a civilian rating for them.

The SA Convair was being positioned to a museum but had been operated as a normal pax op (I assume charter) up to the time of the attempted delivery.

Wunwing

yes indeed there is.."B-17"...most are restricted to VFR only

[Australopithecus]

I just dug my 8th Air Force patch from my box o’ memories...and some Kodak prints from back in the day. The first time I flew it we transited the Erie, PA control zone. The tower was a tad confused at the “Boeing 93012” call sign and the 120 kt cruise speed, much slower than Vr in any Boeing of recent experience. Do that at 2000’ and you can actually (almost) see people look up in wonder. We certainly were looking down with our share of amazement, and wondered at how much courage it took to drive a load of bombs through 88 flack and fighters in broad daylight in a herd of planes slower than your mom’s (Ford) mustang.

RIP, brothers.

[wrekless]

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.

[ATC Watcher]

There is a civil rating for them . France IGN used up to 14 of them between 1950 and 1990 to do mapping and , aerial photography and microwave imagery (for through clouds millimeter definition images ) . All this now done by Satellites
I flew in them a few times as pax on some missions in the 80's . The crew were all civil with a B17 rating and all flew IFR.
On one flight we blew up an engine during a steep descent in Creil ,( near Paris) , not shut down because still producing some residual power , but to my surprise this was treated like a "normal " problem and the aircraft landed normally On the ground the engine and wings had oil all over everywhere, but that did not seem to bother the crew , I remember it vividly as on the aircraft I was flying at the time that would have been a huge issue/emergency issue, but here the mechanic replied, " war technology" no problem" ..
If indeed the 909 lost an engine on approach , I do not think it is the reason for this accident. Now if on fire, explosion affecting control surfaces or cables that is of course another story. But engine out on landing as said a few times already here, should not lead to this...

[Pilot DAR]

Thank you Australopithecus for the "I've flown it" perspective, that's rare and valuable for the less common types. We must remind ourselves that no matter how well serving these planes were, they were designed and built for a purpose other than passenger transport by today's standards. That's not a judgement on the pilots who fly them, or the people who would like to pay to ride, we just have to all acknowledge that they're different, and decide if we're okay with that. If we're uncomfortable to fly in one because of the differences we understand, that's okay, but we must respect those people who are eager to preserve and present these historic aircraft. Last spring I donated a number of days, and solicited volunteers to pack and ship a Lancaster for restoration. Whether it'll fly again, I don't know, but I felt pretty good doing my part to keep a piece of history in the public eye one way or another!

[AN2 Driver]

In Europe, this kind of flying has basically died with the 20 Ju Passengers up in the Alps, the consequence was that almost all the old planes in the German speaking area are now if lucky museum exhibits. Crashes like this one will unfortunately bring a lot of people out of their holes who will try to use this horrible accident to pursue their own agenda.

[GarageYears]

CNN now reporting 7 dead, 6 injured :-(

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/connecticut-plane-crash-trnd/index.html

[Airbubba]

There is a civil rating for them . France IGN used up to 14 of them between 1950 and 1990 to do mapping and , aerial photography and microwave imagery (for through clouds millimeter definition images ) . All this now done by Satellites
I flew in them a few times as pax on some missions in the 80's . The crew were all civil with a B17 rating and all flew IFR.

From a post on another forum:

Heres some interesting trivia for you. A B17 was used in the filming of the movie and was named (appropriatley) as "Doctor Strangelove"

In several shots of the B-52 flying over the polar ice en route to Russia, the shadow of the actual camera plane, a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, is visible on the snow below. The B-52 was a model composited into the arctic footage which was sped up to create a (quite unconvincing) sense of jet speed. The camera ship, a former USAAF B-17G-100-VE, serial 44-85643, registered F-BEEA, had been one of four Flying Forts purchased from salvage at Altus, Oklahoma in December 1947 by the French Institut Geographique National and converted for survey and photo-mapping duty. It was the last active B-17 of a total of fourteen once operated by the IGN, but it was destroyed in a take-off accident at RAF Binbrook in 1989 during filming of the movie "Memphis Belle." Home movie footage included in "Inside the Making of Dr. Strangelove" on the 2001 Special Edition DVD release of the film show clips of the Fortress with a cursive "Dr. Strangelove" painted over the rear entry hatch on the right side of the fuselage.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/dr-strangelove-and-the-b17.3412/#post-148908


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1429x1080/a_122_large__b0efccb34e70075a2c6ba61671d3134d6691bd98.jpg

[Paul852]

Thanks for that - one of the greatest movies of all time (dodgy models notwithstanding)!

[neilki]

I’ve just listened to the Live ATC audio.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kbdl/KBDL-App-Oct-02-2019-1330Z.mp3

18:41 “We would like to return to the field.”
22:40 Crash alarm in the background.

Another example of a pilot reluctant to declare an emergency. Why is that?
The controller has to drag information out of the pilot.

“You said an immediate landing?”
”When you get a chance, yeah.”

”Do you need to be on the ground right now?”
”If possible.”




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.

[sb_sfo]

"We had to rely on the crew chief training the upper turret .50’s at them to promote some psychological spacing. It always worked"
That, sir, is some excellent phrasing. Is it too late for you to start a career as a writer?

[lomapaseo]

Obviously saddened

I snapped a picture of the plane at 8:20 am, a couple of hours before the crash, as we taxied out for takeoff on my way to California. We had a bunch of aviation flying club members on my flight to SNF but at that time while in flight we had no idea of the disaster. I'll have to wait to find out if any of my friends were aboard, but so far no phone calls

I'm with TD, but nothing more to offer

[Arydberg]

Here is a advertising video of the plane that crashed

Al


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BNUJfbr3z8

[B2N2]

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.

[misd-agin]

Or is 'blow it out' related to doing a high power engine run, perhaps with leaning, to 'clean it out'?

[India Four Two]

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.

neilk,
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?”

[FIRESYSOK]

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.

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.

[Airbubba]

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:

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.

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 .

​​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.


In recent years in Part 121 operations I've been taught to declare an emergency if there is any doubt. Sure, you have to file a report even if the indication is false but it protects you from getting violated for technical fouls like landing at another airport without being redispatched. And of course you get priority handling and have the ARFF crew on alert.

[B2N2]

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.



You really missed my point didn’t you?
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?

[tdracer]

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.

[Airbubba]

The NTSB's B-Roll video for TV stations to use in their voiceover reports. Some clues perhaps in these new scenes.

https://youtu.be/VO8HdzYa6f4

[El Grifo]

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

[b1lanc]

Looks like something was dragging for quite a run on the B-Roll and in a right hand arc (in direction of flight).

[Passenger 389]

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."

Respectfully, why would the flight crew be giving any thought to that? They were not planning on crashing the plane, but on landing it safely at the airport (or at least in a survivable manner) if at all possible. Their focus would and should have been entirely on that, and they had a very short time in which to do it. Can always chat about it with NTSB afterwards, once you've accomplished Job One.

[Tailspin45]

Notice the engine emended in the shed in the b-roll was feathered and not turning

[Australopithecus]

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.

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.

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.

[Airbubba]

The Connecticut State Police have released the names of the victims.

Police released the names of those killed in the crash on Thursday:

Ernest McCauley, 75 - Pilot, from Long Beach, CA
Michael Foster, 71 - Co-Pilot, from Jacksonville, FL
David Broderick, 56 - passenger from West Springfield, MA
Gary Mazzone, 66, - passenger from Broad Brook, CT
James Roberts, 48 - passenger from Ludlow, MA
Robert Riddell, 59 - passenger from East Granby, CT
Robert Rubner, 64 - passenger from Tolland, CT

Police released the names of those injured in the crash:

Mitchell Melton, 34 - flight engineer on B-17, from Dalehaff, TX
Andy Barrett, 36 - passenger from South Hadley, MA
Linda Schmidt, 62 - passenger from Suffield, CT
Tom Schmidt, 62 - passenger from Suffield CT
Joseph Huber, 48 - passenger from Tariffville, CT
James Traficante, 54 - passenger from Simsbury, CT



https://www.wfsb.com/news/names-of-victims-killed-in-b--plane-crash-released/article_d514bd24-e51d-11e9-b6ac-47e02ec67428.html

Flight crew certificates:

Ernest McCauley


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1443x637/mccauley_78fa5192dfd082ae218b370a25b7f60b52341310.jpg
Michael Foster


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1417x769/foster_9de7fce131e3d78d4c2968f4d91d1703c0ffb49a.jpg


Mitchell Melton


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1429x280/melton_28456bf75132b826dc8c782da5f2c2ce70df86a9.jpg

[w1pf]

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.

IIRC on one of the ATC clips the crew said roughly 44,000lb when asked for weight class.

[moosepileit]

Misfueling in the accident chain?

[Airbubba]

Today's update from the Hartford Courant.

NTSB investigating whether B-17 that crashed at Bradley International Airport Wednesday had engine troubles prior to takeoffBy NICHOLAS RONDINONE (https://www.courant.com/hc-nicholas-rondinone-staff.html#nt=byline), EMILY BRINDLEY (https://www.courant.com/ebrindley-staff.html#nt=byline) and DAVE ALTIMARI (https://www.courant.com/hc-bio-dave-altimari-staff.html#nt=byline)HARTFORD COURANTOCT 03, 2019 | 5:24 PM https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tUPWmvfF0EMD92I77COsijBan03BiAQmoR1QSYJJLTNNBufti5W9nVWrriSg DLRxFo8DHCUFXMX7HwPxjTL0PRWbctkym_tQD61CezCgrHsgGaWPcomn0eVF btzy2T8-Y4bRqj1SIUnnks0VEopQuuILQuHx2xHo3meR6tt9QtPU43FcjmN_AzWLevs3 MyDxNT7lF1TQo6g3XTShV-vEidZKkYP3C04trgWqwI-VnYkJM5hAf6lxDfHDhVWpWA9TDx0xmUWX9VDdB8bzqasM5tCexBzRYTZb_FQ =s0-d-e1-ft#https://www-courant-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/www.courant.com/resizer/8fqXPeP3y5sq-DnxIx-6wESTGHM=/1200x799/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/E3JUAUYKA5CIRNNBOFQFJKXJTI.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.

[Airbubba]

NTSB briefing October 3, 2019 by Member Jennifer Homendy.

https://youtu.be/19vJ27Q5WSg

[Airbubba]

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.


Misfueling in the accident chain?

Ms. Homendy said in today's presser that fuel from the right wing was tested and thought to be 100LL Avgas.

[slacktide]

Exactly as it should have been with the number 4 engine not producing power. The crew had compensated correctly with trim for the loss of the engine power with LH rudder trim to reduce rudder forces; making control of the aircraft more manageable.

The aircraft in the aerial photo with the deflected trim tab has all four engines running. It is not a photo of the aircraft on the day of the accident. You can tell that it was not taken in Hartford, CT due to the terrain and vegetation. There are no mountains or sagebrush in Hartford.

[Lake1952]

Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?

[Pilot DAR]

I have deleted the political posts referring to what B-17's did during the war years. That history is not relevant to this sad event. Let's keep the discussion to the present time events please....

[w1pf]

Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?

The Collings folks fly these rigs A LOT. They understand modern fuel.

[Tailspin45]

1. Can any of the former B17 crewmewbers here confirm that with two engines out a Fort will not accelerate (much less climb) if the airspeed is below 115-120 MPH? Not suggesting that was an issue here, but it would be a seldom seen gotcha. I read such was the case years ago when I was flying a C-45 and wondered if the Twin Beech had a similar surprise. It didn't, because that drag hole occurred near or below Vmc, apparently. (Anyway, a Beech 18 definitely wouldn't climb with two engnes out.)

2. Also, does anyone have a handle on the performance curves for these birds with the turbochargerers uninstalled? Used to be, according the Dash One, you'd push the balls to the wall, and then adjust MP with the turbo wheel to 47.5" MP for54,000 max gross takeoff. So at a typical 45-47,000 pounds ride gross would a conservative 41" without a turbo be equivalent?

[Tailspin45]

Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?
Virtually every round engine alive today flies with 100LL and with FAA approval.

I was aghast when NTSB guy said, "I'm not sure, but I think 100LL is approved for reciprocating engines blah blah blah." What cave has he lived in for the last 30 years?

[MarkerInbound]

Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?

What about it? Not sure about the dash number of the 1820 on B-17s. Many of them were certified on 91/98. The current blue 100LL is still 100/130 octane just without the lead. Tetraethyl lead is a lubricant added to the fuel. The fleet of R1820s, R1830s and R2800s in the US has been running on 100LL for decades. We were limited to a few less inches of MAP and lost 100 HP using 100/130 or 100LL in a 2800 instead of 108/135. In the 1820-80 series engines, which were a later variant than what’s on a B-17 I seem to recall it was 50 less HP a side.

[Turnleft080]

One question that should of been asked at the NTSB presser, The engine in suspect could you determine
wether the prop was in the full fine or the feathered position? Very simply question ( but the reporters probably
don't know much about aircraft systems so it was never asked.)

[CUTiger78]

The Collings folks fly these rigs A LOT. They understand modern fuel.
Well, I hope so. 115/145 avgas is A LOT different than 100LL.

[CUTiger78]

I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.

[Airbubba]

I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.

The flight engineer title came from the State Police casualty list. Ms. Homendy referred to him as a loadmaster in the latest NTSB briefing. Some early news reports referred to the third crewmember as a steward.

[Airbubba]

Virtually every round engine alive today flies with 100LL and with FAA approval.

I was aghast when NTSB guy said, "I'm not sure, but I think 100LL is approved for reciprocating engines blah blah blah." What cave has he lived in for the last 30 years?

Dr. Bower is an aeronautical engineer, not a pilot. It's been a long time since I've flown a piston plane, I would double check before I gave a definitive answer about 100LL as well. Seems like years ago when I pumped gas red was 80/87 octane, green was 100/130. Or, was it the other way around, I never could remember...

[hans brinker]

I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.

In most of the world the FE was never a pilot, only the US would have junior pilots fly as FE before they “upgraded” to pilot.

[Airbubba]

In most of the world the FE was never a pilot, only the US would have junior pilots fly as FE before they “upgraded” to pilot.


But as a required crewmember the FE would have a license, right?

The B-17 didn't require a flight engineer but its civilian derivative the 307 Stratoliner did I believe.

[hans brinker]

Last year at an airshow my wife wanted to buy me a ride on one of these warbirds but I declined. Early in my aviation career I was nearly killed by a P-51 that cartwheeled on landing in a crosswind. I was standing on the ramp and the prop broke off and went in front of me, the fuselage slid behind me inverted and started to burn. We were unable to rescue the two occupants. The backseater was a spectator who came out to the airport and was offered a free ride by the owner. I would have taken the ride if it was offered to me that day.

Are these warbirds in the experimental category? Is there a B-17 type rating even though there was never a civilian version (e.g. the C-130 and the L-382)? Are these rides Part 91? Or are they something else since money changes hands? Are they like the shoe selfie helo rides or are they more regulated?

I'm guessing that there is no requirement for a CVR or FDR even though the plane carries 10 paying pax, has four engines and weighs over 40,000 pounds.

not just the plane. Both pilots were born during wwII too.

[CUTiger78]

But as a required crewmember the FE would have a license, right?

The B-17 didn't require a flight engineer but its civilian derivative the 307 Stratoliner did I believe.
Both the B-17 & B-24 HAD a flight engineer. Maybe they didn't REQUIRE an FE, but the Army Air Corps sure put one on as a required crewmember.

[CUTiger78]

In most of the world the FE was never a pilot, only the US would have junior pilots fly as FE before they “upgraded” to pilot.
Yes, but those junior pilots flying as FE had an FE certificate - recip, turboprop, turbojet, as appropriate.

[MichaelKPIT]

not just the plane. Both pilots were born during wwII too.

Both the captain and the aircraft were 75 years old.

[PukinDog]

More details from the news..

The Connecticut Air National Guard says an airman who was aboard a B-17 bomber that crashed in Connecticut opened a hatch that allowed some passengers to escape a fire.

The Guard said Thursday the airman has training and experience in handling emergencies on aircraft.

After the crash Wednesday morning at Hartford’s Bradley International Airport, he used flame-retardant flight gloves he had brought with him to open the hatch.

The airman suffered injuries and has been recovering at home since his release from a hospital Wednesday evening.

The airman is currently command chief for the 103rd Airlift Wing. His name was not released.

The FE survived. If he remembers the minutes leading up to the accident no doubt his statements will shed light for the investigators to determine probable cause and contributing factors that led to the undershoot and loss of control after striking the (guessing) localizer equipment.

I'm also guessing that "Uttering Phraseology not approved by the PPrune R/T Posse" won't be among the findings in their report.

[RickNRoll]

The flight engineer title came from the State Police casualty list. Ms. Homendy referred to him as a loadmaster in the latest NTSB briefing. Some early news reports referred to the third crewmember as a steward.

In a plane like the B-17 the flight engineer is critical. I was wondering about the statement that there was only three crew.

[50 ft radio]

Not much left of the old girl so surprising there were survivors.

[GeeRam]

The flight engineer title came from the State Police casualty list. Ms. Homendy referred to him as a loadmaster in the latest NTSB briefing. Some early news reports referred to the third crewmember as a steward.

Yes, that fits with my experience when I took a flight in '909' back in 2007.
3rd crew member was there to check every one strapped in and give safety briefing etc., and to help shuffle the PAX around once in the air etc. so everyone had a chance to experience each bit of the a/c in flight.

I suspect the ones that got out were the PAX that were sitting on the side seats in the rear fuselage section by the door hatch, by the waist gunner positions, rather than those sitting on the floor of the radio op area (where I was)

[Tailspin45]

In a plane like the B-17 the flight engineer is critical.
Says who? None of those flying today are required by the FAA to have a licensed Flight Engineer.

[Australopithecus]

The B-17 does not have a flight engineer station or panel. There are only two seats in the cockpit. In the 80’s we referred to the third crew member as the Crew Chief...he took care of logistics on the ground and supervised the passengers.

Again...the B-17 is a fairly simple aircraft made to be operated by comparatively very low time pilots. The WWII crew consisted of Navigator, Bombadier, Pilot, Co-pilot, Dorsal turret gunner, Radio operator, and the four gunners aft of the bomb bay.

[Australopithecus]

1. Can any of the former B17 crewmewbers here confirm that with two engines out a Fort will not accelerate (much less climb) if the airspeed is below 115-120 MPH? Not suggesting that was an issue here, but it would be a seldom seen gotcha. I read such was the case years ago when I was flying a C-45 and wondered if the Twin Beech had a similar surprise. It didn't, because that drag hole occurred near or below Vmc, apparently. (Anyway, a Beech 18 definitely wouldn't climb with two engnes out.)

2. Also, does anyone have a handle on the performance curves for these birds with the turbochargerers uninstalled? Used to be, according the Dash One, you'd push the balls to the wall, and then adjust MP with the turbo wheel to 47.5" MP for54,000 max gross takeoff. So at a typical 45-47,000 pounds ride gross would a conservative 41" without a turbo be equivalent?

I never did a practice two engine out departure...the loss of one engine was enough of a balancing act. The -17 is a portrait in drag, so acceleration was always a slow affair.

The C-45 would climb (oh so slowly) on one if you were faster than about 90 when you punched the feather button.

Re take-off boost. We used to try to get away with 42”. The wastegate controller is a single rotary dial with settings of 1 through 8, and 9 & 10 through a guarded detent. The turbochargers were working when I last saw her 32 years ago.
By no means definitive observation: I have never operated a radial on 100LL above 42” unless it had water injection. I’m sure that was based partly on superstition and partly on chief mechanics’ wisdom. No experience on that since the Reagan years.

[eggplantwalking]

Both the B-17 & B-24 HAD a flight engineer. Maybe they didn't REQUIRE an FE, but the Army Air Corps sure put one on as a required crewmember.

Nope!!! The AAF DID NOT train Flight Engineers per say., rather he was chosen as most qualified by the captain.Here is what the the 1943 303 Bomb Group B-17 manual says about Flight Engineers:Duties and Responsibilities of
THE ENGINEERSize up the man who is to be your engineer. This man is supposed to know more about the airplane you are to fly than any other member of the crew.

He has been trained in the Air Forces' highly specialized technical schools. Probably he has served some time as a crew chief. Nevertheless, there may be some inevitable blank spots in his training which you, as a pilot and airplane commander, may be able to fill in.

Think back on your own training. In many courses of instruction, you had a lot of things thrown at you from right and left. You had to concentrate on how to fly; and where your equipment was concerned you learned to rely more and more on the enlisted personnel, particularly the crew chief and the engineer, to advise you about things that were not taught to you because of lack of time and the arrangement of the training program.

Both pilot and engineer have a responsibility to work closely together to supplement and fill in the blank spots in each other's education. To be a qualified combat engineer a man must know his airplane, his engines, and his armament equipment thoroughly. This is a big responsibility: the lives of the entire crew, the safety of the equipment, the success of the mission depend upon it squarely.

He must work closely with the copilot, checking engine operation, fuel consumption, and the operation of all equipment. He must be able to work with the bombardier, and know how to cock, lock, and load the bomb racks. It is up to you, the airplane commander, to see that he is familiar with these duties, and, if he is hazy concerning them, to have the bombardier give him special help and instruction.

He must be thoroughly familiar with the armament equipment, and know how to strip, clean, and re-assemble the guns.

He should have a general knowledge of radio equipment, and be able to assist in tuning transmitters and receivers.

Your engineer should be your chief source of information concerning the airplane. He should know more about the equipment than any other crew member -- yourself included.

You, in turn, are his source of information concerning flying. Bear this in mind in all your discussions with the engineer. The more complete you can make his knowledge of the reasons behind every function of the equipment, the more valuable he will be as a member of the crew. Who knows? Someday that little bit of extra knowledge in the engineer's mind may save the day in some emergency.

Generally, in emergencies, the engineer will be the man to whom you turn first. Build up his pride, his confidence, his knowledge. Know him personally; check on the extent of his knowledge. Make him a man upon whom you can rely.

[warbirdfinder]

The B-17G "Sentimental Journey" has has operative turbos for over 35 years, uses the maximum of 46"/2500 RPM quite often and uses 100LL with no problems

[lomapaseo]

years ago I bought about 20 of those B-17 turbo-chargers and modified them to run off high pressure steam I used them to fine control spinning parts up to 25000 rpm cheaply.

[b1lanc]

Nope!!! The AAF DID NOT train Flight Engineers per say., rather he was chosen as most qualified by the captain.Here is what the the 1943 303 Bomb Group B-17 manual says about Flight Engineers.

And here is what an 8th AF305th Bomb Group B-17 Flight Engineer experienced - 6 months training before 26 missions serving as an FE and top turret gunner.


https://sites.google.com/site/8thafhsmn/pictures/ray-peterson-f

[PukinDog]

Unlike, say, the B-29, the B-17 FE position wasn't/isn't necessary to fly the aircraft around the patch in Hometown USA.

On the other hand, in wartime flying through fields or flak and attacking fighters determined to shoot you down, the FE was a critical part of the crew dealing with battle damage throughout the entire aircraft and it's systems, plus serving as a gunner, an extra set of eyes, and communicator.

[Airbubba]

The Collings Foundation has suspended flight operations for the remainder of the 2019 season.

Statement from the Collings FoundationOur thoughts and prayers are with those who were on that flight and we will be forever grateful to the heroic efforts of the first responders at Bradley.

The Collings Foundation flight team is fully cooperating with officials to determine the cause of the crash of the B-17 Flying Fortress and will comment further when details become known.

In the wake of a tragic accident involving our B-17, the Collings Foundation is currently suspending its flight operations and the Wings of Freedom Tour for the remainder of the 2019 season. We are in the process of issuing refunds for those who had reserved flights through December.The Battle for the Airfield Event at the American Heritage Museum is still taking place on Saturday, October 12 and Sunday, October 13, 2019Please visit the following link for details and tickets: https://www.americanheritagemuseum.org/event/battle-for-the-airfield-wwii-re-enactment/ (center)

https://www.collingsfoundation.org/

[filejw]

The Collings Foundation has suspended flight operations for the remainder of the 2019 season.



https://www.collingsfoundation.org/

I feel for the people that work for Collings, a friend that works for them said its somber and sad.

[Carbon Bootprint]

I just dug my 8th Air Force patch from my box o’ memories...and some Kodak prints from back in the day. The first time I flew it we transited the Erie, PA control zone. The tower was a tad confused at the “Boeing 93012” call sign and the 120 kt cruise speed, much slower than Vr in any Boeing of recent experience. Do that at 2000’ and you can actually (almost) see people look up in wonder. We certainly were looking down with our share of amazement, and wondered at how much courage it took to drive a load of bombs through 88 flack and fighters in broad daylight in a herd of planes slower than your mom’s (Ford) mustang.Nothing to contribute to the substance of the thread, but I just want to give my compliments and respect to Australopithecus for a very moving account of your past experiences, and to thank you for sharing. I've been to the 8th Air Force museum in Savannah, and have to say your last sentence is truly sobering. It's amazing what those young blokes experienced back then, especially the lucky few that made it out.

I think it was suggested some posts back that you should consider writing as a pastime if not a career. Motion seconded. :ok:

[eggplantwalking]

And here is what an 8th AF305th Bomb Group B-17 Flight Engineer experienced - 6 months training before 26 missions serving as an FE and top turret gunner.


https://sites.google.com/site/8thafhsmn/pictures/ray-peterson-f
The timeline makes the difference. The 303 Bomb Group manual was dated 1943. Flight engineer training formally started in Texas for enlisted personnel in March of 1944 and during that interval a lot changed. The article states that the person was in Flight Engineer school for six months. However, since there are so many errors in the article the six months could have been the combined time including basic, gunnery plus the engineer schooling i.e., start to finish time for all training before deployment.

[gnehc]

Go ahead declare an emergency. I don’t understand the reluctance. It helps everyone to get on the same page. It’s an emergency. Your crew, ATC, ARFF. Not a big deal. Just might save your and others life.

[b1lanc]

The timeline makes the difference. The 303 Bomb Group manual was dated 1943. Flight engineer training formally started in Texas for enlisted personnel in March of 1944 and during that interval a lot changed.

No, the early B-17s sent to the Philippines had FEs as did MG Caleb Haynes crop of B-17s in Task Force Aquila - that was pre-Doolittle in 1942. Scott (in his book God is My Co-Pilot pg. 39) references his engineer (and gunner in case of attack), Sgt.Aaltonen, standing behind the flight deck.

[fdr]

Re take-off boost. We used to try to get away with 42”. The wastegate controller is a single rotary dial with settings of 1 through 8, and 9 & 10 through a guarded detent. The turbochargers were working when I last saw her 32 years ago.
By no means definitive observation: I have never operated a radial on 100LL above 42” unless it had water injection. I’m sure that was based partly on superstition and partly on chief mechanics’ wisdom. No experience on that since the Reagan years.

With the power checks we do on the T28B, C & D's, they are always down on the lower limit from my experience when operating 100LL. The performance charts are on the higher octane levels. I have never come across a value that gives a correction value for operating on lower octane fuels. Flying the blender is a leisurely affair.

Operationally, losses will occur with these aircraft, but they provide a unique link to the most momentous event in human history. Assuming that those that forget are destined to repeat, risk related to ongoing public display is less than the risk of loss of remembrance. It is chilling to see these aircraft fly past at any time, whether at a show or just passing by on a transit or experiential flight. Personally, at 15 I went up with a fairly famous B25, mustang and T28B, and my parents were well aware of the risks involved and fully supported my decision to go fly. The loss is always tragic, but the loss is also a part of the history now, Condolences to all concerned, but the people involved, flying and as passengers were a part of something much greater than the individual, and that should be respected, preserved, and continued.

Learn to minimise risk, but risk is a certainty of life that we accept in every daily action we take.

respectfully,

[Australopithecus]

The one turbocharger disc that I looked at on 909 on Aug. 18th, 2019, on a port engine at Butler Airport, PA, would not turn with finger pressure.
This surprised me, because on another (static museum) B17 that I looked at decades ago the disc turned easily.
‘People are talking about "uninstalled" turbochargers".
In that case, is the disc absent, frozen sold, or what?
I am not a mechanic, and have no special knowledge of these matters.

Hah! I got a gentle rebuke from the boss when I spun the turbo by hand during training; apparently the oil turns to coke as it drips down the shaft, creating a temporary, fragile oil seal. In fact you do cause an oil drip with a (very tempting) casual spin of the disc.

I have no experience with a normally aspirated installation, but a locked turbo disc isn’t normal in the standard configuration.

[The name is Porter]

It's time to stop flying the public in these old machines. As wonderful as they are, they are not safe for the transport of passengers. If you want to risk your life, go ahead. The risks when flying on one are worse than flying on a modern passenger plane and the public may not know that.

This ^^^^^^ is unfortunately what Australia is. Brainwashed by incompetent government agencies, making citizens think that 'everything is dangerous' and will kill you. Let us tell you what's safe and what's not. Don't think for yourself, it's safer playing inside on an ipad than riding your pushy to school.

Are you calling for motor vehicles to be banned when you look at the road toll in the morning newspaper? Nup, jump in your car and head off to work, even though Collings Foundation have probably less incidents per kilometer than any road system in the world.

Ok, back away from the keyboard and go and have a snickers. You're contradicting yourself and making me ashamed to be Australian.

Ashamed is an understatement Peter.

I would jump on a Collings Foundation aircraft tomorrow.

[Global Aviator]

As Porter says, yep I would jump on a Collings aircraft any day.

To see these fabulous historic aircraft in the sky is amazing. If your ever in doubt get yourself to Oshkosh.

One question I have and in no way am I being negative to the crew. I ask about older pilots flying and potential issues. How heavy on the controls is the B17 in emergencies? As we get older we can loose some of our strength and dexterity.

In most countries in commercial ops over xx age can not fly together.

I am the first to put my hand up and say I would love to learn from pilots this experienced.

As I said in no way am I having a go at the crew.

[421dog]

Not precicely sure why my R-1820 posts were deleted.

Sorry I wasted time writing them.

Many thousands of dollars spent learning what I was trying to convey, so just fine if you all want to go ahead with heresy instead...

[maxter]

Not precicely sure why my R-1820 posts were deleted.

Sorry I wasted time writing them.

Many thousands of dollars spent learning what I was trying to convey, so just fine if you all want to go ahead with heresy instead...

Please try again. Hopefully you kept a copy. Many love to understand the facts and history

[Australopithecus]

As Porter says, yep I would jump on a Collings aircraft any day.

To see these fabulous historic aircraft in the sky is amazing. If your ever in doubt get yourself to Oshkosh.

One question I have and in no way am I being negative to the crew. I ask about older pilots flying and potential issues. How heavy on the controls is the B17 in emergencies? As we get older we can loose some of our strength and dexterity.

In most countries in commercial ops over xx age can not fly together.

I am the first to put my hand up and say I would love to learn from pilots this experienced.

As I said in no way am I having a go at the crew.


The B-17, like other 1930’s designs, has pretty (very) sluggish control responses, but I don’t recall it as being particularly heavy in any axis. Its old fashioned: you actually have to coordinate turns with rudder. Without rudder, aileron drag will cause the aircraft to turn away from a gently banked wing. Kids today don’t believe that.

[lomapaseo]

Please try again. Hopefully you kept a copy. Many love to understand the facts and history

agree !!! THis is the best time to refresh ones memory in an event worth discussing about

[Gipsy Queen]

A few years ago, I flew from Pompano in "Fuddy Duddy", the EAA's B17. I happily would have flown in this aircraft regardless of its condition and considerations of personal safety. To be able do so was a singular privilege, given that the aircraft represented so much effort and sacrifice in a war which I remember but in which I was too young to participate.

I am contemptuous of the Australian advocating withdrawal of old machines from public conveyance. The B17 was a bomber, a weapon of war and never intended as a passenger carrier, so expecting the two roles in some way to be analogous is just silly. Any prospective passenger, unless totally half-witted, would understand the difference and make a judgement accordingly. To deny this sort of experience to those who would benefit from it as a function of our risk-averse, nannying, pseudo safety culture is quite wrong.

I'm deeply saddened by the loss of these people and an aircraft that did so much to win the freedom we take for granted today.

[421dog]

Don’t, unfortunately have a copy.

100LLworks at 41”MP,

blower shift at 10K needed to maintain cruise (1850 and 30”)

fly a t28-c a lot, and am typed in a super pby so have more than a little experience with the mills in question.

[GlueBall]

Airbubba says: "I've flown four-engine planes where we shut down one or two motors at times to save gas".


My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."

[b1lanc]

Airbubba says:

My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."

My dad related the same on a Delta DC-7 flight from NY to Arizona in the '50s - both inboards shut down to save fuel - his first flight - was not happy!

[Airbubba]

Airbubba says:

My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."

You'd have to know the difference between pitchlock and NTS to understand. ;)

https://youtu.be/07r6b_YvaE0

[EDML]

Airbubba says:

My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."

It‘s done on the C-130 for max. endurance (not range obviously) as well. Of course only in pairs - usually engine 2 & 3. Used for example in SAR missions to stay with a ship in an emergency situation until ground based rescue or helicopters arrive.

[Pilot DAR]

In certain very restrictive conditions, yes, one or two engines might be shut down to conserve fuel in cruise flight. I expect that this would only be in an established cruise configuration, at altitude (allowing lots of room for a restart). I would extremely doubt that an antique former military airplane, particularly while carrying passengers, would ever have engines deliberately shut down in flight for reasons of economy.

It certainly serves the interest of preservation of these valuable historic assets to promote public participation, which might include experience flights. It's a fine line though, assuring an understanding of the possible increased risk in being a passenger on such a flight, as opposed to actually scaring people away. We don't want to scare people, but presenting the real facts of risk might do that. It is our moral responsibility to assure that potential passengers fairly know the risks. I am responsible for approving two now civilian certified former military airplanes to carry either passengers fully certified to do so, or crew only during restricted operations in a different role. Those crew members for restricted operations may still be new to flying, and are thus given a comprehensive briefing as to risks, and their duties as crew members - every person will have duties, which are real. No one has ever withdrawn following the briefings, which is nice, though as I conduct or witness at least some of these briefings, I assure that they meet the requirement of the flight authority I have endorsed.

I trust that the operator of the B-17 was providing reasonable briefings, and have no reason to think that they were lacking in any way. And, I'd believe that very eager passengers may see beyond "regular cautious understanding" for the opportunity to fly. But every now and then the worst outcome occurs, and reminds us to be thorough and realistic in our briefings of our passengers, to be as fair as possible. After more than twenty years of flying with me, and now following my being an a water flying accident, my wife chooses to no longer fly with me in the amphibian. I asked her what her reasoning was, and she replied: "having thought about it, now I'm not so sure that I could get my self out in a water crash if you could not help me.". A very fair, and considered answer, and I respect that from her. No pressure to her to fly with me, yes if she wants, no if not, she understands the risks, and I accept that.

Everything is a balance, sometimes it's a fine line. Understanding the risk is the first step.

[Airbubba]

In certain very restrictive conditions, yes, one or two engines might be shut down to conserve fuel in cruise flight. I expect that this would only be in an established cruise configuration, at altitude (allowing lots of room for a restart).

Actually, in the P-3 engines were normally shut down on station over the water, not in cruise. With one engine shut down minimum altitudes on station were normal, i.e. 300 feet AGL at night, 200 feet during the day. With two engines shut down the NATOPS minimum altitude was 1000 feet AGL.

A British Airways B-744 famously crossed the Atlantic LAX-LHR with an engine shutdown with pax onboard in 2005. They actually ended up in MAN due to fuel management issues. The FAA was not pleased, however.

In some four-engine (and three-engine) planes an engine out without fire or damage does not require an immediate landing.

I can see where the approach controller would want to know if the B-17 had to land immediately or if it could be sequenced with other traffic. As I noted previously, there may well be some missing transmissions in the LiveATC clips since the feeds were scanning more than one frequency. It does appear that the B-17 was given priority handling with the ARFF crew standing by.

[Airbubba]

I feel for the people that work for Collings, a friend that works for them said its somber and sad.

From the Hartford Courant:

Pilot delivers emotional message as Collings Foundation’s remaining historic planes leave Bradley Airport following deadly B-17 crashBy EMILY BRINDLEY (https://www.courant.com/ebrindley-staff.html#nt=byline) HARTFORD COURANT |OCT 06, 2019




All four of the Collings Foundation’s remaining historic airplanes flew out of Bradley International Airport on Saturday, days after one of the organization’s planes went down in a fiery crash that killed seven people and injured seven more.
On Wednesday, the foundation’s World War II-era B-17 Flying Fortress crashed 1,000 feet short of runway 6. On Saturday afternoon, a pilot of one of the foundation’s other historic planes prepared to leave Bradley from the same runway.
Before taking off, the pilot asked air traffic control if he could say a few words.
“It’s difficult, but bear with us,” the pilot is heard saying in a recording of the conversation. “From everybody here, our crew and the entire Collings Foundation, we’re very appreciative and (have deep) sorrow for everything.”

In a brief message and with his voice sometimes breaking, the pilot addressed all of the airport workers and the families of those who were injured or killed in Wednesday’s crash.
Among the crash victims were pilot Ernest “Mac” McCauley and co-pilot Michael Foster.“On a personal note — and I guess it’s even more difficult because we never do it — but we have to leave behind two of our friends, Mac and Mike, and our brothers and fellow crew," the pilot said.
After the pilot’s message, air traffic control cleared the plane to take off from runway 6.

Here's the audio from LiveATC.net:

https://forums.liveatc.net/atcaviation-audio-clips/departing-b-25-tribute-to-b-17-bdl/?action=dlattach;attach=10534

[Australopithecus]

Maritime surveillance aircraft routinely shut an engine down since they are operating on endurance, not range. They sometimes cage two engines. They even used to do this on piston transport based platforms: the Canadian Argus comes to mind, I always wondered about restarting cold-soaked radials after a long loiter in February.

Other types from the cold war would routinely shut down some propulsion: The P-2V and the B-36 come immediately to mind.

From memory, a 747-400 burns 8% more fuel on three engines, but in some cases less than flight plan with two shut down.

[Australopithecus]

Airbubba:

NTS? That's what the safety coupling is for :ouch:

[fdr]

Actually, in the P-3 engines were normally shut down on station over the water, not in cruise. With one engine shut down minimum altitudes on station were normal, i.e. 300 feet AGL at night, 200 feet during the day. With two engines shut down the NATOPS minimum altitude was 1000 feet AGL. .

Pretty true, but I have a log that has 7 shutdowns in 6 days of the same engine for prop runaway. That probably makes it easy to guess what year that happened in for anyone who played with Detroit Diesels. There was a time that the hamilton standard blenders did have some issues.

The P3 was a delight to fly, much more enjoyable than the P8, but you can't buck progress. The engine out performance was pretty good, One of my last arrivals in one was a 2 engine pass over the flag pole at VNE, at idle, (a gentle dive was involved) at the behest of the base commander. Post landing there was a reception at the bottom of the stairs. Took a long time before I poked my head out, and found the chief was happy not fuming. OEI was routine to the extent that one arrival my copilot forgot to restart #1 and I was torn between reminding him and letting him do his first ever engine out landing without knowing it. The bad angel won the day, and the co pilot became aware of the config only when we suggested that he needed to start the engine to go through the bird bath. One manoeuvre which the NATOPS was quite correct on was prohibiting asymmetric ditching drills. Having full flaps, two out on one side, and being about 60kts below the VMCA2 was less fun than it sounds. When the clown does a GA, the ride is spectacular but may not be for long.

These old birds are the heritage of the last 100 years, and I for one don't want to see restrictions added to them. I have operated 2 pre moratorium warbirds of my own, and it is always a pleasure to have given a ride to vets, their children and to the public so that there is some appreciation of what those that went before went through. It will be a sad day when the smoke and sound of the 1820/1830s and 2800's is missing. These aircraft bring into contrast the privilege position that exists today when passengers complain about lousy pretzels and cold coffee. In 1942, the kids flying these machines may have those complaints as well, but were facing somewhat more significant issues than the cost of additional baggage.

Re LL fuel, my donks were 86-R's not -B's, I misstated... For that engine it was curious how sensitive they were to icing, given a supercharger was in the induction system.

[eggplantwalking]

No, the early B-17s sent to the Philippines had FEs as did MG Caleb Haynes crop of B-17s in Task Force Aquila - that was pre-Doolittle in 1942. Scott (in his book God is My Co-Pilot pg. 39) references his engineer (and gunner in case of attack), Sgt.Aaltonen, standing behind the flight deck.

Going through the AAF Dash One (pilot's training manual) for the B-17 there is no mention anywhere of a flight engineer or his duties. The first aircraft that required a flight engineer was the B-29 and he had a systems panel which controlled a multitude of functions. Having flown the B-17, I can't imagine what assistance a guy standing between the pilots could provide especially during take-off or landing except being an unsecured human projectile in a sudden deceleration scenario such as an aborted take-off or a hard landing having no seat or seat belt. The controls are designed for a two pilot operation and had formation throttles to make formation flying easier for single pilot manipulation. A guy standing behind the pilots can't reach S..T and in any turbulence would be a hazard. ! I The engineers mentioned in these stories were in reality "ground engineers" and were well trained in the maintenance of the aircraft. And, they most likely did spend time behind the pilots out of professional interest to ascertain the condition of the aircraft in the air as they were responsible for it's airworthiness. I find it hard to visualize one of them crawling out on the wing in flight to make any beneficial repairs to an engine. Authors who write novels quite often get the facts wrong and mis-label just about anything. This seems to be the case here.

[Capt Fathom]

Well you must feel better after that!

[jimjim1]

and had formation throttles to make formation flying easier for single pilot manipulation.

I would be grateful if anyone could explain what "formation throttles" are? I can guess that is throttle controls positioned for Hands on Throttle and Stick while looking out to the side flying - but it would be good to know.
Google does not seem to be helpful.

Thanks.

[b1lanc]

Authors who write novels quite often get the facts wrong and mis-label just about anything. This seems to be the case here.
You might want to research Scotty a little more thoroughly. Far from a novel as you insultingly characterize it. Accurate and compelling story of his aviation experiences pre, during, and after the war. Had the privilege of corresponding with BGen Scott in the 1960s - a true patriot and skilled aviator as well as an accomplished writer (but he couldn't type very well judging from the white-out on letters).
The responsibilities of a FE pre/early-war were not the same as those that evolved since with an FE sitting at a fixed station - on that we agree. That said, the FE's responsibility was largely the same regardless of where they were positioned - keep the ac flyable and let the pilots fly it. Your reference to the B-29 as the first is interesting as the XB-15 prototype (to which many of the model 345 and B-29 capabilities can trace their lineage to) did in fact have 4 engines serviceable in flight via tunnel, something Boeing also applied to their model 314 flying boat.
Below reads part of the Medal of Honor citation for Archibald Mathies - B-17 Flight Engineer. Your Dash One may not define the position, but the AAF clearly knew what it was:
"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in connection with a bombing mission over enemy-occupied Europe on February 20, 1944. The aircraft on which Sgt. Mathies was serving as flight engineer and ball turret gunner ..."

[Avman]

Is there any additional information why the Collings B-17 was unable to maintain altitude?

I remain a little confused about that. Were they unable to maintain altitude or did they, because of the nature of their possible problems, misjudge their approach? Some of the above info would suggest they were too low on short final.

[eggplantwalking]

I would be grateful if anyone could explain what "formation throttles" are? I can guess that is throttle controls positioned for Hands on Throttle and Stick while looking out to the side flying - but it would be good to know.
Google does not seem to be helpful.

Thanks.
Okay, I'll try and help. Most aircraft have a throttle for each engine located on the center throttle quadrant and is vertical ( sticks straight up) and is isolated from the other throttles but only by an inch or so.When you observe the throttle quadrant you will see the throttles protruding out ot the quadrant along with other levers such as prop control levers, etc., and none of them are connected. Now picture this: In the B-17 you have the same throttles ( four of them) located in the center, however, you notice that there are three horizontal bars facing inward from each engine lever between the throttles with a small gap separating the horizontal bars. Each bar can be grasped in one hand and the top bar will control the #1 and #4 engine and the bottom bar will control #2 and #3 engine when moved together. On the center bar ( 4 split bars aligned ) all four engines can be manipulated together when grasped to facilitate changing engine power on all four engines simultaneously. Therefore, when flying formation the pilot flying need to grasp only the center bar with his hand to control all four engines simultaneously making formation flying much easier. Take a look at a B-17 cockpit photo and this should all make sense.

[Vzlet]

https://live.staticflickr.com/4381/36856981521_6ab386dc45_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Y9VEwD)
B-17 Flying Fortress NL93012 (https://flic.kr/p/Y9VEwD) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

[eggplantwalking]

Does anyone know to where the remaining aircraft flew after leaving KBDL two days ago?

Yep, to KEVB

[Airbubba]

It wasn't until the introduction of the C-118 (DC-6) Connie and B-377 that a position was created especially for a F/E.

Actually, as I noted earlier in this thread, the B-307 Stratoliner, a derivative of the B-17C that flew in 1938, had a flight engineer.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/688x620/b307_av_4005_substratosphere_cockpit_p048_w_fcaeeac8f5ef9bbd fc526228b3f258925c599c75.png

The Boeing 314 Clippers which also first flew in 1938 had a flight engineer as well.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/724x469/pan_am_radio_flight_engineer_stations_b_314_11f38b806fe179d4 61e7a117aea49d8e4c281bba.jpg
I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.

From a licensing point of view it appears to me that the third crewmember on this BDL B-17 mishap flight was not required to have any type of airman certificate. Was he legally a required crewmember with 10 pax under these historical aircraft regulations?

[eggplantwalking]

https://live.staticflickr.com/4381/36856981521_6ab386dc45_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Y9VEwD)
B-17 Flying Fortress NL93012 (https://flic.kr/p/Y9VEwD) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

Brilliant photo!This shot of the throttles along with my attempt to explain formation throttles in verbiage should make jimjim1 understand the design / operation.

[Airbubba]

One of several recent articles raising questions about the future of these LHFE flights.

Feds Could Ban Passengers on Vintage Aircraft Flights Following Deadly B-17 Crash7 Oct 2019 Military.com | By Richard Sisk (https://www.military.com/author/richard-sisk)


Federal investigators will take a hard look at the possibility of restricting or banning rides for the public aboard World War II-era aircraft following the fiery crash of a restored B-17 "Flying Fortress" bomber in Connecticut last week that killed seven and injured eight.

"That is something we will look at down the road," National Transportation Safety Board member Jennifer Homendy said when asked whether the owners of vintage aircraft should be permitted to keep taking paying customers up for brief flights at airshows and heritage events.
"We're still at the very early stages of this investigation and we'll have to determine that at the appropriate time," Homendy said at an Oct. 4 news conference at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, where the B-17 crashed last Wednesday in an emergency landing attempt.

The NTSB is expected to make a preliminary report on the crash later this month, but recommendations on what actions the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) should take to ensure the safety of vintage aircraft flights will likely not be made for several months.

"Our mission is to determine what happened, why it happened and to prevent it from happening again," Homendy said. The B-17 that crashed was owned and operated by the Massachusetts-based Collings Foundation.

The record of previous fatal accidents involving heritage flights of World War II-era bombers will play a part in the current investigation, she said.

Since 1982, when the NTSB began tracking safety issues in the heritage flights, there have been a total of 21 accidents involving World War-II era bombers, resulting in 23 fatalities and one injury -- not counting the death toll last Tuesday, Homendy said.

Three of the previous accidents involved B-17G bombers of the same type that crashed at the Bradley airport, Homendy said. Currently, there are 16 B-17s registered to fly in the U.S., including the one that crashed in Connecticut, according to the NTSB.

"Every accident is different. We'll take a look at the history and make appropriate recommendations," Homendy said.

In response to the tragedy, the Collings Foundation announced that it was "suspending its flight operations and the Wings of Freedom Tour for the remainder of the 2019 season."

The various groups and foundations that seek to preserve and fly vintage aircraft profess safety as their primary concern in the display and flights of vintage aircraft that they see as a vital part of the nation's history.

However, vintage aircraft owner and aviation attorney Michael Slack said the FAA should consider keeping passengers off them.

"There's not a problem with these aircraft flying demonstrations and in tributes. We can continue to enjoy these aircraft from that perspective," said Slack, a former NASA engineer who owns a biplane P-6 Hawk military aircraft from the 1930s.

But, he said, there's a "legitimate risk" in taking passengers aboard.

"These airplanes were designed to do one thing -- deliver bombs and return. There was no incentive to create passenger-friendly aircraft," he said. Federal authorities, he added, should take "a serious look at simply ending taking up passengers" on heritage flights.

"Most WWII aircraft are now 70-plus years old since they were manufactured and the pool of pilots with the skills to fly these planes diminishes daily," said Slack. "The maintenance on these aircraft also requires special skills and knowledge, and replacement parts are very difficult to find and are often fabricated."

In addition, "vintage aircraft are not equipped with modern technology to prevent post-impact fires and fuel dispersal," he said.

"When I fly my [P-6], I know I'm putting myself at some risk," Slack said.

As a lawyer, Slack is currently representing a plaintiff in a civil suit against the owners of a vintage twin-prop C-47 Skytrain, the military version of the DC-3, that crashed and burned on takeoff in July 2018 in Burnet, Texas. The plaintiff suffered burns as a passenger on the C-47, Slack said.

The vintage aircraft are exempt from the rules for commercial aircraft requiring the safety features that have been developed since World War II, according to the FAA.

In a statement to Miitary.com, FAA officials said the vintage aircraft "are not eligible for sightseeing flights. They are only eligible for the 'Living History' Flights, which provide the passengers with an experience of what it was like to fly aboard these types of aircraft."

"Living History Flight Experience (LHFE) exemptions provide operators relief from several FAA regulations, allowing exemption holders to carry passengers for compensation or hire in 'historically significant' aircraft holding a limited or experimental airworthiness certificate," the FAA said.

The accidents involving vintage aircraft are not limited to bombers. In November 2018, a World War II-era P-51 Mustang fighter crashed into the parking lot of a housing complex in Fredericksburg, Texas. The pilot and a passenger, a World War II veteran, were killed, according to the NTSB.

In September 2011, a P-51 Mustang participating in the Reno Air Races in Nevada crashed into the crowd, killing the pilot and 10 spectators and injuring 69.

In statements last Friday, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, said the focus of the investigation should be the safety of future of vintage aircraft flights and whether they should be permitted to carry passengers.

The crash last Wednesday "has put this industry at an inflection point and the NTSB, plus the FAA, need to address the repeated and imminent dangers that have been demonstrated over the years," Blumenthal said.

"These planes are a profoundly significant part of our history and they should be revered and preserved but respected with adequate safety standards if they are going to be flown, and that's why a broader examination and investigation is absolutely necessary here," he said. "Not to say these planes need to be grounded, but they do need to be inspected and maintained and repaired with a frequency and intensity that guarantees their air trustworthiness."

At the news conference Homendy said the B-17, after the pilot reported an "issue with an engine," hit the approach lights about 1,000 feet from Runway 6 at Bradley International Airport while attempting to make an emergency landing.

The aircraft knocked over about 30 approach lights on breakaway poles before skidding off the runway into a de-icing plant and catching fire, Homendy said.

The B-17 that crashed in Connecticut had a crew of three and 10 passengers aboard. The pilot of the bomber, Ernest "Mac" McCauley, 75, of Long Beach, California, and the copilot, Michael Foster, 71, of Jacksonville, Florida, a retired Navy (http://www.military.com/navy) captain and naval aviator, were killed in the crash.

Both McCauley and Foster were flying the B-17 under exemptions granted by the FAA. Commercial pilots must retire at age 65, but pilots of vintage aircraft can keep flying as long as their medical certificate, training and testing are current, according to the FAA.

Homendy said McCauley had more than 7,300 hours flying B-17s and was believed to be the most experienced B-17 pilot in the U.S.

The others killed in the crash were passengers: David Broderick, 56, of West Springfield, Massachusetts; Robert Rubner, 64, of Tolland, Connecticut; Gary Mazzone, 66, of Broad Brook, Connecticut; James Roberts, 48, of Ludlow, Massachusetts; and Robert Riddell, 59, of East Granby, Connecticut.




https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/10/07/feds-could-ban-passengers-vintage-aircraft-flights-following-deadly-b-17-crash.html

[Lake1952]

In actuality, these aircraft "earn their keep" with the revenue from these heritage flights. Remove that revenue stream, and I suspect the economics of these national tours becomes much more difficult if not altogether impossible.

[Airbubba]

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) held a press conference earlier today and sent a letter to the FAA with the questions below. I've attached the full letter to this post, it includes a copy of Collings' LHFE exemption notice. The exemption letter has details on the requirements and restrictions for carrying passengers in the listed historic aircraft.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1085x968/blumenthal_faa_lhfe_questions_7cbbed1ce7b55fc3f378abeba2a7cc e58ad14ffe.jpg


This CTPost article examines some of the history and issues involved with the LHFE program.

Blumenthal questions exemption allowing passengers on vintage planesBy Lisa Backus

Updated 7:11 pm EDT, Monday, October 7, 2019
The fatal crash of a B-17 Flying Fortress last week and others like it will likely lead to changes in the Federal Aviation Administration policy that allows vintage aircraft museums to offer flights for a fee, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said.

Blumenthal wants to know whether the Collings Foundation properly reported prior engine problems as part of an inquiry he is requesting from the FAA, which allows vintage aircraft like the B-17 Flying Fortress that crashed killing seven in Connecticut last Wednesday to give flights to the public for a fee.

Blumenthal announced Monday during a press conference that he is seeking the FAA to conduct a full examination of its Living History Flight Experience exemption program and specifically he wants information on the Collings Foundation exemption, which was renewed in March 2018.“I am in no way advocating that these planes should be grounded, just that they should be made safe,” Blumenthal said.

The exemption allows the Massachusetts-based company to use 10 vintage warbirds for passenger trips for a fee. The foundation was the first not-for-profit organization in the country to seek an exemption as a way of drumming up a revenue stream to help pay for the cost of maintaining its extensive vintage aircraft collection, according to the FAA.

The agency has issued exemptions to 20 organizations in the past 10 years, according to an FAA spokeswoman. The FAA didn’t immediately have information on how many non-profit museums and foundations have been given exemptions since the program started in 1996.The FAA's LHFE exemption allows vintage warbirds that have met the agency's standards for training and maintenance to fly with the public on board with a special limited airworthiness certification.

Each exemption granted allows nonprofit organizations to fly the planes without the same restrictions as commercial or private planes that fly passengers. But in exchange, each exemption comes with a tailored list of requirements, said Dick Knapinski, a senior communications advisor for the Experimental Aviation Association, a national nonprofit organization that promotes recreational aviation and advocates on the federal level to prevent undue restrictions on flying.

The exemptions must be re-approved about every two years and involve an extensive review of all training and operations, Knapinski said.The EAA has been flying its own B-17 since 1994 — two years before the FAA created the exemption program, he said. The EAA was the second outfit to receive an exemption, according to the FAA. Knapinski estimates that between 20 and 30 organizations have LHFE exemptions.

The B-17 Flying Fortress, restored by the Collings Foundation as a replica of the "Nine-0-Nine," which flew 140 combat missions in World War II, crashed minutes after taking off from Bradley International Airport Wednesday morning.

Pilot Earnest "Mac" McCauley radioed air traffic controllers that he was having a problem with engine four and needed to return to the airport about four minutes after he had taken off with 10 passengers aboard. The plane hit transmission towers before the runway and crashed into a de-icing building, National Transportation Safety Board officials said.

McCauley and his co-pilot and five passengers died. The plane's technician and five other passengers survived with varying injuries. An airport employee in the de-icing building was also injured. Blumenthal said witnesses reported that the plane was having engine problems prior to the crash.

According to an FAA document renewing the certification sent to the foundation in March 2018, the organization must report any major system problems or failures on its exempt planes within 24 hours. Blumenthal said he’s talked to previous passengers of the B-17 who said they watched as McCauley got on a ladder to fix an engine before a flight.

The passengers had paid $450 for the B-17 flight.

Blumenthal is asking the FAA to review the policy and current safety protections to determine if they are adequate.

“The questions I’m raising is how does the FAA justify the differences between these flights and others and what’s the rationale for treating them differently?” Blumenthal said.

In a letter he sent Monday to the FAA, Blumenthal also questioned if the Collings Foundation had maintenance logs at another location since the documents appeared to have been stored on the aircraft, which crashed and burned.

Knapinski said his organization keeps maintenance logs in the plane and in a central office.

“It would be important for a mechanic to have that information if the plane was out in the field,” Knapinski said.

The planes operate primarily out of commercial airports since they allow the public greater access to the warbirds, Knapinski said. Passengers are not screened by Transportation Safety Administration employees but are treated the same way as those who are taking a business jet, he said.

“We have a manifest of the passengers,” Knapinski said. “But the passengers do not go through metal detectors in the same way those who fly on business jets do not go through metal detectors.”

Knapinski said the FAA and the NSTB, which are both investigating the crash, will also draw larger conclusions if the LHFE program needs to be changed based on their findings.

“Let’s let the professionals do their investigation because at this point, what are we chasing?” Knapinski said. “It’s premature and an injustice to those investigators.”

This isn’t the first time the LHFE program has faces scrutiny. FAA documents show the agency has rewritten the requirements and regulations for LHFE exemptions at least twice since 1996 due to problems. The FAA placed a four-year moratorium on any new exemptions in 2011 after receiving applications that included potentially dangerous activities, including offering passengers the chance to engage in mid-air flight simulations for a fee, according to agency documents.

“What I am suggesting is nothing new,” Blumenthal said. “These standards have been revamped at least twice since 1996.”

According to Blumenthal, there have been 21 crashes involving vintage aircraft, including three B-17s, since 1982 that have resulted in 23 deaths. The figures do not include Wednesday’s crash.

Blumenthal contended that the planes and the flights are a valued part of the country’s history, but said the crashes will likely lead to changes in the exemption program.

“These World War II planes are a respected and revered part of American history,” he said. “Part of that respect is to make sure they are safe whenever flown.”



https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/After-B-17-crash-Blumenthal-pushes-FAA-to-review-14497565.php

[fdr]

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) held a press conference earlier today and sent a letter to the FAA with the questions below. I've attached the full letter to this post, it includes a copy of Collings' LHFE exemption notice. The exemption letter has details on the requirements and restrictions for carrying passengers in the listed historic aircraft.

The Senator is on occasion one of the few voices of reason at what passes for government today in the US of A, but his comments on the B-17 show lack of pre-briefing or knowledge.

Since 1982, the 23 deaths before these 7 is an extraordinarily low level of fatalities. That stands as a credit to the efforts of those concerned, notwithstanding the personal loss and suffering that accompanies each injury and death. These aircraft were designed at a time where minimal safeguards were applied in comparison to current transport category standards. It is because of the knowledge gained in their operations and similar civil developments that we get to the rules that apply to new designs.

Adding black boxes is not just irrelevant, it is fundamentally unachievable to any extent that would leave the character of the aircraft that exists at present. It is akin to covering the cabin of an open biplane cockpit as the nanny state is worried about mussing your hair up. The causation of these accidents is usually clear from the evidence on the ground, look at the engine and prop in the building.... where is the benefit from having a TSO'd DFDR to an aircraft that has no sensors incorporated. A CVR/DCVR would be possible, as is video and that would give the investigators additional information, but they already have the info they need.

To expect that a WW-II bomber is going to meet existing airworthiness standards is inane. If the Senator assumes that the people who want to spend their money on a B-17 experiential ride would prefer to fly a warpaint wearing B787 then I doubt that is going to garner much support.

Watching a B-17 fly today is a reminder of the risks and sacrifices that were undertaken from those before, of all nationalities, those that were allies and those that were enemies at that time. It is part of our history, and to forget history is to risk repetition. Much like some clown deciding to turn a back to allies in the field in front of mortal enemies... Forgetting the past comes with global risks.

....who cannot learn...
....who do not remember their past are condemned...
....who do not read history are doomed...
...who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors...
...who do not know history's mistakes are doomed...

"People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors."
Edmund Burke, in Revolution in france

When people cue up to go fly these aircraft, there is a mixed emotional state; at one end they want to experience in a much more controlled and non threatening environment, what the kids in WW-II experienced in mortal combat. That experience is still not without risk, and that risk may be acknowledged at one level, ink on paper on waivers etc for experimental/restricted category operations etc, but underneath it, there is also a level of denial that the risk is not really to the one, it is to others, and statistically, that is almost correct, but not always. Every accident has someone involved who didn't wake up that morning expecting to end up where they did. They are however part of something larger than themselves, perhaps there is a measure of solace in that fact to assuage the anguish of the personal loss.

"there is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval"
George Santayana

Condolences to all concerned on your tragic loss



Some Elective Activities Risks:

41 people are killed on average every year in the USA skiing or snowboarding
30 people a year die in jet ski accidents (approx)
800 cyclists die every year (approx)
30 US climbers die every year on average
70 US scuba divers die every year
between 300 and 400 US ATC riders die every year
In an average year, "fewer than 1000" US people are accidentally shot in hunting, and "only 75" die
9000 injuries occur each year due to golf cart use
Every 2-3 years someone is killed by a golf ball
In 2012, 19 US parachutists died, in 2018, 13 died
Kite surfing deaths from 2000 to mid 2007 averaged 8.3/year.

[Pilot DAR]

but underneath it, there is also a level of denial that the risk is not really to the one, it is to others, and statistically, that is almost correct, but not always.

I don't know if it's denial, or more simply very eager enthusiasm. We desperately need enthusiasts. I chatted with two Air Cadets out tagging on Saturday, just to boost their enthusiasm. We need to have people who put forth effort and investment in the preservation of our aviation history.

On the other side, we, in the industry, owe it to "civilians" to afford them a fair combination of protection and opportunity. not all of one nor the other, a balance. A part of that balance is information, provided, and conveyed so as to be considered seriously. As I have given [non piloting] crew briefings for persons flying in the DC-3's, I am aware that it is necessary to provide more than just the waking of the arms as to where the exits are, and the path lighting. Sometimes my briefing includes "we are going to be wearing dry immersion suits, have you worn one before?", and "here's how you actually use a fire extinguisher", and I challenge each person for understanding and questions about the briefing.

And, important to me, I have done testing and certification evaluation, both flight, and cabin safety, and I understand and have documented the differences (or "gaps" if you like) between that airplane, and the present day certification standards. If something is less performing or safe, I state what, and by how much.

The questions raised by the senator have an understandable intent, but only partly contribute to further understanding and safety. No, installing flight data recorders of any real meaning is simply not practical on that vintage plane. CVR maybe, maybe telemetry in real time, maybe telemetry of cockpit video so a record stays behind. This is society's collective decision, the acceptable standard of safety for these experience flights, perhaps more rigorous, perhaps flown as is, but flown "risks understood". No one takes off planning to be involved in an accident, at best one takes off prepared for some form of unexpected event, but it is not possible to cover all the eventualities.

The distraction of the experience, or even the ease of complacency can take a person's mind of the real risks of a flight. I know, a right seat flight put me in hospital for three months. I can truthfully say that I do not remember the accident. But, when I was crashed, I had made a few personal preparations for both of us, and we both survived. But, was that one flight worth the three months in hospital? Nope! Since then, though I still fly, I decline some flights, I just don't want some risk, which I do understand more clearly. Not walking for three moths makes you think about that, and it's hard to forget! And, for me, it could have been worse.

I'm not about abandoning experience flights, though I think we owe experience seekers information on the full scope of the risks before they ride. If 25% (including me) decline the flight, after understanding the risks as explained, then the risks are being explained properly. The other 75% are fairly informed, and welcomed to fly, and enjoy the wonderful experience of historic planes. The senator, and society he represents, can know that the safety system is striking a fair balance of experience verses information.

[fdr]

I don't know if it's denial, or more simply very eager enthusiasm. We desperately need enthusiasts. I chatted with two Air Cadets out tagging on Saturday, just to boost their enthusiasm. We need to have people who put forth effort and investment in the preservation of our aviation history.

On the other side, we, in the industry, owe it to "civilians" to afford them a fair combination of protection and opportunity...

The questions raised by the senator have an understandable intent, but only partly contribute to further understanding and safety...

The distraction of the experience...

I'm not about abandoning experience flights, though I think we owe experience seekers information on the full scope of the risks before they ride. If 25% (including me) decline the flight, after understanding the risks as explained, then the risks are being explained properly. The other 75% are fairly informed, and welcomed to fly, and enjoy the wonderful experience of historic planes. The senator, and society he represents, can know that the safety system is striking a fair balance of experience verses information.

PilotDAR, concur with your comments.

Political rhetoric has a way of becoming policy, and as regrettable as the accident is, excessive regulatory response would take away from the memorialising of global events that is provided as experience by these operations. I suspect that the findings from this will generally find that operational cautions were taken before every flight, as far as briefings and preparations. The Senator is suggesting a number of changes that would potentially lead to cessation of these activities; it is not unreasonable that informed individuals accept increased risks, as riders of Harleys without helmets do, or drivers who do not use seat belts, or anyone who sits astride a quad bike does. In a free society, it is not unreasonable to have free choice. Normal SAWC constraints assure safety of 3rd parties, those directly involved need to be aware of the inherent risks and take responsibility for those increased risks.

30 fatalities in 40 years doing something that keeps history alive, while painful to those involved, is not an epidemic. Images of the activities show that reasonable PPE is used by the crews, and presumably the pax.

The US Senate has much bigger issues, of greater importance to deal with at this moment in time, starting with defending the constitution and the 243 odd years of their experiment in democracy.

[Blue_Circle]

One of several recent articles raising questions about the future of these LHFE flights.

<Sorry, I am not allowed to post URLs (even those in quoted posts) until I have at least 10 posts of my own>

I'm surprised that no one has taken issue with the quote from aviation attorney Michael Slack that "..the pool of pilots with the skills to fly these planes diminishes daily". I'm not aware that these machines are operated solely by crews of the same vintage, and presume that fresh blood is taken on and trained in the same way as any other line of business.

[Airbubba]

Here are some other recent articles discussing the safety aspects of carrying passengers on vintage aircraft in the wake of the B-17 crash. Ultimately litigation and insurance costs will probably be big factors in determining the future of these LHFE operations.

https://time.com/5692347/b-17-crash/

https://www.apnews.com/bd8a291db10e4885af369fbc6590b8f8

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/04/b-17-plane-crash-bomber-bradley-airport-ct-collings-foundation/3858534002/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2019/10/03/what-price-nostalgia-after-b-17-crash-how-safe-are-vintage-aircraft/#3e2724265b42

And a 'keep 'em flying' view:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davedeptula/2019/10/05/keep-history-flying-warbirds-in-the-wake-of-the-b-17-crash/#4e7330f17417

[Airbubba]

I'm surprised that no one has taken issue with the quote from aviation attorney Michael Slack that "..the pool of pilots with the skills to fly these planes diminishes daily". I'm not aware that these machines are operated solely by crews of the same vintage, and presume that fresh blood is taken on and trained in the same way as any other line of business.

Are the pilots on these warbirds on average getting older as young people pursue other pastimes?

It is noted in the article that Slack represents a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the owners of a C-47 that crashed last year in Texas so he may be reciting some of his claims in that case. Still, I'd have to agree with many of his points about maintenance and safety features on these old birds. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't been around general aviation much in recent decades so I've learned a lot from the discussions on this thread.

[sb_sfo]

I took a one-hour ride in another 17G, the Liberty Belle, as a present to myself in 2013, the year before it died in a cornfield in Illinois. I knew the risks, I thought, and thoroughly enjoyed an aerial tour of the Bay Area. (Nothing like the view from the top turret). I can see most sides of the issue of allowing these flights to continue, but at some point we are going to have to realize that we cannot keep flying around in 70-80 year old aircraft. We probably ought to park the examples we have left, not necessarily because we will be spending more on insurance than maintenance. And I never got my receipt for a taxable donation to the foundation.

[Maoraigh1]

Just a PPL, and part owner of 2 aircraft, a 1960/64 wood-and-fabric rebuilt over 30 years ago from 2 crashed aircraft, and a 1967 metal one.
There are passengers and passengers.
I wouldn't fly into the hills with an "innocent" trusting passenger. But I've done do with a pilot passenger able to assess the risk, and who suggested it.
I can see an argument for marketing such flights to enthusiasts, in a way that ensures they know about the aircraft and it's flight crew.
But NOT denying everyone the right to the experience.

[manrow]

While not directly relevant, I find it disappointing that there are calls from some in the USA to restrict the operation of these old aircraft.

In the UK we had one particular example of an old aircraft carrying out aerobatic manoeuvers at an inappropriate altitude resulting in the death of people on the ground unconnected with the air display.

The reaction by our UK airworthiness was to restrict all aerobatic displays by any organisations and including our national military flying display team the exemplary Red Arrows, to be over water, or more importantly NOT over populated areas, in a fashion totally inappropriate to the risk.

I very much hope the US is not going the same way as in many cases dense population is surely not an issue in vast areas of the USA?

[Gipsy Queen]

Senator Blumenthal's questions are typical of those which might be posed by any politician in similar circumstances. They (and the answers thereto) largely are irrelevant to the subject and are given primarily to provide additional exposure and the advancement of a self-aggrandising breed. Sadly, because of his position, he is likely to have an influence in a subject of which he clearly is possessed of very limited knowledge, but 'twas ever thus with politicos.

I flew as a civilian passenger (longitudinal pipe cots) on a C47 before the end of the Japanese war. It has occurred to me that the general level and standard of maintenance applied to these ultimately expendable military machines was likely to be rather inferior to that given to cherished historical artefacts 70-odd years later and operated under stricter procedures. No-one seemed bothered by such considerations then. Years ago, a prospective pax just signing the blood chit provided sufficient indemnity in "off the wall" operations.

The reaction to the Hunter crash at Shoreham (in which there was no fault with the a/c) is characteristic of the knee-jerk response by an authority keen to protect its own empenage. I do hope the US authorities will view things in a broader and more reasonable light.

[capngrog]

Senator Blumenthal's questions are typical of those which might be posed by any politician in similar circumstances. They (and the answers thereto) largely are irrelevant to the subject and are given primarily to provide additional exposure and the advancement of a self-aggrandising breed. Sadly, because of his position, he is likely to have an influence in a subject of which he clearly is possessed of very limited knowledge, but 'twas ever thus with politicos.

I flew as a civilian passenger (longitudinal pipe cots) on a C47 before the end of the Japanese war. It has occurred to me that the general level and standard of maintenance applied to these ultimately expendable military machines was likely to be rather inferior to that given to cherished historical artefacts 70-odd years later and operated under stricter procedures. No-one seemed bothered by such considerations then. Years ago, a prospective pax just signing the blood chit provided sufficient indemnity in "off the wall" operations.

The reaction to the Hunter crash at Shoreham (in which there was no fault with the a/c) is characteristic of the knee-jerk response by an authority keen to protect its own empenage. I do hope the US authorities will view things in a broader and more reasonable light.

Well said! It should be remembered that U.S. Senator Blumenthal is the one who on numerous occasions claimed to have served in Vietnam; however, the truth was that although in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves, he never left the Continental United States (CONUS).

Cheers,
Grog

[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]

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



https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/Plane-Crash-1-ap-er-191006_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg

[capngrog]

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]

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



https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/Plane-Crash-1-ap-er-191006_hpMain_4x3_992.jpg

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. :ok:

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-news/hc-br-bradley-b-17-crash-mitchell-melton-released-from-hospital-20191009-lapaprst4fb5tmga2thspnrjd4-story.html

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

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x960/71770441_3339734792712225_8730554080423837696_n_37d8689c7c59 175ad16af6d6218be051b11be4ba.jpg

[Airbubba]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1153x279/collings_message_header_1c38c28810aebc396698f684f0f78b162ded eb56.jpgDear 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 (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 (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]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1153x279/collings_message_header_1c38c28810aebc396698f684f0f78b162ded eb56.jpgDear 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 (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 (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]

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]

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]

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]

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-post/photos-b-17-aluminum-overcast/attachment/0-b-17-crowds-005/

[capngrog]

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-post/photos-b-17-aluminum-overcast/attachment/0-b-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]

.
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]

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]

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.

[HarryMann]

Would the outcome be any different?

R.I.P.
yes possibly. I can see where he's coming from though.

[HarryMann]

Perhaps. It's impossible to tell for sure, of course, but that isn't the point.
I was trained as a U.S. Navy Fighter Pilot and very early on I was told that when things so South, declare an emergency, stop asking permission, and start telling the controllers what you intend to do. You don't ask for permission to land, you TELL them you're landing. And you don't ask for a runway which will make their job easy, you TELL them what runway you are going to use and you start heading that direction without waiting for someone to say it's OK. You certainly should NOT ask them to accommodate your emergency "when you get a chance", especially if they aren't even aware you are involved in a potentially fatal emergency. In this case, the controller might have thought one of the passengers had to go to the bathroom or something, or that someone left their luggage behind. Why rush?

Let the tower worry about sorting out any traffic problems. Let them apologize for making things inconvenient for others. You job is to take care of your crippled aircraft and that's all you should be worried about. Saving seconds or minutes can make all the difference.

Even if you're not bold enough to take charge, at least tell the tower that you're having an emergency. Generally speaking, once the ground guys know you're in trouble, they will pull out all the stops to help you resolve the problem quickly and safely. But if they are unaware, how can they help?

yup. Very lackadaisical comms if they've really lost all climb performance. But why no climb performnce on 3 engines?

[Airbubba]

NTSB Preliminary Report:

National Transportation Safety BoardAviation Accident Preliminary Report

Location: Windsor Locks, CT
Accident Number: ERA20MA001
Date & Time: 10/02/2019, 0953 EDT
Registration: N93012
Aircraft: Boeing B17
Injuries: 7 Fatal, 5 Serious, 2 Minor
Flight Conducted Under: Part 91: General Aviation - Other Work Use - Sightseeing

On October 2, 2019, at 0953 eastern daylight time, a Boeing B-17G, N93012, owned and operated by the Collings Foundation, was destroyed during a precautionary landing and subsequent runway excursion at Bradley International Airport (BDL), Windsor Locks, Connecticut. The commercial pilot, airline transport pilot, and five passengers were fatally injured. The flight mechanic/loadmaster and four passengers were seriously injured, while one passenger and one person on the ground incurred minor injuries. The local commercial sightseeing flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, in accordance with a Living History Flight Experience exemption granted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Visual meteorological conditions prevailed in the area and no flight plan was filed for the flight, which departed BDL at 0947.

On the morning of the accident flight, an airport lineman at BDL assisted the loadmaster as he added 160 gallons of 100LL aviation fuel to the accident airplane. The lineman stated that the accident airplane was the first to be fueled with 100LL fuel that day.

According to preliminary air traffic control (ATC) data provided by the FAA, shortly after takeoff, at 0950, one of the pilots reported to ATC that he wanted to return to the airport. At that time, the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level (agl) on the right crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern for runway 6. The approach controller verified the request and asked if the pilot required any assistance, to which he replied no. The controller then asked for the reason for the return to the airport, and the pilot replied that the airplane had a "rough mag" on the No. 4 engine. The controller then instructed the pilot to fly a right downwind leg for runway 6 and confirmed that the flight needed an immediate landing. He subsequently cancelled the approach of another airplane and advised the pilot to proceed however necessary to runway 6. The approach controller instructed the pilot to contact the tower controller, which he did.

The tower controller reported that the wind was calm and cleared the flight to land on runway 6. The pilot acknowledged the landing clearance; at that time, the airplane was about 300 ft agl on a midfield right downwind leg for runway 6. The tower controller asked about the airplane's progress to the runway and the pilot replied that they were "getting there" and on the right downwind leg. No further communications were received from the accident airplane. Witness statements and airport surveillance video confirmed that the airplane struck approach lights about 1,000 ft prior to the runway, then contacted the ground about 500 ft prior to the runway before reaching runway 6. It then veered right off the runway before colliding with vehicles and a deicing fluid tank about 1,100 ft right of the center of the runway threshold.

The wreckage came to rest upright and the majority of the cabin, cockpit, and right wing were consumed by postimpact fire. The landing gear was extended and measurement of the left and right wing flap jackscrews corresponded to a flaps retracted setting. The flap remained attached to the right wing and the aileron was consumed by fire. The flap and aileron remained attached to the left wing and a section of flap was consumed by fire. The empennage, elevator, and rudder remained intact. Control continuity was confirmed from the elevator, rudder, elevator trim, and rudder trim from each respective control surface to the area in the cabin consumed by fire, and then forward to the cockpit controls. Elevator trim and rudder trim cables were pulled during impact and their preimpact position on their respective drum at the control surfaces could not be determined. The left wing aileron trim tab remained intact and its pushrod was connected but bent. The left aileron bellcrank separated from the wing, but the aileron cables remained attached to it and the aileron cable remained attached in cockpit.

The Nos. 1 and 2 engines remained partially attached to the left wing and all three propeller blades remained attached to each engine. One propeller blade attached to engine No. 1 exhibited an 8-inch tip separation; the separated section traveled about 700 ft before coming to rest near an airport building. Another propeller blade on the No. 1 engine exhibited chordwise scratching and leading edge gouging. The third propeller blade was bent aft. The No. 2 engine propeller blades exhibited leading edge gouges and chordwise scratches.

The No. 3 engine was recovered from the top of the deicing tank. One blade was impact damaged and near the feather position. The other two blades appeared in a position between low pitch and feather. One propeller blade exhibited a 5-inch tip separation and the separated tip sections were recovered from 100 ft and 700 ft from the main wreckage. The No. 4 engine was recovered from the deice building. All three propeller blades on the No. 4 engine appeared in the feather position.

The wreckage was retained for further examination.

A fuel sample was able to be recovered from one of the No 3. engine's two fuel tanks. The recovered sample had a visual appearance and smell consistent with 100LL aviation fuel and was absent of debris or water contamination. Following the accident, the fuel truck used to service the airplane was quarantined and subsequent testing revealed no anomalies of the truck's equipment or fuel supply. Additionally, none of the airplanes serviced with fuel from the truck before or after the accident airplane, including another airplane operated by the Collings Foundation, reported any anomalies.

The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, airplane multiengine land, instrument airplane, and held a type rating for the B-17. In addition, he held a mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued on January 9, 2019. At that time, he reported a total flight experience of 14,500 hours.

The co-pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, airplane multiengine land, and instrument airplane, with type ratings for B-737, B-757, B-767, DC-10, and LR-Jet. In addition, he held a flight engineer certificate as well as a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine and instrument airplane. His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued on January 8, 2019. At that time, he reported a total flight experience of 22,000 hours.

The airplane was manufactured in 1944, issued a limited airworthiness certificate in 1994, and equipped with passenger seats in 1995. It was powered by four Wright R-1820-97, 1,200-horsepower engines, each equipped with a three-blade, constant-speed Hamilton Standard propeller. The airplane was maintained under an airworthiness inspection program, which incorporated an annual inspection, and 25-hour, 50-hour, 75-hour, and 100-hour progressive inspections. Review of maintenance records revealed that the airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed on January 16, 2019. At that time, the airframe had accumulated about 11,120 total hours of operation. Engine Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had 0 hours since major overhaul at that time. Engine No. 4 had 838.2 hours since major overhaul at that time. The airplane's most recent progressive inspection, which was the 100-hour inspection, was completed on September 23, 2019. At that time, the airplane had been operated about 268 hours since the annual inspection.

The recorded weather at BDL at 0951 included calm wind; 10 statute miles visibility; few clouds at 11,000 ft; few clouds at 14,000 ft; broken clouds at 18,000 ft; temperature 23°C; dew point 19°C, and an altimeter setting of 29.81 inches of mercury.

Aircraft and Owner/Operator Information

Aircraft Make: Boeing
Registration: N93012
Model/Series: B17 G
Aircraft Category: Airplane
Amateur Built: No

Operator: Collings Foundation

Operating Certificate(s) Held: None
Operator Does Business As: Collings Foundation
Operator Designator Code:

Meteorological Information and Flight Plan

Conditions at Accident Site: Visual Conditions
Condition of Light: Day
Observation Facility, Elevation: BDL, 175 ft msl
Observation Time: 0951 EDT
Distance from Accident Site: 1 Nautical Miles
Temperature/Dew Point: 23°C / 19°C
Lowest Cloud Condition: Few / 11000 ft agl
Wind Speed/Gusts, Direction: Calm / ,
Lowest Ceiling: Broken / 18000 ft agl
Visibility 10 Miles
Altimeter Setting: 29.81 inches Hg
Type of Flight Plan Filed: None
Departure Point: Windsor Locks, CT (BDL)
Destination: Windsor Locks, CT (BDL)

Wreckage and Impact Information

Crew Injuries: 2 Fatal, 1 Serious
Aircraft Damage: Destroyed
Passenger Injuries: 5 Fatal, 4 Serious, 1 Minor
Aircraft Fire: On-Ground
Ground Injuries: 1 Minor
Aircraft Explosion: None
Total Injuries: 7 Fatal, 5 Serious, 2 Minor
Latitude, Longitude: 41.931667, -72.692222

Administrative Information

Investigator In Charge (IIC): Robert J Gretz
Additional Participating Persons: Todd Gentry; FAA AVP-100; Washington, DC
Note:The NTSB traveled to the scene of this accident.

[jugofpropwash]

Any chance they might have feathered the wrong engine?

[hans brinker]

Any chance they might have feathered the wrong engine?

The No. 3 engine was recovered from the top of the deicing tank. One blade was impact damaged and near the feather position. The other two blades appeared in a position between low pitch and feather. One propeller blade exhibited a 5-inch tip separation and the separated tip sections were recovered from 100 ft and 700 ft from the main wreckage. The No. 4 engine was recovered from the deice building. All three propeller blades on the No. 4 engine appeared in the feather position.

It looks like they feathered both 3 and 4. Maybe 3 started to run rough too, maybe inadvertent, going to be hard to ascertain without CVR, unless the "loadmaster" knows what happened...

[jugofpropwash]

It looks like they feathered both 3 and 4. Maybe 3 started to run rough too, maybe inadvertent, going to be hard to ascertain without CVR, unless the "loadmaster" knows what happened...

Anyone know how close together the switches are? Could they have reached for one and accidentally hit both switches? Or they feathered the wrong engine, then realized their error and feathered the correct one without bringing the good engine back to speed? Are there any common fuel/oil lines to both 3 and 4 that could cause a problem for both engines? (I just checked the weather for the night before the crash - supposedly was light rain. Could water have gotten into the fuel?)

[B2N2]

I’m assuming the airplane tanks would have been checked before and after refueling.
Engine 1,2,3 had 268 hrs and #4 about 900.

Back in 1944 cockpit ergonomics and man/machine interface wasn’t any priority.
Several sources on YT have B-17 training footage and cockpits are equipped with similar looking switches anywhere they could be fit rather then what we have nowadays.

Not suggesting anything just stating an observation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-zRFEt9lI

[Airbubba]

Engine 1,2,3 had 268 hrs and #4 about 900.

From the NTSB report:

Review of maintenance records revealed that the airplane's most recent annual inspection was completed on January 16, 2019. At that time, the airframe had accumulated about 11,120 total hours of operation. Engine Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had 0 hours since major overhaul at that time. Engine No. 4 had 838.2 hours since major overhaul at that time. The airplane's most recent progressive inspection, which was the 100-hour inspection, was completed on September 23, 2019. At that time, the airplane had been operated about 268 hours since the annual inspection.

If engine number 4 had 838.2 hours SMOH at the annual and flew about 268 hours more wouldn't that put the total at around 1106 in late September?

According to a Collings Foundation video these R-1820-97 engines were made by Studebaker.

See: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/wright-cyclone-r-1820-97-studebaker-radial-9-engine

[sycamore]

Looking at the layout of Bradley airport and their apparent height downwind for 06 runway,I think with the problems of 1 or 2 engine problems they should have just turned finals for RW 33,as the extra distance to fly amounts to about 4miles to get to final on 06...

[hans brinker]

Anyone know how close together the switches are? Could they have reached for one and accidentally hit both switches? Or they feathered the wrong engine, then realized their error and feathered the correct one without bringing the good engine back to speed? Are there any common fuel/oil lines to both 3 and 4 that could cause a problem for both engines? (I just checked the weather for the night before the crash - supposedly was light rain. Could water have gotten into the fuel?)

Definitely out of forward vision and close to each-other.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/inkedb17_li_cf7dbe19cf56d96745852fc8c56207703bcd034f.jpg

[filejw]

Definitely out of forward vision and close to each-other.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/inkedb17_li_cf7dbe19cf56d96745852fc8c56207703bcd034f.jpg
The fact that a switch is out of direct vision should mean nothing to a well trained crew. Critical items like this is not going to be operated without confirmation from both crewmembers, not that mistakes can't be made. Although I didn't know him except as a familiar face the copilot worked at the same airline as I did and confirmation of critical switch movement is ingrained from day one.Failure to do so could get you sent home for the day.

[b1lanc]

Flaps retracted is interesting since it seems like the ac gained very little alt.

Also, on the original B-17, there were 4 red propeller feathering buttons under the original ALT, ASI, and Turn & Bank gauges for F/G models according to the documents at Zenos and 909 cockpit pic below.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-17/17CCL.pdf

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/B-17/17CCR.pdf


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x768/9_0_9_584d7a13a77c03bbfe14ff31488b6700e753d2ff.jpeg

[WING7]

The circled levers in blue are the RPM levers to my understanding.

Feathering buttons are up front. The red and round ones labeld with their respective Eng number.

Uhhhh two engines feathered on the same side at just about the same time ….. Chances for having to do that are very small I would say.

Feathered many on the DC-6.

[jugofpropwash]

The fact that a switch is out of direct vision should mean nothing to a well trained crew. Critical items like this is not going to be operated without confirmation from both crewmembers, not that mistakes can't be made. Although I didn't know him except as a familiar face the copilot worked at the same airline as I did and confirmation of critical switch movement is ingrained from day one.Failure to do so could get you sent home for the day.

Seems like it would be fairly easy to bump the next lever in addition to the one you were trying to shut down, especially if you had large hands - or arthritis, for that matter. Not saying that's what happened, but could be a possibility?

[WING7]

Seems like it would be fairly easy to bump the next lever in addition to the one you were trying to shut down, especially if you had large hands - or arthritis, for that matter. Not saying that's what happened, but could be a possibility?

You reach with your finger pointing the correct Eng. feather switch leaving its number in view, then ask for the other pilots confirmation.
Once confirmation is received you just pressed it.
(Prior to that the affected throttle should be confirmed and retarded to verify you will shut down the correct engine. )

[megan]

Wing is correct, the circle of blue in the photo is prop RPM levers and the feather buttons are the large red with the engine number visible on the button. #3 and 4 are partially hidden by the turbo controller, the black box with dial on top.

[capngrog]

From the NTSB Report:

"The No. 3 engine was recovered from the top of the deicing tank. One blade was impact damaged and near the feather position. The other two blades appeared in a position between low pitch and feather. One propeller blade exhibited a 5-inch tip separation and the separated tip sections were recovered from 100 ft and 700 ft from the main wreckage."

The report did not specifically state that the separated tip sections were from the damaged blade of No.3 engine; however, from the above wording, I think that it can be assumed (dangerous to do) that the No.3 engine blade "... near the feather position." was the one that threw the "separated tip sections" several hundred feet from the impact site. It would take considerable rotational energy to throw propeller blade tip sections several hundred feet from the impact site. It is my understanding that the Hamilton Standard propellers that were fitted to the subject B-17 can have a single blade impacted and damaged to the extent that it will be out of phase with the other blades of the propeller. It is possible that the damaged blade had been in "low pitch" when the impact occurred. Low pitch is usually selected when maximum power is needed. I'm thinking (my thoughts are often proven incorrect) that the No.3 engine may have been providing significant power at impact and was not feathered.

Just more speculation on my part.

Regards,
Grog

[Airbubba]

In the panel picture posted above (and cropped below) what is the 'L' in the N-number? Does it signify limited category? It doesn't seem to be in the LiveATC clips or FAA online records.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1114/9_0_9_584d7a13a77c03bbfe14ff31488b6700e753d2ff_jpeg_2_large_ _582fe345ace1b9209adf049b78beb9269514ff04.jpg

[moosepileit]

Yes. Once the design type is aged enough you can add the letters.

You don't use them on radio call or in searches.
X- experimental, R-Restricted, L- Limited, C- Classic
45-22 CFR
The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or
(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft ("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraf

[hans brinker]

The circled levers in blue are the RPM levers to my understanding.

Feathering buttons are up front. The red and round ones labeld with their respective Eng number.

Uhhhh two engines feathered on the same side at just about the same time ….. Chances for having to do that are very small I would say.

Feathered many on the DC-6.

Thanks for the correction, the props I flew, prop handle all the way back feathered the prop. Are these buttons push to feather and pull to unfeather? Is there a guard or something like that, or could you accidentally push 2 at the same time if you had fat fingers?

[WING7]

Thanks for the correction, the props I flew, prop handle all the way back feathered the prop. Are these buttons push to feather and pull to unfeather? Is there a guard or something like that, or could you accidentally push 2 at the same time if you had fat fingers?


Yes Hans, on the DC 6 you would push to feather and pull to unfeather. If I remember correctly that was also the case on the DC-3 and CV 340. Those switches would be protected either by say a tube guard around them and have openings at the sides to pull back out the button to unfeather or they would have say half tube to allow a pull out from the not protected section.
Pushing two at the same time seems to me a very hard thing to happen but who knows how these switches on the crashed B-17 were protected.
I am new here and my posts first have to be checked out but on my previous one which has not come out tried to describe the procedure we used to confirm and push.

[megan]

From the flight manual.PROPELLER FEATHERING SWITCHES. Each propeller is feathered individually by one of the four red push button switches above the central control panel on the instrument panel. Pushing the switch in starts an electric pump in the nacelle which supplies hydraulic power for the feathering operation. When the propeller is fully feathered the push button automatically releases, stopping the pump. To stop the operation before feathering is complete, pull out the switch button by hand. To unfeather a propeller, the push-buttons witch must be manually held in the closed position until unfeathering has been accomplished.

[WING7]

Thanks Megan.

[Three Lima Charlie]

Yes, it is possible to put the propeller into "feather" pitch with the prop (RPM) lever on the console. But the feather button in most aircraft also triggers several other actions to isolate the engine at the firewall by closing valves to shut off fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid flow, disconnect electrical connections and arm the fire extinguisher bottle (if equipped). Some propellers, once feathered, a pin drops into place and will require maintenance to reset the pin and manually move the blade back to a normal pitch position.

[Airbubba]

Yes. Once the design type is aged enough you can add the letters.

You don't use them on radio call or in searches.
X- experimental, R-Restricted, L- Limited, C- Classic

Thanks. :ok:

Yes, it is possible to put the propeller into "feather" pitch with the prop (RPM) lever on the console. But the feather button in most aircraft also triggers several other actions to isolate the engine at the firewall by closing valves to shut off fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid flow, disconnect electrical connections and arm the fire extinguisher bottle (if equipped). Some propellers, once feathered, a pin drops into place and will require maintenance to reset the pin and manually move the blade back to a normal pitch position.

How much of this applies to the B-17? Will the prop lever really feather the engine on this plane?

[WING7]

Not yet allowed to post links here but if anyone is interested in an excellent tour around and in the B-17 including feathering procedures try doing a search with this key words
The mentioned procedure is at the end. That guy did a superb job presenting the aircraft he flies!
B-17 Flying Fortress Walkaround Aluminum Overcast

[WING7]

No idea why the bracket info was added, do not use it for the search.

[Airbubba]

No idea why the bracket info was added, do not use it for the search.

It has something to do with the message editing interface which was recently 'improved'. Supposedly you can look at the source code with the button on the menu bar and hand patch the HTML tags. I try to clean up the formatting before I post but sometimes just give up.

[MarkerInbound]

Yes, it is possible to put the propeller into "feather" pitch with the prop (RPM) lever on the console. But the feather button in most aircraft also triggers several other actions to isolate the engine at the firewall by closing valves to shut off fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid flow, disconnect electrical connections and arm the fire extinguisher bottle (if equipped). Some propellers, once feathered, a pin drops into place and will require maintenance to reset the pin and manually move the blade back to a normal pitch position.

That's a fancy feather button. In DC-3s, Super Threes, recip Convairs and DC-6s (the only recip transports I’ve flown) all those other actions besides feathering the prop were separate controls. And in none of them would pulling the prop control all the way back drive the prop to feather.

[eggplantwalking]

Yes, it is possible to put the propeller into "feather" pitch with the prop (RPM) lever on the console. But the feather button in most aircraft also triggers several other actions to isolate the engine at the firewall by closing valves to shut off fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid flow, disconnect electrical connections and arm the fire extinguisher bottle (if equipped). Some propellers, once feathered, a pin drops into place and will require maintenance to reset the pin and manually move the blade back to a normal pitch position.

MarkerInbound obviously paid attention in class and has it exactly correct. The feather button does only one thing and that is to close a relay that starts the the feather pump motor. It takes 300 psi to feather on this engine / propeller combination and 600 psi to unfeather. The feather button has no other functions, none! And, retarding the prop control lever fully will only allow the propeller governor to go to the high pitch stops and low RPM not feather as in a light twin. Fuel shut-off, hydraulic and oil isolation is accomplished by an engine fluid shut-off handle or fire handle. Some of these handles will arm the fire extinguisher bottles, depending on the aircraft type, others will not. Additionally, you can't be serious about a pin dropping in place to prevent unfeathering. There are no such pins in the dome of any of the round engine types I have flown. The only thing that comes close to this comment and had to be reset on the ground is a cabin compressor which did have this feature, if disconnected in flight.

[Pilot DAR]

As a general statement, like the DC-3, Cessna 310, and and a few other types, the B-17 has split flaps. Unlike plain or Fowler flaps, split flaps do a lot more for drag, than lift when extended. Were I to be trying to "make the field" with less than the power I wished I had, I would not be lowering any split flap, until I was fairly sure of making the runway. Faster approach speed, yes, but better than all that drag if you think you can't make it. I can't speak for this unfortunate situation, but that's what I imagine...

[EDML]

As a general statement, like the DC-3, Cessna 310, and and a few other types, the B-17 has split flaps. Unlike plain or Fowler flaps, split flaps do a lot more for drag, than lift when extended. Were I to be trying to "make the field" with less than the power I wished I had, I would not be lowering any split flap, until I was fairly sure of making the runway. Faster approach speed, yes, but better than all that drag if you think you can't make it. I can't speak for this unfortunate situation, but that's what I imagine...

True. Reminds me of BA38 at LHR. Without retracting some flap they would not have "made" the runway but crashed into the ILS antenna.

[WING7]

It would be interesting to see their flight track, any link for that?
300 feet on downwind is nothing but very low, Wonder why/when they extended the gear and did not choose RWY 33.

[eggplantwalking]

It would be interesting to see their flight track, any link for that?
300 feet on downwind is nothing but very low, Wonder why/when they extended the gear and did not choose RWY 33.

Flight ✈ N93012 ✈ 02-Oct-2019 ✈ KBDL - KBDL (https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/N93012/history/20191002/1348ZZ/KBDL/KBDL)

[WING7]

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately it looks that it only shows the time they spend above an altitude of Aprox. 570 feet. ( Maybe 35% of their flight time )
Guess they did a very short base. Anyone knows? Have not been able to find any videos of their flight, less so of their base and final.

Wish the controller would have given a heads up that they could use any runway they wished and 33 was available if it was. (I am aware they did not declare an emergency)

Mid field downwind at 300 feet probably indicates they had no power on two engines already there. That makes one wonder about their consciousness about their energy state and dropping the gear instead of planning for a belly landing till the runway was clearly reachable.

That flight crew was very experienced, who knows what they were dealing with. My respects to them, just scratching my head of how this all ended up this way.

[b1lanc]

T

Mid field downwind at 300 feet probably indicates they had no power on two engines already there. That makes one wonder about their consciousness about their energy state and dropping the gear instead of planning for a belly landing till the runway was clearly reachable.


Do we even know that the gear was ever up? Seems they knew they had to come back very soon after take-off. Like you, I'm also wondering about videos. When Collings comes to our location, there are always folks taking videos.

[tdracer]

Do we even know that the gear was ever up? Seems they knew they had to come back very soon after take-off. Like you, I'm also wondering about videos. When Collings comes to our location, there are always folks taking videos.

Also, did anyone hear if there was a voice recorder installed? It would be difficult and probably impractical to install a meaningful FDR on an aircraft of that vintage, but a CVR would be reasonably easy.

[WING7]

Do we even know that the gear was ever up? Seems they knew they had to come back very soon after take-off. Like you, I'm also wondering about videos. When Collings comes to our location, there are always folks taking videos.

Absolutely, and then with No.3 and 4 engines out could they have retracted it systemwise? All of them?

[WING7]

Do not know how well the B-17 performs with one engine out but specialy on the old radial engine aircrafts I flew we did retract the gear ASAP, even more so with an Eng. failure.
Those tired birds would hardly climb.
One of the first priotities with an Eng. failure was to reduce power on the tired or tired ones left alive to avoid a second failure.

Not trying to imply anything here.

[Australopithecus]

The gear is electrically operated on the B-17, and quite slow compared to hydraulic gear on more modern types. I don’t believe that the aircraft could climb much on two engines regardless of the gear position,

What evidence is there that two engines were shut down? The previous mention of low pitch prop blade angles on the number three prop suggest blades not quite feathered, not blades in fine pitch.

[b1lanc]

The gear is electrically operated on the B-17, and quite slow compared to hydraulic gear on more modern types. I don’t believe that the aircraft could climb much on two engines regardless of the gear position,


Have watched 909 and Fuddy fly circuits for years at MHT and ASH. Tour was at Boire giving rides the Friday and Saturday before the accident - not sure I'd characterize them climbing well even on four engines. The gear is slow to retract and extend and in the circuits they fly here, down well before they turn final.

[WING7]

That is why I stated my comment at at the end but thanks for your post b1. Will add something here...

In general I just can´t imagine any flight crew leaving the gear down - on purpose - with an Eng failure during T/O. One wants to climb and also prepare for the unexpected.
It is also a requirement for the second segment climb. (Do not know if that applies to the B-17)

No, I frankly do not think they lost number 3 engine (if they did) because of leaving it with high power. Engine was new and the data shows a descend what, 3 min after T/O at the most ??

[Australopithecus]

That is why I stated my comment at at the end but thanks for your post b1. Will add something here...

In general I just can´t imagine any flight crew leaving the gear down - on purpose - with an Eng failure during T/O. One wants to climb and also prepare for the unexpected.
It is also a requirement for the second segment climb. (Do not know if that applies to the B-17)

No, I frankly do not think they lost number 3 engine (if they did) because of leaving it with high power. Engine was new and the data shows a descend what, 3 min after T/O at the most ??

Regarding the second segment climb: The B-17 was a war time expedient, and it predates even the old Civil Air Regs part 4b, so modern concepts such as engine out climb performance weren’t much considered given how marginal the performance was without failure. Don’t forget WWII was when defeat was expensive but planes and crews were cheap.

You really do have to appreciate how slowly the gear retracts,( one wheel at a time due to electrical load). It may be that the crew were initially planning a different course of action. I do know that when flying these national treasures you are doing everything that you can to not damage them. A belly landing wouldn’t feel like a good outcome, so perhaps trying for a perfect result might have been a factor.

[WING7]

Rightly so Austral, unfortunately it may have been a factor.
The maintenance aspect before the flight and then having problems in flight could also have added pressure.
Who knows.

[WING7]

Quote: “How slowly the gear retracts”

It did so on the WW2 era aircraft I first got my left seat as airline pilot.

Here is a link for the flight manual of the EAA B-17 if anyobody is interested.

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/flight%20experiences/safety/b-17-flight-training-manual.pdf

It’s good to have more engines but for the new aviators here, the more you have of course the more chances of loosing one and sure it happens so!!

[RatherBeFlying]

Later WWII recips required high octanes that are no longer available (unless you special order a refinery batch).

With lower octanes you have to reduce manifold pressures to prevent detonation and consequently get less performance.

That said, I don't know the octane requirements for the engines on the B-17.
​

[Airbubba]

That said, I don't know the octane requirements for the engines on the B-17.
​

From the EAA B-17G manual linked above, 100 minimum octane:


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1388x598/b_17g_86da1db94b4aa206f0cbac95c912fe0b365505af.jpg

[eggplantwalking]

Later WWII recips required high octanes that are no longer available (unless you special order a refinery batch).

With lower octanes you have to reduce manifold pressures to prevent detonation and consequently get less performance.

That said, I don't know the octane requirements for the engines on the B-17.
​
This is a 1943 training film for the B-17. Note the comments on octane fuel at 5 min 15 sec (91 octane) and then again at 7 min 20 sec (100 octane) reference to power settings.
How to Fly the Boeing B-17 "Flying Fortress" - Flight Procedures (Restored 1943) - YouTubewww.youtube.com

[stevef]

I've worked on the DC3, DC6 and An2 (Asz621R engine copy of the Curtiss Wright R1820 Cyclone fitted to the B17) and they've all operated on 100LL Avgas. I can't remember the max manifold pressure of these except for the DC3's R1830, which was 48").

[Chu Chu]

Are octane ratings from the 1940s directly comparable to modern ones? The octane rating depends on the test used (e.g. the numbers are different for the same mogas in the U.S. and Europe), so the scale might have changed at some point after the war. Or it might not have.