B-17 Crash

[RAFEngO74to09]

At Bradley Airport, CT, USA.

Owned by Collings Foundation.

Engine failure shortly after take off - turn back attempted - smoke seen from No 4 engine - multiple fatalities.

3 crew + 10 PAX on board.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Eyewitness account: https://www.wfsb.com/video-eyewitness-recounts-moments-when-b--plane-crashed-at/video_31be805e-4c17-5e86-98dc-f6373e8b5aa0.html

[RAFEngO74to09]

Crashed on a maintenance building: https://www.wfsb.com/video-eyewitness-recounts-moments-when-b--plane-crashed-at/video_31be805e-4c17-5e86-98dc-f6373e8b5aa0.html

[sycamore]

Video not available UK....it says....

[RAFEngO74to09]

Ground comms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU2XXGI_Ke0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPC58RjNBH8&t=8s

[RAFEngO74to09]

ATC recordings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qmqxFjwAjw

[RAFEngO74to09]

Aerial video of crash site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i81CPmaO7Q

6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i81CPmaO7Q6) people transported to hospital alive with burns - breakdown of B-17 crew / PAX versus building occupants not known.

[1771 DELETE]

I once had the pleasure of a 30 minute flight in that aircraft operated by the Collins foundation and flown all across the USA, along with a 2 seat P51, a Mitchel and a Liberator.
Thinking of those souls.

[NutLoose]

Nooooo :(

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ76QiQOspc

[RAFEngO74to09]

The B-17 was part of the Wings of Freedom tour giving air experience flights - ad here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BNUJfbr3z8

[NutLoose]

It's the Collins foundation, they offer rides in multiple aircraft, I believe they operate a Liberator and ME 262 as well, sun gives 5 dead, aerial picture of wreckage here

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

[RAFEngO74to09]

CT Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) has now confirmed that 7 died - 6 others were transported to hospital.

[tartare]

Very sad.
And already - a wikipedia entry - amazing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2019_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress_crash

[RAFEngO74to09]

NTSB Press Conference - (Judge) Jennifer Homendy

Known facts so far:
Took off 0945 - 0950 problem reported - returning to land.
Impacted ILS stanchions whilst attempting emergency landing on Runway 6 - veered to right - crossed grass + taxiway - impacted de-icing facility.
Preliminary Report within 10 day.

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

[GeeRam]

Awful news.............:(

I knew a couple of the Collings pilots years ago, and I got a ride in 909 (as well as their B-25) back in 2007 when I hooked up with them during a visit to other friends that live in California.

Thought with all those affected by this.

[XR219]

There's another thread on R&N here (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/626003-b17-crash-bradley.html).

[RAFEngO74to09]

Good video here from You Tube user "blancolirio" - a retired USAF fighter pilot who puts together factual videos about aviation matters for a hobby - often to debunk journalistic and political bandwagon nonsense that occurs after accidents. He is a historic aircraft owner himself.

The aircraft was built in 1944 too late to participate in WWII but was used for atomic bomb tests in 1952. It was left abandoned in the NV desert 1952 to 1965.
1965 stripped for spares to support the firefighting air tanker industry - then in 1977 restored and used as a tanker itself until 1985.
Bought by Collings Foundation in 1985.

Explanation of FAA regulations for inspections, checks and operation of historic aircraft from 07:51.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpv-xxYQ8-o

[Harley Quinn]

Thinking of those who died, those who survived and all their loved ones who will be having one hell of a cr@p day

[NutLoose]

What makes this really sad and what people may not realise is they are often family events and the families of those that died were probably present when the crash occurred.

[GeeRam]

What makes this really sad and what people may not realise is they are often family events and the families of those that died were probably present when the crash occurred.

Indeed.
When I did my B17G ride on 909, the ramp was packed with family and friends of those who were actually on the ride program. Back then (2007) there were also more WW2 vets around, and Collings team would usually have a few on hand at each stopover, so they could talk to the people taking the rides and their friends/families as part of the experience.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) James Traficante - Command Chief of 103 Airlift Wing CT ANG - was a passenger on the aircraft and had taken his military issue flame retardant gloves with him. Despite broken limbs he was the one who managed to get the hatch open allowing others to escape the fire.

CMSgt Traficante had been a Crew Chief / Loadmaster on the KC-135, NKC-135 (laser test aircraft at Edwards AFB) and the C-130 - exceptionally well done and very fortunate on the day for those that survived.

https://www.103aw.ang.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/868528/chief-master-sergeant-james-m-traficante/ (https://www.103aw.ang.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/868528/chief-master-sergeant-james-m-traficante/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx80LogYZDI

[RAFEngO74to09]

Deceased - RIP:

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
Injured:

Mitchell Melton, 34 - Fight Enginee, 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

[RAFEngO74to09]

NTSB - 2nd Press Conference - October 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLU-I6C4Uo

[Tankertrashnav]

We were only talking about the importance of correct flying clothing on here quite recently. In this case it seems that the fact this guy was wearing fire retardant gloves was quite literally a life saver. I know it is totally unrealistic to expect everyone operating aircraft to wear flying suits and gloves, but even today, 40 years since I was RAF aircrew I still feel vaguely undressed getting onto an aircraft in "normal" clothes, and particularly without flying gloves.

Well done that man.

I note the combined ages of the two pilots was 146. Any other eyebrows raised at this?

[RAFEngO74to09]

From the NTSB 2nd Press Conference:

The Captain of the aircraft had 7,300 hours on the B-17 - the highest of any pilot employed on the 16 x B-17 registered in the USA. He was also the Safety Officer for the Collings Foundation.

The aircraft hit about 30 x approach light breakaway poles up to 1000 feet out from the threshold.

A number of statements have been made on [email protected] that one or two engines were being worked on immediately prior to take-off (19:48 in video).

[NutLoose]

My condolences to to the families and friends at this tragic time, my thoughts also extend to the engineers involved as one can imagine the horrors and thoughts they are also going through.


Hopefully the NTSB will be able to come to a finding as to what went so tragically wrong, looking at the NTSB video you can see them examining a relatively intact engine, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears feathered, so they may have the engine of concern that has escaped the worst of the fire.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DIjWv0lcLz0

[CUTiger78]

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

[tartare]

The NTSB should be commended for their excellent communications approach.
They brief concurrently with the investigation being conducted, giving a running update of what they are looking at and have learned - even now showing their own video of investigators behind the cordons, doing their job.
Very smart - recognizes the media's insatiable desire for new information and imagery - but they way they do it still doesn't compromise the overall objectivity and thoroughness of their investigation.
A lot of organisations could learn from the way their PR and media management approach balances two seemingly contradicting requirements.

[Chugalug2]

I note the combined ages of the two pilots was 146. Any other eyebrows raised at this?

More worrying to my mind is the age of the a/c. No doubt it was serviced with tender love and care, but no amount of tlc can alter the fact that it was built to standards (and military ones at that) which have since been superseded. I'm not trying to anticipate the investigation's findings, but there has been a number of these vintage a/c accidents and incidents over the years.

Engine reliability alone has improved enormously since this aircraft's time. On this side of the pond the RAF Memorial Flight's Dakota and Lancaster have both had engine issues, in the latter case leading to serious fire damage and a near tragic outcome. I am reminded of the Blenheim accident displaying at Denham some years ago. Unrehearsed and on a whim the pilot tried to perform a touch and go landing. An engine failed, control was lost, and only by a miracle did the two occupants emerge alive. A veteran who used to fly them in service then advised, "You never did a touch and go in a Blenheim, as an engine would invariably quit on you when you tried to open up".

These vintage aircraft were built to military airworthiness standards that have long since become obsolete. Is it time to consider the wisdom of keeping them flying at all, let alone carrying fare paying passengers?

[bvcu]

don't think the engine 'failed' on the blenheim , mis handling causing a rich cut so driver error if you read the report.

[GeeRam]

don't think the engine 'failed' on the blenheim , mis handling causing a rich cut so driver error if you read the report.

And said driver was even told not to do it, just before he did it, by the Engineer on board who had just spent a decade or more building it..............and co-incidently I was having a chat with only a few weeks ago (and who also co-incidently a couple of years later also walked away from the crash of the French operated B-17 which crashed and burned out during take-off from Binbrook during the filming of 'Memphis Belle')

[GeeRam]

Is it time to consider the wisdom of keeping them flying at all, let alone carrying fare paying passengers?

No.

And, as long as PAX are aware of the risks, no.

I was well aware of the risks (such as they are compared with everything else in life) when I took my rides on the B17 and the B25, happy to do so, and would be happy to do so again.

[NutLoose]

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

There is absolutely no requirement to be a "Pilot" to be a Flight Engineer, at least UK wise. indeed the average Flight Engineer will have more knowledge about the aircraft and it's systems than a pilot will normally ever have, I seem to remember in the distant past to convert my Engineering Licences to those of a Flight Engineers was only a few weeks.

Chug,
These vintage aircraft were built to military airworthiness standards that have long since become obsolete. Is it time to consider the wisdom of keeping them flying at all, let alone carrying fare paying passengers?

A Lancaster as you mentioned it as with other types were converted and operated on the UK Civil Register, the Lanc as the Lancastrian, indeed they even manufactured the York, that was a variant of the Lancaster with a different fuselage operating as an airliner or freighter with the likes of Dan Air amongst others..
The same went of a myriad of ex military types such as the Halifax, Sunderland, etc.
You probably haven't seen the amount of work that goes into rebuilding these things, I have and I can assure you some of the current aircraft flying, Spitfires etc are probably built to a higher standard that they ever were during the war, indeed when you see a Spitfire flying today with a war record as long as your arm, bare in mind that all tha is essentially required to rebuild a Spitfire is pretty much the original dataplate, and even that may get replaced!

[falcon900]

I'm all for experience, and much prefer old pilots to bold pilots, but as with all things, there must be some sort of limit, and in response to TTN's earlier question, yes, my eyebrows were raised when I saw the age of the pilots. I am not at this stage casting any aspersions or attempting to apportion blame, just noting something which I found surprising. While we are on the subject of raised eyebrows, did anyones eyebrows raise when they discovered the number of passengers aboard?

[tdracer]

I'm all for experience, and much prefer old pilots to bold pilots, but as with all things, there must be some sort of limit, and in response to TTN's earlier question, yes, my eyebrows were raised when I saw the age of the pilots. I am not at this stage casting any aspersions or attempting to apportion blame, just noting something which I found surprising. While we are on the subject of raised eyebrows, did anyones eyebrows raise when they discovered the number of passengers aboard?

I took a ride on that very aircraft about 10 years ago, and 13 was the standard load - 3 crew and 10 paying passengers. Everyone had a place to strap in for takeoff and landing (not terribly comfortable, but adequate). Once up and away we were allowed to get up and move about the aircraft. As for weight, normal crew for combat missions was 10 - the fact that this one wasn't carrying tons of bombs and ammunition (and at least some of the 50 cal machine guns had been replaced with wooden mock ups) easily accounted for the mass of 3 additional passengers.
As for the age of the pilots, they had two elderly pilots who were both highly experienced with thousands of hours on a B-17. Personally I'd take that over some 40 year olds that had 50 hours on type...

[MightyGem]

I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.
Why? Surely a Flight Engineer is not required to be a pilot. He's not flying the aircraft.

[CUTiger78]

Why? Surely a Flight Engineer is not required to be a pilot. He's not flying the aircraft.
If he was filling a required crewmember position as an FE, he would be required to hold an FE certificate. No need for him to hold any pilot cert.
I have since heard that an FE isn't required on US civil-registered B-17s. Can't vouch for the accuracy of that, however.

[Chugalug2]

A Lancaster as you mentioned it as with other types were converted and operated on the UK Civil Register, the Lanc as the Lancastrian, indeed they even manufactured the York, that was a variant of the Lancaster with a different fuselage operating as an airliner or freighter with the likes of Dan Air amongst others..
The same went of a myriad of ex military types such as the Halifax, Sunderland, etc.
You probably haven't seen the amount of work that goes into rebuilding these things, I have and I can assure you some of the current aircraft flying, Spitfires etc are probably built to a higher standard that they ever were during the war, indeed when you see a Spitfire flying today with a war record as long as your arm, bare in mind that all tha is essentially required to rebuild a Spitfire is pretty much the original dataplate, and even that may get replaced!

I only mentioned vintage military types because this tragedy involved one, and this is a military forum. Certainly the civilian variants you list would be just as suspect to my mind. Most veteran display aircraft are military however, particularly the larger ME ones. Civil or military though they share the same airworthiness limitations of their era. The Hastings PN's for example advised that action following an engine failure between V1 and Safety Speed (achieved typically at about 200' AGL) was "at the Captain's discretion". A polite way of saying, "You're on your own chum". Acceptable then, but now?

Take your point about Spitfire, etc, rebuilds but it is not the engineering standards that worry me. It is the aircraft themselves, their design limitations, their systems and engines. No amount of meticulous restoration can alter the fact that performance and reliability are determined by technology that is over half a century out of date.

bvcu, thanks for the correction. Rich cut not engine failure, it still led to loss of control and loss of the aircraft. Pilot error does not mean we can issue a huge sigh of relief and file under forget. Those who operated these aircraft when in service had the full benefit of continuously revised training regimes. Think back to your time learning a new aircraft. Bags of bumph, lectures, exams, and most vital of all the spoken advice from your instructor. Most of that is no more for vintage aircraft. Pilots whose day job is to fly state of the art modern equipment can then display ancient machines that have a nasty habit of biting you in the rear if not treated to their liking.

GeeRam, so there is an acknowledged risk but OK as long as pax are aware of the risks? How is that determined then, and how about others on the ground, in buildings that are hit, on roads skirting the display area? If our fraternity is not too bothered, I think that the authorities probably are. We all need to see which way the wind is blowing now.

[Barksdale Boy]

I saw a B-17 perform very nicely at Pikes Peak International Air Show two weeks ago. I remember, very poignantly now, hundreds of people queuing to sign up for B-17 rides at future events.

[falcon900]

I am not for a moment suggesting that the number of passengers presented a weight issue, or indeed was in any way a contributory factor to the accident occurring. It was certainly a big contributory factor to the scale of the consequences of the accident though.....
I am not wanting to sound like a killjoy, not least as I would still be in the queue for a passenger flight if I could, but once you get beyond a handful of occasional passengers, you start to take on a far enhanced duty of care. The reasons why AA or BA could not and would not operate B17 flights should apply to warbird operators if they wish to engage in the routine transportation of numerous fare paying members of the public..
I am a passionate supporter of warbird flying, but there needs to be a sense of realism regarding what it is appropriate to require old aircraft to do. I would respectfully submit that organised commercial passenger carrying operations are quietly shelved.

[Vzlet]

F900, the passenger-carrying "business model" is fairly standard here in the States and is the primary reason that many (most?) of the larger warbirds are in operable condition. Paying passengers make it feasible for the aircraft to tour the country, in turn allowing large numbers of people (of all ages) to tour the planes and see them in flight. The benefits of that might be hard to measure but are, I believe, worthwhile. A surely incomplete list of aircraft available for rides includes: B-29s, B-24s, B-17s, B-25s, Ford Trimotors, Beech 18s, as well as Dauntless, Avenger, Helldiver, P-51s, P-40, various trainers, etc.
That the accident claimed lives is tragic, and we can assume that it will happen again at some point in the future, but what happens in between is magical. Should any additional restrictions emerge because of this accident, I hope that they are well thought out and not merely a knee-jerk reaction.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48074501601_dfdec15e03_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gfborg)
Boeing B-29 Superfortress NX529B Fifi (https://flic.kr/p/2gfborg) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48074505171_63d4b3ea0a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gfbpuP)
Consolidated B-24 Liberator N24927 "Diamond Lil" (https://flic.kr/p/2gfbpuP) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/4374/36444860700_9f7a36d667_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Xwvrnf)
Bomber Gaggle (https://flic.kr/p/Xwvrnf) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/8560/10210390056_c3848fbaac_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/gyfVeS)
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress NL93012 (https://flic.kr/p/gyfVeS) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/7768/27635624626_6e00f74e8a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/J74NoE)
Ford Trimotor NC8407 (https://flic.kr/p/J74NoE) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48074501446_599b7c7e1d_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gfbooA)
Boeing B-29 Superfortress NX529B Fifi (https://flic.kr/p/2gfbooA) by Mark Carlisle (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/), on Flickr

[NutLoose]

Chug,
Take your point about Spitfire, etc, rebuilds but it is not the engineering standards that worry me. It is the aircraft themselves, their design limitations, their systems and engines. No amount of meticulous restoration can alter the fact that performance and reliability are determined by technology that is over half a century out of date.


Chug, The Spitfire is a metal construction alloy skin nailed to an alloy frame, something that is used in metal aircraft to the present day, there are the odd thing that ten no longer used I will give you that, such as air operated drum brakes, Piston engines are what they are, a reliable engine, take the Griffon that is proven in over 70 years of operation and used in a myriad types including the Spitfire. Dont be fooled a lot of Spits are more or less new builds.
The Spitfires control system is cable operated and is actually safer than a civilian puddle jumper such as a Cessna or Piper fresh out of the factory, being a military aircraft the majority have dual control cable circuits for built in redundancy, you seem to think that just because something was built 70 years ago it has no relevance today.
Ever flown in a Cessna 152 or a Piper Tomahawk? many have and still do today being hauled around the sky behind a Lycoming 0-235, that engine first ran in 1941 and is still in production for a myriad of aircraft.
Take the C-46 commando, The DC-3 still used the world over, some converted to turboprops, they would still be used in the UK as freighters if probably for one thing, and possibly the one thing that may bring an end to large piston aircraft, a readily available supply of Avgas of sufficient rating.

[sandiego89]

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

from other forums the third crew member would mostly serve as an escort in the rear compartment, helping passengers get situated, answer questions, move them around so they could experience different positions etc. A true flight engineer has not been needed for decades aboard these B-17s. You don’t need to be troubled by it.

[Chugalug2]

Nutty, I most certainly do think that these aircraft have a relevance today. In every theatre around the world they defeated tyranny and assured the liberty that we all enjoy today, whether taken for granted or not. But sooner or later time has to be called on their continued operation. Again, I fully accept your assurances about the technical excellence of them being restored to even higher standards than when they emerged from the factory. Though if Castle Bromwich was still churning out Spits to the same specs as in the war what chance they would get a CofA for the civil register? Nil I'd suggest, restored vintage ones being allowed on it as special cases.

I suggest that the main difficulties lie with the larger ME types. There are immediately handling issues that the SE types aren't affected by. Add to that pilots who have to learn the arcane challenges of tail draggers and of course the enormous operating costs (not the least of which is insurance) when the sheer necessity of paying passengers becomes very apparent.

Another anecdote springs to mind. The OC BBMF (as was) emphasised the importance of feedback from visiting veterans. Recalling the trouble they were having in trying to three point the Lanc in a crosswind, one of them said, "Why try? Just wheel it on, keep straight with the rudders until effectiveness falls off with decreasing speed, and only then lower the tail and the (locked) tailwheel. That's what we did". To which I might add, so did we on the Hastings! Somehow though the corporate memory had forgotten it over the intervening years.

The Royal Navy very sensibly doesn't sail Victory or Warrior any more, glorious though that sight would be. They are too venerable, not seaworthy, and the skillsets needed to do that are very much reduced. I would suggest that we are approaching that same state with ME vintage WWII military aircraft. We will have to start thinking of enjoying them on the ground, static or taxying, but not airborne. They are only airworthy because they are said to be, but are they really?

SE types will no doubt suffer many more restrictions for display and operating purposes but should manage to keep flying for longer. Eventually their time will come as well though. Nothing is for ever...

[pr00ne]

Happy that these aircraft still fly to entertain in controlled and well regulated conditions, but NOT with 13 passengers, a 76 year old Captain and a 71 year old Co-pilot, that just seems so wrong.

[Nige321]

Nutty, I most certainly do think that these aircraft have a relevance today. In every theatre around the world they defeated tyranny and assured the liberty that we all enjoy today, whether taken for granted or not. But sooner or later time has to be called on their continued operation. Again, I fully accept your assurances about the technical excellence of them being restored to even higher standards than when they emerged from the factory. Though if Castle Bromwich was still churning out Spits to the same specs as in the war what chance they would get a CofA for the civil register? Nil I'd suggest, restored vintage ones being allowed on it as special cases.

I suggest that the main difficulties lie with the larger ME types. There are immediately handling issues that the SE types aren't affected by. Add to that pilots who have to learn the arcane challenges of tail draggers and of course the enormous operating costs (not the least of which is insurance) when the sheer necessity of paying passengers becomes very apparent.

Another anecdote springs to mind. The OC BBMF (as was) emphasised the importance of feedback from visiting veterans. Recalling the trouble they were having in trying to three point the Lanc in a crosswind, one of them said, "Why try? Just wheel it on, keep straight with the rudders until effectiveness falls off with decreasing speed, and only then lower the tail and the (locked) tailwheel. That's what we did". To which I might add, so did we on the Hastings! Somehow though the corporate memory had forgotten it over the intervening years.

The Royal Navy very sensibly doesn't sail Victory or Warrior any more, glorious though that sight would be. They are too venerable, not seaworthy, and the skillsets needed to do that are very much reduced. I would suggest that we are approaching that same state with ME vintage WWII military aircraft. We will have to start thinking of enjoying them on the ground, static or taxying, but not airborne. They are only airworthy because they are said to be, but are they really?

SE types will no doubt suffer many more restrictions for display and operating purposes but should manage to keep flying for longer. Eventually their time will come as well though. Nothing is for ever...

What a miserable post...


The Royal Navy very sensibly doesn't sail Victory or Warrior any more
Maybe not, but the Americans still sail the USS Constitution, launched in 1797...

learn the arcane challenges of tail draggers
You do realise that 'tail draggers' are still in production in various forms all round the world...?
Should we ground them all??

[Chugalug2]

What a miserable post.


You do realise that 'tail draggers' are still in production in various forms all round the world...?
Should we ground them all??

Well, of course I do. All I'm saying is that the technology and airworthiness inherent in these vintage aircraft means that they do not meet modern Regulatory Standards. Why are they allowed to go on flying then? Pure sentiment, that's why.

When that sentiment starts claiming lives, not only of those who fly them, those who pay to be passengers in them, and innocent bystanders not even attending display venues, someone has to call a halt, or at least heavily restrict such operations.

Miserable? Yes, I agree, but there is an elephant in this room that is potentially much more miserable. It needs to be responsibly and professionally confronted.

[etudiant]

Happy that these aircraft still fly to entertain in controlled and well regulated conditions, but NOT with 13 passengers, a 76 year old Captain and a 71 year old Co-pilot, that just seems so wrong.

Think the only way to keep them flying is by carrying paying passengers. It is not cheap to keep those antiques airworthy.
The pilots age was not a factor afaik.

[Momoe]

Chug,
There is an inherent risk in everything we do, agreed that flying in a WWII era aeroplane increases the risk but I believe that everyone who OPTS to fly understands that. Definitely not for the 'Snowflake' generation. I'm with Vzlet on this, in that it's tragic but magical and enlightening for many others who wonder why these 'Relics' are still flying.

Nothing is for ever is a nothing but a (Well known) phrase, as has been pointed out, a large proportion of warbirds are virtually new albeit using old technology, however they all have more manhours spent on meticulous maintenance than they ever did operationally.

Ultimately, it's your opinion which you're entitled to, however do take a look at motorcycle accident statistics and you'll see that even with cutting edge technology, people still choose pleasure over (much) higher statistical risks.

[Chugalug2]

Momoe, I've no idea what the accident rate is for motorcycles but logic suggests that it be high as you say, and as often as not caused by other road users rather than by the motorcyclists themselves. They are the most likely casualties of such accidents of course, and presumably accept that increased risk to themselves. Aircraft are inherently more dangerous, not to those who choose to fly them, but to those who do not, witness the tragic toll of the OP tragedy.

The snowflake generation jibe misses the point and I suspect is counter productive anyway. It is more to do with assessing the risk to oneself and to others. Being ancient I learned risk assessment at the cost of many scraped knees and sundry bruises. That I would suggest is where the snowflakes have missed out and hence are left all the more vulnerable to situations that are indeed risky but not perceived as such.

Sorry to have used such a hackneyed phrase for which you have rightly brought me to task. All I would respond with is, if nothing is for ever be unacceptable, when would it be acceptable to ground WWII aircraft; in ten years, twenty, a hundred, never? The accident rate when they were operational was horrendous by modern day standards. RAF Flight Safety was the reaction to the Meteor loss rate in the 50's. The churchyards with rows of CWGC headstones around RAF Bicester bear witness to the Blenheim crews lost while attending the OTU there. All that training for naught before they were even operational. All acceptable as the cost of fighting a war of survival of course, but for mere magic and enlightenment? Not in my book.

May I once again repeat that I am not impugning the restoration and servicing these old timers receive. It is they themselves that are the problem, not the TLC lavished on them. A generation used to rattling off "V1, Rotate, V2" in almost one breath these days needs to know the long pauses between those calls that these veterans impose. Not only is the possibility of an engine failure on a veteran twin so much more likely, but the options open to you before V2 are so much more limited. As you say, just my opinion but others should perhaps consider theirs...

[megan]

When that sentiment starts claiming lives, not only of those who fly them, those who pay to be passengers in them, and innocent bystanders not even attending display venues, someone has to call a halt, or at least heavily restrict such operations A320, 119 major accidents,36 hull losses, 1,393 fatalities (to August 2019)
B737, 368 major accidents, 184 hull losses, 4,862 fatalities (to November 2013)

We make choices in life cognisant that there are no absolute guarantees.

[Mil-26Man]

Definitely not for the 'Snowflake' generation.

You're 61, Momoe. Your generation is nothing special.

[Bob Viking]

Snowflakes.

Whilst I agree that the ‘snowflake’ generation have a few issues I think some people have been believing a bit too much of what they read in the tabloids.

Risk and the adventurous spirit is still there. My kids get covered in mud on an almost daily basis and have lost their fair share of skin from knees and elbows. If you believed the media you’d think all kids spend their days playing computer games and eating junk food.

Generations will always differ but beware of viewing life through rose tinted specs and thinking your own generation has a hegemony on perfection.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

BV

[Mil-26Man]

If you believed the media you’d think all kids spend their days playing computer games and eating junk food.

If I believed the media I'd think that the 'snowflakes' had spent the best part of the last 20 years fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.....

[downsizer]

Snowflakes.

Whilst I agree that the ‘snowflake’ generation have a few issues I think some people have been believing a bit too much of what they read in the tabloids.

Risk and the adventurous spirit is still there. My kids get covered in mud on an almost daily basis and have lost their fair share of skin from knees and elbows. If you believed the media you’d think all kids spend their days playing computer games and eating junk food.

Generations will always differ but beware of viewing life through rose tinted specs and thinking your own generation has a hegemony on perfection.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

BV

Burn the witch, burn him!!!!!!!!!!

[Chugalug2]

You're 61, Momoe. Your generation is nothing special.
Nor is yours, mine, or any generation that has posted here, with the exception in my view (though he always demurred at that proposition) of Danny 42C's, RIP. I'm not even sure what defines a generation other than pointless tags such as blitz, baby boomer, cold war, or indeed snowflake. We are all individuals but shaped to a certain extent by our common experiences.

megan, other than that modern aircraft crash and kill just as others have done, what is the point you are making? That life is inherently fraught with danger? In which case assessing that danger, ie risk assessment, is a necessary life skill. The unfortunates who died in those tragedies had places to go, people to meet, things to do. Very few of them went along simply to enjoy the ride I would suggest. Ditto those who drive cars, or chance their arm at Railtrack's unforeseen works above and below ground level. Statistically those you list drew the short straw as the odds were much more in their favour than those lost in this tragedy.

[NutLoose]

Nothing is for ever is a nothing but a (Well known) phrase, as has been pointed out, a large proportion of warbirds are virtually new albeit using old technology, however they all have more manhours spent on meticulous maintenance than they ever did operationally.

I wish people would stop going on about old technology, its a metal rivetted structure as used in everything from 737's to the latest aircraft, there is no difference bar stuctural stength for pressurisation and the Spitfire had that, the only really new construction technology of late is Carbon Fibre.

Heck you can even look at glued fuselage and wing structures used on the likes of the BAE 146 and that is using WW2 redux as the adhesives.
http://www.adhesivestoolkit.com/Docs/test/Procedures%20and%20Recommended%20Practice_files/P3r9pt2.pdf

Remember the Comet / Nimrod first flew in 49, a scant 4 years after the war. The Typhoon took 20 years to gestate, you could argue it was out of date when it finally reached operational staus.

As for instrumentation, its only in the last few years electronics have started to take over from steam driven instrumentation and the 737max etc shows how succesfull that has been.

I think we are going to have to differ on this one Chug, I rebuild and repair metal construction aircraft all the time BTW. You are just going to hate the idea of this then

https://www.junkers-f13.com/junkers-f13-relaunch-e

[NutLoose]

Forgot to add glad someone mentioned the USS Constellation, I intended too.
The Victory was screwed when they took it out of the water, not only did it allow the hull to dry and shrink, but the hull was designed and was supported over its entire lower surfaces by water, taking it out of water and supporting it in the way they did put enormous strain on the rest of the hull and she literally started to come apart under her own weight, hence why they had to demast her while rectification work on the hull is carried out, had she remained afloat they would not of had these issues.

[pr00ne]

Think the only way to keep them flying is by carrying paying passengers. It is not cheap to keep those antiques airworthy.
The pilots age was not a factor afaik.
etudiant,

Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.

I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...

And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.

[Chugalug2]

Nutty, I don't know how many times I have to say this, I don't doubt for a minute the structural soundness of these old War Birds' restoration, nor of their subsequent maintenance. The old technology I speak of is in the various systems that they come with. You enumerated some of them yourself, Pneumatic brake bladders spring to mind. Always a cause for concern on the Hastings I recall. More importantly though is the limited airworthiness that the aircraft come with and which no amount of care and attention can obviate.

We are lucky to have the Victory (and Warrior) wet or dry, and it is thanks to that same spirit that permeates all restoration. For myself, I volunteer at a preserved railway and we are currently restoring to running order an 1890 4 wheeler 5 compartment Third body that spent more of the intervening years being someone's house! When it is finished it will only be allowed to carry fare paying passengers on a preserved railway because it meets in full the requirements of the Rail Regulator. It will have a modern underframe with brakes that meet those requirements. The alarm system ditto. Those are the compromises we have had to make over the authentic Victorian systems. Easy of course compared to vintage aircraft which bring their own inherent limitations no matter what.

[NutLoose]

etudiant,

Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.

I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...

And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.

A lot of the Spitfires etc are being converted to carry pax as are a Hurricane and the two seat 109 has recently flown again, they are used to generate revenue..

[Nige321]

etudiant,

Not here in the UK they don't. With the exception of the BBMF they are kept flying by the indulgence of fabulously wealthy owners/sponsors, many of whom actually fly them as well.

I accept that the crew age may not be a factor in this case, but I am the same age as that co-pilot (71) and, though I flew RAF Fast jets in my youth, now I would not trust the speed nor the correctness of my reactions in an emergency, as for the 76 year old Captain...

And a B-17 is a bomber, it was never built to carry passengers.

Rather out of date.
One can now pay to fly in Spitfires, Mustangs, Hurricane(Soon...) Blenheim, Lysander, Sea Fury, 109 and others...

[Meester proach]

71 isn’t old really .
if airline bods can go to 65 now and by the time I retire I’m sure it’ll be 68 ( sod that )

[megan]

Very few of them went along simply to enjoy the ride I would suggestIf it wasn't to enjoy the ride why would anyone take a ride in a B-17? I'm looking forward to getting to the UK for a ride in the Spit & 109 one day before I pop off.

[jimjim1]

Snowflakes.

Whilst I agree that the ‘snowflake’ generation have a few issues I think some people have been believing a bit too much of what they read in the tabloids.

Risk and the adventurous spirit is still there.

I agree - Snowflake - rubbish. There seem to be more with a death wish than ever.

https://youtu.be/cYF5Zy6iGzc?t=135
My favourite is at 2m 15s - Left over crest .... well straight on is ok too I guess!

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/2019/08/wingsuit-BASE-jumping-deaths-safety-regulations/
"SUMMERTIME IN THE European Alps is the so-called “killing season” for wingsuit BASE jumpers"

And of course if you have a spare $250,000 you can chance your arm in the Virgin Space Race. That is going to have one outcome - it will go until the first catastrophe. Let's hope no one on the ground dies.

Then there is ... the wannabe youtube star who got his girlfriend to shoot at his chest with a .50 calibre pistol to see if an interposed book would save him - it didn't.
https://www.buzz.ie/weird/video-depicts-youtubers-final-moments-shot-dead-stunt-gone-wrong-289828
I like the link name above "shot-dead-stunt-gone-wrong (https://www.buzz.ie/weird/video-depicts-youtubers-final-moments-shot-dead-stunt-gone-wrong-289828)" - well as far as I can see the shot dead stunt worked!

I would go on a B-17 trip but I am an aeroplane nut. I don't think it should be sold to the unwary. I have turned down a bungee jump from a crane on an industrial site. Don't fancy that at all. No upside.

[DaveUnwin]

I'm sure I must've read more uninformed dross on PPRuNe before, but can't remember when! Chug, have you ever visited the amazing facility where these iconic machines were serviced to a very high standard? Proone, have you ever sat in the co-pilot's seat next to Mac and seen how gracefully he flew 'Nine-oh-Nine'. The ages (of both 'Nine-oh-Nine' and Mac) are completely irrelevant.

[Harley Quinn]

I'm sure I must've read more uninformed dross on PPRuNe before, but can't remember when! Chug, have you ever visited the amazing facility where these iconic machines were serviced to a very high standard? Proone, have you ever sat in the co-pilot's seat next to Mac and seen how gracefully he flew 'Nine-oh-Nine'. The ages (of both 'Nine-oh-Nine' and Mac) are completely irrelevant.

It's a bit soon to be making that judgement, don't you think? Or have you already decided the cause?

[pr00ne]

DaveUnwin,

You have no idea if any of this is uninformed dross! I don't care how amazing you think the facility is or how gracefully a 76 year old flew a 75 year old bomber, seven people are dead, six are injured and the aircraft is a burnt out hulk after crashing.

[Chugalug2]

Dave Unwin, my reservations are not about the servicing or the restoration of these veteran aircraft which I accept are to the high standards that you and Nutloose proclaim. They are instead that these aircraft do not meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements and cannot, no matter how much care and attention is lavished on them. They are allowed to fly by the authorities to meet public demand and sentiment. When an accident as terrible as this occurs then those authorities need to urgently reconsider the status quo. Things are likely to change now, just as they have when air displays have caused a great loss of life. You may see that as dross. I don't.

[DaveUnwin]

Actually Proone, I do. I have seen the aircraft being maintained, and once had the tremendous privilege of flying as Mac's co-pilot on 'Nine-oh-Nine'. If people want to fly in a WW2 aircraft, and possibly experience just a fraction of what their grandfather went through, who are you to say it's too dangerous? Its called informed risk. Nobody's making YOU fly in one, but why should you say other's can't?

[DaveUnwin]

Chug, "...these aircraft do not meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements and cannot, no matter how much care and attention is lavished on them" might just be the most redundant statement I've ever read. But as we're discussing a Boeing product it'd be remiss of me if I didn't ask if you think the 737 MAX met modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements?

[Chugalug2]

If it wasn't to enjoy the ride why would anyone take a ride in a B-17? I'm looking forward to getting to the UK for a ride in the Spit & 109 one day before I pop off.

Megan here is my post you refer to. I in turn was referring to the losses suffered by B737s and A320s that you itemised, and not to the B-17 as you infer.


megan, other than that modern aircraft crash and kill just as others have done, what is the point you are making? That life is inherently fraught with danger? In which case assessing that danger, ie risk assessment, is a necessary life skill. The unfortunates who died in those tragedies had places to go, people to meet, things to do. Very few of them went along simply to enjoy the ride I would suggest. Ditto those who drive cars, or chance their arm at Railtrack's unforeseen works above and below ground level. Statistically those you list drew the short straw as the odds were much more in their favour than those lost in this tragedy.

[Chugalug2]

Chug, "...these aircraft do not meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements and cannot, no matter how much care and attention is lavished on them" might just be the most redundant statement I've ever read. But as we're discussing a Boeing product it'd be remiss of me if I didn't ask if you think the 737 MAX met modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements?

No, it clearly doesn't and as a result remains grounded. QED!

[DaveUnwin]

I beg to differ. My point was that pointing out that a WW2 bomber doesn't meet modern Airworthiness and Performance Requirements was, frankly, ludicrous.

[Chugalug2]

You are full of pejoratives, DU; dross, redundant statement, ludicrous, but offer no input other than it's your business and nobody else's if you want to fly as pax in a veteran a/c. Well go ahead then, but again I make the point that the authorities may in future have different ideas. You can then express your reaction to that in your usual way.

[DaveUnwin]

Actually Chug, I'm going to apologise. My tone was harsh. I don't post here often, and this thread clearly indicates why I don't bother (plus, I don't have time, as I've usually got some interesting flying to do). I was annoyed at some of the comments, and do consider them ill-informed, hence my language. For example if you'd ever met Mac, you would never have guessed he was in his seventies. Age is a number. Some people are old at 40, some young at 60. He also had over 7,000hrs in the B-17, and knew what he was doing. Sometimes, **** does just happen, and as Ernest Gann wrote, "no amount of paper will cushion a sudden impact between metal and stone." I honestly do believe its an individual's right to fly in a vintage aircraft, BASE jump, swim with sharks, ride a motorbike etc etc. That's my opinion. I suspect you don't, and that's your opinion. I was flying a sailplane in ridge and wave in the Black Mountains last weekend. At times, it was considerably more stressful than my flight as Mac's co-pilot! Perhaps I shouldn't do that either? 'Danger and delight grow on the same stalk' is an olde English proverb, which explains the appeal of adventure sports and roller coasters, and riding in WW2 fighters and bombers. Nevertheless, my language was intemperate, possibly because a man I knew who I both respected and admired, had just died.

[tartare]

Well, I want the opportunity to be able to fly in these sorts of aircraft, regardless of the danger or lack of adherence to modern airworthiness standards.
Collings have another hideously dangerous machine in their collection (sarcasm alert).
The design is nearly 60 years old.
It's so dangerous that it took a special act of Congress for them to be allowed to obtain it.
The passenger sits on an explosive seat, in a machine that weighs 30 US tons MAUW.
That passenger has an 18,000 lb thrust turbojet just behind them on either side - being fed by 2000 US gallons of jet fuel.
This entire, hideously dangerous machine can travel at just over Mach 2.
And God only knows - if I ever get the chance to fly in 65-0749 - I will grab it with both hands.
And if I died doing so - I couldn't think of a better way to go.
Very sad to hear of the dead and injured - but I fully agree with the sentiment of marvelling at a real WW2 bomber in flight, and the passion of those who restore them.
The safety of people on the ground is a perfectly valid consideration.
But if accidents like this and Shoreham lead to overzealous regulatory crackdowns - we will be much the poorer for it in my view.
Maybe part of the B-17 experience is appreciating that some very brave and frightened young men defended their country flying in machines that weren't massively over engineered, and rapidly churned out.
A decade later, but look at the interior of a Vulcan.
Black, full of wires, pipes, gauges and dials.
No concessions to comfort - beaten up and scratched and scarred.
The odd cushion, and piece of padding - insulation, but its designed for a purpose - as confronting as that may be.

[tdracer]

Well put tartare. People who pay money (and it's not cheap) to fly on these old war birds know it's potentially dangerous but do it anyway (hint - when you need to sign a liability release before they let you do something, it's a sure bet that it's not completely safe). Different people have different levels of risk acceptance. Some people sky dive, climb mountains, and countless other risky sports/hobbies because they enjoy what they are doing enough to counter the risks involved.
I drove race cars for 35 years - during that time 2 drivers who I knew died while racing, countless others where injured (including myself - I have a bit of a permanent limp due to damage done to my left ankle/foot when a mechanical failure put me into a tirewall at ~70 mph). I kept doing it because I loved it. I'm not some adrenaline junky - there are many activities that I won't do due to the risks - and I did everything in my power to make it as safe as possible, but I kept doing it.
I have cherished memories associated with those old war birds operated by the Commemorative Air Force and Collings Foundation - some of the Commemorative AF memories shared with my late WWII vet father (it was known as the Confederate AF in those days, before political correctness forced them to change the name), and I consider my memories of flying on Nine-O-Nine to be priceless. I've donated a fair amount of money to both CAF and Collings over the years to help keep those aircraft flying so that others can share those experiences. There is a place in Florida that has some two-seat (dual controls) P-51 Mustangs - next time I go to Florida I hope to go up in one.
I live a few miles from Paine Field - where there are two air museums stocked with WWII vintage warbirds - Flying Heritage & Combat Armor Museum (https://flyingheritage.org/)and Historic Flight (http://historicflight.org/hf/). Most of their aircraft are flight worthy, and when the weather is nice it's not uncommon to see one or more of them flying around the area and occasionally over my house. I get a thrill every time I see one fly overhead. And the sound - especially the multi-engine ones - is fantastic. Is there a risk one might fall out of the sky and injury someone on the ground? Sure, but that's also true of the hundreds of GA aircraft that fly out of Paine. And there are many Experimental aircraft that fly out of Paine as well - which by definition don't meet all the current airworthness standards.
New cars are safer than older cars - and the older cars don't need to be that old. I recently read that you're are twice as apt to be seriously injured or killed in an accident in a 10 year old car than in a new one, yet I don't hear any calls to ban older cars (nor would I agree with such a proposal).
The crash of Nine-O-Nine and the associated deaths are tragic, no question. Hopefully lessons will be learned that can make the continued operation of these classic warbirds safer. But the greatest tragedy of the crash of Nine-O-Nine would be if it resulted in the loss of the ability to fly these old warbirds and to share that experience with the younger generation.

[Chugalug2]

Dave Unwin, if you had been clear from the start that you had lost a dear friend who you admired greatly, had flown with and learned much from, you would have simply received my sincere condolences. As it is, I offer them now. In retrospect I can now see that you alluded to that but I didn't pick up on it at the time. So it is I that must apologise to you.

As for me, no apologies are needed. PPRuNe is, if nothing else, for the exchange of opposing views and would be a dull place indeed if all were in violent agreement. The only requirement is for mutual respect, a precious thing at risk of extinction sometimes.

Your chosen lifestyle, or mine for that matter, is of little relevance here I would suggest. Airworthiness is not merely for the protection of crew and pax (informed or otherwise!). It is also to protect others outside that bubble. Unlike Shoreham there were mercifully no fatalities in that regard, but there might have been if the aircraft had hit the building it impacted with greater force. Energy lost in striking the ILS array and in careering across the field might have allowed it to penetrate that building and hazard its occupants. According to Wiki (yes, I know!) there was at least one such occupant (unnamed there), who emerged from it and immediately set to work helping survivors from the inferno, suffering severe burns in doing so. Whatever the USA version of the George Cross is, I would humbly suggest that person, if the account be true, would be a very worthy recipient indeed.

[Skylark58]

Of course they should keep flying
Mosquito

[lomapaseo]

[QUOTE=jimjim1;10589190]I agree - Snowflake - rubbish. There seem to be more with a death wish than ever.

....

Nothing wrong there, no passengers were harmed. That's where some of our fighter pilots come from.

I for one enjoy my life of freedom to take known risks

[RAFEngO74to09]

NTSB Preliminary Accident Report

https://www.scribd.com/document/430402311/NTSB-Accident-Preliminary-Report#from_embed (https://www.scribd.com/document/430402311/NTSB-Accident-Preliminary-Report#from_embed)

[tartare]

Knowing absolutely zip about the B-17 - a few questions.
With that number of people on board, and fuel load - how close would they be to MTOW? (which wiki tells me is 65,000lbs for the G model).
160 gals of 100LL @ 6lbs per gallon = 960lbs of fuel weight?
13 (I think) POB @ 140lbs per average person = roughly 2000lbs?
I know that's a very back of the envelope calculation, but it's a WW2 Bomber - designed to carry a heavy payload - I'm trying to understand why one engine out would see them struggling to make the airfield.
Extra drag from the dead prop, combined with the payload?
Had always thought one engine out on a four engined bomber such as this didn't necessarily mean a critical loss of control.
Happy to be enlightened.
And I should add - no intention to cast any blame on the pilots - just wondering.

[GeeRam]

Knowing absolutely zip about the B-17 - a few questions.
With that number of people on board, and fuel load - how close would they be to MTOW? (which wiki tells me is 65,000lbs for the G model).
160 gals of 100LL @ 6lbs per gallon = 960lbs of fuel weight?
13 (I think) POB @ 140lbs per average person = roughly 2000lbs?
I know that's a very back of the envelope calculation, but it's a WW2 Bomber - designed to carry a heavy payload - I'm trying to understand why one engine out would see them struggling to make the airfield.
Extra drag from the dead prop, combined with the payload?
Had always thought one engine out on a four engined bomber such as this didn't necessarily mean a critical loss of control.
Happy to be enlightened.
And I should add - no intention to cast any blame on the pilots - just wondering.

No bombs, no 'real' guns, no .50 cal ammo, no high altitude oxygen equipment, no armour plating, no heavy WW2 radio equip etc., and only 3 more people on board than its designed combat crew of 10, I don't think '909' was anywhere near MTOW, even if it had had full tanks.
More interesting is the info in the report that may have indicated that engine No.3 was almost feathered at time of impact?
4 out and 3 on the way out or almost out for whatever reason would have made life more difficult at the low level they were already at?

[sycamore]

Should have gone for RW33 from downwind on 06 if #3 was not co-operating......

[tartare]

True GeeRam.
OK - if 3 was also on the way out, then they definitely had a big problem with power and asymmetric flight.
Not good.