B-17 Crash
 

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.

Eyewitness account: https://www.wfsb.com/video-eyewitnes...73e8b5aa0.html

Crashed on a maintenance building: https://www.wfsb.com/video-eyewitnes...73e8b5aa0.html

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

Ground comms:

ATC recordings:

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

6 people transported to hospital alive with burns - breakdown of B-17 crew / PAX versus building occupants not known.

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.

The B-17 was part of the Wings of Freedom tour giving air experience flights - ad here:

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

Very sad.
And already - a wikipedia entry - amazing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...Fortress_crash

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.

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.

There's another thread on R&N here.

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.

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

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.

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/

Casualty List Released By CT State Police
 

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:

NTSB - 2nd Press Conference - October 3

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?

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).

"Flight Engineer"???
 

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

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.

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?

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')

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.

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.

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'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...

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.

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.

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.

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.