B-17 Down at Bradley Int'l Airport

I'll probably be pilloried for this, but I don't see anything wrong with a properly designed and executed safety survey. Insurance companies do them all the time. If there are unsafe practices, they should be called out. We have all seen instances of organizations that have done things things successfully over time, creating a culture that accepts marginal practice.
That's not to say a ride in a warbird need necessarily meet air transport standards, but a disinterested parties' critical eye isn't always a bad thing.
 
F01LA said:
Just curious, by why is this? Gut feeling? We know the statistics are stacked against us. Flying is simply risky. If you're 6 times or so safer than the average pilot, you might be approaching the safety level of driving. But in that case you're probably a safer driver too.
Click to expand...

Thing about flying accidents is we get some detailed reports on what happened on almost all of them, unlike auto accidents. A lot of them, most of them actually, can’t happen to me. Yeah, yeah, pretty bold statement. But a whole lot of them are caused by things I simply don’t do. Those are the ones that are caused by pilot error. No, I’m not say I’m perfect and don’t make errors. But a huge amount of the errors are ones made before the airplane takes off. Many of those errors are made before the engine is even started. A lot of those errors are made when the decision is made to fly before even getting to the airport. So yeah, I discount the didn’t put enough gas in the tanks ones before departing out of the equation. Didn’t preflight the plane. Didn’t use checklists. Didn’t heed the weather. Those types of pilot errors. Taking that into account, the statistics are not stacked against me.
 
I wonder if a grass landing was possible but they pushed for the runway instead to avoid the attention of not making it to the airport.
 
Last edited:
Rein Hart said:
I wonder if a grass landing was possible but they pushed for the runway instead to avoid the attention not making it to the airport.
Click to expand...
Maybe. From what I have read they hit the approach lights 1000 feet from threshold. Sad day is an understatement.
 
AKBill said:
Maybe. From what I have read they hit the approach lights 1000 feet from threshold. Sad day is an understatement.
Click to expand...
Yes, the NTSB said something to that effect. All was lost at that point. I'm rather confused on how that could have happened with three still turning, but I'll wait for the report.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
I'll probably be pilloried for this, but I don't see anything wrong with a properly designed and executed safety survey. Insurance companies do them all the time. If there are unsafe practices, they should be called out. We have all seen instances of organizations that have done things things successfully over time, creating a culture that accepts marginal practice.
That's not to say a ride in a warbird need necessarily meet air transport standards, but a disinterested parties' critical eye isn't always a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I agree with you as long as it's done scientifically: remember that the NTSB is a government agency and is subject to some political pressure. It's not a good sign that the lead investigator made the comments that were reported by USA Today. And in spite of the NTSB, we have a sitting Senator call for more regulation.

Unfortunately, Washington lacks the ability to effectively use science these days, with the focus being on populism, getting votes, being re-elected, and party control.

So yes, I am in favor of what you speak. I'm concerned that it won't happen that way.

Your view may vary.
 
Bill Jennings said:
2016 NTSB data shows an average of 102 people die per day in car accidents in the US. This far greater than aviation accidents of any type, and yet nobody gives a relative rip about car accidents.
Click to expand...
“The most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport”...
 
F01LA said:
If you're 6 times or so safer than the average pilot, you might be approaching the safety level of driving. But in that case you're probably a safer driver too.
Click to expand...
I’ve always heard that pilots make good drivers.
 
Ryanb said:
“The most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport”...
Click to expand...

This is quite true for commercial flights, but not true for the flying we do. As has been stated before, on mile-by-mile basis or an hour-by-hour basis, the risk is statistically between a car and a motorcycle. Depending on exactly how you measure it. For some, this activity is not inside their risk tolerance but driving is. For us, it's clear that both are inside our risk tolerance. For me, motorcycling used to be in my risk tolerance, but I've shifted away from it being inside for a number of reasons. We all make our own decisions. I hold no ill will to someone who says that GA flying isn't OK for them.

On the other hand, I would certainly have issue with someone deciding that it was outside my risk tolerance for me. Very different thing.

Kenny Phillips said:
Yes, the NTSB said something to that effect. All was lost at that point. I'm rather confused on how that could have happened with three still turning, but I'll wait for the report.
Click to expand...

There have been reports, so far unsubstantiated, that both engines on the right side weren't make power. Not saying that's the case, but it would help explain why altitude could not be gained. There has also been conjecture that it was misfueled with JetA, although, honestly, I find that hard to believe. (Wouldn't the spade nozzle keep it out? Maybe the older B-17 didn't have the restricted intake?)
 
flyingron said:
I've had several emergencies over the years. With the exception of the last one that ended up with me in the middle of a field, the FAA hasn't ever inquired about anything. They mostly wanted to know my time frame for getting the plane out of the field it was in

It's likely different if you're a commercial operator.
Click to expand...
I declared a Mayday to RHV Tower a few years ago for what turned out to be total power loss, and a landing-gear emergency to approach and tower at SJC many years ago, and never heard boo from the FAA about either one. (Whether they contacted the club that I rented from, I don't know.)
 
This is just a throwaway comment of no value. Earlier today I was thinking about the larger picture a little, and I came to the conclusion one of the early collateral effects of the tragedy will probably be the withdrawal of the foundation's F-4 Phantom from their flight line.

We can all easily imagine why.

I will always remember my flights in their bombers as one of my best flying experiences.
 
Quite amazing that no video of this crash has surfaced as yet.

It was probably witnessed by hundreds, and filmed by dozens.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
 
arnoha said:
This is quite true for commercial flights, but not true for the flying we do. As has been stated before, on mile-by-mile basis or an hour-by-hour basis, the risk is statistically between a car and a motorcycle. Depending on exactly how you measure it. For some, this activity is not inside their risk tolerance but driving is. For us, it's clear that both are inside our risk tolerance. For me, motorcycling used to be in my risk tolerance, but I've shifted away from it being inside for a number of reasons. We all make our own decisions. I hold no ill will to someone who says that GA flying isn't OK for them.

On the other hand, I would certainly have issue with someone deciding that it was outside my risk tolerance for me. Very different thing.



There have been reports, so far unsubstantiated, that both engines on the right side weren't make power. Not saying that's the case, but it would help explain why altitude could not be gained. There has also been conjecture that it was misfueled with JetA, although, honestly, I find that hard to believe. (Wouldn't the spade nozzle keep it out? Maybe the older B-17 didn't have the restricted intake?)
Click to expand...

I have zero knowledge on this, but wouldn’t the wrong fuel effect all engines equally?
 
woodchucker said:
I have zero knowledge on this, but wouldn’t the wrong fuel effect all engines equally?
Click to expand...

If all the tanks were filled from the same load yes. Given the amount of fuel the B17 takes relative to what other 100LL burners and the tank-size of your standard fuel bowsers, that's not a given. But I believe the NTSB already stated that the tank contained 100LL.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Quite amazing that no video of this crash has surfaced as yet.

It was probably witnessed by hundreds, and filmed by dozens.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I heard a TV report that the ntsb does have at least one surveillance video of the incident.
 
AKBill said:
Personally I was surprised when FSDO called me. It was winter and I aborted a takeoff because airspeed indicator was at zero during takeoff roll. The conversation was professional, I simply explained there was ice in the pitot tube that I could not see during preflight. Since then I have installed a heated pitot tube..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I did the same thing three times in a row one morning, ice in the pitot tube. But it was at an uncontrolled airport so nobody cared. Finally got all the water out and had airspeed indications.

I had one take off “issue” when a baggage door came open on takeoff. Didn’t declare, just asked for a return to the airport like the B-17 and the tower cleared me for an immediate 270 to the crossing runway. No questions, just park and figure it out and let us know when you are ready to take off again. Didn’t think that it required an emergency.
 
woodchucker said:
I have zero knowledge on this, but wouldn’t the wrong fuel effect all engines equally?
Click to expand...

I don't know the B-17 fuel system exactly, but multiengine often feed only from the wing they're attached to unless crossfeed is set up. Crossfeed is, while not unusual, also not the normal configuration and wouldn't have been used on takeoff. It's also not uncommon for very large aircraft like the B-17 that use top fill (vs. single-point pressure fill like large jets) to have a truck on either side when available to speed things up. I've seen 909 do exactly that. So, it's conceivable that one wing got 100LL and one got JetA.

However, the NTSB seems to be indicating that is not the case, so we can take that off the table.
 
Ryanb said:
“The most dangerous part about flying is the drive to the airport”...
Click to expand...

A CFI talked to me once about that. But it was the drive home after the flight, not the drive to before the flight. Makes sense, some flights can be fatiguing. He sure fatigued me that day. Actually, I fatigued me
 
AKBill said:
Conceivable but highly unlikely. The ground crew and pilots I am sure watch such operations closely.
Click to expand...

Seconded. For an operation like that I highly doubt the FBO or supervising crew would make that mistake. All of those vintage planes burn a ton of fuel, I bet they had the 100LL truck parked close by and ready for quick turns or at the very least back and forth to the fuel farm to top off again.
 
How much revenue are the pax rides? Is it that necessary to the solvency of the operation? I'm sure as national relics, there's plenty of boomer money that could privately endow the upkeep of the things, plus whatever they can collect from airshow/statics. That also might alleviate the insurance angle as a compromise. Don't shoot the messenger, just throwing ideas for a solution that doesn't require joyrides.
 
overdrive148 said:
Seconded. For an operation like that I highly doubt the FBO or supervising crew would make that mistake. All of those vintage planes burn a ton of fuel, I bet they had the 100LL truck parked close by and ready for quick turns or at the very least back and forth to the fuel farm to top off again.
Click to expand...

Agree, and the NTSB seems to agree that this was not the cause. I still don't see confirmation as to whether one engine or two were having power issues, as well.
 
hindsight2020 said:
... I'm sure as national relics, there's plenty of boomer money that could privately endow the upkeep of the things ...
Click to expand...
Nope. There are plenty of organizations screaming for such money, and they aren't getting it.
 
overdrive148 said:
Seconded. For an operation like that I highly doubt the FBO or supervising crew would make that mistake. All of those vintage planes burn a ton of fuel, I bet they had the 100LL truck parked close by and ready for quick turns or at the very least back and forth to the fuel farm to top off again.
Click to expand...
From everything I’ve heard, Mac personally fueled the airplane every time (never the line guys). For it to even have been Jet-A contamination would have meant the truck itself was contaminated. While possible, that means other aircraft would have had the same contamination.
 
Fearless Tower said:
From everything I’ve heard, Mac personally fueled the airplane every time (never the line guys). For it to even have been Jet-A contamination would have meant the truck itself was contaminated. While possible, that means other aircraft would have had the same contamination.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. The museum on the field I worked at had their guys sit on the wing and we handed the hose up to them. Thry even read the gallon count to each other.

Contaminating a 100LL truck with Jet-A would be really hard. Just like the nozzles going out to the aircraft, the single point ports used to fill the trucks are entirely different too.
 
At FDK, Frederick MD, I was too late in the line to get a ride on Aluminum Overcast. I did spend a bit of time watching it depart and return, setting down so gently that without the puff of smoke from the tires, I could not tell when it contacted pavement. The pilot was a WW 2 veteran of bombing Germany, and was in his 80's, 88 if I remember correctly. He had announced his retirement from flying the B 17, as he felt that his skills were slipping, and a younger crew would be better. I do not know if those landings were by him, or a younger man he was training, but in either case, his talent was amazing.

This accident will not reduce the likelihood of my flying on a B 17 or B 24 in the future.

Jumping sideways a bit, Thursday noon, I met a WW 2 veteran who drove a Duck to the beach at Normandy, D day, about 18 years old then. 95 years old, walks slowly without a cane or walker. Does need some help with shirt tails after a trip to the rest room. Amazing how healthy some of those guys still are. You never know who you will share a restroom with at the American Legion!
 
overdrive148 said:
Contaminating a 100LL truck with Jet-A would be really hard. Just like the nozzles going out to the aircraft, the single point ports used to fill the trucks are entirely different too.
Click to expand...
Apparently it has happened before, but it involved a valve leaking between tanks at the fuel farm.
 
Guys, take the time to read post by OD / NG here if at all possible: http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=70495&p=622489#p622489

Quoting a snippet of a lot more good information that followed...

Thank you for this info. Folks, it is of critical importance to show your support for the Collings foundation through positive input on the above mentioned link. The FAA passenger ride program which gives the Exemption to allow this to occur is in serious jeopardy. There is already a U.S. Senator calling for the possibility of ending it. It is entirely possible that one result of the aftermath of this accident is that the FAA will put a stop to ALL paying passenger warbird flights. Even if they don't end it, they could make the governing rules and regulations onerous, complex and impractical, such as maintaining the same standard that Commercial Airliners have to adhere to. That would make these flights, even for powerhouses such as the Collings foundation, completely uneconomical and impractical. Europe has already seen an end to most of their vintage flying due to making operators comply with EU airliner standards for some of their warbirds. It is not inconceivable that in the near future, an everyday, average U.S. citizen will no longer be able to buy a ride in any W.W.II fighter or bomber. Imagine not being able to ever ride in a Mustang, B-17, B-29 or any other W.W.II fighter or bomber, unless you personally know the owner/operator and they're giving you a free ride. The threat is real and could happen.

As with everything in politics, and this is no exception, "public perception" trumps reality. I have friends heavily involved in this and work with Congress, the FAA and the legislative process on this program and others. They tell me that the FAA weighs public opinion heavily and uses these on-line comments from the link above to help shape their policies and decision-making process. So it's very important to make your voice known on this to the FAA and your Congress persons.

One example of a very misleading piece of information that is now shaping public perception is the following statement from the NTSB and reported on nearly every news site:


"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."


A few things to note for those of you reading this, so you can refute this very misleading statement:
Click to expand...

and think about leaving a comment on this regulatory opinion site: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FAA-2001-11089-0096
 
I thin he should be worrying about lawyers not the FAA...
 
Warmi said:
I thin he should be worrying about lawyers not the FAA...
Click to expand...

If Collings is smart they have good insurance and have their assets protected. But the big picture is that more rules saying "You can't" is a bad way to run a country.
 
How do they know if their assets are well protected ? With zero fatalities until now, they really cant - they will learn soon enough though ...
 
Warmi said:
How do they know if their assets are well protected ? With zero fatalities until now, they really cant - they will learn soon enough though ...
Click to expand...

Collings is very well financed. (Anyone who can operate a F-4 Phantom has an incredible amount of money.) So I imagine they have good lawyers and advisers.
 
kyleb said:
Collings is very well financed. (Anyone who can operate a F-4 Phantom spends an incredible amount of money.) So I imagine they have good lawyers and advisers.
Click to expand...

FTFY. I'm sure they have a lot of money passing through. But have a lot of money sitting around? Facts not in evidence.
 
arnoha said:
What the heck happened in 2013? Everything looks pretty steady, then there's that year... Is that when the tanks showed up?
Click to expand...

Yup. Would be interesting to see some of the more recent history, as they supposedly sold (leased?) some of the collection to build the tank museum.

It's an amazing place, and I'm sure cost quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top