Collings Foundation B-17 Down

[Cobalt232]

I have discovered the flight wasn't Part 91, but flying under a special federal exemption that allows vintage historical aircraft to carry passengers and accept donations.

It's called the Living History Flight Experience.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...r-passenger-carrying-operations-conducted-for

And I want to add the maintenance programs for all of the Collings Foundation's aircraft is a professionally created and supervised operation. They take the responsibility of carrying passengers very seriously. During winter months each aircraft undergoes rigorous inspection.

Interesting..I just hope this accident doesn't screw up that special program.

 

[Cobalt232]

In about 1994 at the Watsonville fly in (Northern CA) the refinery messed up and got some diesel or jet fuel in one of the transfer pipes and it contaminated a lot of fuel.
Many airplanes that fuelled up at that flyin had engine failures and there were some successful landing and some were not. Several people died as a result.
Chevron bought everyone a new engine that was involved in that incident, whether they had a failure or not. https://www.apnews.com/0518ff27ef85b1443cbdf25ba1f24581

Happened earlier this year as well. 2 Citation air ambulances got Jet A mixed with DEF fluid. One lost both engines, the other just one. Both landed safely. 4 engines trash.

 

[ibelio]

DAVE that plane has been to havasu a few times PS Mac the pilot has a place in havasu he used to go to bbq Bill's and we would talk he had like 7000 hrs in b17's

 

[Duffster]

DAVE that plane has been to havasu a few times PS Mac the pilot has a place in havasu he used to go to bbq Bill's and we would talk he had like 7000 hrs in b17's

Mac was also super cool old fart with tons of warbird knowledge. He let me help him one afternoon with his preflight walk on that beast and hand propping each of the R-2800’s. Shit I will never forget.

 

[Tank]

Here we go. You knew this BS was coming!!
WWII bombers aren't the only old planes out there flying. Press is so fucking stupid.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b-...s-safe-to-fly/ar-AAIguoF?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

 

[monkeyswrench]

There are 2 or 3 Mustangs that fly out of the local airfield, and 2 early Migs...seeing old warbirds fly is one of the things that makes life good!

Here we go. You knew this BS was coming!!
WWII bombers aren't the only old planes out there flying. Press is so fucking stupid.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b-...s-safe-to-fly/ar-AAIguoF?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp

 

[rrrr]

The USA Today article says:

"Before Wednesday's crash, vintage World War II-era bombers are listed as having been involved in 21 accidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board since 1982, when its database began. Three were B-17s. All those crashes killed 23 and injured one before the latest accident is included."

It's impossible to verify their claim of 23 deaths, because I don't know the parameters of their searches of the NTSB database. What's their definition of a "World War II era bomber" ?. I found the three B-17 crashes, but B-24 and B-25 searches don't produce any results. I suspect they have cast a wide net that includes fighters and transport aircraft.

The three B-17 crashes all occurred during fire fighting missions and killed six crew members. That's hardly a surprise.

The focus on the crash of the Nine-O-Nine and the seven deaths is rooted in sensationalism, opportunity for page views and political gain. It's much like the attention focused on ominous appearing semi-automatic rifles and mass shootings while ignoring the daily bloodbaths caused by other guns. Automobile accidents kill 102 people in the US every day according to the NTSB, and America shrugs its shoulders.

Any resulting curtailment of the legacy flights will not change one thing with regards to the safety of conducting the flights. It won't stop the failure of human endeavors that happen.

 

[Duffster]

The USA Today article says:

"Before Wednesday's crash, vintage World War II-era bombers are listed as having been involved in 21 accidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board since 1982, when its database began. Three were B-17Gs. All those crashes killed 23 and injured one before the latest accident is included."

It's impossible to verify their claim of 23 deaths, because I don't know the parameters of their searches of the NTSB database. What's their definition of a "World War II era bomber" ?. I found the three B-17 crashes, but B-25 and B-25 searches don't produce any results.

The three B-17 crashes all occurred during fire fighting missions and killed six crew members. That's hardly a surprise.

The focus on the crash of the Nine-O-Nine and the seven deaths is rooted in sensationalism and opportunity for political gain. It's much like the attention focused on ominous appearing semi-automatic rifles and mass shootings while ignoring the daily bloodbaths caused by other guns. Automobile accidents kill 102 people in the US every day according to the NTSB, and America shrugs its shoulders.

Any resulting curtailment of the legacy flights will not change one thing with regards to the safety of conducting the flights. It won't stop the failure of human endeavors that happen.

The fake news fuckers need to calculate the amount of crashes and deaths that are from the home-built kit plane market that the FAA seems to look the other way on.

 

[Sleek-Jet]

The fake news fuckers need to calculate the amount of crashes and deaths that are from the home-built kit plane market that the FAA seems to look the other way on.

The accident rate for Ex/Ab isn't much higher than for part 91 GA accidents.

The editors at USA Today love beating up on aviation safety. They run a series of articles every year on how deadly small airplanes are. Truth be told the chances of dieing in a GA accidents are just about equal to that of motorcycle deaths.

 

[Cobalt232]

Preliminary accident report out:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R..._b7gWwoQEH68r_ggWP1yAaOme9EJXVyG8jZHQU0V9Glek

Looks like #3 and #4 were feathered.

 

[Blackmagic94]

So not jet A.

 

[Cobalt232]

100LL confirmed.

 

[Bigbore500r]

I noticed that they said the flaps were in the "retracted" position. Should they have been extended at those speeds for landing?

 

[Cobalt232]

I noticed that they said the flaps were in the "retracted" position. Should they have been extended at those speeds for landing?

Not sure on a B-17, but best glide is generally flaps up. I can only imagine how heavy the workload was during this.

 

[monkeyswrench]

 

[Sleek-Jet]

I noticed that they said the flaps were in the "retracted" position. Should they have been extended at those speeds for landing?

Flaps add drag. Best performance with engines out is a clean airplane, so I wouldn't expect flaps to be extended.