Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Really ugly crash. The Yankee Air Force Museum near me in Willow Run, MI has a restored B-17 that takes up customers on weekends. It flys near my house and it’s four engines are heard long before it lumbers into view.
Thanks for the shot, Ted. ************************************* Yes, they were indeed fortresses of a sort, with all those .50 cal guns. Not pressurized, either. COLD way up there. In the Ken Burns series "The War," it's very interesting to hear a fellow named Burke, from Sacramento, describe his experience in the ball turret.
From my post about 4 years ago (see below link). The experience was wonderful. Yes, one must always consider a risk to such endeavors; but such is the nature of life, including driving the roads and the many foolish things drivers are doing/acting not more than 5 feet away from one's side door at 70+ mph. None the less, this news (the crash) made the hair on my arms stand.
Of note: Once airborne, one could travel to all areas of the plane interior, with the exception of sitting in the pilot/co-pilot seats. So, into the bottom ball turret gun area, laid down in the nose bomb site and stuck our head out of the upper hatch that was open for a 360 view of the top of the plane at 150 mph. We checked everything available during the 1 hour flight. Two pre-flight instructions still stuck in my mind SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS from the crew chief prior to the flight: DO NOT touch, pull or put body weigh onto any of the exposed, overhead cables; as you will offset cockpit controls for flaps and/or the tail rudder. ALSO, do not push on the side latch doors, as these were designed for rapid departure and your body weigh can cause the latch/hatch to open in flight.
Lastly, as this aircraft was built for a single purpose; I would not want to experience a smooth runway skid or crash, even with the absence of fire. The airframe does have strength, but the skin of this plane is thin and offers no protection otherwise. As to what caused this plane to crash from a reported (pilot) initial problem with #4 engine, hopefully will be properly determined. Witnesses did comment about this problem (engine pops, backfire) from their ground views (nearby homes, neighborhoods). This plane and the flight hours of the pilots should have been able to safely return and land at the airport. There must have been some other problems at the same time, IMHO. I suspect there are numerous photos and video of the crash from the public. These planes did fly home after missions with all forms of damage........full of holes, damaged or failed controls, missing tail sections, failed engines, etc.
Good stuff from @Catch22. The drivers in this state have gone crazy. Serious s****! The latest fad is tailgating with full brights on so that you have to switch your RVM to nighttime setting, if it has one, to avoid being distracted.
I always wonder when they toss out “engine failure” as a cause of airplane crashes. Multi-engine planes in recent years are designed to operate safely with a single engine out - including during takeoff and landing under normal circumstances. Even if this plane lacked that basic safety feature due to its date of manufacture or military status, one would assume today’s standards would apply if certified to carry paying passengers. Load (passengers, cargo, fuel) have everything to do with engine-out capabilities, And overloading is often suspected, if not at fault, in such disasters.
@hank- Yes, you're echoing my thoughts also. Given the age of the aircraft I might not have been surprised if there had been some sort of frame failure, but a whole lot of those B17s managed to land safely during WW2 with one or more engines inoperative due to enemy actions.
A quick review of the very superficial "news" reports failed to provide much accurate detail of the exact conditions of the flight path. Much depends on exactly when the engine failure occurred during the attempted flight. If the pilot had detected some type of engine problem, decided to land, and the engine then catastrophically failed during the landing itself that might explain a sudden loss of control during the landing.
Too many unknown here to make any sort of intelligent guess.
@hank and @Old_Joe I keep peeking at any updates for this crash; although not today. Yesterday, one individual noted that just prior to the attempted landing that the right wing was tipped too low. This would be the same wing as engine 4 mount; which was the reported initial problem.
Although not a weekend or summer day, normally there is a lot of smart phone pics and videos of this type of aircraft when visiting an airport. That was the case 4 years ago for us. The NTSB has already made a request, from the public, for such.
------- Mr. McCauley, 75, of Long Beach, California, had been interviewed in July when the plane traveled to Spokane, Wash., as part of the tour. He said at the time that he had been flying the bomber for 21 years. The N.T.S.B. said on Thursday that Mr. McCauley had logged 7,300 flight hours in the B-17.
“This is such a great airplane,” Mr. McCauley told the Spokesman-Review as he looked up from tinkering with one of the engines. “She doesn’t like crosswinds too much. When the weather is really rough, it’s like wrestling a gorilla. For the most part, it’s a pleasure to fly.” -------
A lot of seat time in the aircraft.
Not unlike us, who've been around our own vehicle for years; we tend to know, hear and feel if something is different, not normal. I suspect the pilot(s) could hear and feel anything not normal with this aircraft.
Sounds like you once rode on one of these Catch, so your interest is understandable. I felt that way about NW 255. Lived in the metro area at the time and often flew out of DTW. Turned out that a very fine young lady I’d had the privilege of knowing only a year earlier was one of the victims. Knew the family as well. They were in the process of relocating from Mi. to Calif. She was to join them out there. Destination was Orange County Airport.
With this, there’s so little to go on. I doubt they had cockpit recorders. And data recorders on board would be ancient compared to what those two 737s that went down carried. NTSB will get to the bottom of it, but will take months. And, assuming this aircraft type continues to fly with passengers, it will be a much safer experience after the NTSB has its say. It’s pretty pointless to speculate on possible causes at this time.
I do wonder about crew certification, training, proficiency in these cases with vintage craft. If everything’s working properly, I suspect a well trained monkey could fly one. It’s when things don’t go as expected that skill set comes into play. But, like I said, it’s pointless to speculate. Keep us updated if anything new comes out.
@hank@Old_Joe ...et al Both of you in particular may find of interest the video linked below regarding FAA regulations for these type of aircraft. My first post just above has a small recount of a flight on this plane. The post has a clickable link named, B-17 ride near the end of the write (also inside that post is a 6 minute video link of the flight). The original B-17 flight controls were in place and used in the cockpit. I recall added electronics displays in the center area that I presume were at a minimum of modern radio and perhaps radar. I doubt the aircraft ever had need for instrument landing electronics.
Not with your connection, of course; but I recall the NW255 crash.
One whom seems a knowledgeable fellow explaining FAA regs and other for this type of aircraft in a 11 minute video.
Thanks @Catch22 for the informative video. If OJ is around, he’s qualified to comment on the FRR regs and how well they’re enforced. I’d just be digging a deeper hole.
I want to stand corrected. I was surprised to learn the FAA (FRR) crew training / proficiency regs for these vintage aircraft are as stringent as they now appear. Had no idea. Perhaps not as rigid as for airlines, but close. The pilot in this case was roughly the age of his B-17 (75 yrs.) And had 7,000 hours flying time with that particular bird, a considerable amount. I remember some of the vociferous debate back when the FAA imposed the 65 year age limit on airline pilots. Mixed feelings on that one.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
*************************************
Yes, they were indeed fortresses of a sort, with all those .50 cal guns. Not pressurized, either. COLD way up there. In the Ken Burns series "The War," it's very interesting to hear a fellow named Burke, from Sacramento, describe his experience in the ball turret.
None the less, this news (the crash) made the hair on my arms stand.
Of note: Once airborne, one could travel to all areas of the plane interior, with the exception of sitting in the pilot/co-pilot seats. So, into the bottom ball turret gun area, laid down in the nose bomb site and stuck our head out of the upper hatch that was open for a 360 view of the top of the plane at 150 mph. We checked everything available during the 1 hour flight.
Two pre-flight instructions still stuck in my mind
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS from the crew chief prior to the flight: DO NOT touch, pull or put body weigh onto any of the exposed, overhead cables; as you will offset cockpit controls for flaps and/or the tail rudder. ALSO, do not push on the side latch doors, as these were designed for rapid departure and your body weigh can cause the latch/hatch to open in flight.
Lastly, as this aircraft was built for a single purpose; I would not want to experience a smooth runway skid or crash, even with the absence of fire. The airframe does have strength, but the skin of this plane is thin and offers no protection otherwise. As to what caused this plane to crash from a reported (pilot) initial problem with #4 engine, hopefully will be properly determined. Witnesses did comment about this problem (engine pops, backfire) from their ground views (nearby homes, neighborhoods). This plane and the flight hours of the pilots should have been able to safely return and land at the airport. There must have been some other problems at the same time, IMHO. I suspect there are numerous photos and video of the crash from the public. These planes did fly home after missions with all forms of damage........full of holes, damaged or failed controls, missing tail sections, failed engines, etc.
August 9, 2015 B-17 ride
Okay, time to chill for me.
Take care,
Catch
I always wonder when they toss out “engine failure” as a cause of airplane crashes. Multi-engine planes in recent years are designed to operate safely with a single engine out - including during takeoff and landing under normal circumstances. Even if this plane lacked that basic safety feature due to its date of manufacture or military status, one would assume today’s standards would apply if certified to carry paying passengers. Load (passengers, cargo, fuel) have everything to do with engine-out capabilities, And overloading is often suspected, if not at fault, in such disasters.
A quick review of the very superficial "news" reports failed to provide much accurate detail of the exact conditions of the flight path. Much depends on exactly when the engine failure occurred during the attempted flight. If the pilot had detected some type of engine problem, decided to land, and the engine then catastrophically failed during the landing itself that might explain a sudden loss of control during the landing.
Too many unknown here to make any sort of intelligent guess.
I keep peeking at any updates for this crash; although not today.
Yesterday, one individual noted that just prior to the attempted landing that the right wing was tipped too low. This would be the same wing as engine 4 mount; which was the reported initial problem.
Although not a weekend or summer day, normally there is a lot of smart phone pics and videos of this type of aircraft when visiting an airport. That was the case 4 years ago for us. The NTSB has already made a request, from the public, for such.
------- Mr. McCauley, 75, of Long Beach, California, had been interviewed in July when the plane traveled to Spokane, Wash., as part of the tour. He said at the time that he had been flying the bomber for 21 years. The N.T.S.B. said on Thursday that Mr. McCauley had logged 7,300 flight hours in the B-17.
“This is such a great airplane,” Mr. McCauley told the Spokesman-Review as he looked up from tinkering with one of the engines. “She doesn’t like crosswinds too much. When the weather is really rough, it’s like wrestling a gorilla. For the most part, it’s a pleasure to fly.” -------
A lot of seat time in the aircraft.
Not unlike us, who've been around our own vehicle for years; we tend to know, hear and feel if something is different, not normal. I suspect the pilot(s) could hear and feel anything not normal with this aircraft.
With this, there’s so little to go on. I doubt they had cockpit recorders. And data recorders on board would be ancient compared to what those two 737s that went down carried. NTSB will get to the bottom of it, but will take months. And, assuming this aircraft type continues to fly with passengers, it will be a much safer experience after the NTSB has its say. It’s pretty pointless to speculate on possible causes at this time.
I do wonder about crew certification, training, proficiency in these cases with vintage craft. If everything’s working properly, I suspect a well trained monkey could fly one. It’s when things don’t go as expected that skill set comes into play. But, like I said, it’s pointless to speculate. Keep us updated if anything new comes out.
No disrespect to pilots or monkeys intended.
My first post just above has a small recount of a flight on this plane.
The post has a clickable link named, B-17 ride near the end of the write (also inside that post is a 6 minute video link of the flight).
The original B-17 flight controls were in place and used in the cockpit. I recall added electronics displays in the center area that I presume were at a minimum of modern radio and perhaps radar. I doubt the aircraft ever had need for instrument landing electronics.
Not with your connection, of course; but I recall the NW255 crash.
One whom seems a knowledgeable fellow explaining FAA regs and other for this type of aircraft in a 11 minute video.
Link to interesting article on the B17 crash and safety concerns. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/10/05/are-vintage-planes-safe-b-17-crash-raises-questions.html
I'm afraid that I can't contribute on the subject of FAA regs- well outside of my area of knowledge or experience.
I want to stand corrected. I was surprised to learn the FAA (FRR) crew training / proficiency regs for these vintage aircraft are as stringent as they now appear. Had no idea. Perhaps not as rigid as for airlines, but close. The pilot in this case was roughly the age of his B-17 (75 yrs.) And had 7,000 hours flying time with that particular bird, a considerable amount. I remember some of the vociferous debate back when the FAA imposed the 65 year age limit on airline pilots. Mixed feelings on that one.