Collings Foundation B-17G 909 Has Crashed :-( 10/2/2019

[JohnB]

There are literally more jet warbirds flying in the US now, than at any other time. Most are L-39’s, but the fact still remains. As to the rest...there are 2 flying F-100’s, the F-4 last flew in December 2019 and could fly tomorrow if needed, the 2 airworthy F-104’s have now expanded to nearly 6 on a contract for NASA, there are about 20 civilian A-4s with more in the pipeline, and the F-14 is likely to never happen because there are no candidates to be had.

Art Nalls Harrier....

Also, T-2Cs and are there any A-37s here?
Not to mention Tucanos and PC-7/9s.I

Do any of the civil MiG-29s still fly?

[GRNDP51]

More of a general feeling question.....if any of you warbird folks lost a family member in this mishap or any other warbird mishap, would you sue?

For myself....I don't know. It would depend on the facts that come out of the various official investigations. In this case, the lawyers are scatter-gunning for any "gotcha" angle (ie...carrying metal chocks) to pile on and gin up any award amount for the clients and themselves. As a former fixer/flyer....to me that is not a factor and that would not push me to sue. Intentional neglect in fixing or flying....maybe.

This is a valid question. My comparison to the situation is the Galloping Ghost accident. I witnessed it, luckily wasn’t affected physically and neither were family members. Out of the dozen killed and 60 or so injured (some of them life altering), I think there were maybe 1 or 2 lawsuits IIRC. The Reno community is incredibly tight knit and the last thing any of the survivors or family members wanted to do was hurt the races and potentially kill them entirely. The affected were mostly box seat members and plenty of them had been going for 20, 30, 40 years and Reno is in their blood.

When it comes to warbird operations, rides, etc., me in particular I’m really not sure. Reno I would never sue for the same reason as stated above, but in a situation like Collings, if my not suing meant the continuation of warbird rides and operations and the continuation of Collings, no chance I would sue. But in this case, with some of the other family member’s suing, I would probably consider, especially if I felt suing would help the situation of losing someone in my family.

[colingaar]

Thanks for the explanation. Do these self-developed manuals have to go thru any type of future FAA review to check for currency or out of date info?

[JohnB]

It clearly depends how egregious any operator failings were?
I would hope as aviation enthusiasts we'd know the difference between a calculated risk of flying in a 75 year old aircraft (and the potential for a part failure) and out and out negligence or misconduct.

Just don't assume for a second that the attorneys are out for justice, as stated above, they'll be looking for anything that makes the operator (or anyone else with "deep pockets") look bad in an attempt to get more money...remember, they get 30-40% from those who actually suffered.

[wolf]

There are literally more jet warbirds flying in the US now, than at any other time. Most are L-39’s, but the fact still remains. As to the rest...there are 2 flying F-100’s, the F-4 last flew in December 2019 and could fly tomorrow if needed, the 2 airworthy F-104’s have now expanded to nearly 6 on a contract for NASA, there are about 20 civilian A-4s with more in the pipeline, and the F-14 is likely to never happen because there are no candidates to be had.

Really, no F-14's ??

Send somebody to Iran with deep pockets (or 3-5 airworthy Mig 29's) and I am sure they will sell you a F-14A

Bigger question is you can never register it in the United States, but willing to bet you can get it registered in England

[Firebird]

There are literally more jet warbirds flying in the US now, than at any other time. Most are L-39’s, but the fact still remains. As to the rest...there are 2 flying F-100’s, the F-4 last flew in December 2019 and could fly tomorrow if needed, the 2 airworthy F-104’s have now expanded to nearly 6 on a contract for NASA, there are about 20 civilian A-4s with more in the pipeline, and the F-14 is likely to never happen because there are no candidates to be had.

Really, no F-14's ??

Send somebody to Iran with deep pockets (or 3-5 airworthy Mig 29's) and I am sure they will sell you a F-14A

Bigger question is you can never register it in the United States, but willing to bet you can get it registered in England

Not a chance in the UK

But that depends on your definition of registered?

Yes, the CAA will take your money and allocate a G-**** for one, just as they did for the ex-RAF Lightnings back in the late 80's and early 90's.................but the UK CAA will never let a 'complex' category ex-military aircraft fly in civilian ownership in the UK without OEM support and design authority support.......and you are not going to get that for a F-14, let alone one that has been seriously changed from original spec by the Iranians (and that's without the political issues)

[Spitty]

After the Hunter crash any historic jet in the Uk has a hard time getting back in the air.

[mike furline]

NTSB Report B-17G Crash 'Nine-O-Nine'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dD98IqEUk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HNsQuLrOqg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3p-hGR ... e=emb_logo

[phil65]

Wow... I still don't understand why he didn't declare an emergency and land on runway 33....

Phil

[CoastieJohn]

Wow... I still don't understand why he didn't declare an emergency and land on runway 33....

Phil

I watched two of those vids. Unless I missed it, one thing I noticed was Juan did not mention the wind direction. In one of the charts he posted, a small content box said the wind was "Calm". If that is accurate.....to me, that would suggest either runway would have worked. Therefore the decision to attempt to use the runway he did was based on something else....yes/no??

[mike furline]

Wow... I still don't understand why he didn't declare an emergency and land on runway 33....

Phil

I watched two of those vids. Unless I missed it, one thing I noticed was Juan did not mention the wind direction. In one of the charts he posted, a small content box said the wind was "Calm". If that is accurate.....to me, that would suggest either runway would have worked. Therefore the decision to attempt to use the runway he did was based on something else....yes/no??

My impression was that the winds were calm, but since he didn't declare an Emergency or ask for 33 the Tower cleared him for the runway the airport was using (06). I'd have to re-watch, but something about jet traffic as well?

[sandiego89]

Here is a link to the the NTSB docket released on December 8th, 2020. Lots to read/examine.

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=100356

[marine air]

I'll share a "funny story." I used to do a lot of contract flying and have flown a lot of junk and old airplanes with guys past their prime. We were flyiing a jet back from New York and it was getting really hot in the cockpit. I pointed it out to the captain and we were trying different remedies to no avail. Then we had a rapid depressurization event FL 380 (38,000) . The masks dropped and I immediately put mine own. The 70 year old captain put his own and then did nothing. Well, I yelled "we have got to GET DOWN!" I called ATC and asked for lower and waited for the captain to declare an emergency. They gave us a 2,000' lower altitude. I told the captain "We need to GET DOWN! and declare an EMERGENCY." He was descending at a n elderly 2,000' per minute and at that rate anyone in the cabin not on oxygen will be unconscious. I asked for 16,000' and also asked what was a lowest available altitude. I knew we had cleared the Poconos and Smoky Mountains.
At this point the women in the cabin were screaming "bloody murder" , all of them had wet themselves, and were in a state of panic. Passing through 16,000' for 12,000' I got up and went back there and tried to tak to everyone and calm them down. I told them we were clear of all mountains and lower than the peaks at Aspen and Telluride. The extreme panic in the back among other things, had been caused because the infant didn't have an oxygen mask. The nanny, sober, used the technique used on every airline briefing and everyone was fine. The captain didn't believe in giving safety briefings because " talking about safety scares the passengers," The captain had failed to execute all of the emergency procedures except put his own mask on his face. Upon landing, all of the passengers were crying and all gave him hugs and thanked him for saving their life while I unloaded the baggage by myself. He puffed his chest out and smoothed his moustache while bragging about his immense talent. It disgusted me.
He never called an emergency because he was afraid it would bring adverse attention from the FAA to himself.

[Craig59]

Wow, simply wow.

I hate like heck to comment on a situation and the decision making process which took place in this cockpit for the simple reason, I was not there. However, I just can’t help myself.

I have 47 years in aviation as a pilot, I’m currently a 777 Captain and Check Airman; that’s, “evaluator and instructor” in airline jargon. I could go on ad-nauseum about this but, suffice to say their safety program is severely lacking. One photograph shows they don’t even know how to properly use a step ladder; HINT, the top “step” is not a step. There was a total lack of CRM in the cockpit. An engine was shutdown by the PF (Pilot Flying) and not backed up by the PM (pilot monitoring). Are you effing kidding me? And why, oh why was no EMERGENCY declared?!!! If it had been, perhaps ATC would have offered up, “ Cleared to land any runway,” thus prompting the crew to perhaps go for runway 33. Folks, you can declare an emergency and then cancel the emergency if appropriate. ARFF may still meet you when you land but, that may simply be their SOP.

Declaring gives you another resource!!!

Like I said, I could go on and on. This was a tragedy. My late father and I flew aboard the Collings Foundation B-25 back in about 2003 but, I would not go near them today.

[Taigh Ramey]

For what it is worth, runway 33 was closed that day by NOTAM. I am not sure how that could have played in to their decision to head back to runway 6 but it certainly could have.

There are a lot of armchair quarterbacks commenting about the 909 accident. Some good but a lot is simply uninformed guesswork.

One of the big questions I have is why couldn't he turn left after touchdown?

I believe the evidence shows that the left main tire was flat going in toward the tank. Did this happen when they hit the light poles on the way in?

There was broken crazed Plexiglas out in the field near the light poles. There is a photo of one of the NTSB investigators picking it up and looking at it. The only old crazed Plexiglas on 909 was on the ball turret. The poles, that were supposed to break away, were tearing up the bottom of the aircraft. Could the tire have been compromised that early?

The NTSB report shows the black tire marks across the apron and they are labeled as right main tire, tail wheel and left main tire. I think there is a mistake there and that what they thought was the tail tire mark was actually the flat left main tire making two parallel marks as the wheel rim pushed through the flat tire casing. If the left main tire was indeed flat then the brakes would have been useless on that side as the wheel could stop and the tire casing could keep rolling.

Accidents are describes as a chain of events and this is no exception.

I have flown with Mac in the B-17, and with Collings, and Mac was a sharp guy and wanted nothing more than to take care of 909. I think he was fighting like crazy to get her back on the ground safely. I think very few folks could have gotten her back around being out of airspeed and altitude like he was.

Mitch told me that they not only did a run up but they also did a field baro check and that all four engines were running good. Mac would not have taken off if one of the engines was not running well.

I think that they did have trouble with both 3 and 4. Some of the self proclaimed experts on Facebook and YouTube are saying that 3 was the problem and that 4 was feathered by mistake. One went so far as to say "Number 3 completed its life cycle and ceased to run after the gear went down." If this is true then why are there big prop blade cuts in the top of the steel deicing tank just below where 3 came to rest? Why was there a prop blade tip found in the bottom of the same tank?

There certainly are a lot of unanswered questions about this. I hope the NTSB gets things right so we all can learn about what happened and fix the problems going forward.