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

[ZRX61]

Just for the record, we didn't do airshows, I think the last show was Thunder in 2010.

I imagine doing so would have added to the annual insurance bill.

[PinecastleAAF]

I felt from the start that the FE would be able to give significant details on what went down. I'm starting to wonder if he was even up front? Is there a detailed statement of any kind from him at this point? If not will there ever be one?

[WIXerGreg]

I would expect he wouldn't have left the cockpit area considering there were problems immediately. We'll probably have to wait for the final report to hear his input.

[Chuck Giese]

now if I wanted an B-17 airframe expert, I would vote for Chuck

Moi? --- No. Talk to the guys who supported the fire bombers.

[ZRX61]

I felt from the start that the FE would be able to give significant details on what went down. I'm starting to wonder if he was even up front? Is there a detailed statement of any kind from him at this point? If not will there ever be one?

CF's lawyers probably have a tight rein on him for now, but I would think he's been interviewed at some length by both the FAA & NTSB. & they may have requested he not speak out just yet as well. I know people who know him & they say he's a good guy in a bad situation. He can't even speak out about his actual role which so far seems to involve three different hats. I'd hate to be in his situation.

[shrike]

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 Do these self-developed manuals have to go thru any type of future FAA review to check for currency or out of date info? I would think someone or somebody has to do that every so often (tri-bi-annually?) and sign off the manual has been reviewed and updated.

Any changes or updates to the manual have to be approved before they can be included.
An FAA rep assigned to the operator should review compliance with the manual at the annual (more or less) surveillance, and may suggest changes or revisions that he would like to see, or issues addressed. That can range from the informal "There's nothing technically wrong, but I don't like this entry format" on up to suspension of operations pending complete re-write and re-submission. There would be a formal letter, and a required response for any discrepancy worthy of note.

Roster changes, as I mentioned, don't have to be approved, but have to be submitted. Forms and record keeping changes may or may not be required to be approved depending on what they are, and how much forethought was used in preparing the manual.

[CoastieJohn]

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? I would think someone or somebody has to do that every so often (tri-bi-annually?) and sign off the manual has been reviewed and updated.

Any changes or updates to the manual have to be approved before they can be included.
An FAA rep assigned to the operator should review compliance with the manual at the annual (more or less) surveillance, and may suggest changes or revisions that he would like to see, or issues addressed. That can range from the informal "There's nothing technically wrong, but I don't like this entry format" on up to suspension of operations pending complete re-write and re-submission. There would be a formal letter, and a required response for any discrepancy worthy of note.

Roster changes, as I mentioned, don't have to be approved, but have to be submitted. Forms and record keeping changes may or may not be required to be approved depending on what they are, and how much forethought was used in preparing the manual.

That sounds about what we (The CG) would do with our manuals and TO's. I'm going back into the mental archives....I think for USAF sponsored manuals, you had to submit an AFTO-22 Change Request. For Navy sponsored manuals....it was a NAVAIR Form something or other. In our case, changes would come in all the time and the QA Office would have to make sure the new changes were inserted into the master library and shop manuals. I think it was when 75% of a manual has been changed, a whole new revision of the manual is done and the cycle starts over again. Safety of Flight changes were done immediately. Those were often the result of a mishap.

[Matt Gunsch]

All warbirds above 12,500 lbs are on a maint program, I wrote one for the TBM and PBY, both were based on the military manuals with some changes to reflect current usage

[bmoran]

Not a surprise; Lawsuit filed:

Lawsuit: World War II-era plane crash at Bradley caused by ‘negligence, recklessness and callous indifference’

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article ... 327296.php

[wolf]

Just wait until the lawyers find out that 44-83575 was a nuclear target and was considered hot for almost a decade.
.
Lawsuit will go no-place as I understand when you fly on these flights, you are required to sign a waiver.

[JohnTerrell]

JLawsuit will go no-place as I understand when you fly on these flights, you are required to sign a waiver.

Negligence/not following maintenance and safety requirements on the part of the operator renders waivers void.

[Dan K]

Negligence/not following maintenance and safety requirements on the part of the operator renders waivers void.

I believe the link explains the boundaries of ordinary negligence vs gross negligence in Connecticut fairly well for the layman.

https://berkowitzlawfirm.com/what-is-wi ... egligence/

In Collings' favor, it would appear that punitive damages are rarely awarded in negligence cases in Connecticut, as well as limits placed on the amount awarded.

[whistlingdeath77]

Just wait until the lawyers find out that 44-83575 was a nuclear target and was considered hot for almost a decade.
.
Lawsuit will go no-place as I understand when you fly on these flights, you are required to sign a waiver.

being a nuclear target means nothing. Don't even see how that's relevant. You definitely need to do some research about waivers and lawsuits, those waivers don't help

[wolf]

Just wait until the lawyers find out that 44-83575 was a nuclear target and was considered hot for almost a decade.
.
Lawsuit will go no-place as I understand when you fly on these flights, you are required to sign a waiver.

being a nuclear target means nothing. Don't even see how that's relevant. You definitely need to do some research about waivers and lawsuits, those waivers don't help

Maybe you should read-up on ambulance chasers and how they will twist every little previous event to make it seem like a vehicle was unsafe at any speed - or do you trust lawyers ?

I know enough about waivers to know that singing one will usually not do much, but limit liability (ie you take you own life in your own hand if you bungy jump as long as the tour company Attempts to be safe within reasonable limits - flying in a 75-year old aircraft, built using 1930's technology certainly get's put in the high risk category)

Last edited by wolf on Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

[whistlingdeath77]

Just wait until the lawyers find out that 44-83575 was a nuclear target and was considered hot for almost a decade.
.
Lawsuit will go no-place as I understand when you fly on these flights, you are required to sign a waiver.

being a nuclear target means nothing. Don't even see how that's relevant. You definitely need to do some research about waivers and lawsuits, those waivers don't help

Maybe you should read-up on ambulance chasers and how they will twist every little previous event to make it seem like a vehicle was unsafe at any speed - or do you trust lawyers ?

But you just said the lawsuits would go nowhere per the waivers. And now you’re saying something different you’re contradicting yourself