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

[steve dickey]

FlightAware is as valid an accident investigation tool as Wikipedia is a valid research tool.

I'm gonna put money on it, that was true sarcasm!!

[OD/NG]

You can’t trust anybody. The NTSB Preliminary report says the airplane was manufactured in 1944 vs. actual date of April 1945.

I wouldn't go that far. The NTSB, as with any other governmental agency, makes mistakes, especially early on in preliminary and factual reports. The NTSB will be the first ones to say that there are often errors in those reports and that they will be corrected later on in the final reports. My guess is that they used the first two digits of the serial number of 909, "44-83575", to assume the year of manufacture. As you know, that system, which is currently used today, only identifies the fiscal year of the order in which it was placed and not the actual manufacturing year. That is a common mistake that I see a lot, even in our aviation circles. So, that aircraft was ordered in 1944, but not built and delivered until 1945.

I don't think there was any intent to deceive on the NTSB's part, they just put up wrong information based on their ignorance . This is common and you can go through the NTSB database and see numerous errors in some of their reports. In my experience of having read hundreds of them, the incorrect info usually involves some trivial, non-important technical aspect which has no bearing on the investigation, such as manufactured year, aircraft designation, manufacturer, etc.

You also have to remember, that the NTSB utilizes a team of people that investigate all transportation accidents, not necessarily those limited to aviation. It is entirely possible that non-aviation personnel are used to write some of these reports and may not be familiar with all the nuances of W.W. II aviation. Even the NTSB spokesperson, Jennifer Homendy, who gave the press briefing the day after the accident, has no background or experience in aviation. Her specialty is rail, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety.

So, I think we should cut them a little slack. I would be willing to bet that the final report will be pretty accurate, especially considering the publicity this accident garnered and large loss of life.

[exhaustgases]

And thanks Scott for the great post a few pages back. I could never understand people coming to the various website threads and asking them to be shutdown. Especially this particular thread, yes some of it may not be accurate but most of it is way more newsy than you would get on TV. Its sad that it happened and the people that were lost. But the whole reason for this site is the flying machines, and the people that crewed them. Some of us are very into the technical part, and find it difficult to hear that we should leave it to the experts, I would bet there are plenty of experts on this forum, that could do as good a job or better than a so called expert. Anyway why shut down a very informative thread where some of us can learn something.
I just wish it would have never happened, I'd still trust a B17 over any modern airliner.

[RyanShort1]

FlightAware is as valid an accident investigation tool as Wikipedia is a valid research tool.

OK Randy, I'll bite. I know Wikipedia is unreliable, at best. What's the issue with flightaware? It appears to be 15 second interval snapshot of the adsb data. Is my assumption wring!

ADS-B data isn't everything. For instance, GPS is going to basically equal ground speed, but ground speed does NOT equal airspeed. GPS altitude could be off, sometimes there are latency issues. Plenty of times I've seen ADS-B returns in the cockpit that didn't match up with what my lying eyes told me.

[Chuck Giese]

So it's the underlying adsb data itself, not flightaware that's in question. Yeah, I think I understand the problems associated with using GPS derived data, including using a 15 second sample/display rate on data generated twice a second. And then throw in a crap-ton of software to generate and analyze the data. It's a matter of understanding the limitations of the tool being used.Wikipedia is ok for general info on flying B-17s, but the more accurate info is up on Aerovintage.

Sarcasm, really? On WIX?

[r1830]

Maybe I am misinterpreting some of the comments about ADS-B technology, but in my previous experience it proved to be far more accurate than radar data. First I will provide reference to The FAAs guidance on ADS-B technology and AOPAs Nov 2019 issue. Then I will present my own observations from use of the system in the Capstone Program. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/Archival/
(It’s main purpose was testing ADS-B technology in a remote part of Alaska that was without radar coverage to increase safety and find a more reliable tracking method of aircraft in operating around terrain that obscured radar coverage. It had two phases, after which recommendations and improvements were made that are now being implemented nationwide.)

First, Directly from the FAA website on ADS-B technology. https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipadsb/c ... /ins_outs/

“ADS-B Out
ADS-B Out works by broadcasting information about an aircraft's GPS location, altitude, ground speed and other data to ground stations and other aircraft, once per second. Air traffic controllers and aircraft equipped with ADS-B In can immediately receive this information. This offers more precise tracking of aircraft compared to radar technology, which sweeps for position information every 5 to 12 seconds.
Radio waves are limited to line of site meaning radar signals cannot travel long distances or penetrate mountains and other solid objects. ADS-B ground stations are smaller and more adaptable than radar towers and can be placed in locations not possible with radar. With ground stations in place throughout the country, even in hard to reach areas, ADS-B provides better visibility regardless of the terrain or other obstacles.”

A news article from Aopas November 2019 issue.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... -b-and-atc

“Terminal controllers now receive aircraft position updates every one second, instead of the 4.6 seconds typical with terminal radar systems, he explained.”


I started flying in Alaska in 1999, the same year the Capstone program was started in the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta which was the test bed for gathering data on ADS-B technology. I flew aircraft equipped with both the avionics of the Capstone Phase 1 and Capstone Phase 2 program. Sometime near the beginning of the program, the airline I worked for started equipping our aircraft with the new technology. These aircraft were based and mostly operated out of Bethel, Alaska which was a non radar environment. However, we would fly them back to Anchorage every so often to rotate the aircraft for maintenance or charter work. We weren’t too far along in the program, when the FAA told us to deactivate the ADS-B on our aircraft when returning to the Anchorage radar environment. With the different sample rates of data updating on the controller’s screen between the ADS-B and the slower radar returns, our aircraft would show up on two different spots on the radar screen. One being the conventional radar return using our squawk code and the other being displayed using the one second refresh of ADS-B data that was assigned a separate airplane specific ID code. This would create a collision alert for the controller as our aircraft was displayed in to different places at the same time but in close proximity to each other. Their solution was to have us turn off our ADS-B broadcast since most other aircraft operating around Anchorage were not equipped with it. Then, all aircraft displayed were under the same set of conditions with conventional radar returns and the controllers were not being distracted by the false collision alerts that were generated.

Looking at the data flight-aware displayed for 93012’s flight shows approximately a 16 second refresh rate using 3 different receivers (KBDL, KBAF, & KHVN). Presumably, the actual FAA radar recording will show the ADS-B data with a much higher rate of refresh than flight-aware which will limit the interpolation of data for 16 second intervals and hopefully yield a more accurate representation of the aircraft flight path. I understand flight aware data is far from a perfect representation, but at the moment it provides the most accurate data available to the general public despite its shortcomings. When doing research, I like to use as many different references as possible and cross check the data. Flight aware is a source of information, albeit with some errors which I and other users of have pointed out. However, I would have to disagree with the observation that ADS-B data is not useful. Based on my previous experience with ADS-B generated data, I would say that it portrays fairly accurate information for the time stamp being displayed as it is data generated by the aircraft itself and not some radar that is miles away. Clearly a lot can happen in the 16 seconds prior to refresh on the flight-aware display, but the next snapshot is most likely a fairly accurate snapshot of the aircraft’s data set at that moment in time.

Apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted the comments about ADS-B technology.

(Unequivocally, the use of GPS and ADS-B offered the best location information compared to other cockpit tools including, TCAS, LORAN , VOR, NDB, etc. However its incredible accuracy while solving many situational awareness shortcomings has resulted in pilots becoming so confident in its data, they push on into weather they may not have otherwise tried to penetrate. While decreasing some accident types, it has increased others. That is another topic for another time and place...) edit

[CoastieJohn]

I fixed and flew on CG on multiengine aircraft for approx 23 years and was an aircrew program manager in HQ for 5 years after that. That is my frame of reference for most discussions. The pilots and aircrew have semi-annual day/night requirements to meet. Some of these requirements are EP's for single/multi-engine out inflight. Depending on the aircraft, the EP would require a single engine landing, sometimes we would do a single engine go around. In my early days we did full power-off autos in the H-65 helo until a few got bounced a little too hard and the repairs got spendy.

Shift to the warbird side of EP requirements. Generally speaking towards any warbird, do warbird pilot/aircrews have quarterly/semiannual/annual EP requirements for simulated single/multi-engine out? If so, are they only performed inflight or does the EP mins require a simulated (or actual) engine out landing? I was curious how the engine out EP mins works....if any... in the warbird world. Thanks ahead of time.....

[OD/NG]

I fixed and flew on CG on multiengine aircraft for approx 23 years and was an aircrew program manager in HQ for 5 years after that. That is my frame of reference for most discussions. The pilots and aircrew have semi-annual day/night requirements to meet. Some of these requirements are EP's for single/multi-engine out inflight. Depending on the aircraft, the EP would require a single engine landing, sometimes we would do a single engine go around. In my early days we did full power-off autos in the H-65 helo until a few got bounced a little too hard and the repairs got spendy.

Shift to the warbird side of EP requirements. Generally speaking towards any warbird, do warbird pilot/aircrews have quarterly/semiannual/annual EP requirements for simulated single/multi-engine out? If so, are they only performed inflight or does the EP mins require a simulated (or actual) engine out landing? I was curious how the engine out EP mins works....if any... in the warbird world. Thanks ahead of time.....

Certain warbirds have requirements, depending on how the aircraft is certificated and what program it is flying under. Specifically, in the case of the B-17, the pilots would have had to accomplish a comprehensive checkride once a year. After the accident, I had some conversations with a few of my friends who fly the B-17 in passenger carrying ops. They told me that they routinely practice 2 and 3 engine landings and go-arounds on these annual checkrides. They even practice 2 engines out on the same side. According to them it is something a fully qualified, passenger carrying B-17 pilot should be comfortable with.

[ErrolC]

I fixed and flew on CG on multiengine aircraft for approx 23 years and was an aircrew program manager in HQ for 5 years after that. That is my frame of reference for most discussions. The pilots and aircrew have semi-annual day/night requirements to meet. Some of these requirements are EP's for single/multi-engine out inflight. Depending on the aircraft, the EP would require a single engine landing, sometimes we would do a single engine go around. In my early days we did full power-off autos in the H-65 helo until a few got bounced a little too hard and the repairs got spendy.

Shift to the warbird side of EP requirements. Generally speaking towards any warbird, do warbird pilot/aircrews have quarterly/semiannual/annual EP requirements for simulated single/multi-engine out? If so, are they only performed inflight or does the EP mins require a simulated (or actual) engine out landing? I was curious how the engine out EP mins works....if any... in the warbird world. Thanks ahead of time.....

Certain warbirds have requirements, depending on how the aircraft is certificated and what program it is flying under. Specifically, in the case of the B-17, the pilots would have had to accomplish a comprehensive checkride once a year. After the accident, I had some conversations with a few of my friends who fly the B-17 in passenger carrying ops. They told me that they routinely practice 2 and 3 engine landings and go-arounds on these annual checkrides. They even practice 2 engines out on the same side. According to them it is something a fully qualified, passenger carrying B-17 pilot should be comfortable with.

The Fifi team member in the podcast I linked to above said that he thinks he's had more 3-engine take-offs than 4-engine, due to the number done during training.

[old iron]

FlightAware is as valid an accident investigation tool as Wikipedia is a valid research tool.

I know nothing about FlightAware, but Wikipedia is nothing more than an information tool, just as with the Encyclopedia Britannica was in an earlier time. Formal research is something done with primary sources; anyone who thinks otherwise is, well, not formally educated.

[Randy Haskin]

FlightAware is as valid an accident investigation tool as Wikipedia is a valid research tool.

I know nothing about FlightAware, but Wikipedia is nothing more than an information tool, just as with the Encyclopedia Britannica was in an earlier time. Formal research is something done with primary sources; anyone who thinks otherwise is, well, not formally educated.

Exactly my point.

[CoastieJohn]

I fixed and flew on CG on multiengine aircraft for approx 23 years and was an aircrew program manager in HQ for 5 years after that. That is my frame of reference for most discussions. The pilots and aircrew have semi-annual day/night requirements to meet. Some of these requirements are EP's for single/multi-engine out inflight. Depending on the aircraft, the EP would require a single engine landing, sometimes we would do a single engine go around. In my early days we did full power-off autos in the H-65 helo until a few got bounced a little too hard and the repairs got spendy.

Shift to the warbird side of EP requirements. Generally speaking towards any warbird, do warbird pilot/aircrews have quarterly/semiannual/annual EP requirements for simulated single/multi-engine out? If so, are they only performed inflight or does the EP mins require a simulated (or actual) engine out landing? I was curious how the engine out EP mins works....if any... in the warbird world. Thanks ahead of time.....

Certain warbirds have requirements, depending on how the aircraft is certificated and what program it is flying under. Specifically, in the case of the B-17, the pilots would have had to accomplish a comprehensive checkride once a year. After the accident, I had some conversations with a few of my friends who fly the B-17 in passenger carrying ops. They told me that they routinely practice 2 and 3 engine landings and go-arounds on these annual checkrides. They even practice 2 engines out on the same side. According to them it is something a fully qualified, passenger carrying B-17 pilot should be comfortable with.

Thanks. We had to do annual check rides too. However we also had to do the semi-annual (every 6 months) mins which included some EP's. We also did regular training above and beyond the mins requirement to stay proficient. By the time your annual check ride comes around or an actual emergency happens, you're fairly well prepared to respond.

[exhaustgases]

So will the FAA be the ones that dismantle the engines or do they farm that out?

[Dan K]

So will the FAA be the ones that dismantle the engines or do they farm that out?

Investigative engine teardowns done by either "manufacturer or overhaul facility".

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/pro ... fault.aspx

[phil65]

https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/h ... ane-crash/

Phil