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

[CAPFlyer]

While not wanting to be too macabre or being seen as being disrespectful to those who passed, I think that Collings will be back if they want and with insurance costs not much different than what they had. Why? Because as the NTSB and FAA have discovered, the problem was sadly down to 2 people, both of whom are no longer with us. One, the FAA POC who passed and wasn't replaced, and Mac, who was, as stated in the NTSB probable cause and very clear from the investigation, the one responsible for most of the actions during the fateful flight and the maintenance prior to it. As found by the investigation, Collings actually has a fairly rigorous SMS program and maintenance program. The problem was that the person in charge of implementing and supervising it on the road wasn't and there was no one at the FAA to call him on that lack of implementation and supervision because he'd been dead for 2 years.

I've kinda kept my mouth shut for the most part on this whole thing, but it seems like several forces are pushing the NTSB to actually do their job now and call out the FAA for their bull and force them to actually do their job. More and more, we're finding that most of the mechanical-related accidents that have been happening (whether through design or maintenance issues) happened because the FAA has been sleeping on the job the last 20 years. Lulled into a sense of "we're good" because of the seemingly low accident rates in the big boys. Only when that suddenly isn't the case anymore, they now have to look at the fact that while Air Transport has been getting safer because they have a profit motive to do so; every other form of air travel has been getting much more dangerous because the FAA isn't weeding out the bad apples anymore like they used to.

[JimH]

The loss of our FAA POC Larry Enlowe was tough enough, BUT, the LHFE Exemption still mandates sending the requires maintenance issues to the FAA. There is a list of required events that must be reported. It doesn't matter if the emails were returned or not, the bottom line is, you do your end of the job no matter what. In my time with Collings we never had a maintenance issue that would be considered "not routine". The information we were required to report, I wanted to think or hope, was being kept in a database for future reference. Obviously we knew our weaknesses and we kept enough spare parts on hand to rectify said issues.

In 2015 we had an LHFE exemption meeting in Dallas. All the LHFE operators were represented as well as several new candidates. The previous guy in charge had changed positions and gave up the handling of the Exemption program. I mean this wholeheartedly when I say the entire program nearly ended with his retirement. Nobody in the FAA wanted the job or responsibility. Tom Leighy (I always spell his name wrong and I've known him since I was kid) stepped up to the job and convened us in Dallas to map out a plan moving forward. Tom was very clear that the FAA was not going to support us legally in the event of an accident or incident. Tom was our biggest advocate and a "one man band" within the FAA regarding the LHFE program. Although he's an "old airplane guy", he didn't have the experience with the program and trusted us to help him map out a future.

The Lonestar P-51 accident was the catalyst for this meeting and the future of the LHFE program. In order for Lonestar to get there program back up and running they were tasked with writing an operational outline revolving around part 135, a cherry picked version tailored to WWII aircraft. An SMS, Chain of Command, Maintenance...they wrote it all and successfully got back in the program. The outcome of the meeting tasked the rest of us with coming up with a similar outline. I actually started writing ours, but it was finished after I left and I have no idea if they used any of my work, but it was based on the Lonestar outline.

Historically, the LHFE maintenance outline revolved around WWII manuals, as it should. The meat of the new program revolved around the chain of command that entirely revolved around safety and communication within each organization. There is obviously a lot more to it but that is the Cliff Notes version. Ultimately, the buck stopped with the reporting system to the FAA. This was not excused because there was nobody answering, whatever the circumstance.

Moving forward, who knows? The FAA will no doubt be observing every operator with a microscope. Pilot currency and competency, age, maintenance, customer briefings. There is also a question whether or not Fighters will be allowed to operate without an exemption. Insurance and higher fuel prices will be a factor, BUT, realistically that's considered a cost of doing business. You have to spend money to make money. And, lets be honest, nobody does this without the intention of profit. Not profit in the traditional sense, but acquisition of projects or more assets, infrastructure, personnel...the list of organizational needs goes on. The NTSB report is not going to be pretty, we all know that. The court of public opinion will be brutal, just read Facebook postings on 909. Only time will tell.

Jim

[OD/NG]

Just a couple simple questions we can touch on. WHEN or IF do you guys feel the collings foundation will be able to start touring again? 2022? 2025? Never?

It will be a while, imo. There are two primary legal challenges that Collings have to contend with. First, is the civil suit from the survivors and deceased of the accident. That trial is not supposed to start until Feb of 2023. Of course it could be settled out of court, so the lawsuit could be resolved in fairly short order should both sides agree to a settlement. The second is the lawsuit generated by the FAA against Collings for alleged violations. The latest public documents indicate that the proposed hearing dates on that one won't start until April or May of 2022. My assumption is that the FAA won't approve a new exemption until the FAA lawsuit gets adjudicated first and also until the FAA approves the Collings Foundation's new rides program submission.

Based on the above, since the FAA is the only body that can approve a new exemption letter which would allow Collings to sell rides and consequently tour, one could reasonably infer that sometime after the FAA lawsuit gets settled would be the earliest before they could legally tour again. Therefore, I would speculate Summer of 2022 would be the earliest before any rides could be sold. It's also entirely possible it could take much longer - it's impossible to tell right now.

My second question would be, although the collings foundation was responsible etc, what could stop them from leasing their aircraft out to different organizations. OR, is there a way they start a brand new foundation with new department heads,( but collings is in the back.)?

Yes, they absolutely can lease their aircraft out, in fact, we've already seen a hint of that from them. Though it hasn't been confirmed by Collings, public information suggests that is exactly what is happening with Collings' intention to export their P-40 to England to support a foreign rides program. Leasing a warbird out to another operator has already happened with other organizations and the FAA doesn't care. Though there may be more, I know of at least 2 B-17's which were leased to other organizations to sell rides in the U.S. This leasing arrangement is not a big deal, as far as the FAA is concerned.

Just saying collings may lose their ride ticket, but if a brand new foundation popped up to run them and abide by the FAA whats to stop that?

Just a small correction here - the Collings Foundation has already lost their ride ticket. Their exemption letter was rescinded over a year ago. Yes, a brand new foundation can pop up, but it would be a "lease" arrangement, similar to what I talked about in the 2nd quote up above. If you are implying that somehow Collings can establish a "satellite" organization, but yet under the umbrella of Collings, but with a new name, to establish a new "identity" to gain approval - no that won't work, as the new organization would be given the same consideration as the parent Collings foundation. Yes, they could do that legally and create a new organization, but what would it accomplish? As far as the FAA is concerned, they would view that new organization in the same vein as Collings, imo. The FAA is not stupid and anything that touches Collings directly will be known by them and taken into consideration for any requests for a new exemption.

The following is just my opinion, and I could absolutely be wrong. Do I think Collings can tour again - absolutely yes! But, the path to make that happen will not be easy nor quick. I believe that the only way Collings could get their exemption letter back is to have an all new program that instills confidence in the FAA regarding their safety and compliance. This is most likely to only happen if Collings completely "reinvents" themselves with all new leadership, all new flight ops, all new procedures, all new manuals, all new Maintenance program, all new Safety program, etc. There is precedence for this and it has already happened with two ride operators who were able to regain rescinded exemptions due to safety issues. One organization had a fatality and the other one didn't. The fact that the B-17 accident had 7 fatalities, though, will probably make this a very tough, stringent road for Collings with very challenging hurdles to overcome before they gain favor from the FAA. Rob Collings is a very smart businessman and is no dummy when it comes to developing a successful business model to overcome challenges. There is a reason that Collings has been so successful in the many decades leading up to the accident, and it's no doubt due to Rob Collings' leadership and business acumen. We've already seen evidence of him changing his business model, post-Crash, and I believe we will continue to see it evolve as more things get settled. I honestly hope and believe that Collings will come back from this. I do believe they will tour again at some point, but I just don't know exactly when. There are too many variables that have to be settled before we see any definitive timelines emerge from all of this.

By the way, all of the information on the above was gleaned from public documents available on the internet to anyone. I have been following this closely since the accident and paying particular attention to court records, FAA documents, and lawsuit filings. Combining this, plus my warbird knowledge of the industry and talking to many folks much more informed than me, has led to my above perspective/opinion. I sincerely wish Collings the best in all of this and hope they are able to learn from this tragedy, put it behind them, and return to their important mission of touring and educating the public. For the warbird industry's benefit as a whole, and indeed all of our benefit's, let's hope that Collings is able to overcome all of these challenges.

[ErrolC]

They can't be 135 because the aircraft are not Standard Category aircraft, they are Limited, or Restricted, which the FAA will not allow them to be operated on a 135 certificate.

And this is why the recommendation is something that looks very much like Part 135, but isn't. So that the public is as aware as possible that there are additional risks involved (which should have been appropriately managed). One of the warbird operators in NZ said that how they operated didn't change significantly on introduction of part 115, the labels on the paperwork did. Moving from operating under exceptions to complying with regs seems sensible?

[blue3992]

And I'll second the notion that the FAA bears responsibility. Safety belongs to everybody, but the FAA are the arbiters and to have let a position lapse with such a broad, publicly visible, and put-together program like LHFE "because somebody died" is just a garbage excuse. I worked for the government for long enough to know that there aren't a lot of people willing to stand up and stick their necks out for anything, but if operators don't demand FAIR oversight, they aren't going to get FAIR oversight.

For those who would say, "don't poke the monkeys in the cage with the stick," I say there is no reason to fear calling the US Government to account. If you are afraid that they will say, "We can't do it because..." and put and end to LHFE, I say that's crap logic. You know this little thing with the 737 Max? Well, it was their fault too, because of a lack of oversight. What I am saying is, make the US G do its job. If it can't then it's time for letters to congressmen, starting with "In a multi-million dollar revenue operation, we are unable to receive the support we require...."

To be fair, Boeing is a ~$150 Billion dollar company. The FAA was going to do whatever it took to make sure the MAX got back into the air.

I don't know what the economic impact is of LHFE operators in the US, but I have to assume it's in the tens of millions of dollars, maybe even less? Not nearly the clout of Boeing, and small enough that the FAA might one day decide the whole LHFE program is more trouble than it's worth. Not saying they will, but I could totally understand operators "not poking the monkeys" when it comes to the FAA.

All that said, it's obviously very sad that the previous FAA inspector lost his life, and the fact that his position was left unfilled seems mind-boggling, even for those of us who've spent time working for Uncle Sam. However, I feel like I'm missing something. Wouldn't being the FAA guy or gal responsible for LHFE programs be a plum job? Make a steady govt paycheck, and have marching orders to be a lynch-pin in the warbird world? It seems like the kind of thing they'd have multiple people at the FAA wanting to get involved.

[p51]

I don't know what the economic impact is of LHFE operators in the US, but I have to assume it's in the tens of millions of dollars, maybe even less?

Far less, I'd think but I have no clue.
I worked for Uncle Sam long enough to know it's always easier to say, "you're done" than look for exemptions (unless they're high-profile enough) and that those exemptions usually vanish the moment the last person who oversaw that walks out the door (or goes West) for good.

All that said, it's obviously very sad that the previous FAA inspector lost his life, and the fact that his position was left unfilled seems mind-boggling, even for those of us who've spent time working for Uncle Sam. However, I feel like I'm missing something. Wouldn't being the FAA guy or gal responsible for LHFE programs be a plum job?

I would think that such a job would secondary to whatever 'real' FAA job said person had.
But really, would it be a plum job, dealing with some operations we all know to be on the iffy side of safety? I've seen a lot of wacky stuff done with warbirds over the years, as have most of the rest of you. Would you wanna be the government functionary that gives some of them approval (and therefore it's your neck if something goes wrong)?

[menards]

I don't know what the economic impact is of LHFE operators in the US, but I have to assume it's in the tens of millions of dollars, maybe even less? Not nearly the clout of Boeing.

Lets do some quick math. $450 x 10 seats = $4500 per flight. Conservatively 5 flights per day on a tour stop. ($22,500) 5 b-17s selling rides ($112,500) estimate 100 flight days per year ($11,250,000). Add up all the ride planes, B-17s, B-25s, B-29s, Fighters transports jets etc etc.... ALOT of $ flows through the LHFE program.

[JimH]

Any charitable organization has public records. It goes beyond just the organization. The infrastructure and overhaul companies are affected as well. The engine builders, electric components, hydraulic components, oil coolers, you name it, it truly rolls down hill. As I said, nobody does this without the intention of profit, it's a great cause, AND the reason we have been able to enjoy bombers for so long. Very few can operate a 4 engine warbird on their own dime, in recent years, it's tough to manage a twin turning gas hog.

Jim

[menards]

Any charitable organization has public records. It goes beyond just the organization. The infrastructure and overhaul companies are affected as well. The engine builders, electric components, hydraulic components, oil coolers, you name it, it truly rolls down hill. As I said, nobody does this without the intention of profit, it's a great cause, AND the reason we have been able to enjoy bombers for so long. Very few can operate a 4 engine warbird on their own dime, in recent years, it's tough to manage a twin turning gas hog.

Jim

And as the country world continues to accelerate towards all electric....everything gas burning will become obsolete. Warbirds have +\- ten more years max of operation using 100LL fuel. Maybe less.

[DoraNineFan]

Any charitable organization has public records. It goes beyond just the organization. The infrastructure and overhaul companies are affected as well. The engine builders, electric components, hydraulic components, oil coolers, you name it, it truly rolls down hill. As I said, nobody does this without the intention of profit, it's a great cause, AND the reason we have been able to enjoy bombers for so long. Very few can operate a 4 engine warbird on their own dime, in recent years, it's tough to manage a twin turning gas hog.

Jim

And as the country world continues to accelerate towards all electric....everything gas burning will become obsolete. Warbirds have +\- ten more years max of operation using 100LL fuel. Maybe less.

There has been an initiative to find a replacement for 100LL and perhaps an interim standard (100VLL) allowing manufacturers time to configure their new aircraft. I think what may happen is warbird operators will have to adapt engines to run on the new fuels or lobby for a vintage aircraft waiver and use a custom fuel blend. The big aircraft may not have the power using new fuels to remain airworthy.

[Kyleb]

There has been an initiative to find a replacement for 100LL and perhaps an interim standard (100VLL) allowing manufacturers time to configure their new aircraft. I think what may happen is warbird operators will have to adapt engines to run on the new fuels or lobby for a vintage aircraft waiver and use a custom fuel blend. The big aircraft may not have the power using new fuels to remain airworthy.

Those aircraft were flown with 80 and 90 octane fuel back in the pre-war days. With reduced MP, most (all?) will fly at reduced power levels. Nobody is launching for Berlin with 10 hours of fuel, full ammo, and full armor these days, so in most cases, there will be plenty of performance margin.

[oscardeuce]

In my opinion, as a person who helped write a medical and flight SOP for a historical flight experience, the FAA has always made it almost impossible to comply with any changes . For example: an AD came out on the Hueys in the late 90s. The FAA pulled our our exemption. We contacted them and asked for exactly what they wanted done, how they wanted it done, any to add in writing once we complied with their plan they would have immediately reinstated our flight exemption.
They said “No”to the immediate written reinstatement. The fixes were in excess of $60,000 per aircraft, and with no guarantee we could give flights again, we we did not have the financial means to fix the ADs without knowing we would have income to off set the investment.

That is how they will kill the historical experience program, just refuse to support and then regulate them out of existence.

[lucky52]

It is my sincere belief the the feds would like to see Pt. 91 and Pt.135 go away and just deal with the 121 operators and come out and make their minimum jumpseat rides and collect their paychecks.

Last edited by lucky52 on Mon Apr 05, 2021 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[shrike]

It is my sincere belief the the feds would like to see Pt. 91 and Pt.135 go away and just deal with the 121 operators and come out and make their minimum jumpsuit rides and collect their paychecks.

Had a FAA guy say exactly that, once. Closest I've come to kicking a Fed out of the shop.

[ZRX61]

In my opinion, as a person who helped write a medical and flight SOP for a historical flight experience, the FAA has always made it almost impossible to comply with any changes . For example: an AD came out on the Hueys in the late 90s. The FAA pulled our our exemption. We contacted them and asked for exactly what they wanted done, how they wanted it done, any to add in writing once we complied with their plan they would have immediately reinstated our flight exemption.
They said “No”to the immediate written reinstatement. The fixes were in excess of $60,000 per aircraft, and with no guarantee we could give flights again, we we did not have the financial means to fix the ADs without knowing we would have income to off set the investment.

That is how they will kill the historical experience program, just refuse to support and then regulate them out of existence.

Yet there are some Huey outfits operating under LHFE regs. Was this the fin AD?