B-17 Down at Bradley Int'l Airport

This affair sounds like a poster child for the old failing culture of safety trap. Little corners get cut, nothing bad immediately happens, more corners get cut, until the the little cut corners build up and the inevitable "surprisingly" happens. It's an old movie, with many remakes. Sometimes the little stuff does rise up and bite you.
 
Very sad! I always wanted to fly in one of these B-17's when one used to visit Heritage Flight Museum here in Bellingham, Wa. Can't recall the name of the plane, but I believe it came on tour from Texas. My thoughts are with the crew and passengers. RIP.
 
Hunt-man said:
Are part available for the old warbirds?
Were they cutting corners due to parts or just cutting corners?
Click to expand...

Sort of. Many parts are drying up and/or old parts have to be reconditioned instead of using NOS. I’m not sure of particulars regarding these mags.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe the Texas one was CAF.
Click to expand...

Highly likely. CAF has always been based in Texas, and a lot of the CAF Wings as well as CAF HQ are there. It also seems to me that the Texas wings operate more of the big birds than the non-Texas wings.
 
The CAF B-17 that usually tours and gives rides is Sentimental Journey, which is based in Arizona.

The other B-17s that tour have been with the Liberty Foundation...formerly Liberty Belle (before it caught fire), then they leased and toured "The Movie Memphis Belle", then this year they were touring with Ye Olde Pub.
 
It's a pretty interesting and detailed read. PIC had 7000 hrs in (presumably this exact tail) type. Though they do raise the inferred question of how his TT went from 5800 to 11000 in one year on a medical app. That would be impressive flight time.

Also, how about that chief pilot? 23 years old with B-17, B-24, B-25 types and 5500 hours. I know nothing about him, but on paper, well done. Not to make light of the tragedy of course.
 
Last edited:
I posted this in the thread back in 2019, and it's going up again, because it means so much to me and it should be important to you too. Our lives in America have been steered by huge external events, and none were of more consequence than WWII. The Nine-O-Nine connected me to the war in a special way, and this is the story about it.

I want to add something about how important the Collings Foundation is to keeping the memories of the past alive.

This happened during another visit of their bombers to KDAL. I was there to fly on their B-25, Tondelayo, and while waiting, I was standing in front of Nine-O-Nine. A tall elderly man walked up, looked closely at the B-17, turned, and said to me "The last time I was in a B-17, I left it in a parachute".

His name was Austin D. Rinne. He was assigned to the 546th Sqdn, 384th Bomb Group, Grafton Underwood, England, and the pilot of B-17G #42-31058 'Liberty Run'.

He and his squadron were attacking V-1 launching sites under construction near the French coast on February 25, 1944, when his plane was hit by flak. The crew bailed out, and the man I was speaking to spent the rest of the war as a POW at Stalag Luft I. Other Americans at the camp included USAAF POW commander Hubert Zemke, Bob Hoover, and Frances "Gabby" Gabreski.

The camp was liberated by the Russians on May 1, 1945.

I was practically speechless while listening to this old warrior tell his tale. It's one of my favorite memories.

His obituary further describes the man:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/obi...ne-world-war-ii-pilot-survived-german-prison/

His ashes are interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

After he died, I contacted his son and emailed him photographs of his father I took that day, standing tall and erect in front of Nine-O-Nine.
 
Dodgy as hell. Hired as a Chief Pilot in 2016 at age 18. 5500 hours but 'only' 2000 in warbirds. Doesn't add up

Both certs rescinded I'm glad to see
 
ahw01 said:
Dodgy as hell. Hired as a Chief Pilot in 2016 at age 18. 5500 hours but 'only' 2000 in warbirds. Doesn't add up

Both certs rescinded I'm glad to see
Click to expand...
Where are you seeing that? Is it in the docket? I didn't catch that in the Final Report.
 
After all the issues that have been raised in this thread, I'm really glad I didn't opt for a ride in their aircraft when they were here. (I just took the ground tours.)
 
Palmpilot said:
After all the issues that have been raised in this thread, I'm really glad I didn't opt for a ride in their aircraft when they were here. (I just took the ground tours.)
Click to expand...

You missed a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'll always cherish being able to say I flew in a B-17. That being said, I can't defend the actions of the foundation. Their method of seconding out the maintenance was a tragic failure, and I think having four engines on the aircraft introduced fatal complacency into their calculations that day.
 
3393RP said:
You missed a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'll always cherish being able to say I flew in a B-17. That being said, I can't defend the actions of the foundation. Their method of seconding out the maintenance was a tragic failure, and I think having four engines on the aircraft introduced fatal complacency into their calculations that day.
Click to expand...
There are better (safer) B-17 operators if one wants the experience.
 
ahw01 said:
Yeh all in the docket.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing that information in the NTSB docket. However, the FAA Airmen Inquiry page shows his ATP and CFI ratings "may not be valid," and to contact AFS-620 for verification.
 
nauga said:
You can read his summary of his experience in the interview transcripts.

Nauga,
who reads the docket materials
Click to expand...

To clarify, I'm looking for where awh01 saw it definitively stated in the docket - or elsewhere, for that matter - that his certs were rescinded.

Rob
Who admittedly should have quoted the entire conversation to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful pedantry
 
Last edited:
flightwriter said:
To clarify, I'm looking for where awh01 saw it definitively stated in the docket - or elsewhere, for that matter - that his certs were rescinded.

Rob
Who admittedly should have quoted the entire conversation to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful pedantry
Click to expand...

Sorry, the part about his supposed hours is in the docket. fAA cert action isn't.
 
Fearless Tower said:
There are better (safer) B-17 operators if one wants the experience.
Click to expand...

Many people, including me and those lost in the crash, assumed the Collings aircraft to be as safe as those in any other living history flight program until that dark day. The ability for the public to establish the safety pecking order for B-17s didn't exist then, and it may not now.
 
3393RP said:
Many people, including me and those lost in the crash, assumed the Collings aircraft to be as safe as those in any other living history flight program until that dark day. The ability for the public to establish the safety pecking order for B-17s didn't exist then, and it may not now.
Click to expand...
Nope, it doesn't. I have zero interest in participating in any of these Warbird rides for just that reason. Being able to say I rode in the back of one once is just not worth the risk of finding out too late that I trusted someone I really shouldn't have trusted.

I have zero interest in hot air balloon rides for the same reason. No meaningful way to tell the difference between a top shelf operator who goes above and beyond at every step and one who decided duct tape was a good enough repair on that leaky fuel line leading to the gas bomb on top of the basket.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
Nope, it doesn't. I have zero interest in participating in any of these Warbird rides for just that reason. Being able to say I rode in the back of one once is just not worth the risk of finding out too late that I trusted someone I really shouldn't have trusted.
Click to expand...

On that note, I will speak up for Mid America Flight Museum. I was supposed to be in the back of their B-25 this weekend and take photos of their new acquired B-17 on it's trip from Houston to Mount Pleasant. The left engine on the B-25 was running rough and backfiring. We taxied back and put the plane in the hangar. Was I sad? Yep. Was I disappointed with the decision... not a chance. These guys set the standard that every warbird operator/museum should follow.
 
I guess I should clarify that while warbird rides are the topic of discussion, my feeling on the matter is not limited to warbirds. I won't get in the back seat of any airplane that isn't operated under 121 or 135. Last time I did that was as an observer on a CAP training flight and it became a never again moment for me. From here on out, if its a part 91, I get a set of controls or I ain't going.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I guess I should clarify that while warbird rides are the topic of discussion, my feeling on the matter is not limited to warbirds. I won't get in the back seat of any airplane that isn't operated under 121 or 135. Last time I did that was as an observer on a CAP training flight and it became a never again moment for me. From here on out, if its a part 91, I get a set of controls or I ain't going.
Click to expand...
You have a much higher opinion of 3-digit numbers than I do.
 
ahw01 said:
Sorry, the part about his supposed hours is in the docket. fAA cert action isn't.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks. I've been re-reading the docket since last week and wondered how I hadn't come across that information.

3393RP said:
Many people, including me and those lost in the crash, assumed the Collings aircraft to be as safe as those in any other living history flight program until that dark day. The ability for the public to establish the safety pecking order for B-17s didn't exist then, and it may not now.
Click to expand...

I was fortunate to fly onboard Collings planes four times between 2010-2014, including twice on 909. I feel that I knew the risks and accepted them, but I was also encouraged to witness what I considered to be a high level of concern for mechanical care and passenger safety. All my flights had briefings, and I watched the crews perform both normal and unscheduled maintenance as people toured the planes on the ground. I also saw ride flights postponed or cancelled due to repair needs a few times, and most everyone accepted this as par for the course when speaking of 70+ year-old aircraft that were never designed for extended use.

I love the Collings Foundation, the people who work there and those who volunteer with them... but the organization I knew over that period bears little resemblance to the one described by the NTSB, with its maddening series of operational lapses that were apparently allowed to the point they became SOP. I'm probably going to be ****ed off and disappointed in Collings, and a few individuals both still around and not, for some time to come. I also hope the Foundation is able to get back in the air as a wiser and more circumspect organization.
 
flightwriter said:
I was fortunate to fly onboard Collings planes four times between 2010-2014, including twice on 909. I feel that I knew the risks and accepted them, but I was also encouraged to witness what I considered to be a high level of concern for mechanical care and passenger safety. All my flights had briefings, and I watched the crews perform both normal and unscheduled maintenance as people toured the planes on the ground. I also saw ride flights postponed or cancelled due to repair needs a few times, and most everyone accepted this as par for the course when speaking of 70+ year-old aircraft that were never designed for extended use.

I love the Collings Foundation, the people who work there and those who volunteer with them... but the organization I knew over that period bears little resemblance to the one described by the NTSB, with its maddening series of operational lapses that were apparently allowed to the point they became SOP. I'm probably going to be ****ed off and disappointed in Collings, and a few individuals both still around and not, for some time to come. I also hope the Foundation is able to get back in the air as a wiser and more circumspect organization.
Click to expand...

I've flown in all of the bombers, and it was a great experience each time.

Regarding my opinion about the Collings Foundation, I feel the same way you do. I never dreamed they would operate under such lax maintenance and administrative issues.
 
Lowflynjack said:
On that note, I will speak up for Mid America Flight Museum. I was supposed to be in the back of their B-25 this weekend and take photos of their new acquired B-17 on it's trip from Houston to Mount Pleasant. The left engine on the B-25 was running rough and backfiring. We taxied back and put the plane in the hangar. Was I sad? Yep. Was I disappointed with the decision... not a chance. These guys set the standard that every warbird operator/museum should follow.
Click to expand...

Juliet Hotel said:
I guess I should clarify that while warbird rides are the topic of discussion, my feeling on the matter is not limited to warbirds. I won't get in the back seat of any airplane that isn't operated under 121 or 135. Last time I did that was as an observer on a CAP training flight and it became a never again moment for me. From here on out, if its a part 91, I get a set of controls or I ain't going.
Click to expand...

MauleSkinner said:
You have a much higher opinion of 3-digit numbers than I do.
Click to expand...

As a pilot for a 3-digit number, my opinion of the system in which we operate went up considerably - But I also did a safety study that had me looking at many accident reports, including all of the 3-digit ones, and it made me realize that the system depends on either the operator's culture being one of safety and compliance, or the FAA being diligent in their oversight... And the FAA is so drastically underfunded that they're unable to catch the safety issues at all the operators that aren't serious enough about safety and compliance. So, sadly, we end up with this situation where the FAA is reactive, because they're too overworked to be proactive. 3 digits is incredibly safe, if the operator is serious about it.

The accident reports I read made me say "Seriously? We have to be grouped in with these people?" Nearly every accident report I read had egregious violations of procedures and regulations that were not caught because the operator did not take them seriously and the FAA did not catch them in time.

Normalization of deviance is something that's a lot harder to truly understand than we think. Unfortunately, it seems like it generally leads to an accident unless it's interrupted somewhere in the process.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
As a pilot for a 3-digit number, my opinion of the system in which we operate went up considerably - But I also did a safety study that had me looking at many accident reports, including all of the 3-digit ones, and it made me realize that the system depends on either the operator's culture being one of safety and compliance, or the FAA being diligent in their oversight... And the FAA is so drastically underfunded that they're unable to catch the safety issues at all the operators that aren't serious enough about safety and compliance. So, sadly, we end up with this situation where the FAA is reactive, because they're too overworked to be proactive. 3 digits is incredibly safe, if the operator is serious about it.

The accident reports I read made me say "Seriously? We have to be grouped in with these people?" Nearly every accident report I read had egregious violations of procedures and regulations that were not caught because the operator did not take them seriously and the FAA did not catch them in time.

Normalization of deviance is something that's a lot harder to truly understand than we think. Unfortunately, it seems like it generally leads to an accident unless it's interrupted somewhere in the process.
Click to expand...
I’m not so scientific. I look through the window into the cockpit and see if I know the pilots. There are certain ones that I’ve worked with, and I wouldn’t get into an airplane behind them.
 
Palmpilot said:
After all the issues that have been raised in this thread, I'm really glad I didn't opt for a ride in their aircraft when they were here. (I just took the ground tours.)
Click to expand...
I’m in that boat as well. I have been in that plane. They come to my home field every year. Was planning on taking my kids up soon. Did just take them on a Huey flight (super cool). But I’m not sure I could think of it again.
Fearless Tower said:
There are better (safer) B-17 operators if one wants the experience.
Click to expand...
The thing about that is how is one to know which is the bad one until there’s a smoke hole of questions?? Even as a pilot there was nothing untoward obvious that was wrong with their operation to put naked eyes. Only the few ppl that are in that inner circle can really see the corners being cut.
 
benyflyguy said:
The thing about that is how is one to know which is the bad one until there’s a smoke hole of questions?? Even as a pilot there was nothing untoward obvious that was wrong with their operation to put naked eyes. Only the few ppl that are in that inner circle can really see the corners being cut.
Click to expand...
That’s the problem. One bad operator ruins it for everyone
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I have zero interest in hot air balloon rides for the same reason. No meaningful way to tell the difference between a top shelf operator who goes above and beyond at every step and one who decided duct tape was a good enough repair on that leaky fuel line leading to the gas bomb on top of the basket.
Click to expand...

For hot air ballooning you could go out and do a flight lesson and have a better sense. I enjoyed the ride it did many years ago and will probably pursue a certificate some day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top