• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Oops, darn it...

Correct and Collings 909 had squadron markings of A over R Aluminum Overcast is W over H
 
Collings foundation has done an amazing job keeping a part of aviation history alive, providing an opportunity for folks to experience first hand a taste of what brave pilots of past wars endured. I was fortunate to do a cross country “ferry flight”
on the B 24 “Witchcraft” in the squadron. The most memorable and emotional flight of my life.
These planes were purpose built war machines, creature comforts were a distant afterthought. My thought and prayers to those that went down with “909”.
I hope this event doesn’t break the spirit of the Collings people, a great organization that must continue on..


“909”at John Wayne.
A0E11CE0-D5B9-4AA4-B70F-CA3485705B85.jpeg

My Station as “navigator” on Witchcraft
19C32087-B823-4701-A30F-AB97E753D845.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 8F988D22-0A92-4D89-B71C-B59D8CD6D821.jpg
    8F988D22-0A92-4D89-B71C-B59D8CD6D821.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 183
  • A0E11CE0-D5B9-4AA4-B70F-CA3485705B85.jpeg
    A0E11CE0-D5B9-4AA4-B70F-CA3485705B85.jpeg
    267.9 KB · Views: 270
  • 19C32087-B823-4701-A30F-AB97E753D845.jpeg
    19C32087-B823-4701-A30F-AB97E753D845.jpeg
    310.9 KB · Views: 245
Last edited:
Can't believe the tower talked over any possible transmissions from the time they joined down wind to crashed, but the Captain never did declare it as an emergency.

...hearing it was fueled with JET A and Not AV gas..
 
RIP ol gal..

41A4EF52-6EC0-4A20-9948-FC2AF93BEB23.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • E0CCEFAB-C730-4A9A-B355-48E47969B89D.jpg
    E0CCEFAB-C730-4A9A-B355-48E47969B89D.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 155
  • 41A4EF52-6EC0-4A20-9948-FC2AF93BEB23.jpeg
    41A4EF52-6EC0-4A20-9948-FC2AF93BEB23.jpeg
    251.7 KB · Views: 220
Last edited:
Can't believe the tower talked over any possible transmissions from the time they joined down wind to crashed, but the Captain never did declare it as an emergency.

...hearing it was fueled with JET A and Not AV gas..

Mis-fueling was my immediate thought, but I was keeping quiet (rare) until we knew more. What a tragedy.
 
...hearing it was fueled with JET A and Not AV gas..
YIKES! Please don't tell me that is what happened. It was my understanding that they lost power in #4 engine at some point during take off. IF it was a misfueling, wouldn't it stand to reason that all four engines would have experienced trouble?
 
PIC of accident AC was extremely talented and very meticulous, very involved with all aspects of preflight and maintenance. Also chief pilot of the program (During my visit). I would very surprised if if Jet A was the cause.
of course, anything is possible. Time will tell.
Sad to hear PIC and copilot didn’t make it.
 
Last edited:
Not familiar with the fuel system on a 17 but I doubt if all 4 engines draw from the same tank at the same time. I could see one engine failing from heavily contaminated fuel that wouldn't burn and another failing from detonation from partially contaminated fuel. So sad.
 
Not familiar with the fuel system on a 17 but I doubt if all 4 engines draw from the same tank at the same time. I could see one engine failing from heavily contaminated fuel that wouldn't burn and another failing from detonation from partially contaminated fuel. So sad.
I was not suggesting that they all draw from one tank. If the airplane had been refueled, it makes sense that the tanks which did supply the engines would have all been refueled with the same amount of fuel at the same time. So it would have been more than likely that it would have been from the same fuel truck.
 
I'm pretty sure that a B-17 with that light loading should have been quite able to fly away on three engines. Judging from the fact that they were unable to gain altitude, I'd assume this was not just a single engine failure.....

MTV
 
I flew in this plane 2 weeks ago. Prior to the flight a fuel truck was called, a Jet A truck arrived. The crew caught the mix up prior to the Jet A truck ever getting to the front of the plane. I suspect that this kind of mix up between Jet A and 100LL is a common for the B-17 crew; big plane = Jet A.
The pilot stood on the wing to load the fuel while the airport crew stood by the truck.
The flight crew told me they fly light on fuel. I think they took on 300 gallons of 100 LL for our flight. 45,000 lbs ramp weight with 10 of us aboard.

IMG_7397.jpgIMG_7389.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7397.jpg
    IMG_7397.jpg
    247.9 KB · Views: 218
  • IMG_7389.jpg
    IMG_7389.jpg
    81.7 KB · Views: 212
Last edited:
From the research I was able to do I have a few beliefs until proven incorrect.

- takeoff and climbout per the audio appeared normal, although there is some question about airport personnel reporting them “not climbing very well”.
- tower switched them to departure, and then 30 seconds later they requested coming back for downwind to 6.
- eyewitness reports on the ground outside of the airfield report an issue with #3, inboard engine copilot side, first belching smoke and sputtering, and later with prop not spinning. Assuming correct, crew feathered or engine stopped it.
- there is some recorded audio mentioning #4. My belief is the mike was keyed early, and pilot was telling the other that “we still have 4”, meaning it was producing power.
- There is some speculation on if the word fire was used prior to something about “come back to blow it out”, but at no point did they declare an emergency nor did they state they needed and immediate return to the field.
- the controller asked if they needed to expedite the return, to which they declined and planned a “downwind to 6”.
- the controller at one point sounded more worried then the crew did.
- based on the departure and right turn out, the sudden turn back to the airport provided them with alternate runways instead of downwind for 6. They did not choose them. This makes me believe it was not catastrophic at this point.
- some theories exist of manure hitting the fan on short final, or adding power and rolling over onto engine out side.
- based upon impact with deicing station, does not appear they where ever wheels down on runway 6.

No idea on fuel, but Bill’s experience does not bode well.

I expect at some point the public will find that someone took video on it. Hard to believe not.

Tragic day for everyone. Lives lost. Lives affected forever, and lives that will struggle with it for a long long time.


Edit/Update - This survivor may be able to provide a very detailed account of it.
https://patch.com/connecticut/windsorlocks/tribute-crash-hero-chief-master-sgt-james-m-traficante
 
Last edited:
It is my belief #4 was shut down a feathered.
The witness on the ground claimed #3 and the plane was not climbing. He is probably not aware these tours fly low, they do not climb high and they do not use full power for takeoff. They use 41" with 48 available. Engine makes rated power at 54" on 130 Oct.

NTSB speaker claims the engine was built to run 87 Oct, he has some learning to do.

On the approach, right wing dropped and plane struck lights 1000' before runway. That gets close to the land dropping off at perimeter road.
I have yet to learn if there is wing or fuselage impact in that area.
From that point it is over 2000' to the impact at the tank farm which is over 800' off runway centerline.
Long skid marks from both mains being locked up on pavement which means to me, three engines were making power and the plane was light, as in traveling fast. That is obvious due to the obliterated front half of the airframe from impacting the de-icer tank.
With the wreckage being moved today I expect the cockpit should have been found.
From one of the images I believe I see where a propeller blade breached the back side of the tank as if #2 engine went into the tank.
#4 ending is inside maintenance building with the prop feathered.
 
Charlie, good info thanks. Do you feel they lost two engines, or the previous info on #3 was wrong, and it was only #4 that was lost?


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
No just the one. Yes I think info about loosing #3 is not correct. Witness at airport and transcripts were stating #4. I agree the transcript was hard to decipher due to who did the edit cuts. I look forward to uncut transcript which I expect is probably available.

I could well be wrong but I am thinking a possibility of a medical related issue. I sure hope and expect I will be found wrong on this.

One thing to throw in, the B-17 is a two pilot plane, left seat controls the flight surfaces, Right operates the engines, being throttles, mixture etc.
I expect when the plane was sinking on approach the 3 engine throttles were opened where it would have been far better to have opened #2+3 leaving #one throttle back.
On these planes, all engine rotate the same way, as such there may well be a critical engine. We might see that rearing it's head in causing the rotation seen with the plane sinking then rolling right with throttle application.
 
I could well be wrong but I am thinking a possibility of a medical related issue. I sure hope and expect I will be found wrong on this.

One thing to throw in, the B-17 is a two pilot plane, left seat controls the flight surfaces, Right operates the engines, being throttles, mixture etc.

OMG. So the type-rated co-pilot has no flight controls????? What a disaster in the making. So you are thinking that the 75 year old captain slumps over on short final and the plane helplessly settled into the approach lights. Sad, sad ending.

Thanks for for your insight.
Brad
 
One thing to throw in, the B-17 is a two pilot plane, left seat controls the flight surfaces, Right operates the engines, being throttles, mixture etc.
If this is accurate, there would be a considerable period of time elapsing between the pilot flying's brain sensing what is needed and communicating that need verbally to the copilot who then in turn moves the engine controls which in turn changes power. Then the airplane reacting and the pilot flying recognizing that was too much or not enough, then asking for more or less power and on which engine(s). Having never flown a B-17, that sure sounds like a haphazard cluster F*** method of aviating, particularly when in a tight emergency situation.

Sometimes when flying multi engine airplanes in adverse situations it would be mandatory for the pilot flying to be manipulating the throttles like playing musical chairs. There would be no time available to verbally communicate a command to an assistant, expecting a proper timely result.

ps. I'm not second guessing what happened here in this tragic accident, only commenting on Charlie's comment.
 
I’ve never flown a B-17, but I’ve flown a B-25. It had pretty heavy flight controls (a two-hander for sure) and required a ton of pilot inputs and compensation when maneuvering. It basically required the copilot to set the power to a known value so that the pilot on the flight controls could focus on putting the airplane where he wanted it.

Newer designs require less compensation, a pilot would have more bandwidth to jockey throttles in an emergency.
 
never been in one, but i was just going to say, when the controls are heavy, looks like it would be a bugger to run one handed.
 
OMG. So the type-rated co-pilot has no flight controls????? What a disaster in the making. So you are thinking that the 75 year old captain slumps over on short final and the plane helplessly settled into the approach lights. Sad, sad ending.

Thanks for for your insight.
Brad
As with Sky's provided image, yes to controls on both sides. As such if one man went down the other can take over.
I probably did not get my description right.
Each man has a specific flight duty, one on flight controls, the other on engine controls.
I am sure I am jumping to a conclusion here not knowing why the sink rate occurred early in the descent, but if the right seater opened all three operating engines throttles, he does not have the instant feedback from the controls since those are in another mans hands. This could cause the yaw and roll that was observed.
Why the throttles appeared to remain open, I have no answer too.
I expect allot of information from on airport data systems is available that I expect is beyond our reach that may shed some clarification but bring up more questions.
On the news last night the media was asking if the Wings of Freedom event was cancelled at Barnes Westfield next weekend. This is sad since that event is EAA's tour event which I will be working at. Media is not helping anyone since they can not recognize there are more than one Living History tour operations in this country.
Here is a color photo of the throttles from my own camera on Aluminum Overcast.
IMG_9190.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9190.JPG
    IMG_9190.JPG
    243.5 KB · Views: 233
Here are two shots taken at my event two weeks ago.
20190923_094140.jpg 20190923_094014.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20190923_094140.jpg
    20190923_094140.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 238
  • 20190923_094014.jpg
    20190923_094014.jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 247
Back
Top