[Peetwo]

Parallel hemispheres: Connecticut B17 crash? 

I have been watching and reading with much interest the unfolding tragic story of the B-17 crash at Bradley International Airport in Connecticut: 

WWII-era plane crashes in Connecticut

By Mike Hayes, Zoe Sottile, Meg Wagner and Veronica Rocha, CNN
Updated 0111 GMT (0911 HKT) October 3, 2019

 
Reference post from Alphabets:  

A matter of concern.

TOM called the meeting to order; the crew settled down. Item one is a matter of great concern. The needless head butting and hair pulling going on between RAA and AOPA. It is seen as counterproductive, destructive, divisive, irresponsible  and “bloody childish” (not my words). A solution is needed..

So, what to do? History and believe it or not, John Sharp (as Minister) provide the answer. Back in the day, when Sharp was in the hot seat and CASA still had some honourable, intelligent men working for them; a plan was made to accommodate all Part 149 outfits with a set of ‘standards’ which CASA generated and the Alphabet groups could administer. It was a fair and equitable solution; so much so that both Canada and the EASA adopted it, put in a level playing field, and have never been troubled again.

Perhaps it is time the Australian plan was adopted in Australia.

I need to do a bit of digging around and talk to some folk; to be sure the plan can work. If it all pans out, it will be up to the members of the individual groups to sit their ‘management’ down and tell ‘em to get behind it, unite and make it happen. I understand there is a letter to the minister on it’s way, outlining the plan. Ministerial credibility could be partially restored on his nod.

Let’s hope good sense prevails. More to follow as matters progress. Fingers crossed.

Toot – toot.

---

Mike Borgelt  Sandy Reith • 3 days ago

Bravo Sandy! I'm pleased that someone else gets it.

Of course there should be no split. The concept of these self administering organisations was pioneered by the failed organisational model of the GFA with its long declining and geriatric membership.

All Australian aircraft should be VH registered and all pilots be required to hold at minimum a Recreational Pilot's Licence, not some mickey mouse "certificate" from some private organisation which has "trained" pilots with instructors who may have as few as 100 hours total aeronautical experience...

...Instead we have CASA's Part 149 abomination which requires people to pay private monopolies even if the person already holds a RPL or higher qualification and appropriate ratings, tailwheel, glider etc. resulting in much higher costs and multiple periodic flight reviews. Part 149 has consumed many thousands of man hours at CASA and the private bodies and many of these people are not paid for their efforts.

Long bow perhaps but? 

The tragic last flight of the B-17 was part of a Collings Foundation Wings for Freedom tour:

"..The Collings Foundation is a private non-profit educational foundation located in Stow, Massachusetts, founded in 1979 by Robert F. Collings and Caroline Collings with a mission dedicated to the preservation and public display of transportation-related history, namely automobile and aviation history..."

Not that there should be any inference/comparison with our Australian Warbirds Association but IMO there are some passing strange parallels when you consider the ongoing Angel Flight imbroglio, the RAAus v AOPA bunfight and the CASA Iron Ring creation of Part 149...  

In the States there is no requirement for a Part 149, apparently the regulatory side of things is incorporated (as MB suggests above) into the normal pilot licensing and aircraft registration rule set. These types of operations fall under either FAR Part 91 or Part 135 - end of.

However that doesn't mean that this tragic occurrence will not lead to an inevitable review/scrutiny of the safety risk mitigation deployed by these types of not for profit operations, highlighted perhaps by the following Christine Negroni article/blog:

   

Warbird Operators Worry After B-17 Crash As Senator Calls for Closer Scrutiny

October 3, 2019 



Having survived combat and oftentimes years of neglect, flying warbirds in America and their owners may be headed into a new battle. Triggered by Wednesday’s fatal crash of the Collings Foundation B-17 Nine-O-Nine at Bradley International Airport, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal says more scrutiny is needed for passenger flights on historic aircraft.

Seven people were killed and six others on the airplane injured along with two people on the ground when the Nine-O-Nine crashed shortly after takeoff. The Flying Fortress was to make a 30-minute fly-around the area during the foundation’s Wings of Freedom Tour that started earlier in the week.



Responding to a question about whether the B-17s should be grounded,  Sen. Blumenthal was non-commital but suggested it might be time for a second look at warbird flights for the general public.


“There is a need for scrutiny and oversight if these planes are going to continue to fly,” he said. “This is not the first.”
A history of the Nine-Oh-Nine on the website warbirdregistry.org shows that shortly after the foundation acquired it, it had a crash landing in Pennsylvania in 1987. It was repaired and restored by 1991 and flew uneventfully until a landing gear collapsed causing damage to the airplane in 1995.

But the last accident (involving a different B-17) in which passengers were injured was in June 2011. After hosting heritage flights in Aurora, Illinois, a Flying Fortress owned by the Liberty Foundation was moving to Indianapolis when a fire erupted on one of the engines. In the emergency landing, one of the seven people on board was hurt. The plane was destroyed.
Organizations big enough and with sufficient funds to restore, maintain and operate warbirds include the Liberty Foundation and Collings, along with the Experimental Aircraft Association, the Commemorative Air Force and Erickson Aircraft Collection and others.

The goal of organizations like these is to share the cold, noisy, turbulent experience of wartime pilots – many of whom knew when they took off they might not return.

“The crews were 18-year-old young men. If you made it to 25 in a B-17 they called you ‘gramps’, you were one of the old guys,” said Dick Knapinski a spokesman for the EAA which sells flights on its own B-17, the Aluminum Overcast. “That’s why these groups take these airplanes out and spend thousands of thousands of dollars to preserve and maintain them and fly them to places, so we can tell the story.”

Operators of historic aircraft can operate under a number of different FAA regulations. Some under Part 91 for general aviation, others, like EAA, under part 135.

Then there are the rules that apply to “limited category aircraft.” When I asked to see the regulations that apply to the operation of surplus military aircraft, the FAA sent me a 192-page document. Under these rules, operators may be prohibited from selling flights and so they offer them in exchange for a donation. But suffice to say that sorting through the maze of regulations is not for the faint of heart.



Among aviation enthusiasts, Blumenthal’s comment is worrying. Heritage flights generate interest and revenue. A quick search told me that the Collings Foundation had $8 million in revenue and $7 million in expenses in 2015.


“The Collings Foundation is a major operator of warbirds and they make appearances at air shows around the country,” said Dean Alexander, former superintendent of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. “They sell rides on historic airplanes as a way of raising money to keep their operations going.”


Still, historic aircraft and specifically combat aircraft served a far different purpose than airliners do. A century of commercial air travel brings with it improvements in survivability that are not to be found on warbirds.


“In an inflight fire with an aluminum airplane, it doesn’t take long to burn through,” Jerry O’Neill, a member of the safety committee with the International Council of Air Shows told me when I spoke with him about the B-17 crash.


“The rule is to get it down no matter where you put it down, whether you make a runway or a field because if the wing comes off you’re toast anyway.”


Whether passengers on heritage flights appreciate the difference in safety, I can’t say, so I turned to Mark Dombroff, an aviation attorney formerly with the FAA for his opinion.

“Common sense should tell anybody that gets on an airplane that’s been restored from the ground up that it’s not the same as getting on an airliner that takes you from point A to point B. They cannot have the expectation of the same level of safety.”

Hmm...it will be interesting to watch the NTSB investigation unfold and what recommendations they eventually come out with. However, unlike the ATSB with the Angel Flight Mount Gambier accident report, I strongly suspect they won't be pulling any punches, or providing topcover for the FAA, while laying all blame at the feet of the Collings Foundation...  


MTF...P2