I've personally been on this aircraft and flown with the foundation. Yes, there are enough seats and the team that operate the bombers are very professional and safety minded.
I have done likewise, and agree with you 100%. There are plenty of GA aircraft of this vintage or older that fly safely, former war-birds notwithstanding.
bigace1980.... Yes, they did.. as far as fending off some really ignorant and "steered" (re: manipulative) questions..... but NO, she didn't.... as she (and "he", either) had No understanding of the B-17G whatsoever, No knowledge of its Legendary combat reputation for its ability to stay airborne after being severely pounded from AA Flak and Luftwaffe ME-109's etc, etc. She lumped warbird accidents in one lump - sump figure.... when in fact, according to the NTSB's own statistical records... there have been Only 3 or 4 accidents involving B-17's since 1964!!.... which is incredible considering the many hundreds, if not thousands of Airshows they have attended and flown at over the years. The 17G was actually & initially designed to transport up to 64 troops. The Wright R-1820-97 engines (as were the 1820 - 51 & -65 engines) were extremely reliable as long as they were properly maintained.... no different than many other engines.
@@Romans--bo7br The chap confirmed that piston engines are "extremely reliable as long as they were properly maintained." These investigators are not pre-judging anything. Incidentally, they did say 21 accidents investigated by NTSB involving B-17G aircraft since 1981, not "Only 3 or 4 accidents involving B-17's since 1964".
@@dgansz705 Yes, she said that and then she immediately broke out the number of B-17 incidents--specifically 3--during the same period, namely since 1982...it's right there beginning at the 6:42 mark (with the number of 3 B-17s found at 6:53). I guess your player was giving you trouble at that point or something.
This was a WW 2 combat aircraft restored and maintained to exacting standards. It wasn’t a 787. Stop pointing fingers and accept that accidents happen and planes crash. Respect for deceased including the pilot.
Watching and listening from Australia. We also have a lot of warbirds but good luck getting to fly joyflights. The rule we have is that every passenger and crew must occupy a seat designed originally for the aircraft. You can't have people sitting on the floor etc. I have watched many B29 joy flights where more people are allowed than there are crew seats with people wandering around during the flight with GoPros etc.. Its been said that 13 people were on board and 7 of them were killed. She said that there were three crew...pilot, co-pilot and crew chief. Crew Chief? There is supposed to be a Flight engineer. So who was managing the engine controls and instruments from the Flight engineers console? The B17G had a maximum of 10 crew including the tail gunner. That means that in this B17, 3 or 4 people or more, given that joy flight passengers would not be in the gun turrets, would have been unrestrained, not in seats of any kind. I guess all will be revealed. Also the pilot was 75. Now I can say this because I am not much younger, but down here you cannot be a Captain/pilot in command of any aircraft, warbird or not, that is taking paying passengers, and be over the age of 65. You would not get a license at all at 75. Its for good reason. Your reaction times and capability to deal with stressfull emergencies, is greatly diminished over 65.
@@TechnikMeister2 You can get a pilots licence in Australia at over 75. You just have to do the pilot medical every six months to maintain it. 0.3% of active pilots are over 80 in Australia.
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td The City of Lincoln "Just Jane" NX611 Is not Flight worthy, She has been grounded for a few years but she does Taxi Runs on the runway for the public to ride in. Hopefully be flight worthy next year....Hopefully. I miss her flying 😞
These aircraft are considered by the owners as highly valuable and historically important. They are very well taken care of by their crews. They fly these aircraft to airshows to share them with the public,inform them of their history,and sell rides on them to help support the maintenance of the aircraft. Those that think they should be all grounded are clueless of what they are talking about. Typical of the US news media.😡😡😡
@@natalie53122 I can't believe you heard him say that either, because he did NOT say that. He said he assumes they are intended to break away WITHOUT DAMAGING THE PLANE. Yet she had just said they may have damaged the plane... the reporter is pointing out a discrepancy, or asking for clarification if a discrepancy exists.
Losing two engines on one side of that plane within two minutes of landing is most likely not recoverable on one possible try for a restart. On approach a co pilot throttling down while a captain is watching speed and level indicators and two fingers on the flaps the aircraft just after losing both engines dips the plane to one side and pitches it towards the lost engines side. Then veering off at an accelerating angle hitting the runway light VP's(Vertical Panels which are about 3 feet tall) as one wing scrubs the ground and ultimately slides as the plane slams into the de icing facility. Honestly both pilots did do one thing correct. They did not attempt to throttle back up to full power on the remaining two working engines to avert and already realized and probable ground contact. And this most likely saved the lives of most of the passengers and gave them enough time to exit with the help of a ground crew worker. An inexperienced pilot may have throttled up full power and it could have been much worse than in this case. Sad to hear the loss of lives. We take life for granted and neither pilot knew until seconds later that a solid tank of non flammable de-icer fluid was in their path. They may have all been spared if only hitting a few buildings which give way, but that solid tank was hard.
Several witnesses said they heard clicking noises as the plane was coming down one commentor with some knowledge said that sounded like the other engines were failing or had failed. Which means a lack of power. I appreciate this point of view as it seems to be the most applicable and accurate to date
@@dgansz705 A witness on the ground seen number 3 Go just as it took off and he was also an experienced son of a B-17 pilot. He was watching on in admiration while waiting for a job interview. He stated three went out first and it bellowed smoke, he then states he heard the engine knocking. Next 4 then goes out in the turn right. That made it impossible to fly. Considering it was the right side that lost both engines with no power they still managed an impossible right turn back to runway 6 on a weak right side. This would have taken an all right in on the rudder pedal with a hard left steer and gradually bumping a little to the right of the far left steering. They accomplished this but sadly doing this caused a greater loss of altitude. But they did manage to swing the plane straight with the runway, but sadly 150 yards too short. They hit four of the ground VP Panels which several of them were weather eroded at their cement bases and sticking up about a foot tall. A wheel hit one of them on the right side breaking it off, it swung the plane towards the far right and towards the de-icing facility to the far right at the beginning of the runway as the second left side wheel breaks off and dangles it noses in the grass just before the access pavement to the de-icer facility, then bounces up slightly as it makes contact with the dith then pavement again and slams into ground clutter and equipment then hitting the large tank of de-icer. Sad indeed. I give the pilots credit for even making a straight line with the runway in the attempt. Sad indeed.
@@dgansz705 An eye witness who had experience with aircraft and WW2 Planes was admiring it take off while waiting at the takeoff end of the runway. He stated number three went out and was bellowing smoke and making cluttering sounds that he could hear loudly. He then states that in their right turn he heard another loud sound and then number 4 went out. That is known as an Impossible scenario losing power on the right with a right turn at low altitude. They did manage to line it up with runway 6 but while fighting with a full rudder left and full turn left to bump it over were just too short to make it. I commend both pilots for that because it did save seven. If the tank were not there they may have all survived to. Sad indeed.
I'd just like to say the Wright Cyclone 1820 is probably the most reliable radial engine that was/is ever used in aircraft and withstood incredible abuse in wartime of any other. This airframe has been completely reconstructed several time since it was built and every rivet has been examined and certified airworthy or it wouldn't have gotten it's certificate to fly. There appears to be other factors involved with it being too low and slow to make a secure landing without striking the approach lights. Before we assume anything, let the NTSB do their job of investigating this crash, please!
Clearly the field of reporters has been drawn from the lower end of the intelligence scale of available news reporters. At one point, a reporter asks in a round about way. "How safe are these aircraft?" When originally produced as a fighting machine, the B17 aircraft type made tens of thousands of sorties lasting 8 to 10 hours flying time, into occupied Europe with people on the ground and in the air shooting at them most of the way there and most of the way back! I think we can say that it is a given fact that properly maintained, these aircraft are pretty reliable. Even given a comparison to modern privately owned aircraft!
Many of the comments I'm reading for this video don't align with the same audio I heard regarding the questions asked by the reporters. Why is that? Most of the questions asked were reasonable and worded well. Sometimes, questions are asked to make sure the reporter accurately heard and understood what was given by the NTSB person. Also, keep in mind, that these reporters aren't required to know every nuance of the details and specs of this plane. Comments akin to "I can't believe the dumb question being asked..." posted by Sun and D-970 represent what I consider to be thoughtless and in-accurate comments about this audio content. I could make further observations on the many faulty and thoughtless posts by viewers. Makes me wonder if they viewed and heard the same video I did. The reason I'm including the type of comments posted is that I read them first, then watched the video. When I encountered such blatant disparity between actual audio content, and the posted comments, I reviewed the audio portion of the video to see if I had missed critical parts. NOPE. The posters of these comments missed much more than parts. They showed how flawed their understanding and interpretation of the questions was. This was one of the best and detailed reports by the NTSB I have witnessed. The woman did an excellent job covering every important aspect of the crash investigation. The fact that most of the comments were extremely negative and condescending tells any reader how flawed these posters are in their comments.
Typical knee jerk reaction,if people are not involved with stuff like this they automatically want it banned. Let’s ban everything that is deemed “unsafe “ see how that plays?
Reporters are generalists. They do not have the knowledge that an enthusiast will have. We all have great interest in these aircraft and their history. A reporter goes back, does further research, then writes a story and goes on to the next assignment. I assume we all would have a similar lack of knowledge on some other catastrophe, such as a drowning death of a diver cleaning screens at a coal fired power plant cooling pond. No one knows everything.
A B-17 was NOT meant to fly forever! Anything that is 84 years old is going to have wear and tear that is NOT VISIBLE to the naked eye, and even if it is, many parts are hidden and unless you take the whole aircraft apart, you're not going to find the tiniest flaw that could bring the aircraft down. Let that beautiful old bird with it's great history rest in peace and quit over-working her beyond her capacity! The dear old aircraft wants to be seen and not heard in her dotage! Pilots may be trying to recapture their youth by flying that aircraft again, but like the oldster, the plane cannot do what she did during WWII anymore!
Collings Foundation is a wonderful group of people and hope everyone can hold off crucification before finding out what happened. Oh, by the way, accidents happen involving airplanes since man can't actually fly on their own, and require machines to lift us off the ground. Vintage aircraft are a part of our history and should continue to be used for education and enjoyment.
This lady communicates in a clear & professional manner. Excellent. 👍🏻 Unlike the so called journalists in the room who sound totally uneducated idiots. We don't need children in the room when discussing such a serious and sad event. RIP to those souls lost in this tragedy.
Make all the comments you want about stupid reporters asking stupid questions, but it won't change the facts. There can be only two outcomes for these vintage aircraft. One, they are gracefully retired to aviation museums where future generations will visit them, admire them, and marvel at these mechanical beasts for years to come. Or two, wait until the last one falls from the sky, taking with it the last crew ever to man it. Those are the only two possibilities. The first choice gives us hope and knowledge. The second leaves us with memories and regrets. The question is, which one can you live with?
The B-17 flies well on 3 engines . If the aircraft is handled properly . Look the combat footage of B-17s returning to base . We did not have to loose 9 0 9 .
@@paulgerald5808 They can do so and with less in level flight, unloaded. Takeoff, climbing, and landing are the three phases of flight that are extremely dangerous to lose one or more engines. B-17 pilots from the war have stated in memoirs and interviews the very same thing, making the B-17 no less subjective to those dangers.
Wow, asking if the air crew were certified to fly the plane??? Who in the hell is going to risk a multi-million dollar aircraft on aircrew that doesn't know what they're doing? Stunning stupidity.
Spooky. I met the pilot this summer when the group stopped in Yakima. He seemed like a really nice guy. Sad to see the loss of life and the loss of an iconic bomber. RIP
Cell phones are the bane of the 21st century BUT, it's not the device that is killing humans, it's the behavior of the human using the device to try to capture their idiotic, daring ventures that could (and do) kill them, then it is captured for posterity, to haunt and torture the family left behind. Selfies are simply the narcissistic efforts of a person to show themselves off, OR DISTRACT them when they should be paying attention to what they're doing, often to their death!
I love all the comments here. Lots of opinions from people who think they know what happened but have never been near a radical engine or a vintage aircraft and don't have a clue how they were made or how they're maintained today. Not to mention the complete lack of knowledge about those charged with the maintenance and operation of the aircraft. The facts as we know them at this time. The pilot was fully qualified for the type. The plane has had all proper up to date maintenance required for legal and safe flight. The pilot reported a problem with engine #4 and requested, and was granted, permission to return to the airport. The plane contacted the ground short of the runway threshold, veered to the right and slid into the de-icing facility where it caught fire and was destroyed. EVERYTHING ELSE is speculation at this point. The NTSB will conduct an analysis of all factors from beginning to end, including maintenance records, and activities of everyone connected in any way with the plane's operation. I would expect at a 100 page report. Anyone who thinks they know what happened should contact the NTSB and present their opinion, I mean evidence. I had a personal connection with Nine-0-Nine as I was part of the crew that spent 2+ years repairing and rebuilding it after its off-runway landing accident at KBVI in SW PA. I know the care and exacting attention to detail that goes into the operation of these machines.
Good solid comment. We need more info before jumping to conclusions. I have rode on the "Aluminum Overcast" by EAA. Wonderful ride! Thoroughly enjoyed it!
@@phapnui You don't know, especially the part about having a personal connection with this bird. That being written, however, as of those 13 hours ago everything posted is as I understand it at this time too. If you have something to add--other than that dhy5342 should have written 'radial' rather than 'radical' engine--by all means let's hear it.
Seriously? These bombers flew countless bombing raids over enemy territory carrying tons of bombs while being shot at by the enemy from both the ground and the air. These bomber planes flew through enemy flack and were literally shredded to pieces in flight and many were still able to return safely to base full of holes. These planes were work horses.
I don't suppose any of you have heard of the term, "Metal Fatigue" ? No? It's a pretty simple concept that postulates the concept that NO MACHINE RUNS FOREVER! Sooner or later, they all quit. Especially seventy year old ones. (p.s. these airplanes were made to survive WWII, and not much else after that, it's past time to retire them)
@@jstephenallington8431 Ever hear of Magnaflux inspections? Besides chances of 4 engines having "Metal Fatigue" failures at the same time are close to zero.
I'm a retired Civil Aviation Inspector, Pilot / Engineer. I used to inspect war birds and issue flight authorities to them. The level of maintenance, workmanship and care I witnessed on these aircraft was much higher than commercial aviation. What happened here is tragic. Let the NSTB do it's job before everyone jumps to conclusions. Blue sky to all.
The guy actually said something like "I assume breakaway poles are intended to break away... would that still result in damage to the plane?" But it is lots of fun to ridicule the lady's modified version of it, and blame that on the guy.
OK, the “breakaway poles” question is getting a bad rap! I’m sure this comment is going to get lost in the flood of other comments but listen closely to what he actually said and his question was absolutely valid! She restated it very poorly. She had said that they were going to be examining the scars to see if striking the breakaway poles played a role in the ultimate crash. The reporter said aren’t the breakaway poles designed to not damage the aircraft but breakaway? Based on what she had just said that was an appropriate question. If they are designed to not damage the aircraft they shouldn’t really play a major factor in its ultimate crash, should they? Like another commentator said, she could have said that even though they are breakaway an aircraft is not going to hit them without suffering possibly significant damage. Simply restating it as “aren’t the breakaway poles designed to break away” is a disservice to his question. (Not that I’m saying some of the other questions didn’t show a lack of understanding about aircraft.) This was a tragic accident but certainly doesn’t call for the grounding of World War II aircraft. If you caught the statistic, there have been a total of three B-17 crashes in the last 35+ years. If you total up the number of hours I image the still-flying B-17s have flown at air shows and demonstration flights in the last 35 years I bet they have a safety record at least as good as or better than commercial aviation and definitely better than general aviation!
Omg! Cannot believe that reporter actually asked that. His next hit will be when he gets to interview one of the survivors and asks them how they felt when the B-17 hit the ground. Geeze!!
Except he dosn't ask that, he said " I assume the breakaway poles are designed to break away and fall apart" its in reference to the previous question about what role they played in the accident. She then reframed the question.
I have read some of your comments and I’m soooo in agreement with many of them. None of these people ever saw the plane because they don’t care about that kind of thing. I’ve been in that plane several times and there were safety belts for everybody who would ride in it for takeoff and landings. I did not ever get the opportunity to fly in one of them but I do believe that once they were airborne they allowed people to move around. I have heard the rumor that they loaded it with jet fuel and since the wings are still available there should be fuel in both wings To analyze. If they mistakenly filled this with the wrong fuel there’s definitely going to be hell to pay! But it seems like the indication is correct as 100 octane was correct octane for US World War II aircraft. And also indicated that the most experienced pilot was flying the plane. I would have to think that the other engines were failing for it to fall almost 1000 feet short of the runway. Concerning eyewitnesses saying that they were working on the engines before take off; my observation this summer was they always inspect and double check on the engines after every time she flies. It is fairly sickening to hear all of the uneducated questions. You think they’d spend a little time on Google or TH-cam learning something about the aircraft so they have something intelligent to ask.
"100 octane was correct octane for US World War II aircraft" Depending on the aircraft, all grades from 50/57 octane to 130/145 was used. All grades were leaded fuel. The modern fuel used in most piston engine aircraft is 100 Low Lead.
Laurence Elisha..... The NTSB sumped the right wing tank and confirmed that it was, in fact... 100 Octane AV Gas, Not JP-4 that someone started a rumor that it was "jet fuel". I completely agree with you in regards to your thoughts about all the "Uneducated questions".... and what is really "sickening" is the fact that it's these same morons who will "twist" the story line to the general public to get there own demented agenda in place.... and I have no doubt that in listening to these ignorant questions... a few of them were definitely trying to manipulate an answer from the NTSB that would go towards "grounding" the war birds. Another thing that irritates me is... that the NTSB representatives present, were just about as ignorant of the B-17's and their incredible history of being able bring their crews back to England after being completely shot up with (in some cases) major fuselage, wing and vertical stabilizer damage (even completely missing!), engines out, etc, etc, etc.... as were the ignorant reporters asking ignorant and even manipulative questions!
the inspection is called a preflight and is done on every aircraft before flight... the same way your supposed to check your cars tires and oil before you drive it.. but you cage drivers dont die when your engine gos kaboom . unlike aircraft with poor glide characteristics and you dont make it to a good runway..
The B-17 and many other aircraft (the DC-3/C-47 for instance) use the Wright R-1820 radial air-cooled engine. If it's properly maintained, it is one of the most dependable high power (1200 HP flat out) aircraft engines ever made. In WW2, B-17's routinely flew many miles with one or, occasionally, even 2 engines out. 100 LL fuel is appropriate for this aircraft. The lead content of the fuel is of no consequence as newer fuels have safer additives to prevent pre-ignition ("knock") during high power engine usage. They always do minor maintenance in the field to ensure safety. A lot of it is preflight stuff. The pilot was the highest time B-17 driver in the US. We'll have to wait and see what the NTSB finds out. My sincere condolences to everyone who were affected by this fatal crash. It was so sad.
This whole thing is becoming more and more difficult to understand. Clearly, something more than a single engine failure has occurred, here. Either the control system, the complete fuel system...... sabotage, terrorism.....no way of knowing, this early on. But this plane is known, possibly more than any other, in the history of aviation, for it's airworthiness!
@@dgansz705 According to the FAA, turbine engines have a failure rate of one per 375,000 flight hours, compared to of one every 3,200 flight hours for aircraft piston engines. So statistically speaking, turbine engines are more than 100 times more reliable than piston.
@@davidandrew1078 For unpressurised aircraft, it is well understood and readily monitored, and low-tech aircraft such as the DC-3 have essentially infinite fatigue lifetimes. That is not the case for pressurised aircraft, especially jetliners, which have lifetimes measured in the number of cycles, generally around 50,000 - 100,000.
Not one of these "reporters" would know the definition or concept of Root Cause / Corrective Action without formal training, and the only people that have had that is the NTSB.
Darrell Goodman - The NTSB know how to conduct an objective investigation, though. When necessary, they consult with other experts to fill in any gaps in their own knowledge.
This is not true. Any engineer worth his salt understands root cause analysis. I've done lots of forensic analysis on gas turbine engines from crashed aircraft to determine root cause. I've never worked for the NTSB.
@@ronaldschoolcraft8654 ..I think I understand the point being made....the understanding of Root Cause definition is known by NTSB and maybe not the press.....BUT....also agree with you that any engineer worth his salt in industry and in this field, also understand Root Cause and related rigorous study and investigative methods......not just NTSB understands this.
Ronald Schoolcraft True. Legions of people in multiple disciplines have received training, and RCA is widely employed. Sologic is one source of such training.
My condolences to the loved ones of the deceased. There will probably be no media circus when the final NTSB report is released. I hope I manage to find out what the final findings are. Everything at this point is speculation and opinion.
@@iangoldsworthy2056 WWII B-17 pilots at the end of their tours really didn't have a whole lot of hours. I doubt that any of them saw the conflict through with more than 600 hours. German airmen however flew until they were killed, invalided out, or captured.
Ian Goldsworthy He probably had more time and B-17s than any other pilot in history.... The pilots in World War II could go home after 25 successful missions. This was made famous by the Memphis Belle. missions typically lasted anywhere from 8 to 10 hours so even on the high side after 25 missions at 10 hours each you’re looking at only 250 total hours... later in the war pilots were required to spend more missions but even if you were to double triple or even quadruple that it would only be 1000 total hours. add in another 200 for training And a few hundred extra miscellaneous hours, and your average World War II vet probably is anywhere from 1000 to 1500 total hours in the airplane
@Roger ClemonsWho asked the questions? I think most persons commenting about the reporters were posting in generalities. Gender being the last thing anyone was interested in.
are break away poles made to break away? that was a genius question. i had a ride in the b24 twice . i hope the government dont shut them down . it was a highlight in my life . they are very professional. ill go again maybe the p51 mustang next time .
Yeah I got the opportunity to fly in a b24 Miss Mitchell. I was volunteer at the airfield where it was maintained and parked. I was very surprised as for your texting down the runway how the engines backfired and made all kinds of weird noise. from once we started down the runway they just came to life and she ran like a champ after that. I agree with you It was one of the highlights in my life and I got video of all of it and we had an escort of 10 fighter pilots from world war II also with us It was really an awesome flight.
Very discouraging the ignorance that media displays, the fox guy in particular. The NTSB guy's answer about reliability comparisons isn't amazing either.
Those who cant do, report on those who do. The NTSB guy is a typical government employee - reaching for a position they really aren't qualified for. He just has seniority.
The Captain was the most Qualified Professional Warbird B-17 and with those hours in type and the answers will be known to all once the investigation has been completed. My condolences to the crew members and families
Bernard Anderson , I was reading your comment as she( NTSB Lady) was speaking of the pilots qualifications. God Bless this man and all that he accomplished in his life time. And thank you for your comment as well. My condolences to all affected by this tragic event ☮️💟
Ironically, of many of the B17 aircraft that returned from their missions, many that crashed on final were due to similar circumstances. Uneven power delivery or missing components from damage. Causing uncoordinated flight at slow speeds during landing phase, ultimately leading to loss of control and subsequent crash. The bird could fly without a tail, but no one ever said about landing.
I agree with your assessment, but the apparent urgency of the radio communications suggest that something more critical than a failed engine was going on. I’m sure many pilots besides myself have some good guesses. It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals. With respect to inane questions from reporters, what would you expect? Look at what bad reporting has contributed to the atrocious state of American politics and the disintegration of American society and culture.
John M not much common sense among aviation deficient journalists. Propelled driven planes are still common in general aviation and some small commercial airline operations
This whole thing is becoming more and more difficult to understand. Clearly, something more than a single engine failure has occurred, here. Either the control system, the complete fuel system...... sabotage, terrorism.....no way of knowing, this early on. But this plane is known, possibly more than any other, in the history of aviation, for it's airworthiness!
JohnnyG Which is?? Several respondents on here have stated that at lift off because of the amount of power you need to get the plane in the air is when it is most vulnerable with an engine failure. Even the possibility of more than one engine failing would make it difficult to maneuver.
Pilot error in all likelihood played some part. They reported a problem with #4 and were given clearance to land. The plane touched down before veering off
What is wrong with people? These are vintage warplanes. Built in wartime under extreme pressure, designed to do one task...rain death on the enemy..destroy things and kill people. When this plane was built, aviation was all of 41 years old..even though it was built for war, very durable, and with the best technology available, it is still ANTIQUE technology..it's not a ride at Disney. Any military pilot from the real world combat units wil tell you straight..climbing into one of these is risking life and limb, period. So get real. Something catastrophic happened here to a well maintained antique aircraft..and lives were lost. Wait for the NTSB to do their job. Don't ask stupid questions.
@@dgansz705 Revel in your idiocy fool, no matter to me. WW2 warplanes are state of the art for the 1940's..cable and counterweight control surfaces..no hydraulics. Do you know how the landing gear operates on a B17? Of course you don't. So sit down junior..yes, much of the B17, and all WW2 warplanes, are primarily antique technology. Can you show me your A&P cert. please?
@@dgansz705 Obviously you've mistaken me for someone who might be impressed. Uh no. So you're an antique along with these aircraft, good on you. Never used the word "ancient", that must be YOUR opinion of them. I'm a fool?? You're the one all huffy because you can't stand a 76 yr old aircraft being called an "antique".. Tuff shit bucky..it's a fkin antique.
@@dgansz705 Technology has improved a great deal in 75 years. Hydraulics have changed a great deal, that's something I know about. I'm sure all the hardware, cables, avionics and construction techniques have advance as much. A lot of the structure and fasteners are 75 years old and subject to metal fatigue. Machines can't last forever.
GH1618 My guess is, it wasn’t his first and losing 1 out of 4 engines isn’t an emergency. Reenforced by the fact that he didn’t declare an emergency. I’m also guessing that’s we’re going to find out that it was more than losing 1 engine that brought him down short of the runway.
...The breakaway poles...are they meant to break away? This why you can watch the news and be less informed about an event than you were if you had never heard of it.
The pilots are highly trained. The plane is safe to fly, just like a modern plane. The mechanics are licensed to maintain the plane. They have the authority to ground the plane, if necessary. The plane can not fly again until the issues are repaired and signed off by the certified mechanic. The planes have mandated maintenance on a regular basis as required by the FFA. The B17 G bomber has very much better safety record than modern airliners. Don’t let the news media manipulate you in this story.
At first I said pilot error, and most times with these old warbirds that crash it has been. But I’m not so sure this time. After reading into it more, looking at the flight path, ATC coms and chewing over what could go wrong; I think it was more due to the ground crew who does detailed inspections. The guys who examine critical components internally, the airframe, guy’s who service it. They perhaps didn’t do a thorough enough job as you should on an almost 80 year old aircraft. Even thinking to my own experience with a less severe somewhat similar experience. I own a 1971 Chevrolet that Chevelle that when I got it had 80% original critical parts. Engine, trans, joints steering suspension etc. It wasn’t in pristine condition but it was mint. Never had an issue for 3 years. Even though I gave it a thorough once over every other day before driving, I got sloppy one day and didn’t check one thing I usually check before going on a 2 hour road trip on the highway. Well I usually really get under the hood checking for leaks of any kind, fluid levels etc before long trips but this time instead I just looked over the car opened the hood and I almost went to check the oil but I got lazy because I didn’t have a rag and said, “I’m sure it’s fine”. Closed it and started off. Well about 35 minutes into my ride of going 70-75 for about 70% of that time I started losing power, I pressed harder and it just dropped from 75 to 50 to 30 real quick then just stopped. Well after coasting to a stop I got out checked my oil. It was BONE dry. Not a drop. I burnt up my engine that for 3 years never showed a sign of age, even having a full fluid level the day prior. Excuse the length of this story, and no it wasn’t as serious or unforgiving as flying an aircraft at altitudes. But it’s an example of how letting your guard down just one time and not being 100% anal about everything. One original component can break then a catastrophic failure.
For all the people shitting on the investigators or reporters in the comments. With the benefit of a few more months of investigation I can tell you that all of you are completely jumping to conclusions and refusing to ask questions as to why this plane crashed. The foundation has now been seen to be seriously lacking in their safety procedures. The captain, despite his incredible experience, allowed the flight to proceed knowing full well that their were problems with the number 4 magnetos. All of the spark plugs on all of the cylinders were in bad shape and had been poorly maintained. 1 mag in number 4 was completely dead and the other was barely running. The mags in 3 were barely running. Both 3 and 4 had serious signs of detonation. The aircraft was as poorly maintained as it could be without a wing falling off. What can be assumed from the feathered state of the number 4 prop and partially feathered number 3 prop, is that they lost 4, turned back to land and lost 3 on the way, trying to feather the prop as they crashed down. Now a B-17 can maintain altitude with 2 engines, so 1 and 2 must have been in rough shape to not be producing enough power to keep it aloft. I'm not questioning the pilots skill as aviators, but the fact that this plane was even allowed to take off with the crew knowing the state it was in, is frankly absurd. When you fly with passengers you have peoples lives in your hands and it is your responsibility to do everything you can to ensure a safe flight, which includes not flying if there is a serious risk. To the people asking why a company would risk and multi-million dollar plane like this? Costs, and stupidity. If you take a risk once and it works, you feel like you can pull it off again. Once you've done it 100 times you feel safe, but eventually you're bluff will get called and this is the result. These people should never be allowed to fly another passenger flight and the aircraft in their inventory should got to groups that will properly maintain and preserve their history.
During my time in the Air Force, my aircraft blew an air duct in the leading edge of the wing, this caused the wing blowoff panel to blow off, preventing damage to the wing. The duct was repaired, and panel replaced. About that time our new maintenance officer came out and demanded I remove the panel to ensure it was installed properly. I explained it was designed to blow off and functioned properly. He insisted no panel should ever fall off in flight. I grabbed my toolbox and walked off. If he wanted to charge me with failure to comply with an order, one of us will look like a fool! Never heard anything more, and he was relieved of duty shortly thereafter.
@@jeremypnet I heard the Pilot died in the accident. If the Co-Pilot also died, that leaves the Flight Engineer as a good witness to exactly what went wrong, if he is in a condition to discuss.
'Airport Security video '? In my country if an aircraft has an emergency and has to return to the airfield, then ATC Tower will video the landing as part of the procedure. I cannot believe that this is not an FAA ruling.
To bad the news media and the NTSB wasn't around when our boys had to fly these aircraft back to the field after a mission full of bullet holes and only running on 2 engines. Trying to land with a full crew and the gear frozen in place and wouldn't come down. Skiding Down the runway and bursting into flames.. Oh yeah. The good ol days! When they were ordered to get in those buckets of bolts and fly missions before they had even been repaired from the last mission .. Tell the reporters to go interview some of those captains and ask how they felt when those orders came and they new it was a suicide mission but had to somehow get it over the target and back home with all alive. All the while knowing that it could fall out of the sky any minute. Lol lol lol Balls of steal !! Not brass!! That's why we respect these ol girls still today .. Someone please tell the reporters these are not luxury commercial airliners. Lol lol. These are vibrating, shaking, growling, flexing, snapping and popping SHEETMETAL TITANS OF THE SKIES.. Anytime you sign that waiver form stating your taking full responsibility for your actions when climbing aboard one of these animals, you should be grateful that you had that opportunity to actually experience a piece of history that we all can only hear and dream about.. If we had a chance we would of all been on that plane that day...My prayers and love go out to all that have lost their lives and or loved ones aboard these TITANS of the skies.. weather it's a plane ,car, boat, truck, or a skateboard, accidents while continue to happen, and we will have to live with that fact... Its human nature to chase that thrill that scares you . We have all done it !! Some of us are addicted to it.. These are the only ones I can truly say that are living life to its fullest.. All we can do is try and do the things in this life that make us the happiest at every moment of our lives each and every day. . And yes there will be accidents as we experience this journey of happiness.. So!! I ask and pray that we all walk with the creator each day, and give thanks for each breath we take. AMEN!!
Appears the press is already gearing up to condemn flying these aircraft. 21 accidents, OK, but the NTSB investigates all accidents major or incidental. For example how many Cessna 172 accidents have there been reported, in that same time period. The only question here is; a plane that should have made it back to the airport didn't. Why? I'm sure they will examine the contents of the fuel residue left in all the engines, and the condition of all spark plugs. I think the answer for this crash will be found there.
My husband was thinking power loss due to spark plug/harness failure on these engines. Won't stop him from going flying if he got the chance to do it in another warbird.
@@dgansz705 I hope they can but would be wise to . She burned out . All the main part of the airframe has been destroyed, beyond economical repair . Let Her Rest .
She is rebuildable, seems like Exterior fire damage to it. Engines are complete, both wings, Tail, stabilizers and Landing gear Just need a quite a few Aliminium Sheets and all the interior fitted out and she will be good as new.
@@iangoldsworthy2056 I fell in love with B-17 Flying Fortress when I was 4.years old ,the movie was Twelve O'clock Hight and TV series of the same name . I have the Boeing and the USAAF manuals . The "Fort" is my all time aircraft . I will miss 9 0 9 . Thank you
Who would ever think to name a pole that is supposed to break away, a “breakaway” pole? So confusing. Why was this plane flying around with those piston thingys in the engines? Sounds unsafe. (sarcasm font engaged) SMDH
I love the way she answered the brake away pole question. "do the brake away poles brake away? Yes that's what they're designed for". These "reporters" are pathetic.
@@larry50 obviously but autocorrect picks the most used word and I happen to be a mechanic. When typing on a 2x3 inch keyboard every word tends to be misspelled. Is that really worth your time? You must be fun at parties lmfao.
Well Jason, is it really worth YOUR time to ridicule the reporter for a question he did not even ask? If you listen carefully to what was actually asked (rather than the woman's incorrect/insulting restatement of it) he was asking for clarification of an apparent discrepancy in that she had just said the poles damaged the aircraft. He actually asked, aren't the breakaway poles supposed to break away with the purpose of avoiding damage to aircraft? That is a legitimate question. We get so much incorrect news reporting nowadays, it pains me to see a reporter being humiliated for simply trying to get his facts straight.
Check the TH-cam channel 'blancolirio' for no BS professional reporting on aviation issues. Juan Browne is a experienced airline pilot with lots of civilian and military experience
These reporters have NO RESPECT what stupid questions have been asked. Really this is a tragic accident and stop trying to get an angel on the crash so you can get front page news!!!
If one just watches war footage of these planes they would realize how tough these planes really are. Anything mechanical can have catastrophic trouble.
The clueless public really has no idea how many planes crash. In general aviation about one plane crashes a day or there is some mishap like flying into mountainous terrain. Most aircraft crash because of a chain of events. If that Captain couldn't fly that B17, then it was probably a multiple failure event. I think he and the crew did a great job. Some people did survive. It will be interesting to hear what the flight engineer says if he remembers it.
Although I have no factual information on the crash I strongly suggest that probably a control cable became inoperable because the plane can be flown with one engine dead. If one of the controls became defective this could make the plane very difficult if not impossible to fly or control.
First, pray for the families that lost loved ones in this crash. The B-17 historically suffered major damage and could make it back during WWII, the NTSB will ultimately figure this crash out. My hope is that flights like this don't get grounded, these planes have such a historical significance that they need to continue. Talk about a learning lesson, the plane represents the greatest generation that has ever lived.
There are MILLIONS of planes with piston engines. And the engines they were building in WW2 were wonderful. Brilliant tolerances. And these engines have all had full rebuilds, they are fussed over and loved by their mechanics. You will not find a better-maintained engine.
Where is their investigation of 9/11 Shanksville , Penn . and the pentagon crashes or the building #7 WTC on 9/11 ? Is there a cover up ? See the Fairbanks , University of Alaska engineering report on building #7 being a symmetrical , systematic failure of all supports simultaneously . Ie ; Explosives planted . not a building fire . Where is the news or investigation of these mandated by Congress reports that the FBI is being sued for non-compliance . No News . No INVESTIGATION of the plane crashes on 9/11 by these cover up criminals NTSB .
A couple of points here come to mind. 1) WTF are they having a press conference when they have nothing to say? (Mind, they do a pretty good job of stretching it out!). 2) What is the point of sending "reporters" who can't even ask a coherent question? (Are break-away poles supposed to break? REALLY????). Should vintage aircraft be banned? ABSOLUTELY! (NOT) with 21 accidents since 1985, they're falling around our ears every day. How many modern airliners have crashed in the same period? Are there calls to ban them? Don't be ridiculous! These warbirds have only lasted so long because they are well maintained. It's not easy or cheap to operate one of them and they are worth a fortune!
@Tim Tully They hit the de-icing tanks. Ethylene glycol IS FLAMMABLE under the right conditions per its MSDS. The glycol did burn. 909 had more than enough av gas on board to make that wreck hot enough to ignite it.
Premature comments...she didn't say a thing. B-17s were built in the 1930s with 1930s technology...this plane was manufactured in 1943. The fuel was fine...the engine was fine...high octane is fine...possibly propeller pitch seized up when number #4 engine...so you couldn't feather the engine...causing plane to veer to the right sharply.
I have listened up to the point of 'any questions'. These people have a tough job. They are not popular, they ask VERY awkward questions, indeed unpleasant unliked ones. But they have to! They are just questions, not accusations. If your kids were on the next WWII sky ride. You would be glad they made sure wouldn't you?.... I would. These are eighty year old aircraft which at the time had an expected wartime life of a few months. They are just making sure for all of us, including the flight crews that fly them.(we have the English version here the CAA). Help them to do a good job and get the right answers by supporting them.
The Lady NTSB Director is very astute and puts the facts across very professionally, she gives me confidence in finding the cause of this very sad event. Note: the pilot's flying experience was outstanding and the highest flying hours on a B17 in United States !! Very Very Sad event! I'm from the UK near Duxford and following WW2 aircraft with a great deal of respect for these planes & Pilots.
I hope and pray what happened in the UK won't happen in the US. In 2015 a Hawker Hunter crashed at an airshow at Shoreham, south England. The resulting knee-jerk reaction by the authorities has completely emasculated War Bird and other aviation events. Now if you are lucky to get to a decent show here, the aircraft are forced to fly far off in the distance. It's heartbreaking - might as well put them in a museum. The year before, I had gone with the kids to Upminster, and a Spitfire flew almost over our heads. That Merlin engine: I stlll get emotional about it. Pistons and cylinders! My sympathies to families, friends and supporters there.
This lady should take a ride in a Fort . Two examples ,Texas Raiders , Fuddy Duddy , Sentimental Journey ,Aluminium Overcast ,Memphis Belle . Ride a P-51 Mustang .
I would have lost my shit at the breakaway poles question.. This NTSB lady has patience of a saint. I would have replied with "Are Journalists lobotomized after being hired, or are they selectively hiring people with no brain?"
Certified 87? That doesn't give me a whole lot of information. Back when that plane(or cars even) where new, the leaded additive increased the AKI index. And they didn't run ethanol blends in the fuel. I can't speak for aviation, but for classic cars, the alcohol in the fuel tears apart the old rubber fuel lines, and damages the brass jets and floats in the carbs. Just because it's certified, doesn't mean the guy giving the stamp of approval did their homework.
So my take is let the NTSB conclude their investigation so we have all the facts. I will be hippocratic and state my theory, it is that somebody, that worked on that bomber, missed something, or got lazy or did not speak up of their concern. In flight the bomber had to return, but why would only one or two engines dead bring this bomber down to a crash? My thought is because the pilot turned to far too fast or the latter. Records in the past say that these bombers making it back from germany to the UK on only 2 engines. If I am wrong in my first assumption the the bomber did make a correct turn to safe land and did at first but hit something that was designed in modern times that was not there in 1942-1944. Just my thoughts. Keep up your great work NTSB. You all work hard and know what you do. PS I have never flown in a plane so you can bash me all you want. I do not care. Let the experts do their job just like the pilots do.
What a shame, condolences to the families. I was going through all the videos and couldn’t find any video of the actual crash. Is this something they hold from the public until the investigation is wrapped up? There’s gotta be numerous videos of it. I mean I can understand why the families may think different, not wanting to see it replaying over and over again..So I can see the airport not releasing their videos just yet. But the people who were waiting for it to land. I mean anytime a vintage aircraft flys into one of our local airports there are dozens of people/fans filming the old birds coming in .. Oh and don’t jump on me for bringing this up....I’m not wanting to see the poor souls crash to their deaths, again I just thought there would be actual footage of it crashing.. Think about it, we’ve all seen passenger airliners crash on video in the past..That or helicopters flying next to a airline with a front landing gear/wheel twisted, LIVE.. So if they can film a airliner packed with passengers on live TV, not knowing what the outcome would be.. Why hold back the footage for this particular crash, I don’t get it..
Why is there a guy asking the NTSB if they could determine how many seatbelts the plane had on board??? Where did these reporters get their degrees a crackerjack box??? WTF??? 🤦♂️
Yes, journalists go to school to learn how to speak and write and generally know little outside of that. That is why they have always present both sides even when one is clearly ridiculous. BUT, what worries me more is the lack of knowledge and qualification of Jennifer Homendy www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/JHomendy/Pages/bio_homendy.aspx where there is no mention of anything aviation or even mechanically related. Compare that to Dan Bower, PhD, Senior Aviation Accident Investigator, www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2012_Air_Race_Show_IHG-Panelists.aspx Homendy may be the boss, but it seems to me that Bower should have been handling the press conference.
I've personally been on this aircraft and flown with the foundation. Yes, there are enough seats and the team that operate the bombers are very professional and safety minded.
Ola!!
I like those jumpwings partner!
JD/82nd
I have done likewise, and agree with you 100%. There are plenty of GA aircraft of this vintage or older that fly safely, former war-birds notwithstanding.
This lady and guy who works with NTSB did a fantastic job with the press event! RIP crew and passengers and lastly the aircraft!
bigace1980.... Yes, they did.. as far as fending off some really ignorant and "steered" (re: manipulative) questions..... but NO, she didn't.... as she (and "he", either) had No understanding of the B-17G whatsoever, No knowledge of its Legendary combat reputation for its ability to stay airborne after being severely pounded from AA Flak and Luftwaffe ME-109's etc, etc. She lumped warbird accidents in one lump - sump figure.... when in fact, according to the NTSB's own statistical records... there have been Only 3 or 4 accidents involving B-17's since 1964!!.... which is incredible considering the many hundreds, if not thousands of Airshows they have attended and flown at over the years. The 17G was actually & initially designed to transport up to 64 troops. The Wright R-1820-97 engines (as were the 1820 - 51 & -65 engines) were extremely reliable as long as they were properly maintained.... no different than many other engines.
@@Romans--bo7br The chap confirmed that piston engines are "extremely reliable as long as they were properly maintained." These investigators are not pre-judging anything. Incidentally, they did say 21 accidents investigated by NTSB involving B-17G aircraft since 1981, not "Only 3 or 4 accidents involving B-17's since 1964".
@@dgansz705 Yes, she said that and then she immediately broke out the number of B-17 incidents--specifically 3--during the same period, namely since 1982...it's right there beginning at the 6:42 mark (with the number of 3 B-17s found at 6:53). I guess your player was giving you trouble at that point or something.
This was a WW 2 combat aircraft restored and maintained to exacting standards. It wasn’t a 787. Stop pointing fingers and accept that accidents happen and planes crash. Respect for deceased including the pilot.
Watching and listening from Australia. We also have a lot of warbirds but good luck getting to fly joyflights. The rule we have is that every passenger and crew must occupy a seat designed originally for the aircraft. You can't have people sitting on the floor etc. I have watched many B29 joy flights where more people are allowed than there are crew seats with people wandering around during the flight with GoPros etc.. Its been said that 13 people were on board and 7 of them were killed. She said that there were three crew...pilot, co-pilot and crew chief. Crew Chief? There is supposed to be a Flight engineer. So who was managing the engine controls and instruments from the Flight engineers console? The B17G had a maximum of 10 crew including the tail gunner. That means that in this B17, 3 or 4 people or more, given that joy flight passengers would not be in the gun turrets, would have been unrestrained, not in seats of any kind. I guess all will be revealed.
Also the pilot was 75. Now I can say this because I am not much younger, but down here you cannot be a Captain/pilot in command of any aircraft, warbird or not, that is taking paying passengers, and be over the age of 65. You would not get a license at all at 75. Its for good reason. Your reaction times and capability to deal with stressfull emergencies, is greatly diminished over 65.
@@TechnikMeister2 You can get a pilots licence in Australia at over 75. You just have to do the pilot medical every six months to maintain it. 0.3% of active pilots are over 80 in Australia.
A Lancaster Bomber flew over my head as I was watching this
In Canada? Yes, I have seen it many times flying over the western Toronto lakeshore.
@@awuma - That's her, one of two in the world still airworthy
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td The City of Lincoln "Just Jane" NX611 Is not Flight worthy, She has been grounded for a few years but she does Taxi Runs on the runway for the public to ride in.
Hopefully be flight worthy next year....Hopefully.
I miss her flying 😞
@@iangoldsworthy2056 PA474 in the UK is still airworthy.
These aircraft are considered by the owners as highly valuable and historically important. They are very well taken care of by their crews. They fly these aircraft to airshows to share them with the public,inform them of their history,and sell rides on them to help support the maintenance of the aircraft. Those that think they should be all grounded are clueless of what they are talking about. Typical of the US news media.😡😡😡
13:59 The break away reporter probably thinks this is his shining moment.
@@natalie53122 I can't believe you heard him say that either, because he did NOT say that. He said he assumes they are intended to break away WITHOUT DAMAGING THE PLANE. Yet she had just said they may have damaged the plane... the reporter is pointing out a discrepancy, or asking for clarification if a discrepancy exists.
Losing two engines on one side of that plane within two minutes of landing is most likely not recoverable on one possible try for a restart. On approach a co pilot throttling down while a captain is watching speed and level indicators and two fingers on the flaps the aircraft just after losing both engines dips the plane to one side and pitches it towards the lost engines side. Then veering off at an accelerating angle hitting the runway light VP's(Vertical Panels which are about 3 feet tall) as one wing scrubs the ground and ultimately slides as the plane slams into the de icing facility.
Honestly both pilots did do one thing correct. They did not attempt to throttle back up to full power on the remaining two working engines to avert and already realized and probable ground contact. And this most likely saved the lives of most of the passengers and gave them enough time to exit with the help of a ground crew worker. An inexperienced pilot may have throttled up full power and it could have been much worse than in this case.
Sad to hear the loss of lives. We take life for granted and neither pilot knew until seconds later that a solid tank of non flammable de-icer fluid was in their path. They may have all been spared if only hitting a few buildings which give way, but that solid tank was hard.
Several witnesses said they heard clicking noises as the plane was coming down one commentor with some knowledge said that sounded like the other engines were failing or had failed. Which means a lack of power.
I appreciate this point of view as it seems to be the most applicable and accurate to date
@@dgansz705 A witness on the ground seen number 3 Go just as it took off and he was also an experienced son of a B-17 pilot. He was watching on in admiration while waiting for a job interview. He stated three went out first and it bellowed smoke, he then states he heard the engine knocking. Next 4 then goes out in the turn right. That made it impossible to fly.
Considering it was the right side that lost both engines with no power they still managed an impossible right turn back to runway 6 on a weak right side. This would have taken an all right in on the rudder pedal with a hard left steer and gradually bumping a little to the right of the far left steering.
They accomplished this but sadly doing this caused a greater loss of altitude. But they did manage to swing the plane straight with the runway, but sadly 150 yards too short. They hit four of the ground VP Panels which several of them were weather eroded at their cement bases and sticking up about a foot tall. A wheel hit one of them on the right side breaking it off, it swung the plane towards the far right and towards the de-icing facility to the far right at the beginning of the runway as the second left side wheel breaks off and dangles it noses in the grass just before the access pavement to the de-icer facility, then bounces up slightly as it makes contact with the dith then pavement again and slams into ground clutter and equipment then hitting the large tank of de-icer. Sad indeed. I give the pilots credit for even making a straight line with the runway in the attempt. Sad indeed.
@@dgansz705 An eye witness who had experience with aircraft and WW2 Planes was admiring it take off while waiting at the takeoff end of the runway. He stated number three went out and was bellowing smoke and making cluttering sounds that he could hear loudly. He then states that in their right turn he heard another loud sound and then number 4 went out. That is known as an Impossible scenario losing power on the right with a right turn at low altitude. They did manage to line it up with runway 6 but while fighting with a full rudder left and full turn left to bump it over were just too short to make it. I commend both pilots for that because it did save seven. If the tank were not there they may have all survived to. Sad indeed.
I'd just like to say the Wright Cyclone 1820 is probably the most reliable radial engine that was/is ever used in aircraft and withstood incredible abuse in wartime of any other. This airframe has been completely reconstructed several time since it was built and every rivet has been examined and certified airworthy or it wouldn't have gotten it's certificate to fly. There appears to be other factors involved with it being too low and slow to make a secure landing without striking the approach lights. Before we assume anything, let the NTSB do their job of investigating this crash, please!
Clearly the field of reporters has been drawn from the lower end of the intelligence scale of available news reporters. At one point, a reporter asks in a round about way. "How safe are these aircraft?" When originally produced as a fighting machine, the B17 aircraft type made tens of thousands of sorties lasting 8 to 10 hours flying time, into occupied Europe with people on the ground and in the air shooting at them most of the way there and most of the way back! I think we can say that it is a given fact that properly maintained, these aircraft are pretty reliable. Even given a comparison to modern privately owned aircraft!
Many of the comments I'm reading for this video don't align with the same audio I heard regarding the questions asked by the reporters. Why is that? Most of the questions asked were reasonable and worded well. Sometimes, questions are asked to make sure the reporter accurately heard and understood what was given by the NTSB person. Also, keep in mind, that these reporters aren't required to know every nuance of the details and specs of this plane. Comments akin to "I can't believe the dumb question being asked..." posted by Sun and D-970 represent what I consider to be thoughtless and in-accurate comments about this audio content. I could make further observations on the many faulty and thoughtless posts by viewers. Makes me wonder if they viewed and heard the same video I did.
The reason I'm including the type of comments posted is that I read them first, then watched the video. When I encountered such blatant disparity between actual audio content, and the posted comments, I reviewed the audio portion of the video to see if I had missed critical parts. NOPE. The posters of these comments missed much more than parts. They showed how flawed their understanding and interpretation of the questions was. This was one of the best and detailed reports by the NTSB I have witnessed. The woman did an excellent job covering every important aspect of the crash investigation. The fact that most of the comments were extremely negative and condescending tells any reader how flawed these posters are in their comments.
What I don't get is those B17s took a fucking beating in the European theater during WWII and still made it home. This is strange.
Typical knee jerk reaction,if people are not involved with stuff like this they automatically want it banned. Let’s ban everything that is deemed “unsafe “ see how that plays?
Reporters are generalists. They do not have the knowledge that an enthusiast will have. We all have great interest in these aircraft and their history. A reporter goes back, does further research, then writes a story and goes on to the next assignment.
I assume we all would have a similar lack of knowledge on some other catastrophe, such as a drowning death of a diver cleaning screens at a coal fired power plant cooling pond.
No one knows everything.
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AT 11.41?????????????
A B-17 was NOT meant to fly forever! Anything that is 84 years old is going to have wear and tear that is NOT VISIBLE to the naked eye, and even if it is, many parts are hidden and unless you take the whole aircraft apart, you're not going to find the tiniest flaw that could bring the aircraft down. Let that beautiful old bird with it's great history rest in peace and quit over-working her beyond her capacity! The dear old aircraft wants to be seen and not heard in her dotage!
Pilots may be trying to recapture their youth by flying that aircraft again, but like the oldster, the plane cannot do what she did during WWII anymore!
Collings Foundation is a wonderful group of people and hope everyone can hold off crucification before finding out what happened. Oh, by the way, accidents happen involving airplanes since man can't actually fly on their own, and require machines to lift us off the ground. Vintage aircraft are a part of our history and should continue to be used for education and enjoyment.
This lady communicates in a clear & professional manner. Excellent. 👍🏻
Unlike the so called journalists in the room who sound totally uneducated idiots.
We don't need children in the room when discussing such a serious and sad event.
RIP to those souls lost in this tragedy.
It should have went: "Hello, we just got here, we really dont have a lot to go on and you dont have any knowledgeable questions to ask, so bye-bye".
Fake Brains
Shes easy on the eyes too
@@dennism103 holy shit, are you serious? C'mon you can't be.
Make all the comments you want about stupid reporters asking stupid questions, but it won't change the facts. There can be only two outcomes for these vintage aircraft. One, they are gracefully retired to aviation museums where future generations will visit them, admire them, and marvel at these mechanical beasts for years to come. Or two, wait until the last one falls from the sky, taking with it the last crew ever to man it. Those are the only two possibilities. The first choice gives us hope and knowledge. The second leaves us with memories and regrets. The question is, which one can you live with?
Dumb Reporter: Was the pilot certified to fly the plane?
Sarcastic Answer: We’re not sure but he did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
Well, it is nice to establish facts. Recall the fate of Aeroflot Flight 593.
The B-17 flies well on 3 engines . If the aircraft is handled properly . Look the combat footage of B-17s returning to base . We did not have to loose 9 0 9 .
@R Mack You are correct sir . Thank you .
@@paulgerald5808 They can do so and with less in level flight, unloaded.
Takeoff, climbing, and landing are the three phases of flight that are extremely dangerous to lose one or more engines. B-17 pilots from the war have stated in memoirs and interviews the very same thing, making the B-17 no less subjective to those dangers.
your dumb too
Wow, asking if the air crew were certified to fly the plane??? Who in the hell is going to risk a multi-million dollar aircraft on aircrew that doesn't know what they're doing? Stunning stupidity.
7,300 hours. Yes, I think he was qualified lol
Most reporters are morons, so there's that.
@@davidarmstrong7966 well, that is true
@@davidarmstrong7966 Just societies jesters.
@@davidarmstrong7966 Not so much morons as not knowing anything about aviation or aircraft. There are subjects they may know lot about just not this.
Spooky. I met the pilot this summer when the group stopped in Yakima. He seemed like a really nice guy. Sad to see the loss of life and the loss of an iconic bomber. RIP
Mac was a good man and a great pilot. Both he and that plane had a big spirit. They, both the plane and her crew, will be sorely missed.
I also meet with and chatted with the pilot when they came to Cape May NJ to the Wildwood NAS WDD just 2 months ago, it disturbed me slightly
The fatality rate for B17Gs was much higher from 1943 to 1945.
thomas smith wonder why?
@@johnsouth3912 Umm, World War 2?
thomas smith flak will do it everytime !!!
@@bustersmith5569 that and me 109's!
Ok how many people were killed that from texting and driving? Need to ban cell phones also since they want to ban antique aircraft.
Cell phones are the bane of the 21st century BUT, it's not the device that is killing humans, it's the behavior of the human using the device to try to capture their idiotic, daring ventures that could (and do) kill them, then it is captured for posterity, to haunt and torture the family left behind. Selfies are simply the narcissistic efforts of a person to show themselves off, OR DISTRACT them when they should be paying attention to what they're doing, often to their death!
its a 900 dollar fine where I live
Omg 40,000 people died in car crashes. Ban cars. 🤷🏻♂️
I love all the comments here. Lots of opinions from people who think they know what happened but have never been near a radical engine or a vintage aircraft and don't have a clue how they were made or how they're maintained today. Not to mention the complete lack of knowledge about those charged with the maintenance and operation of the aircraft.
The facts as we know them at this time. The pilot was fully qualified for the type. The plane has had all proper up to date maintenance required for legal and safe flight. The pilot reported a problem with engine #4 and requested, and was granted, permission to return to the airport. The plane contacted the ground short of the runway threshold, veered to the right and slid into the de-icing facility where it caught fire and was destroyed.
EVERYTHING ELSE is speculation at this point. The NTSB will conduct an analysis of all factors from beginning to end, including maintenance records, and activities of everyone connected in any way with the plane's operation. I would expect at a 100 page report. Anyone who thinks they know what happened should contact the NTSB and present their opinion, I mean evidence.
I had a personal connection with Nine-0-Nine as I was part of the crew that spent 2+ years repairing and rebuilding it after its off-runway landing accident at KBVI in SW PA. I know the care and exacting attention to detail that goes into the operation of these machines.
How do we know that you are not making all this up?
Good solid comment. We need more info before jumping to conclusions.
I have rode on the "Aluminum Overcast" by EAA. Wonderful ride! Thoroughly enjoyed it!
@@phapnui You don't know, especially the part about having a personal connection with this bird. That being written, however, as of those 13 hours ago everything posted is as I understand it at this time too. If you have something to add--other than that dhy5342 should have written 'radial' rather than 'radical' engine--by all means let's hear it.
It's radial engine old boy, you can edit out the misspelling if you want.
...Radical engine?...a Radial engine...and I agree with your comments here....
Reminds me of reporters during the Gulf War, "Can you tell us if we have additional surprise attacks planned for tomorrow", Schwarzkopf "No"
My sincerest condolences to the families of the Crew, I'm an ex Pilot and know what it means when you involved in a crash. God bless the Families
Reporter: " Are these piston type engines very reliable?" Would not over 70 years in service answer this ?
I don't know. Does your car seem reliable with it's "Piston Type" engine? HAHAHAHAHAHA
most prop jobs today are still using piston engines. What a bunch of dunces in the media!!!
Seriously? These bombers flew countless bombing raids over enemy territory carrying tons of bombs while being shot at by the enemy from both the ground and the air. These bomber planes flew through enemy flack and were literally shredded to pieces in flight and many were still able to return safely to base full of holes. These planes were work horses.
I don't suppose any of you have heard of the term, "Metal Fatigue" ? No? It's a pretty simple concept that postulates the concept that NO MACHINE RUNS FOREVER! Sooner or later, they all quit. Especially seventy year old ones. (p.s. these airplanes were made to survive WWII, and not much else after that, it's past time to retire them)
@@jstephenallington8431 Ever hear of Magnaflux inspections? Besides chances of 4 engines having "Metal Fatigue" failures at the same time are close to zero.
Reporters shouldn’t be giving opinions on anything! Just REPORT on the facts! That’s all!
I hate stupid reporters.
That, in a nutshell is what’s wrong with media reporting today.
Most reporters are incapable of reporting facts.
I'm a retired Civil Aviation Inspector, Pilot / Engineer. I used to inspect war birds and issue flight authorities to them. The level of maintenance, workmanship and care I witnessed on these aircraft was much higher than commercial aviation. What happened here is tragic. Let the NSTB do it's job before everyone jumps to conclusions. Blue sky to all.
I remember during the first gulf war a reporter asked if cruise missiles had pilots! &^%$#@!!
haha...well if its got wings it must have a pilot, right...lol
Lol. Though if they had previously seen the Japanese Ohka suicide missile, and had no common sense, they might think so...
@jack torrence Maybe we should save on the defense budget by recruiting such people to be "cruise missile pilots", bwahah!
I remember a President that thought airports were used during the Revolutionary War
@jack torrence Beat me to it...Baka bombs, piloted projectiles.
“Are the breakaway poles meant to breakaway?”
Was this a plane?
Is this earth?
The guy actually said something like "I assume breakaway poles are intended to break away... would that still result in damage to the plane?"
But it is lots of fun to ridicule the lady's modified version of it, and blame that on the guy.
OK, the “breakaway poles” question is getting a bad rap! I’m sure this comment is going to get lost in the flood of other comments but listen closely to what he actually said and his question was absolutely valid! She restated it very poorly. She had said that they were going to be examining the scars to see if striking the breakaway poles played a role in the ultimate crash. The reporter said aren’t the breakaway poles designed to not damage the aircraft but breakaway? Based on what she had just said that was an appropriate question. If they are designed to not damage the aircraft they shouldn’t really play a major factor in its ultimate crash, should they? Like another commentator said, she could have said that even though they are breakaway an aircraft is not going to hit them without suffering possibly significant damage. Simply restating it as “aren’t the breakaway poles designed to break away” is a disservice to his question. (Not that I’m saying some of the other questions didn’t show a lack of understanding about aircraft.) This was a tragic accident but certainly doesn’t call for the grounding of World War II aircraft. If you caught the statistic, there have been a total of three B-17 crashes in the last 35+ years. If you total up the number of hours I image the still-flying B-17s have flown at air shows and demonstration flights in the last 35 years I bet they have a safety record at least as good as or better than commercial aviation and definitely better than general aviation!
8:16 "rods and cylinders moving up and down make it less reliable than a rotating engine"??? It's called a radial FFS.
"Are the break away poles meant to break way?" Really? Do these people have functioning brains?
p51bombay
I can hear them now, oh so that’s why they’re called break away
🤣
Omg! Cannot believe that reporter actually asked that. His next hit will be when he gets to interview one of the survivors and asks them how they felt when the B-17 hit the ground. Geeze!!
@@dgansz705 LMAO you crazy.
Except he dosn't ask that, he said " I assume the breakaway poles are designed to break away and fall apart" its in reference to the previous question about what role they played in the accident. She then reframed the question.
@@dgansz705 Then the reporter would probably ask where were they going to bury the survivors.
I have read some of your comments and I’m soooo in agreement with many of them.
None of these people ever saw the plane because they don’t care about that kind of thing.
I’ve been in that plane several times and there were safety belts for everybody who would ride in it for takeoff and landings. I did not ever get the opportunity to fly in one of them but I do believe that once they were airborne they allowed people to move around.
I have heard the rumor that they loaded it with jet fuel and since the wings are still available there should be fuel in both wings To analyze. If they mistakenly filled this with the wrong fuel there’s definitely going to be hell to pay! But it seems like the indication is correct as 100 octane was correct octane for US World War II aircraft.
And also indicated that the most experienced pilot was flying the plane. I would have to think that the other engines were failing for it to fall almost 1000 feet short of the runway.
Concerning eyewitnesses saying that they were working on the engines before take off; my observation this summer was they always inspect and double check on the engines after every time she flies.
It is fairly sickening to hear all of the uneducated questions. You think they’d spend a little time on Google or TH-cam learning something about the aircraft so they have something intelligent to ask.
"100 octane was correct octane for US World War II aircraft" Depending on the aircraft, all grades from 50/57 octane to 130/145 was used. All grades were leaded fuel. The modern fuel used in most piston engine aircraft is 100 Low Lead.
A good comment.
Laurence Elisha..... The NTSB sumped the right wing tank and confirmed that it was, in fact... 100 Octane AV Gas, Not JP-4 that someone started a rumor that it was "jet fuel". I completely agree with you in regards to your thoughts about all the "Uneducated questions".... and what is really "sickening" is the fact that it's these same morons who will "twist" the story line to the general public to get there own demented agenda in place.... and I have no doubt that in listening to these ignorant questions... a few of them were definitely trying to manipulate an answer from the NTSB that would go towards "grounding" the war birds.
Another thing that irritates me is... that the NTSB representatives present, were just about as ignorant of the B-17's and their incredible history of being able bring their crews back to England after being completely shot up with (in some cases) major fuselage, wing and vertical stabilizer damage (even completely missing!), engines out, etc, etc, etc.... as were the ignorant reporters asking ignorant and even manipulative questions!
the inspection is called a preflight and is done on every aircraft before flight... the same way your supposed to check your cars tires and oil before you drive it.. but you cage drivers dont die when your engine gos kaboom . unlike aircraft with poor glide characteristics and you dont make it to a good runway..
Well said.
The B-17 and many other aircraft (the DC-3/C-47 for instance) use the Wright R-1820 radial air-cooled engine. If it's properly maintained, it is one of the most dependable high power (1200 HP flat out) aircraft engines ever made. In WW2, B-17's routinely flew many miles with one or, occasionally, even 2 engines out. 100 LL fuel is appropriate for this aircraft. The lead content of the fuel is of no consequence as newer fuels have safer additives to prevent pre-ignition ("knock") during high power engine usage. They always do minor maintenance in the field to ensure safety. A lot of it is preflight stuff. The pilot was the highest time B-17 driver in the US. We'll have to wait and see what the NTSB finds out. My sincere condolences to everyone who were affected by this fatal crash. It was so sad.
No piston engine will be as reliable as a turbine engine.
This whole thing is becoming more and more difficult to understand. Clearly, something more than a single engine failure has occurred, here. Either the control system, the complete fuel system...... sabotage, terrorism.....no way of knowing, this early on. But this plane is known, possibly more than any other, in the history of aviation, for it's airworthiness!
@@dgansz705 According to the FAA, turbine engines have a failure rate of one per 375,000 flight hours, compared to of one every 3,200 flight hours for aircraft piston engines. So statistically speaking, turbine engines are more than 100 times more reliable than piston.
For all those "Aviation Experts", WWII was a long time ago. Fatigue is a major issue always.
@@davidandrew1078 For unpressurised aircraft, it is well understood and readily monitored, and low-tech aircraft such as the DC-3 have essentially infinite fatigue lifetimes. That is not the case for pressurised aircraft, especially jetliners, which have lifetimes measured in the number of cycles, generally around 50,000 - 100,000.
Not one of these "reporters" would know the definition or concept of Root Cause / Corrective Action without formal training, and the only people that have had that is the NTSB.
Just because they work for the NTSB doesn't mean they know much about this type of Air craft .
Darrell Goodman - The NTSB know how to conduct an objective investigation, though. When necessary, they consult with other experts to fill in any gaps in their own knowledge.
This is not true. Any engineer worth his salt understands root cause analysis. I've done lots of forensic analysis on gas turbine engines from crashed aircraft to determine root cause. I've never worked for the NTSB.
@@ronaldschoolcraft8654 ..I think I understand the point being made....the understanding of Root Cause definition is known by NTSB and maybe not the press.....BUT....also agree with you that any engineer worth his salt in industry and in this field, also understand Root Cause and related rigorous study and investigative methods......not just NTSB understands this.
Ronald Schoolcraft True. Legions of people in multiple disciplines have received training, and RCA is widely employed. Sologic is one source of such training.
Did the added weight of the lead in the fuel cause the plane to fall short of the threshold?
-Sincerely, Journalism
Very sad day for WW2 aviation
My condolences to the loved ones of the deceased. There will probably be no media circus when the final NTSB report is released. I hope I manage to find out what the final findings are. Everything at this point is speculation and opinion.
The Captain had the most hours in a B17 (7300 hours), more than any other pilot in the USA. Wow.
More hours in a B17 THAN ANY OTHER PILOT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE B17, if I understood that correctly.
That surely didn't include the Bombing Sorties in the Second world war can it? Only in post war flights?
@@iangoldsworthy2056 WWII B-17 pilots at the end of their tours really didn't have a whole lot of hours. I doubt that any of them saw the conflict through with more than 600 hours. German airmen however flew until they were killed, invalided out, or captured.
Ian Goldsworthy He probably had more time and B-17s than any other pilot in history.... The pilots in World War II could go home after 25 successful missions. This was made famous by the Memphis Belle. missions typically lasted anywhere from 8 to 10 hours so even on the high side after 25 missions at 10 hours each you’re looking at only 250 total hours... later in the war pilots were required to spend more missions but even if you were to double triple or even quadruple that it would only be 1000 total hours. add in another 200 for training And a few hundred extra miscellaneous hours, and your average World War II vet probably is anywhere from 1000 to 1500 total hours in the airplane
My Lord, I have never heard such inane questions as these. This is what you get when you raise a generation of boys who never turn into men.
@Roger ClemonsWho asked the questions? I think most persons commenting about the reporters were posting in generalities. Gender being the last thing anyone was interested in.
are break away poles made to break away? that was a genius question. i had a ride in the b24 twice . i hope the government dont shut them down . it was a highlight in my life . they are very professional. ill go again maybe the p51 mustang next time .
Yeah I got the opportunity to fly in a b24 Miss Mitchell. I was volunteer at the airfield where it was maintained and parked. I was very surprised as for your texting down the runway how the engines backfired and made all kinds of weird noise. from once we started down the runway they just came to life and she ran like a champ after that. I agree with you It was one of the highlights in my life and I got video of all of it and we had an escort of 10 fighter pilots from world war II also with us It was really an awesome flight.
Most of these questions were insulting.
Gonna miss you, Mac. Fair winds old friend.
Ted II best comment on here. Thank you.
Introduction speech; Any stupid questions will result in the offender being sprayed in the face with pepper spray.
I would volunteer for that job in a heartbeat!
@@markcarbonaro6524 Mark, you would need a large quantity of pepper spray, maybe a large back pack system would be best.
How bout the reporter that doesn’t know what leaded gasoline is🤔🙄🤷🏻♂️
I'd say "what a dipstick" but they likely don't know what those are!
Fucken tard
Very discouraging the ignorance that media displays, the fox guy in particular. The NTSB guy's answer about reliability comparisons isn't amazing either.
Those who cant do, report on those who do. The NTSB guy is a typical government employee - reaching for a position they really aren't qualified for. He just has seniority.
The Captain was the most Qualified Professional Warbird B-17 and with those hours in type and the answers will be known to all once the investigation has been completed. My condolences to the crew members and families
Well, I bet dollars to dougnuts that "Most Qualified B-17 pilot" made several mistakes.
Bernard Anderson , I was reading your comment as she( NTSB Lady) was speaking of the pilots qualifications.
God Bless this man and all that he accomplished in his life time.
And thank you for your comment as well.
My condolences to all affected by this tragic event ☮️💟
I’m guessing he stalled the right wing turning short on final. With the number 4 out, the right wing would have been easy to stall.
Ironically, of many of the B17 aircraft that returned from their missions, many that crashed on final were due to similar circumstances. Uneven power delivery or missing components from damage. Causing uncoordinated flight at slow speeds during landing phase, ultimately leading to loss of control and subsequent crash. The bird could fly without a tail, but no one ever said about landing.
I agree with your assessment, but the apparent urgency of the radio communications suggest that something more critical than a failed engine was going on. I’m sure many pilots besides myself have some good guesses. It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals. With respect to inane questions from reporters, what would you expect? Look at what bad reporting has contributed to the atrocious state of American politics and the disintegration of American society and culture.
I can’t believe the dumb questions being asked...
I can. “Wait, airplanes still use propellers?”
John M not much common sense among aviation deficient journalists. Propelled driven planes are still common in general aviation and some small commercial airline operations
@@JohnM-ko4xe >>> Agreed....
This whole thing is becoming more and more difficult to understand. Clearly, something more than a single engine failure has occurred, here. Either the control system, the complete fuel system...... sabotage, terrorism.....no way of knowing, this early on. But this plane is known, possibly more than any other, in the history of aviation, for it's airworthiness!
You're forgetting the most likely cause of this crash.
*YES! *It was either the 'Ghost of Bin Laden' or perhaps even Hitler that made it happen...THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO KNOW!*
JohnnyG
Which is??
Several respondents on here have stated that at lift off because of the amount of power you need to get the plane in the air is when it is most vulnerable with an engine failure. Even the possibility of more than one engine failing would make it difficult to maneuver.
Pilot error in all likelihood played some part. They reported a problem with #4 and were given clearance to land. The plane touched down before veering off
Could it be a strong cross wind that forced it to veer off the runway way.
“Are break away poles meant to breakaway?” Remember boys and girls, these are the exact same people telling us what to think about the President.
What is wrong with people? These are vintage warplanes. Built in wartime under extreme pressure, designed to do one task...rain death on the enemy..destroy things and kill people. When this plane was built, aviation was all of 41 years old..even though it was built for war, very durable, and with the best technology available, it is still ANTIQUE technology..it's not a ride at Disney. Any military pilot from the real world combat units wil tell you straight..climbing into one of these is risking life and limb, period. So get real. Something catastrophic happened here to a well maintained antique aircraft..and lives were lost. Wait for the NTSB to do their job. Don't ask stupid questions.
@@dgansz705 Revel in your idiocy fool, no matter to me. WW2 warplanes are state of the art for the 1940's..cable and counterweight control surfaces..no hydraulics. Do you know how the landing gear operates on a B17? Of course you don't. So sit down junior..yes, much of the B17, and all WW2 warplanes, are primarily antique technology. Can you show me your A&P cert. please?
@@dgansz705 Obviously you've mistaken me for someone who might be impressed. Uh no. So you're an antique along with these aircraft, good on you. Never used the word "ancient", that must be YOUR opinion of them. I'm a fool?? You're the one all huffy because you can't stand a 76 yr old aircraft being called an "antique".. Tuff shit bucky..it's a fkin antique.
@@dgansz705 Technology has improved a great deal in 75 years. Hydraulics have changed a great deal, that's something I know about. I'm sure all the hardware, cables, avionics and construction techniques have advance as much. A lot of the structure and fasteners are 75 years old and subject to metal fatigue. Machines can't last forever.
The left hand seat had the most experienced B-17 pilot there is. Damn! 7300 hours and he needed 1000 more feet.
John Franklin - How much experience did he have handling engine-out emergencies?
GH1618 My guess is, it wasn’t his first and losing 1 out of 4 engines isn’t an emergency. Reenforced by the fact that he didn’t declare an emergency. I’m also guessing that’s we’re going to find out that it was more than losing 1 engine that brought him down short of the runway.
Wow
Blow out
GH1618 in order to maintain his type rating, he’d have to demonstrate proficiency for an examiner at least once a year.
...The breakaway poles...are they meant to break away?
This why you can watch the news and be less informed about an event than you were if you had never heard of it.
Ain't what he actually asked...
The pilots are highly trained. The plane is safe to fly, just like a modern plane. The mechanics are licensed to maintain the plane. They have the authority to ground the plane, if necessary. The plane can not fly again until the issues are repaired and signed off by the certified mechanic. The planes have mandated maintenance on a regular basis as required by the FFA. The B17 G bomber has very much better safety record than modern airliners. Don’t let the news media manipulate you in this story.
Painful to watch. The NTSB personal seems as clueless as the media. "We believe that 100 Low Lead is a widely used fuel....but we aren't sure.
At first I said pilot error, and most times with these old warbirds that crash it has been. But I’m not so sure this time.
After reading into it more, looking at the flight path, ATC coms and chewing over what could go wrong; I think it was more due to the ground crew who does detailed inspections. The guys who examine critical components internally, the airframe, guy’s who service it.
They perhaps didn’t do a thorough enough job as you should on an almost 80 year old aircraft. Even thinking to my own experience with a less severe somewhat similar experience.
I own a 1971 Chevrolet that Chevelle that when I got it had 80% original critical parts. Engine, trans, joints steering suspension etc. It wasn’t in pristine condition but it was mint. Never had an issue for 3 years. Even though I gave it a thorough once over every other day before driving, I got sloppy one day and didn’t check one thing I usually check before going on a 2 hour road trip on the highway.
Well I usually really get under the hood checking for leaks of any kind, fluid levels etc before long trips but this time instead I just looked over the car opened the hood and I almost went to check the oil but I got lazy because I didn’t have a rag and said, “I’m sure it’s fine”. Closed it and started off.
Well about 35 minutes into my ride of going 70-75 for about 70% of that time I started losing power, I pressed harder and it just dropped from 75 to 50 to 30 real quick then just stopped. Well after coasting to a stop I got out checked my oil. It was BONE dry. Not a drop. I burnt up my engine that for 3 years never showed a sign of age, even having a full fluid level the day prior.
Excuse the length of this story, and no it wasn’t as serious or unforgiving as flying an aircraft at altitudes. But it’s an example of how letting your guard down just one time and not being 100% anal about everything. One original component can break then a catastrophic failure.
I doubt it was pilot error. I think it was a fuel or spark issue and the engines powered down after take off. Nothing you can do but try to land it.
For all the people shitting on the investigators or reporters in the comments. With the benefit of a few more months of investigation I can tell you that all of you are completely jumping to conclusions and refusing to ask questions as to why this plane crashed. The foundation has now been seen to be seriously lacking in their safety procedures. The captain, despite his incredible experience, allowed the flight to proceed knowing full well that their were problems with the number 4 magnetos. All of the spark plugs on all of the cylinders were in bad shape and had been poorly maintained. 1 mag in number 4 was completely dead and the other was barely running. The mags in 3 were barely running. Both 3 and 4 had serious signs of detonation. The aircraft was as poorly maintained as it could be without a wing falling off. What can be assumed from the feathered state of the number 4 prop and partially feathered number 3 prop, is that they lost 4, turned back to land and lost 3 on the way, trying to feather the prop as they crashed down. Now a B-17 can maintain altitude with 2 engines, so 1 and 2 must have been in rough shape to not be producing enough power to keep it aloft. I'm not questioning the pilots skill as aviators, but the fact that this plane was even allowed to take off with the crew knowing the state it was in, is frankly absurd. When you fly with passengers you have peoples lives in your hands and it is your responsibility to do everything you can to ensure a safe flight, which includes not flying if there is a serious risk. To the people asking why a company would risk and multi-million dollar plane like this? Costs, and stupidity. If you take a risk once and it works, you feel like you can pull it off again. Once you've done it 100 times you feel safe, but eventually you're bluff will get called and this is the result. These people should never be allowed to fly another passenger flight and the aircraft in their inventory should got to groups that will properly maintain and preserve their history.
During my time in the Air Force, my aircraft blew an air duct in the leading edge of the wing, this caused the wing blowoff panel to blow off, preventing damage to the wing. The duct was repaired, and panel replaced. About that time our new maintenance officer came out and demanded I remove the panel to ensure it was installed properly. I explained it was designed to blow off and functioned properly. He insisted no panel should ever fall off in flight. I grabbed my toolbox and walked off. If he wanted to charge me with failure to comply with an order, one of us will look like a fool! Never heard anything more, and he was relieved of duty shortly thereafter.
My question is: "Did any of the 3 flight crew survive, if so, are they in a condition to be interviewed and if so, what did they say happened?"
Sadly, the answer to that question is no. Well, the pilot and copilot are dead, not sure about the third crew member she mentioned.
@@jeremypnet I heard the Pilot died in the accident. If the Co-Pilot also died, that leaves the Flight Engineer as a good witness to exactly what went wrong, if he is in a condition to discuss.
A B-17 are capable of Landing with three engines
'Airport Security video '?
In my country if an aircraft has an emergency and has to return to the airfield, then ATC Tower will video the landing as part of the procedure.
I cannot believe that this is not an FAA ruling.
Triplex 29 who stops working to do It?
To bad the news media and the NTSB wasn't around when our boys had to fly these aircraft back to the field after a mission full of bullet holes and only running on 2 engines. Trying to land with a full crew and the gear frozen in place and wouldn't come down. Skiding Down the runway and bursting into flames..
Oh yeah. The good ol days! When they were ordered to get in those buckets of bolts and fly missions before they had even been repaired from the last mission ..
Tell the reporters to go interview some of those captains and ask how they felt when those orders came and they new it was a suicide mission but had to somehow get it over the target and back home with all alive. All the while knowing that it could fall out of the sky any minute. Lol lol lol
Balls of steal !! Not brass!!
That's why we respect these ol girls still today ..
Someone please tell the reporters these are not luxury commercial airliners. Lol lol. These are vibrating, shaking, growling, flexing, snapping and popping SHEETMETAL TITANS OF THE SKIES.. Anytime you sign that waiver form stating your taking full responsibility for your actions when climbing aboard one of these animals, you should be grateful that you had that opportunity to actually experience a piece of history that we all can only hear and dream about.. If we had a chance we would of all been on that plane that day...My prayers and love go out to all that have lost their lives and or loved ones aboard these TITANS of the skies.. weather it's a plane ,car, boat, truck, or a skateboard, accidents while continue to happen, and we will have to live with that fact... Its human nature to chase that thrill that scares you . We have all done it !! Some of us are addicted to it.. These are the only ones I can truly say that are living life to its fullest.. All we can do is try and do the things in this life that make us the happiest at every moment of our lives each and every day. . And yes there will be accidents as we experience this journey of happiness..
So!! I ask and pray that we all walk with the creator each day, and give thanks for each breath we take.
AMEN!!
Appears the press is already gearing up to condemn flying these aircraft. 21 accidents, OK, but the NTSB investigates all accidents major or incidental. For example how many Cessna 172 accidents have there been reported, in that same time period. The only question here is; a plane that should have made it back to the airport didn't. Why? I'm sure they will examine the contents of the fuel residue left in all the engines, and the condition of all spark plugs. I think the answer for this crash will be found there.
My husband was thinking power loss due to spark plug/harness failure on these engines. Won't stop him from going flying if he got the chance to do it in another warbird.
Sad that our society is so ignorant of basic mechanics......
Reporter: Do the wheels on the bus go round and round?
It hurts to loose 9 0 9 and the loss of life .
@@dgansz705 I hope they can but would be wise to . She burned out . All the main part of the airframe has been destroyed, beyond economical repair . Let Her Rest .
She is rebuildable, seems like Exterior fire damage to it. Engines are complete, both wings, Tail, stabilizers and Landing gear Just need a quite a few Aliminium Sheets and all the interior fitted out and she will be good as new.
@@iangoldsworthy2056 Saw something on the Liberty Belle ,that she is being rebuilt . Is this true . I remember that incident . Thank you .
@@iangoldsworthy2056 I fell in love with B-17 Flying Fortress when I was 4.years old ,the movie was Twelve O'clock Hight and TV series of the same name . I have the Boeing and the USAAF manuals . The "Fort" is my all time aircraft . I will miss 9 0 9 . Thank you
@@paulgerald5808 Yes it is as is the Champaign Lady and so will the R231909 if it is handled correctly.
Who would ever think to name a pole that is supposed to break away, a “breakaway” pole? So confusing. Why was this plane flying around with those piston thingys in the engines? Sounds unsafe. (sarcasm font engaged) SMDH
Why you came here: 15:15 --Because you're gonna watch the whole video, anyway.
I love the way she answered the brake away pole question. "do the brake away poles brake away? Yes that's what they're designed for". These "reporters" are pathetic.
They might be able to spell break, however.
@@larry50 obviously but autocorrect picks the most used word and I happen to be a mechanic. When typing on a 2x3 inch keyboard every word tends to be misspelled. Is that really worth your time? You must be fun at parties lmfao.
Well Jason, is it really worth YOUR time to ridicule the reporter for a question he did not even ask? If you listen carefully to what was actually asked (rather than the woman's incorrect/insulting restatement of it) he was asking for clarification of an apparent discrepancy in that she had just said the poles damaged the aircraft. He actually asked, aren't the breakaway poles supposed to break away with the purpose of avoiding damage to aircraft? That is a legitimate question. We get so much incorrect news reporting nowadays, it pains me to see a reporter being humiliated for simply trying to get his facts straight.
21.... B-17 crashes since 1982??? There's only 17 left people stop flying them and let them rest as they deserve in a museum!!!!
+Todd bob I can think of only four B-17 incidents since the 1980s. Unfortunately three of those have resulted in the loss of another airframe.
Check the TH-cam channel 'blancolirio' for no BS professional reporting on aviation issues. Juan Browne is a experienced airline pilot with lots of civilian and military experience
These reporters have NO RESPECT what stupid questions have been asked. Really this is a tragic accident and stop trying to get an angel on the crash so you can get front page news!!!
You could talk to some of the original B-17 maintenance Crews they could tell you maybe what went wrong
If one just watches war footage of these planes they would realize how tough these planes really are. Anything mechanical can have catastrophic trouble.
Too low and too slow
Imagine if this kind of investigation was done when the “Plane” hit the pentagon...
this has more detail than 9/11
WHY...?
You joking?
One Drone Pilot, this must be a joke 😂
Bozo CT troll.
@Roger Clemons Bozo CT troll.
The clueless public really has no idea how many planes crash. In general aviation about one plane crashes a day or there is some mishap like flying into mountainous terrain. Most aircraft crash because of a chain of events. If that Captain couldn't fly that B17, then it was probably a multiple failure event. I think he and the crew did a great job. Some people did survive. It will be interesting to hear what the flight engineer says if he remembers it.
Although I have no factual information on the crash I strongly suggest that probably a control cable became inoperable because the plane can be flown with one engine dead. If one of the controls became defective this could make the plane very difficult if not impossible to fly or control.
You could not have a more qualified pilot flying this plane.
Sad my condolences to those who lost there lives, doing what they loved to do.
First, pray for the families that lost loved ones in this crash. The B-17 historically suffered major damage and could make it back during WWII, the NTSB will ultimately figure this crash out. My hope is that flights like this don't get grounded, these planes have such a historical significance that they need to continue. Talk about a learning lesson, the plane represents the greatest generation that has ever lived.
I agree. I hope they don't shortsightedly ground all the WW2 planes. I have rode on many of them and greatly enjoy the experience!
They won't ground the planes however they could ban tourist flights.
There are MILLIONS of planes with piston engines. And the engines they were building in WW2 were wonderful. Brilliant tolerances. And these engines have all had full rebuilds, they are fussed over and loved by their mechanics. You will not find a better-maintained engine.
77gravity
Yeah old school love for those things
You don’t see that as much from younger generations
So...what could possibly go wrong with a 75 year old bucket of bolts? Tragic and sad for all involved.
mickey splane I think you’d be shocked to find the average age of a piston-engined GA aircraft. 75 calendar years means nothing.
mickey splane
Yeah, if you fly much you better not ask the age of the plane 😂
All I can say to some of this is that it's better to ask 'dumb' questions and get it right than to leave the room not knowing and get it wrong.
On the audio the pilot states problem with the #4 engine
The person who coined the saying "There are no stupid questions" obviously did not attend this press conference.
Where is their investigation of 9/11 Shanksville , Penn . and the pentagon crashes or the building #7 WTC on 9/11 ? Is there a cover up ? See the Fairbanks , University of Alaska engineering report on building #7 being a symmetrical , systematic failure of all supports simultaneously . Ie ; Explosives planted . not a building fire . Where is the news or investigation of these mandated by Congress reports that the FBI is being sued for non-compliance . No News . No INVESTIGATION of the plane crashes on 9/11 by these cover up criminals NTSB .
A couple of points here come to mind. 1) WTF are they having a press conference when they have nothing to say? (Mind, they do a pretty good job of stretching it out!). 2) What is the point of sending "reporters" who can't even ask a coherent question? (Are break-away poles supposed to break? REALLY????).
Should vintage aircraft be banned? ABSOLUTELY! (NOT) with 21 accidents since 1985, they're falling around our ears every day. How many modern airliners have crashed in the same period? Are there calls to ban them? Don't be ridiculous! These warbirds have only lasted so long because they are well maintained. It's not easy or cheap to operate one of them and they are worth a fortune!
Question:
How much of the fire was the result of the aircraft's fuel, and how much was from the equipment that it hit?
@Tim Tully They hit the de-icing tanks. Ethylene glycol IS FLAMMABLE under the right conditions per its MSDS. The glycol did burn. 909 had more than enough av gas on board to make that wreck hot enough to ignite it.
Premature comments...she didn't say a thing. B-17s were built in the 1930s with 1930s technology...this plane was manufactured in 1943. The fuel was fine...the engine was fine...high octane is fine...possibly propeller pitch seized up when number #4 engine...so you couldn't feather the engine...causing plane to veer to the right sharply.
A tragic loss of life & a part of history! My condolences to all family's & friends. RIP
I have listened up to the point of 'any questions'. These people have a tough job. They are not popular, they ask VERY awkward questions, indeed unpleasant unliked ones. But they have to! They are just questions, not accusations. If your kids were on the next WWII sky ride. You would be glad they made sure wouldn't you?.... I would. These are eighty year old aircraft which at the time had an expected wartime life of a few months. They are just making sure for all of us, including the flight crews that fly them.(we have the English version here the CAA). Help them to do a good job and get the right answers by supporting them.
The Lady NTSB Director is very astute and puts the facts across very professionally, she gives me confidence in finding the cause of this very sad event. Note: the pilot's flying experience was outstanding and the highest flying hours on a B17 in United States !! Very Very Sad event! I'm from the UK near Duxford and following WW2 aircraft with a great deal of respect for these planes & Pilots.
I hope and pray what happened in the UK won't happen in the US. In 2015 a Hawker Hunter crashed at an airshow at Shoreham, south England. The resulting knee-jerk reaction by the authorities has completely emasculated War Bird and other aviation events. Now if you are lucky to get to a decent show here, the aircraft are forced to fly far off in the distance. It's heartbreaking - might as well put them in a museum. The year before, I had gone with the kids to Upminster, and a Spitfire flew almost over our heads. That Merlin engine: I stlll get emotional about it. Pistons and cylinders! My sympathies to families, friends and supporters there.
This lady should take a ride in a Fort . Two examples ,Texas Raiders , Fuddy Duddy , Sentimental Journey ,Aluminium Overcast ,Memphis Belle . Ride a P-51 Mustang .
I would have lost my shit at the breakaway poles question..
This NTSB lady has patience of a saint.
I would have replied with "Are Journalists lobotomized after being hired, or are they selectively hiring people with no brain?"
Certified 87? That doesn't give me a whole lot of information. Back when that plane(or cars even) where new, the leaded additive increased the AKI index. And they didn't run ethanol blends in the fuel. I can't speak for aviation, but for classic cars, the alcohol in the fuel tears apart the old rubber fuel lines, and damages the brass jets and floats in the carbs. Just because it's certified, doesn't mean the guy giving the stamp of approval did their homework.
So my take is let the NTSB conclude their investigation so we have all the facts. I will be hippocratic and state my theory, it is that somebody, that worked on that bomber, missed something, or got lazy or did not speak up of their concern. In flight the bomber had to return, but why would only one or two engines dead bring this bomber down to a crash? My thought is because the pilot turned to far too fast or the latter. Records in the past say that these bombers making it back from germany to the UK on only 2 engines. If I am wrong in my first assumption the the bomber did make a correct turn to safe land and did at first but hit something that was designed in modern times that was not there in 1942-1944. Just my thoughts. Keep up your great work NTSB. You all work hard and know what you do. PS I have never flown in a plane so you can bash me all you want. I do not care. Let the experts do their job just like the pilots do.
What a shame, condolences to the families. I was going through all the videos and couldn’t find any video of the actual crash. Is this something they hold from the public until the investigation is wrapped up? There’s gotta be numerous videos of it. I mean I can understand why the families may think different, not wanting to see it replaying over and over again..So I can see the airport not releasing their videos just yet.
But the people who were waiting for it to land. I mean anytime a vintage aircraft flys into one of our local airports there are dozens of people/fans filming the old birds coming in ..
Oh and don’t jump on me for bringing this up....I’m not wanting to see the poor souls crash to their deaths, again I just thought there would be actual footage of it crashing.. Think about it, we’ve all seen passenger airliners crash on video in the past..That or helicopters flying next to a airline with a front landing gear/wheel twisted, LIVE.. So if they can film a airliner packed with passengers on live TV, not knowing what the outcome would be.. Why hold back the footage for this particular crash, I don’t get it..
Why is there a guy asking the NTSB if they could determine how many seatbelts the plane had on board??? Where did these reporters get their degrees a crackerjack box??? WTF??? 🤦♂️
Yes, journalists go to school to learn how to speak and write and generally know little outside of that. That is why they have always present both sides even when one is clearly ridiculous. BUT, what worries me more is the lack of knowledge and qualification of Jennifer Homendy www.ntsb.gov/news/speeches/JHomendy/Pages/bio_homendy.aspx where there is no mention of anything aviation or even mechanically related. Compare that to Dan Bower, PhD, Senior Aviation Accident Investigator, www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Pages/2012_Air_Race_Show_IHG-Panelists.aspx Homendy may be the boss, but it seems to me that Bower should have been handling the press conference.