"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond) 10/03/2019 at 09:46 • Filed to: None

1

39

909 crashed yesterday in Hartford/Bradley/windsor-locks airport. Engine trouble after takeoff and on landing it left the runway, hitting a deicing building. 3 crew, 10 paying passengers. 7 now dead.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I support vintage aviation. I truly love it. I climbed through this exact plane 2 years ago and talked to some Collins Foundation members on how it works for them and how to get involved in their touring work.

Were not yet running on used parts that shouldn’t be installed. The foundation has awesome maintenance. But when will we get to that point? When replacement new parts are so rare they’re one off fabbed parts. Then, I would think giving rides would end. A shame as that’s a party of a history to experience. But then should we revisit that history? I don’t see people lining up to ride in a nam c130. That wasn’t a romantic thing in movies.

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 10:12

7

For the people who go up for rides in those vintage aircraft, there is a touch of truth to the snark from the Airplane movie: “Shana, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into.” As long as you are going willingly, you accept that there is risk involved.

As you know, I’m crazy about airplanes, and crazier about historic airplanes. I know the histories of these aircraft, I know how lovingly they are maintained, I know how capable the crews are, I love seeing them in the air. But I still would not fly in one. Then again, I’m very risk averse.

We lost Bluebonnet Belle last year (an aircraft I had photographed numerous times), Nine-O-Nine this year, and there have been other notable warbird crashes. Galveston Gal comes to mind. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the FAA step in, especially since there are now at least seven deaths. It would be a shame, because groups like Collings rely so much on these flights to raise revenue.

You are right about the nostalgia factor. Nobody is lining up to see a C-130 from Vietnam because many of those birds are still flying. The B-17 (and B-29, etc) are relics of a bygone era. It would be a shame to see them grounded.

atfsgeoff > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 10:21

6

I don’t buy that engine trouble alone in a 4-engine, very lightly-loaded heavy bomber caused such a horrific crash. There’s more to the story there.

WilliamsSW > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 10:22

2

That’s a really good question that has been floating around my mind since this crash, too.

As ttyymmnn notes, there have been a number of high profile warbird crashes in the last year or so. I would really like to ride in one, though my wife has expressly forbid it ( we have young kids).

Part of me believes these rides will go away on their own, as the population that romanticized these aircraft keeps getting older.

But perhaps the FAA needs to reevaluate these fundraising rides. Something tells me the NTSB will have something to say in th e aftermath of this accident.

But it’s such a critical fundraiser for the groups that keep these machines flying. I hope that it continues. 

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 10:28

1

This is very tragic. The logical conclusion is to not allow folks to go on joy rides, but they still have to fly the planes to air shows and keep them air worthy. I’m curious to know the reason for this accident. It does seem difficult to believe a lightly loaded bomber could not maintain altitude without a major mechanical malfunction or pilot error. 

ttyymmnn > atfsgeoff 10/03/2019 at 10:30

1

Agreed . I eagerly await the initial findings.

Flavien Vidal > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 10:36

0

What about giving rides in vintage cars? Should we stop doing it because those cars are too old and your can't get genuine parts anymore? Sorry, but this make no sense....

Grindintosecond > WilliamsSW 10/03/2019 at 10:38

2

You should see the stacks of oil cases they travel with. Ain't cheap.

Grindintosecond > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 10/03/2019 at 10:40

1

Engone trouble. We don’t yet know the type, especially if it was prop that went uncontrollable and not only killed the engine, but also made so much drag.... We'll see.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > ttyymmnn 10/03/2019 at 10:41

5

Very true about bought their tickets when the Liberty Bell went down in 2011 nobody was killed but still shows the danger.

Fun Fact my father knows a retired Pratt engineeer who flew on that plane whe n it was a T-34 turboprop test bed. He has a great story about radioing an Airport about a B-17 coming in 4 engines out, all the crash trucks were mobilized etc, they didn’t mention the 5th engine was still running. They were d oing high altitude testing of the T-34 and and the B17 engines froze solid.

facw > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 10/03/2019 at 10:42

3

I suspect that without the rides, these planes are too expensive keep flying for most groups.

Chuckles > Flavien Vidal 10/03/2019 at 10:43

3

Riding in a plane is not the same as riding in a car. Equating the two makes no sense.

ttyymmnn > My X-type is too a real Jaguar 10/03/2019 at 10:43

0

Great story. I wrote about that aircraft some time ago. I’ll have to see if I can find it.

ttyymmnn > My X-type is too a real Jaguar 10/03/2019 at 10:44

0

Found it!

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/planelopnik-did-you-know-1818616227

facw > WilliamsSW 10/03/2019 at 10:46

3

I don’t think there needs to be a ban. I’d guess that flying on one of these is still probably safer than something like sky diving, or even riding a motorcycle. There probably is a bit of a disconnect in the sense that the public for the most part thinks of flying as being incredibly safe (despite also underestimating the safety of modern commercial air travel), and that’s obviously less true for 75 year old planes that weren’t really designed or built with safety as the highest priority to begin with. Not sure how you convey that to people thinking about going up.

user314 > atfsgeoff 10/03/2019 at 10:55

1

FWIW, the same B-17 ran off the runway at Beaver County Airport here back in the 80's. Now granted, that was pilot error, and there’s no indication that the rebuild had anything to do with the crash. The pilots definitely declared engine trouble and were circling back when the crash occurred. We’ll need to wait for the various agencies to investigate to see what the issue was.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 11:12

0

They’re already at the point of having to fabricate a lot of replacement parts.

there is no uniform code on what has to be traced and I would imagine next to impossible for something 75 years old. That the plane overshot a runway in 86 raises even more questions   what may be original.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > ttyymmnn 10/03/2019 at 11:20

2

Cool my father’s friend has great stories about that and working on the Engines for the 747. Something about an in famous test flight where the Boe ing test pilot was demonstrating how he could flame out the engines on command.  Apparently he flamed out 2 and sadi “I can do it to all 4 and the Pratt Engineers soiad “We’re good we trust you we’ll fix it”

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Flavien Vidal 10/03/2019 at 11:23

1

Though they both offer little safety features, Vintage cars Typically  aren’t doing 100+mph With passengers. 

WilliamsSW > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 11:31

1

No - when “gallons per hour” is a metric for oil consumption as well as fuel burn, you’re not going to skimp there.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > facw 10/03/2019 at 11:32

1

For these groups they’re 4-6k an hour 

WilliamsSW > facw 10/03/2019 at 11:35

1

  Agree - I don’t want a ban either, but it’s possible that the NTSB will suggest restrictions.

No idea if it’s as safe statistically as riding a motorcycle or sky diving. I can’t recall another accident where paying pax died ( though it’s probably happened).

It is certainly not as safe as commercial air travel - not even close. But it’s mitigated a bit by fair weather flying, experienced crew ( hopefully), and strict maintenance. 

Chuckles > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/03/2019 at 11:36

3

Also, cars usually stay on the ground. Much less risk of falling out of the sky in a car.

facw > WilliamsSW 10/03/2019 at 12:32

1

The P-51 that crashed last year had a passenger (not paying because it was part of a program to give free rides to veterans), but it easily could have been, they offered paid rides as well.

Nothing > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 13:31

0

I went up in the Madras Maiden a couple of years ago. My dad flew on a 17 in WWII, so it was a personal connection for me. It was crazy that as soon as you’re airborne, inches off the ground, you’re free to wander the entire plane, including sticking your head out of the open top where a turret used to be. It was an awesome experience and I’m glad I did it. But man, when you’re in the air, it is such a raw sensation, you’re well aware of how old and relatively unsafe flying in old aircraft can be.

It would be a shame if they stopped flying. Are they that much more unsafe than, say, other methods of private flight?

WilliamsSW > facw 10/03/2019 at 14:06

1

Yeah, I figure there probably has been a few, just none came to mind.

Perhaps some improvements in safety can be made, but I'd  sure hate to see these aircraft relegated to museums only.

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 10/03/2019 at 14:50

0

Also, the 1943 Junkers that went down although word is that wasn't down to the plane.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Grindintosecond 10/03/2019 at 15:14

0

With the founders sons salary going from 75k to 370 over the last 5 years I’m curious if any shortcuts have been made in maintenance

Since they first proposed the new Museum   they’ve burned a lot of goodwill in Stow switching between shoestring charity to “oh yeah we behave 80mil  in assests”

ttyymmnn > Cé hé sin 10/03/2019 at 15:18

1

I wrote about that crash, and in that piece I mentioned the crash of a de Havilland Venom a few months earlier . And there was the crash of the Hawker Hunter in 2015 at Shoreham , but that was attributed to pilot error.

Dusty Ventures > Nothing 10/03/2019 at 20:21

1

That I think is the question that really needs to be asked. There’s been a lot of reactionary talk, but there’s a fatal GA accident in the states every 2-3 days, killing roughly 20 people a month. I’d like to know how one fatal warbird every couple years compares when adjusted for frequency of flights.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Dusty Ventures 10/03/2019 at 23:50

0

i would be curious on the breakdown of causes. with cessna leaning towards pilot error and warbirds equipment failure. 

Grindintosecond > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/03/2019 at 23:57

0

They operate an f-4 now, $9k/hr to fly. They can afford it. I'm not gonna guess the reasons. The flight engineer survived so he will tell em what happened.

Flavien Vidal > Chuckles 10/04/2019 at 02:32

0

The reasoning behind limiting who can fly as passengers in those planes or in those cars is the same. If anything, those older planes are a lot safer and under a much MUCH stricter maintenance schedule than any vintage cars. If you think those extremely well maintained planes flown by expert pilots and taken care of by expert mechanics should not have passengers, then you should also think that any old car with no safety system that is taken care of by backyard mechanics and driven by regular people should not have passengers either... If you don’t, then your reasonning of banning passengers to fly in those planes lacks in consistency. Flying as passenger in those planes is much safer than being driven in traffic  by a stranger in a 40 year old car.

Flavien Vidal > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/04/2019 at 02:34

0

Crashing at 2 00mph in a 45yo plane or crashing at 70mph in a 45yo car most likely results in the same probability of survival which shows roughly a 50% survival rate in this particular crash.

Chuckles > Flavien Vidal 10/04/2019 at 08:11

0

I disagree with your assertion that if I think one thing I should also think the other.

If you are in an old plane and you have engine trouble, the results will often be catastrophic. If you are in an old car and you have engine trouble, you pull over and call a tow truck.

If you want to debate the merits of flying old planes I have no problem with that. But there’s no need to resort to whataboutism.

People in this post: “we should maybe stop flying old planes.”

You: “but what about cars?”

See  how that doesn’t make sense?

Flavien Vidal > Chuckles 10/04/2019 at 09:14

0

It has nothing to do with whataboutism. That reasoning is on par with the “why don’t you think of the children” people. Both are means of transportation and both older versions of said means of transportation are targeted for being “unsafe” simply because they aren’t modern.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you that we shouldn’t ban old planes, since there’s no way to get someone with ideas like that to agree with what I think. I’m only pointing out that if one think that way in order for people to be safe and not crash, they  should be thinking the exact same thing when it comes to older cars. And that if you don’t think that way, it’s hypocritical, since one concerns you more in your daily life than the other.

Also if you’re in an older plane you are not gonna get T-boned by a F150 going 40mph that will kill you and your family.... Therefore, statistically, older planes are much safer than any cars on the road today.

Chuckles > Flavien Vidal 10/04/2019 at 09:21

0

Your first post literally started with “what about...” You tried to defend old planes by making an argument about old cars. That's whataboutism.

Debate old planes on their own merits without trying to compare them to cars. Yes, both are transportation. But the stakes are much different. Failure of a part o n an old car is much less likely to result in the fiery death of multiple people. And besides, the only time I see WWII era cars is at a car show or in a parade going 2 mph. I don’t see many going even at highway speeds, let alone 70 mph.

Just as you're not trying to convince me that we shouldn't ban old planes, I'm not trying to convince you that we should. I just don't see much value in the comparison you tried to make. 

Flavien Vidal > Chuckles 10/04/2019 at 09:33

0

I think someone who would defend banning old planes because he’d consider them unsafe should think the exact same way when it comes to cars... And I guess you’ve never had to deal with old drum brakes on a car with no seatbelt... Engines in planes aren’t the main thing that keep people alive... Especially on planes that have 4 of them and that can still fly with a single one or still glide for a while with none.

The value in that reasoning is that if someone were to be so adamant about banning old planes for everyone’s safety, they’d need some logical consistency and agree that banning every single old means of transportation is the way to go for everyone’s greater safety . If they don’t think that way, they would be hypocritical.

Chuckles > Flavien Vidal 10/04/2019 at 10:00

0

Does it get tiring jumping through all of those hoops?

Nobody in here seems overly adamant, they’re just considering the options. And I don’t think that your hypothetical person needs to “ban every single old means of transportation” for logical consistency. That’s one hell of a stretch.

Cars are not planes. Cars and planes have some things in common, but not other things. Treating cars and planes “the exact same way” means choosing to willingly ignore the differences between the two.

I’m done with this, because I’m tired of trying to convince you that cars and planes are two different things. I really don’t give a shit about whether or not people continue to fly in old planes.

Flavien Vidal > Chuckles 10/04/2019 at 10:12

0

Cars and planes are different. The logic behind banning either one for being old is the same . The only difference is that you know more about one than the other and therefore you are fine with having the one you are less knowledgeable about banned . Not sure what’s hard to understand.