Preliminary findings from NTSB state that the prop on the #4 engine was found in the feathered position concurrent with procedures for an in-flight engine failure/shut down. Engines 1, 2, and 3 had all been recently overhauled. The overhauls did not include #4. NTSB also stated that the aircraft should have had an inspection and service 100 hours after the its annual. The 100 hour was performed at 260 hours. They determined that the aircraft was carrying the proper fuel through samples taken from the wreckage. The #3 engine also appears to be under scrutiny at this time. NTSB will also be looking into a waiver that the aircraft was operating under. This waiver was granted to the Collings Foundation by the FAA so the aircraft could be used for these heritage flights.

The Collings Foundation is seeking support to keep these flights going and to support their remaining aircraft so they may continue to fulfill their educational role. I wish them the best.

Per the NTSB, the flaps were found full extended. Last night I checked my copy of the B-17 pilot’s manual and it clearly states NOT to do that unless you’re just about the land or are actually touching down, not when you’re turning on final with at least one engine out. With at least one engine out (and maybe # 3 going out or just went out) and the gear down, full flaps might have slowed down the plane too much to make the runway, especially losing speed on the turn onto final. With gear down, flaps extended, on a turn with one or two engines out, never getting above 500AGL, that's just asking to pancake.
I know others are saying the pilot had more time in B-17s than anyone else who ever lived, but I know that familiarity not only breeds contempt, it breeds complacency as well. The most unsafe handling of firearms I’ve ever seen was always from people who’d handled them for a long time frame. Hey man,” they think, “I know it all, nothing’s going to happen to ME!”

Attached is cut and pasted from page two of the NTSB Preliminary Report in which it states that, "...measurement of the left and right wing flap jackscrews corresponded to a flaps retracted setting."

This seems to be at odds with your statement, analysis of the situation prior to touch down, and implied characterization of the pilot's professionalism. Please explain.

I'd read elsewhere that the flaps were extended, so there's some misinformation elsewhere I probably shouldn't have read...
As for the pilot, there are plenty of people who say he couldn't have done anything wrong, and I've seen in several cases where someone who's considered an expert doing something dumb out of sheer arrogance. On one occasion, it cost the life of one of my soldiers when I was active duty and a friend of mine from my youth by the hand of someone who proclaimed he couldn't make any errors.
I always roll my eyes at the suggestion that any one person is above making a simple error.

Your post implies you read the report. Did you read the NTSB Preliminary Report? It is not a mistake to read secondary sources but it is always good to fact check back to the original, especially when it is easily available.

You imply that you are familiar with quick and unnecessary death. So you must appreciate the importance of avoiding negative innuendo in cases such as this when the dead can not speak for themselves. Let the official reports from the NTSB establish the facts.

As for your point that you've,"seen in several cases where someone who's considered an expert doing something dumb out of sheer arrogance" and, "I always roll my eyes at the suggestion that any one person is above making a simple error", I believe that your last two posts illustrate that well.

Have to go with p51 on this one. Having supported Army aviation and aviators for a lot of years, there is a lot of truth to the old saying, “There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.”

The same could probably be said of some boiler operators and sailboat captains.

As I have gotten older, it is something that I worry about for myself. I have no desire to be bold anymore.

J.R. May

Personally, I would like to believe that the flight crew did the very best with what they had to work with. Unfortunately for all involved, the best may not have been adequate given the circumstances they encountered. It’s a tragedy and one I hope can be learned from and moved forward from in a positive manner.

I don’t think it is fair to pass judgment on the flight crew’s actions at this time and to judge their character without knowing them is inappropriate in my opinion. I have access to a B-17 flight manual and I have even flown in this particular aircraft, but I am not checked out in one nor will I presume to critique those who are. I’ll leave it to the experts and would encourage others to do so as well.

The NTSB report certainly is interesting and raises a lot of questions about the nature of the problems the crew was facing.

FlightAware has a very brief track log on the airplane which begins just prior to turning a right crosswind for RW6 and ends shortly after it turns downwind. It "appears" from that data that the airplane never got above 800 ft. and that altitude was reached just as they turned the right downwind. Very soon after that, the altltude began to decrease, as did the descent rate, which is clearly not something any pilot would do intentionally if the intent was to return to RW6, and certainly not in the case of an aircraft with an emergency. The FlightAware data seems to verify the NTSB's report from the tower that the airplane had descended to 300 ft. on the mid-field right downwind, which is incredibly low for an aircraft with an emergency. The crew apparently also responded to tower's inquiry about their ability to make the runway by simply saying they were "getting there."

I'm a GA pilot (CSEL/CMEL/Inst) of 37 years and 5,600 hrs (singles and twins). I've never flown a B-17. I have no idea what Vmca is for such an airplane with one engine out, much less two on one side. I can certainly imagine what a desperate situation the latter might be. Whenever I read this kind of accident report, I always try to put myself in that situation and think about what I would do. Questions that pop into my mind that I hope the NTSB can ultimately answer:

• If I had an engine out on the right side, why fly a right-hand pattern?
• If I were at 300 ft and losing altitude on downwind, why not make a play for RW33 rather than continue for RW6? At 300 ft. I'm looking for the nearest open spot.
• Why not declare an emergency and ask tower to roll the trucks? When it comes to fire suppression, every second counts.

I don't consider this kind of exercise as wild speculation. Most every good pilot I know reads accident reports and thinks through how he/she might handle it. We have to. Some day, it may be our butts in the hot seat.

My heart goes out to the folks who were affected by this accident.

/Kevin Madore

Here's the link to the NTSB Preliminary Report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... m&IType=MA

If the pilot had three good engines, I'm not certain why the pilot flying did not apply Maximum Except Take Off power on the remaining good engines to gain altitude. Whatever happened, it appears that the plane lost altitude to the extent that making the runway was not possible. Some pilots tend to baby their engines, which can be a bad thing to do in an emergency.

800 ft. altitude also suggests that the possibility of making a traffic pattern and landing was unlikely at best. I've been involved in general aviation for over thirty years and flown in multiple aircraft types. The critical thing when climbing out is to get at or above the traffic pattern altitude-usually 1,500 feet-as soon as possible. That usually provides the pilot sufficient altitude to maintain a safe airspeed and make the runway if an emergency landing is required.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticu ... bwy4W0ScR4

Interesting to see the real picture, compared to what everyone was saying when it happened. I think its going to be a damn slim chance of ever seeing this stuff operate like it did, let alone giving rides anymore. A real shame, but I dont think its out of the question.

From reading the linked article these folks sound like the Gettysburg of historic war bird operators. If the allegations are true they deserve to lose their passenger carrying certification. B-17s had tremendous reputations for being able to limp home with extraordinary combat damage, but I'm pretty sure the Eighth Air Force sent them over the Channel in good shape to start with, not with sketchy engine problems leaving the flight line.

For those of you out there in GDPR land who cant access the article linked to above, I found this which is readable in Europe, and still makes presumably equally grim reading...

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa ... assengers/

Not entirely surprising. Radial engines are extremely complicated machines and require constant maintenance-even the best maintained radial engine has a higher probability of in-flight failure than more modern piston engines or jets.

Unfortunately, the skimping on maintenance is not surprising either-remember that the Galloping Ghost crashed because of a ten cent part at Reno. Not even the big carriers are above cutting corners. American cut corners and lost their DC-10 at Chicago. Some of the stuff Eastern was caught doing in its last years would rightly horrify the flying public and make the Collins crash look like nothing. Years after Eastern folded, the real dirt came out-falsified maintenance logs and aircraft dispatched with improper or incomplete repairs. Reno instituted new repair and inspection requirements after the Ghost crash and I can guarantee you that even those are being subverted.

Communicate is the last thing on the list. I'm not surprised that the pilot didn't declare-if you're fighting the aircraft for control, talking to ATC becomes a pretty low priority. The guys in the front seats were too busy trying to make the crash a survivable one to talk. That's why ATC has the authority to declare an emergency on behalf of a pilot if necessary.

Having been in aviation for about forty years, I don't recall seeing any info on two engine out for the same side. One of our neighbors was career USAF-flew the B-17 in WWII and in his published autobiography, he noted that the USAAF did not provide evacuation training to B-17 crews aside from what information was published in the flight manual or regulations. Chuck decided that this was a serious omission and that if the Air Corps wouldn't provide bail out training, he'd do it himself. There were some situations that were not addressed in training, as the USAAC presumed that those situations would be non-survivable.

The only reason one of his friends survived the war is that he and Chuck spent an hour on the ramp practicing on how to get out a B-17. Chuck had to train his friend how to open the crew hatch in flight. Two weeks later, his buddy was shot down over Germany. Chuck was on another assignment and found out years later that his buddy was one of three to get out of the plane before it blew up. Chuck was a pilot and his buddy was a bombardier on another plane. His buddy was indoctrinated to wait for the bail out bell to evacuate. Chuck told him that if your plane gets hit, you need to assess the conditions and make your own decision to bail out-don't wait for the bell. Sure enough, his plane got hit by an exploding shell. His buddy felt the impact, looked back and saw the radio room was on fire. He checked his chute, popped the hatch and bailed out. The navigator saw him popping the hatch and followed him out. Bail out bell never rang.

All of us who fly understand....or should understand, the mantra of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. It certainly does not make sense to be talking to ATC if they cannot help you. That said, this airplane was in the traffic pattern and a planned emergency landing was imminent, and the success of such was likely in doubt. The airplane was not being flown single pilot. One pilot flies, the other handles everything else. If the crew had doubts about being able to make a safe landing, getting the trucks rolling takes only a couple of words. The mike button is on the yoke. In my mind, simple observation of the emergency in progress should also have led the tower crew to hit the button. An airplane at 500 feet on downwind with a reported engine issue is NOT normal.

I still wonder why the crew elected to continue for RW6, when RW33 was there for the taking once they got on the right downwind. Still, other than hitting the localizer antenna, which is frangible, they landed in a relatively clear area. If they had only been able to keep the aircraft in the runway environment it is likely that most if not all of the folks on board would have survived.

/Kevin Madore