Talk:2019 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress crash

what was hit

Currently, the article, says that the aircraft struck a building. This does not appear to be an accurate description, though that may have been the way it appeared during the fire. If you look at an aerial view after the fire is out, it seems far more likely that the left wing struck two de-icing trucks and possibly dinged a vertical deicing fluid tank and sheared off and then the fuselage broadsided a horizontal de-icing fluid tank which was partially dislodged by the impact and appears to have been severely damaged. The tail section points right at the heavily damaged section of the de-icing tank. The quanset hut/hoop style (de-icing maintenance?) building appears damaged by fire and possibly some debris from the plane (possibly the right wing). But the primary impact appears to be the horizontal de-icing tank. All or most of what was struck appears to be part of the airport's deicing facility (tanks, vehicles, and buildings) according to the facility map. The de-icing trucks appear to be moved forward by impact from the position where they are shown parked on google maps. CNN said the aircraft "hit what’s known as the de-icing facility — tanks that contain de-icing fluid as well as maintenance facility associated with it." https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/world-war-ii-plane-crash-connecticut/index.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hI_YcF8utQ Whitis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Whitis: - File:N93012 crash scene at Bradley International Airport.jpeg shows the crash scene, with two buildings damaged by fire. Thus the article is correct in this respect. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - Actually, the plane itself did not hit the buildings. Major pieces of debris that came off the plane hit the buildings. That is a non-trivial distinction. By the time the buildings were struck, the airplane had essentially reached the end of its plot-able trajectory and had substantially disintegrated. Moreover, it was most likely the left wing and fuselage, separately, coming to sudden stops that separated the building impacting parts from the aircraft. So the article was not correct but it is now since it says that the de-icing facility was hit rather than saying the plane hit the buildings. Looking at the NTSB supplied B-roll footage shows more than the previous aerial footage. It appears that the left wing may have hit the vertical tank but it appears to be covered with a fitted tarp. It hit two deicing trucks and probably separated from the plane at that point. The right wing tip appears to have sliced open a box truck (and probably sheared off at that point, probably laying next to truck). The fuselage hit the tank. At that point, most of the right wing probably separated. One of the (left) engines (#1?), while not attached to the plane, hit the building on the planes' left. The right wing, or a substantial portion thereof, appears to have detached from the plane. The wing appears to be between the two buildings but may have damaged the skin of the hoop building. The wing probably sliced the skin off the side of the hoop building and the left building. The fronts of both buildings show signs of multiple impacts. One engine is located on top of the tank that took the major impact. The fire damage to the buildings looks minor. The left building has soot on the front and what appeared to be structural fire damage to the right building appears to be just the plastic skin being torn off rather than the metal skin melting. It is not clear to me exactly where all of the engines are. One (#1?) is clearly embedded in the front of the left building, a second (#2?) may be embedded in the side of the left building, up high (they appear to be looking at engine parts there). A third (#3?) is clearly on top of the de-icing tank. A fourth (#4) may be located just to the right of the deicing tank, inside the tank, under the wing, or inside the hoop building (but while the hoop building was impacted it doesn't look like something as large as an engine went through it if you look at what remains inside), or some combination. It does look like a significant part of it is under the wing, still attached. We do know, from NTSB briefing, that there were impacts to the approach lights as far as 1000ft from the runway and that about 30 breakaway approach lights were broken off. The briefing neglected to mention the damage to the vertical tank and the box truck but did mention damage to two buildings, two trucks, and one tank and separately mentioned the approach lights. I should also mention that at least one wheel, probably two was on the ground long before the deicing facility was struck; but there doesn't appear to be a skid mark or clear runway edge penetration for the third (unless they were not evenly spaced). These two links are worth watching. b-roll briefing Whitis (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

All that matters is what the Reliable Sources say. This is not a forum to discuss the topic. 50.111.22.69 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

in the NTSB video, the #4 engine is detached from the right wing and has hit the building. #4 appears to have it’s propeller blades still attached to that engine. They are in the feathered position. Not sure about #3 or second building. That needs clarification and a source. Johnvr4 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Engine troubles

There seems to be some discrepancy about which engine was causing problems. Wiki says #4. Pilots reported problems with #4 engine on ATC recordings (youtube OR liveatc.net). One witness on youtube WFSB news video was very specific, on camera, about #3 (inboard on copilot side) engine sputtering and smoking. This is the same witness who the wikipedia cited article claims said (off camera) #4 was sputtering and smoking. Flightaware reports the aircraft reached 800ft altitude and 124mph; it only shows a portion of the flight path while the aircraft was over 600ft which appears to be the lower altitude limit for the flightaware ADS-B data. Links: youtube WFSB liveATC flightaware Whitis (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Whitis: - we should be led by the NTSB on this. For now, it is sufficient to say it was reported that there was a problem with an engine, without going into specifics. There is plenty of forum talk that it was #4 that was affected, but we need something far better for a source. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. For now it's not essential whether it was 3 or 4. We can just say who claimed which. Pilot said 4. A witness said 3. When we get the NTSB preliminary report in 7-10 days it may clarify that detail. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary report now released. See Investigation section. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The FAA has ruled that both engines 3 and 4 were affected. The No. 3 engine was recovered from the top of the deicing tank. One blade was impact damaged and near the feather position. The other two blades appeared in a position between low pitch and feather. One propeller blade exhibited a 5-inch tip separation and the separated tip sections were recovered from 100 ft and 700 ft from the main wreckage. The No. 4 engine was recovered from the deice building. All three propeller blades on the No. 4 engine appeared in the feather position. https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/10/16/preliminary-report-on-b-17-crash-released/ According to the FAA’s document, post-accident investigation revealed that on the number-four engine, discrepancies and lackluster maintenance affected both ignition systems. The left magneto’s P-lead—which grounds the magneto to stop its operation—had grounded against its case, rendering it inoperative. The right magneto’s cam follower was worn beyond limits and wasn’t making half the minimum point gap. Adding to the engine’s already reduced ignition capacity, all spark plug gaps on that engine were measured beyond limits. The spark plugs on engine three also exhibited signs of detonation, and were out of limits and need of cleaning. Poontang188 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Who owned/piloted the airplane?

909 nose art

Current wiki mentions "Collings Foundation", without any particular information. Was this plane used for educational purposes?

On the other hand, the plane appears too "fancy" for a school. I noticed swastikas painted on the cockpit (front facade) of the airplane, which seems to imply the plane was owned by an amateur, possibly a right wing individual.

Any thoughts or info?

Tabdiukov (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I once learned "there are no stupid questions", but these come pretty close....

Look here: for more information about the Collingsfoundation. Their website has been (temporarily) taken off the air in respect to the tragedy that happened. Saschaporsche (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think our nose art article needs expansion for mission tallies, to explain the swastikas. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If you check the talk page of that article, it seems local consensus is that it doesn't qualify as "Nose Art" properly, but you may consider making a separate article on it.^LetUs_NotLose^HearT 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • A separate article already exists, Victory marking. I have just added a link to that to the "see also" section in Nose art. As a side note, we also have an article on the Collings Foundation itself; perhaps that should be linked in the article? rdfox 76 (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

New information

We need to go through these articles to mine relevant details. I think the names of the crew and a summary of their experience is relevant. It's now known that the flight engineer survived, so the deceased include the pilot, co-pilot and five passengers. We also have learned that the flight was delayed 40 minutes due to trouble getting one of the engines started. The pilot was also a mechanic. He got out and inspected the engine. He had 7,300 hours of B-17 flight experience and was the most experienced B-17 pilot on the country (and probably the world). The co-pilot was a retired 747 captain.

The Courant is probably the best source at this point because they are local and have reporters on the scene.

• https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-windsor-locks-bradley-international-airport-b-17-crash-victims-20191003-cfdp7c5crbfp7jfknchgggku6q-story.html
• Blumenthal said there have been 21 crashes of so-called vintage planes since 1982 where 22 people have died — not including Wednesday’s crash at Bradley Airport. and the plane hit the ground about 1,000 feet short of the runway. It crashed at 9:53 a.m. https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-bradley-airport-deadly-b17-crash-ntsb-investigation-20191003-ldarjpewife6fj7hafiqz7zecy-story.html
• https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-airplane-crash-employee-hero-20191003-clibe4ictjdjzdk7bld6hhjysi-story.html

For those of you who are aviation buffs, I live in the area and we had unusual weather conditions a few days before the flight. There was very warm humid weather followed by a rapid drop in temperature. I expect that the NTSB will be looking at the possibility of water condensation in the fuel. Today's news report says, the pilots were having trouble starting one of the engines. She said they brought out a black cylinder and started spraying the engine “to blow out the moisture” in it. [1] Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What is the status of the Flight Engineer who survived? Is he talking? It would have been his job to manage the engines.Jmonroej (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

NTSB is going to announce preliminary findings at the end of this week. We will know soon what he may have told them. I believe all the victims who were critical have been upgraded to fair. Anybody who survived should be talking. Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note that on the B-17, the "flight engineer" position did not have a separate engine-management control panel like later aircraft had, and had the primary job of operating the top turret. Based on my personal experience with the accident aircraft (a ride aboard it somewhere in the 15-20 years ago range), the third crew member on Collings Foundation flights served a role more akin to a flight attendant combined with a museum guide--or, less charitably, to an ambulatory "fasten seat belts" sign. Between these two factors, it's unlikely that he'll be able to offer anywhere near the value of testimony that you might expect given the title. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Flight Engineer on 9-0-9 also had a set of headphones that connected him directly to the two pilots. He could hear everything the pilots were saying including conversations not heard/recorded by ATC. He is an invaluable witness and will likely be a deciding factor in the investigation. More like a "living black box" than an "ambulatory fasten seat belts" sign. He has already provided significant information about the engines before take-off that has become part of the lawsuit.

ILS or RNY Light?

In the NTSB Video I see dammeged RNY light , an NTSB spoke abaut cracks of the Ligths on provided place. BR Ruby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.88.165 (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The NTSB briefing mentioned both--the aircraft started going through the approach lights after touching down short of the runway, then clipped the ILS antenna stanchion, which sent it swerving off into the deicing facility. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

ATC tape

The ATC tape is available at https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20191002-0 What's most amazing is that it starts with a request to land. Last transmission from the aircraft is at 1:00. The crash happens around 1:15. The airport is closed at 1:20 Rescue crews are despatched at 1:40, arrive at 2:22 and report two victims on the tarmac 2:40. At 4:16 the Lifestar rescue helicopter is inbound, one minute away. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit

An IP editor added a section about the lawsuit, which ZLEA reverted. OK, what was added needed work, but I think that the article should cover the lawsuit. Raising for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots

Already working on it. I reverted it because it was copied directly from the source. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, a copyvio then. Didn't realise. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I've re-added the section with room for expansion. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the FAA report of any value? It describes a great of information about the engines after they were examined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.218.216.179 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. If you can provide a link to it I'll be glad to go over it and add expand the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Link attached - https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2001-11089-1673 If you can attach a pdf it may be easier to access.162.218.216.179 (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

B Class

I've bumped this up to B class. I then noticed that the article appeared to be incomplete with regard to the lawsuits, so I added a section about that. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)