Warbird Information Exchange

I have been around several warbird accidents and NTSB "investigations" and they don't have a very good track record in the ones that I know of. In one case the crew member told the NTSB what had happened and everything that they did getting out of the plane and then getting the pilot out. The NTSB never mentioned the interview, no record of any conversation. they are trying to fill boxes on their checklist and the facts did not fit their theory.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

[quote="Taigh Ramey"The NTSB report shows the black tire marks across the apron and they are labeled as right main tire, tail wheel and left main tire. I think there is a mistake there and that what they thought was the tail tire mark was actually the flat left main tire making two parallel marks as the wheel rim pushed through the flat tire casing. If the left main tire was indeed flat then the brakes would have been useless on that side as the wheel could stop and the tire casing could keep rolling.

Accidents are describes as a chain of events and this is no exception.

I have flown with Mac in the B-17, and with Collings, and Mac was a sharp guy and wanted nothing more than to take care of 909. I think he was fighting like crazy to get her back on the ground safely. I think very few folks could have gotten her back around being out of airspeed and altitude like he was.

Mitch told me that they not only did a run up but they also did a field baro check and that all four engines were running good. Mac would not have taken off if one of the engines was not running well.

I think that they did have trouble with both 3 and 4. Some of the self proclaimed experts on Facebook and YouTube are saying that 3 was the problem and that 4 was feathered by mistake. One went so far as to say "Number 3 completed its life cycle and ceased to run after the gear went down." If this is true then why are there big prop blade cuts in the top of the steel deicing tank just below where 3 came to rest? Why was there a prop blade tip found in the bottom of the same tank?

There certainly are a lot of unanswered questions about this. I hope the NTSB gets things right so we all can learn about what happened and fix the problems going forward.[/quote]

Juan addressed the #3 & #4 issue and that the evidence that Vintage Radials found showed that #4 was most likely failing/failed due to the ignition issues arising from the incorrect/substandard overhaul work in 2015 and so he was correct to shutdown #4. How he did it was what I think most people (not those making comments) have a problem with. The F/O or "F/E" should have done the cage and shutdown, not Mac. That he was the one taking all the actions is what I think really saddens most people. As well respected as Mac was, it's the kind of "old guys club"/laissez faire/"I can do it myself" situation that has needed to be quashed from the warbird community for years and is exactly the biggest problem with the ride program and its inconsistent design and enforcement has allowed to persist when a more professional atmosphere can and should be implemented and has been implemented with many operators, but usually only after they had an accident similar to "909"s and they lost good people because of their own similar issues.

I will agree with Matt that there are quite a few within the NTSB and FAA who go out of their way to make sure the events meet the "probable cause" they determined prior to even seeing the accident. I watched it happen twice to an operator I worked for. They'd flown accident free (had a few incidents) for almost 40 years and then had 2 accidents in 5 years, both sadly fatal, and both boiled down to people not following procedures and/or being complacent. Only one report actually told the truth because the Captain made sure it did, but the other, the NTSB threw the mechanic under the bus instead of the check airman who knew better and additionally disobeyed a direct order from the Director of Operations that he was to be in one of the front seats during the first leg of the flight since the plane was just coming out of maintenance.

I read the passenger statements (and most of the other documents) and one of the things that stands out is that one of the passengers is a currently serving ANG senior NCO who was also a crew chief/loadmaster on C-130s. This guy had thousands of flight hours including over 1000 hours of combat flying.

He was unequivocal that there was no run-up

I would think that someone with that much time in a 4 engine aircraft would have some idea what a run up is and if there had been one.

I know Mitch says in his statement that there was a run up but the passengers say there wasn't

NTSB will sort it out, but there is so much in there that is troubling to me that I really question the condition of the aircraft for flight.

There were comments from at least two passengers about seat belts not working properly (one not latching at all) and that the passengers received no briefing on how to even latch and properly adjust the military style seat belts (different than airliner belts). The passengers also said they were not briefed on what to do in case of an emergency.

I was concerned by the fact that all the passenger stories seemed to pretty much be aligned and using the exact same terminology as if they had been coached (or written by the same attorney).

I have to admit it, when I rode with them in the early 90s, I never got any instructions of any kind on any of my bomber rides. I had studied emergency procedures from WW2 and talked with lot so vets about those things, so if something had gone wrong there, I'd have had a better than fighting chance than a random person who'd never read up on it. But it was something I never forgot, especially after this crash.
Now all that said, maybe the crew figured I'd ridden in such planes before then? But that shouldn't matter.
In the late 90s and after, I saw CF crews do briefs with paying passengers every time I bothered to stop and watch, though.
You nailed it there. I deal with plaintiff attorneys (for car crashes) often on my day job and that's exactly how it works.

_________________
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
Owner, 1944 Willys MB #366014
Former REMF (US Army, O3)

Or they were merely asked the exact same questions...

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

I can unfortunately second this. I have done consulting work in recent years for the DOJ on some transportation accidents where the NTSB was involved and their investigative quality is virtually non-existent. They frequently do shoddy phone call interviews and when confronted with evidence that witnesses were lying, they ignore it.

Today's NTSB is garbage riding on a old reputation.

The bottom line will be that it all gets hung on Mac, not only by the NTSB, but also Collings, because he isn't around to defend himself & Collings want their exemption reinstated.

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

What would be the reason for military style belts for the passengers? Surely airline belts would have been easier to explain to people.

When I took a ride in 909 several years ago with my good friend Mac doing the flying, we did a hot load. We were briefed very well I felt and the unloading and loading went extremely well and safe. Since the passengers were briefed on the seatbelts nobody had a problem except a special needs young man who was seated next to the hatch. His father didn't sit next to him or fasten his belt so I communicated with hand signals with the crew chief and got up and went and fastened the man's belt which was no easy task the way the tail was bouncing me around going down the taxiway. I took it on myself to ensure everybody around me was safely buckled in.

I only experienced the briefing by the one crew chief on 909. I also received a good briefing before going up in Betty Jane and logging some time.

I would rather have the military style, they are wider and would spread the strain over a larger area, as far as operation, a person of average intelligence can figure them out, now if it was a sutton harness, different story.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

Question to anyone who might know, what's the deal with "blowing out the mags" with nitrogen?

In all the time I spent around radials I never heard of that

I have to question if properly functioning magnetos and electrical systems would need to have this done.

That said I never dealt with wright cyclones so that might be the difference, or was it simply a bodge job done in place of actually fixing the mags

Wonder how much nitrogen the 8th AF used to keep their bombers flying in foggy England

I have not blown out mags but I did have a Mag issue on a T6 that was troublesome
. The only time it gave us problems was when we were at Oshkosh. We would have to pull the covers and direct hot air guns into the mag to dry them out we finally tracked it down to the string that was used to seal the covers. The string was like a heavy wrapping twine that went into a groove in the covers. The old string had compressed enough that it was no longer forming a seal. Changed the string and the problem went away.

_________________
Matt Gunsch, A&P, IA, Warbird maint and restorations
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
We tried voting with the Ballot box, When do we start voting from the Ammo box, and am I allowed only one vote ?
Check out the Ercoupe Discussion Group on facebook

Moisture in the ignition harness and the mags has been an issue as long as I was on tour. Multiple engines, and engine builders. When it is said they are 'blowing out the mags', it means displacing the water away from the bits that allow the mag to function properly. Once started, the heat generated does the rest of the job. All takeoffs we did started on the centerline, holding the brakes, and running all 4 engines up to 30", essentially baro, mag issues will show up at this higher power setting, if they didn't already show up during the mag check. If it does start shaking and barking, taxi back in and fix it. Once fixed and baro checks out, release the brakes and go...if all the moisture is not displaced it could start having issues again up around 40", which is take off MAP. At that point you fly it around the pattern and land. I saw in the video, I forget which one, it was suggested you could land after rotation...the brakes on a B-17 fade fast and that was never considered as an option. When the mag starts acting up, the engine will still make power, so you just leave it running. Why he shut it down has been a point of confusion and dismay.

_________________
www.spiritof44.com

Thanks Jim.

I don't know why there's such a rush to throw under the bus. Yes, mistakes appear to have been made, but ye old "Golden Rule" ought to be applied to our comments. Think how you'd want to be treated if you made a similar mistake and survived.

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.