The crash of the historic B-17 bomber "Nine-O-Nine" is
certainly very sad and tragic. It has been to my local
airport many times on its annual tour.

Reading some of the available info about events leading up
to this crash, it seems likely that the nose may have clipped
an ILS mast while approaching the runway.

If this was actually the case, then the next question would
be "what was going on in the cockpit after the ILS mast strike?"

If there was actually a nose strike such as this, that would
go a long way toward explaining later events.

Rest in peace "Nine-O-Nine", crew, and passengers.

Two things for ya here, buddy:

1. The term is "band wagon". You jump on the band wagon to join everyone else in a popular idea, even if it's wrong.

2. Literally no one mentioned banning anything until you did. Why are you sensationalizing this?

I think the point of the comparison was not that negligence was the cause of this unfortunate incident, but rather that because of this we could be seeing new legislature regarding historic aircraft, or at least renewed discussion thereof. The circumstances are not the point. The point is that this, like the PR nightmare that followed the Gettysburg boiler explosion of 1995, is going to negatively impact the general public's perception of the operation of older aircraft.

Not true. Just a few hours after the crash at least one network was reporting that a legislator (I didn't catch whether he was state or federal) was calling for the grounding of all vintage military aircraft until a full evaluation of their safety was conducted.

CT. Senator Richard Blumenthal called for a "review" of vintage planes.

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol ... story.html

You mean this Sen. Blumenthal?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9LTOnQaYfc

Maybe he has more of a clue about airplane safety than railroad safety.

He doesn't.

Dick elbowed his way into the initial press conference and said that the NTSB and its investigation was happening because HE called them. Yeah, ok. You can have him. I’m not a fan. I’ll leave it there.

There has been a strong demand for those "take a ride in a vintage bomber" programs with people paying hundreds of dollars for a 15 minute round trip. I have read where many museums are restoring vintage planes so they can charge people to ride in them. This is almost like a gold rush for the airplane museums. Depending on the rarity of the airplane, I have seen rates as high as $3,000 dollars for a half hour flight.

I do not like airplanes as much as trains, but I do enjoy a airshow now and then and riding in one of these airplanes looks like fun. But I look at who is working and operating these vintage planes and they are all elderly men who many look to be in their 70's. Needless to say I feel a bit concerned, as I know even small problems in aircraft can lead to big problems rather quickly.

As more and more of these vintage planes are restored, we will of course have more incidents both big and small as more are flying. From the many incidents I have read about nearly all of them point to a problem with the pilot. With crews and mechanics nearly all senior citizens it would seem future airshows would have a elevated risk to say the least.

I believe airline pilots have to retire at 60. I suppose they don't have flight simulators for antique aircraft.

Public Law 110-135, effective December 13, 2007, raised the age limit for pilots serving in scheduled air carrier operations to 65.

As to simulators, the USAAF had early simulators (Link Trainers) before WWII and trained most B-17 pilots using them.

Phil Mulligan

For the record, the pilot involved was in his 70's, but also had more time in B-17's (7,000+ hours) than any pilot _in history_. Two personal out takes from watching the NTSB B-roll and press conference:

* (I believe as pointed out above), the plexiglass in the grass near the point of impact with the antenna paints a picture of a survivable event become scary very fast;

* The NTSB expert who specifically steps up to point out if properly maintained, vintage engines are no less safe than new engines. That should sound familiar...

Bob

I think a point being lost here is: is the risk of destroying an irreplaceable historic artifact worth it to take a joyride in it?

It's the EXACT thing we struggle with in railroad preservation.

At what point does an organization stop being a museum and start being a full size toy train set?

I don't offer a definitive answer, but it's a question that every organization, and especially every 501(c)(3) organization, should be actively thinking about.

Word in the aviation industry is that the accident airplane had just come out of maintenance. The most dangerous time to operate an aircraft is just after flight critical systems have been repaired or upgraded. Having grown up in the industry, I've heard of all sorts of issues that were discovered on test flights and some that were not discovered until an accident. You'd be surprised at some of the mistakes that have been made by licensed repair stations and mechanics.

As to whether it is reasonable for a B-17 to be flown, here is some raw data for consideration. Presently, there are 46 surviving B-17s worldwide (not counting the wrecked Collins B-17). 39 of the B-17s are US based. 9 US based and one French based B-17s are airworthy (again not counting the Collins B-17). Five B-17s are presently under restoration to make them airworthy. While the loss of the Collins Foundation's plane is tragic, it is not the death knell to the operation of vintage aircraft and while it was a loss to the foundation, they do have another B-17 in their collection that is undergoing restoration to airworthy status.

My opinion is that it is indeed reasonable for the current operators to fly their aircraft as long as the airplanes are maintained and properly qualified crewmen are used.

The debate between operating historic artifacts, or placing them "stuffed and mounted" in a museum setting is an old one.

My take in showing mechanical devices is that it's essential to operate some of them if only to show how they worked and what they can do. In the long run, we may end up with operating replicas while the historic artifacts are retired to display.

Professional Museums, such as RR Museum of PA and Nat'l Museum of the USAF, will not operate their artifacts, with RRMPA benefitting from Strasburg Rail Road operating 21st century steam across the street and NMUSAF from operators like the Collings Foundation and Commemorative Air Force.

Phil Mulligan