B-17 Crash Windsor Locks, CT - Loss of Collings Foundation B-17 (w/ Fatalities)

[Waldmurmeltier]

A very sad day. I live right across the river from Windsor Locks. My mechanic has a shop on route 75 right near the airport.

[Alan Smith]

Per the linked article, it looks like the FAA has "pulled the plug" on the Collings Foundation's ability to sell passenger flights on any of its 10 vintage aircraft.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/art.../#.Xqb9s8hKiUk


Apparently all of these old warbirds fly under "Experimental" or other limited use approval by FAA that would normally prohibit the carrying of passengers for pay. FAA had allowed the Collings Foundation to carry for-pay passengers, but only under stipulations of strict maintenance and training guidelines . . . . . all of which the FAA found Collings Foundation to be in breach of in connection with the B-17 crash.

In response, the FAA pulled the exemptions so that none of the Collings Foundations' aircraft are allowed to carry paying passengers. It looks like the Collings Foundation filed an administrative appeal of the FAA's ruling, with the appeal being denied. I'm not sure what further legal options the Collings Foundation my have; perhaps the next step would be seeking judicial review of the FAA's actions . . . assuming the Collings Foundation wants to continue to push the issue. From that I understand, the fee income generated by the paying passengers has been an essential source of revenue used by Collings Foundation to pay for the annual "traveling tours" that its aircraft offer across the U.S.

Interestingly, an article in this month's Military Trader magazine indicated that the Collings Foundation had already purchased another B-17 to replace the one destroyed in the crash. IMO, I would suspect that it is no easy feat to go out and "source" a replacement B-17!

[Seigfried]

Experienced or not I would not get in a vintage aircraft with a 75 year old pilot!

[Christopher G.]

Well I wont be a paying passenger if I make a minimum donation to the Collings Foundation.

Regards,
Chris G.

[cossack1648]

They had a lot of maintenance issues with that B17 and basically they are liable for the crash. Time will tell what will happen to them if lawsuits start to get filed.

Jack

[PEVO]

Per the linked article, it looks like the FAA has "pulled the plug" on the Collings Foundation's ability to sell passenger flights on any of its 10 vintage aircraft.

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/art.../#.Xqb9s8hKiUk


Apparently all of these old warbirds fly under "Experimental" or other limited use approval by FAA that would normally prohibit the carrying of passengers for pay. FAA had allowed the Collings Foundation to carry for-pay passengers, but only under stipulations of strict maintenance and training guidelines . . . . . all of which the FAA found Collings Foundation to be in breach of in connection with the B-17 crash.

In response, the FAA pulled the exemptions so that none of the Collings Foundations' aircraft are allowed to carry paying passengers. It looks like the Collings Foundation filed an administrative appeal of the FAA's ruling, with the appeal being denied. I'm not sure what further legal options the Collings Foundation my have; perhaps the next step would be seeking judicial review of the FAA's actions . . . assuming the Collings Foundation wants to continue to push the issue. From that I understand, the fee income generated by the paying passengers has been an essential source of revenue used by Collings Foundation to pay for the annual "traveling tours" that its aircraft offer across the U.S.

Interestingly, an article in this month's Military Trader magazine indicated that the Collings Foundation had already purchased another B-17 to replace the one destroyed in the crash. IMO, I would suspect that it is no easy feat to go out and "source" a replacement B-17!

I was under the impression they had acquired another b17 even before this crash. This foundation marched to the tune of their own dummer. They didnt participate in airshows choosing to tour on their own on their own schedule...which was very extensive. Revenue rides and "bomber camp" were major sources of income. And it showed in the appearance of this ill-fated b17 and their b-24. I took a "static" disappointing tour of both of these 2-3 years ago. Both planes looked "tired" faded paint, bare metal showing from lots of foot traffic inside. Spare parts, luggage and tools etc. inside both. I was disappointed because the whole tour in both planes consisted of the waist gun positions and bomb bays. No getting near the tail sections or flight deck or nose positions either. No disrespect to anybody here, but to me they seemed to be pushing the planes for revenue producers at the cost of upkeep and preservation. Hell while i visted the planes they were working on a jug on one of the B24s engines.

[PEVO]

Experienced or not I would not get in a vintage aircraft with a 75 year old pilot!

He had amassed ALOT of hours in that b-17. Very very experienced. However loosing 2 engines on the same side at low altitude plus banking(turning into those faulty engines) was fatal...even with all that he got in back down but veered into the deicing station...we know the rest... RIP. Hindsite, performing a ground loop at higher speed to avoid the collision may have damaged the plane but saved their lives. Who knows.