Reporter: "are the breakaway poles designed to breakaway?" Wow. Valuable data to be presented publicly from the NTSB is being wasted with these questions.
I think Ms. Homendy did a grest job in the B 17 interview. Having been brought up during the WWII years, the B-17 was a part of our everyday talk. I had the distinct priviledge of flying in " Setimerntal Journey," a few years back and it was one of the most moving experiences in my life...and yes..I would do it again in a heartbeat. Never Forget!
Very well done and informative report. God bless those that lost their lives and their families as well as those that were injured. A devastating loss. So sad.
Unfortunately even when she does remember to repeat the question she doesn't repeat it. She summarizes it, and often her summery is not focusing on the meat of the question, nor is her reply. Sure would help if these idiot news agencies would send people out that have aviation experience and experience with these older planes, when an accident involves them.
As an ATP rated pilot and CFI along with being former TV reporter, I can tell you most reporters know very little about aviation. You can see this in the questions. They don't teach anything about flying in journalism school. Over the past few decades it's become s a low paying job for many nowadays and many are very young. With that said, there are good reporters out there and some are pilots too... I know a few.... It's up to us in the aviation community to keep the facts on track and accurate.
I know very little about aviation but the little I know made me roll my eyes and begin to get pissed at the stupidity of most of the reporter's questions.
Oh frikkin' Bruther! If a reporter doesn't know squat about this particular old plane they should NOT be allowed to ask a question!! JEEZ! OK folks, go to the Blancolirio channel and look for his video that gives the history of this particular plane.
I remember after the PSA 727 crash in San Diego after the PSA collided with a Cessna 182 doing IFR training and vector by a controller, that Los Angeles Channel 9 newsreader did a demonstration of how someone doing IFR training would wear a hood, and she put the hood on herself BACK TO FRONT WITH THE HEADBAND OVER HER EYES!
@@pb3616 Oh brother! I would have thought she'd know which way to put it on, but then again, if you've never seen something you might just not have a clue. I remember that crash well as I live in San Diego. I did not know, or at least don't remember, that the Cessna pilot was doing IFR training.
If I'm not mistaken, nearly all warbirds during the war were running on octane ratings as high as 130 anyway. 100 octane is all we have now for avgas commercially available to my knowledge.
But NOT impressed with the reporters questions. How can you answer stupid questions without looking like you yourself are either stupid or covering something up? I feel sorry for her having to deal with these idiots!
IMO, these briefings are not necessary because media reporters do not understand much, if anything at all, regarding aviation. What a waste of the NTSB’s time.
Probably can't go on record until chemical analysis and reports are actually finished. They also have to match that fuel with samples taken from the equipment, and holding tanks that were used to refuel the plane as well. They can say it appears to be 100LL, but they can't go on record saying for sure that it is, until the results are back.
Jennifer Homendy wouldn't know the difference between a wing tip and a felt tip. No aviation experience whatsoever. Its apparent that to be on the board of the NTSB its not what you know that matters - Its who you know. Jesus Christ
Agreed! From wiki: "In 1996 and 1997, Homendy worked as a government relations manager at the American Iron and Steel Institute. From 1997 to 1999, she was a legislative representative for the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department. From 1999 to 2004, she was a legislative representative for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. From 2004 to 2018, she was a Democratic staff member for the United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. In 2018, she was appointed as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. On May 19, 2021, it was announced that Homendy would be nominated to serve as chair of the NTSB." I do not see much direct transportation industry experience in there and certainly nothing that would make one think she knew much about any of the major sectors, especially aviation. Being a lobbyist and congressional staffer just doesn't make for a resume in my book. She is a far cry from having the knowledge that Robert Sumwalt did.
this aircraft was built by the Douglas Aircraft Co in Long Beach in 1944 the engines powering it is 4 Wright Cyclone 9 R-1820-97 nine cylinder radial engines. The Collings Foundation flew this B-17 many times as i seen it this year.
I have to laugh: news agencies send reporters who have absolutely no idea about airplanes! Looks like the press is looking for fault with the type and age of the aircraft, and the type of fuel. Any aircraft which has been maintained according to its specific airworthiness certificate is good to go. Any one familiar with aircraft knows about the types of fuels. However, they were not bright enough to enquire whether the NTSB is considering the threshold as the solid white lines painted on the runway or the actual very end of the paved runway. Sometimes the heavy white lines denoting the threshold are 200 to 300 feet after the start of the pavement. My guess is: a sudden complete engine failure or a micro down burst. So sad about the deaths. Relieved some could escape (likely through the entrance hatch on the rear starboard side of the aircraft). Sad the very airworthiness of all current B17s will be questioned. This is obviously not a type issue; these tings could carry 6000 odd pounds of cargo (bombs) so 14 or 15 people would not question the carrying capability.
Just a thought, pitot static system may have a developed leaked or the airspeed readout was flawed and not correct. I always approach high and hot in my multi-engine aircraft, the aircraft will slow down quickly near ground when the gear and flaps are deployed. The B17 was high performance aircraft, no doubt, many were lost in the war.
I know they instruct these planes, engines and they inspect the skin everything. I know no pilot or crew member would take off in a plane that had a problem. My question is from 1980 how many planes have been removed from flight status to not able to fly and how many planes were removed because they crashed. Once the plane crashes you are lucky to have parts. With so few planes left flying what is better. Having the full plane in tact so people to walk through and look at vs allowing the few left become a pile of scrap and the body count. She said 16 were registered that doesn’t mean flight worthy. I think less then 7 are flight worthy. I know in France they have a flight worthy plane but the museum grounded it so it is not lost. At what point are they so valuable we can’t afford to lose 1 even though it is air worthy? I dearly love these plane and want to see them in the air, but at what cost? I hope someone can answer.
People have the freedom to make their own choice. Yes it would be ashamed if the last flyable one was destroyed but that's their decision not mine or anybody else's At least in this country, the United States,. It's an entirely different thing to try to say you can't fly it because they're too valuable. I mean it's one thing to say that they're not flyable because of some defect or airworthiness So who's going to make that determination that they're too valuable to fly? Privately owned foundations.Are owned by private citizens or
Not sure how many are in museums or in various stages of restoration for display purposes, but you can visit one of the most famous of these at the National Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton, OH. It is suspended with bomb bay doors open, gear up, and a full display of static information and interactive exhibits concerning the heavy bombers during WWII. With four large hangars of exhibits, as well as some outdoors, the history of the Army Air Force and its successor US Air Force is extremely well documented and preserved. Initially started after WWI in 1923 and moving several times over the years, its present home was started in the 1970's and has been expanded to the largest (and oldest) military aviation museum in the world.
John E. Yup I agree with your answer it is up to the individual owners. Having taken a look and it’s not scientific in anyway just a survey it seems these older plane tend to crash more then being pulled. But the data for me is difficult to find and from a pure historic point of view I want to see them. I love to see old military planes I think our military needs to make sure all of the USA war machines are left into museums. As a tax payer I am all for that. Of course we look at the B52’s and we are pretty sure they will be flying at 100 years. Built at different times. Wwii equipment I think was built to a less standard then equipment made later on. I would love to live to see a b52 flying in 2048. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am all about preserving our history.
It might have been helpful if they described the purpose of adding lead to gasoline. It is refined at much higher octane and lead or other additives are introduced to reduce the octane or bang when the plugs fire the fuel mix.
Octane rating increases the ability of the fuel to resist detonation, lead (specifically tetra-eythel lead) increases octane rating, but other chemicals are used in gasoline these days, due to the toxicity of lead. Fun side fact, the same person who invented leaded gas, also pioneered the use of CFCs (chemicals that depleted the ozone layer) in refrigeration systems.
The questions these dingbats come up with! Like, "did the runway approach lights contribute...", for God's sake, they're on the ground, once you hit those lights you've already crashed! The guy asking about leaded gas, like he's some techno guru making some kind of point! Wtf, ALL these old engines and pretty much all of aviation piston engines now still run on leaded gas. Avgas is "100LL" meaning 100 octane Low Lead (and 87 was discontinued years ago). The lead is there to lubricate the valve seats, etc., and it adds to the octane rating. What I want to know is why could this plane not maintain altitude on 3 engines in the first place. Not to mention, since he lost an engine on the right side, why did he make right hand turns to get back? In multi training you're always taught to "raise the dead" meaning you do everything possible to keep the wing with the dead engine high, that's basic and I can't imagine why the pilot, with his experience, didn't do that. He should've been making left turns to get back. Makes me wonder then if there wasn't something wrong affecting all the engines and #4 just happened to be the first to quit which may explain why he was losing altitude with 3 engines still running.
It appears the good 3 engines had full power. You are correct. The Pilot choose the flight path. Could have been slow for some reason, maybe the airspeed readout was not correct. This has killed many pilots, airspeed reading not correct. The aircraft did maintain altitude, it was cleared to land from the audio recording.
@@gulag113 Witnesses all say he came in low over the trees and he contacted the ground 1,000' before the runway so he was coming in way too low. Don't know if that was a matter of airspeed or just bad judgement, we'll have to wait until they finish the investigation. For now all we know is that he was low and turning into the dead engine but we don't know why.
@@flyurway Best I can tell from the Press Briefing. The aircraft contacted the ILS antenna structure just after the perimeter Fence at the airport. This contact would have further slowed the airspeed. Best I can the aircraft touch down on the hard runway, with loss of control present, Lost rudder and brakes for yaw forces, Ground looped~90degs the aircraft and hit the deice structure and burned. I agree about the investigation, I will read the initial report and the final probable cause as the NTSB reports become public.
@test more The NTSB has the engines. They may try and start them. Do not know. The induction systems temp is one of the gauges, one gauge for each engine, the Pilot seemed to be only concerned with one engine. It is a small airport. The fence and antenna are very close together. Will see what the report from the NTSB states
Close the investigation. You figured it all out from your chair. Thanks for all your hard work. We should all feel safer in the air thanks to your due diligence...........
Getting harder to get parts and qualify people to maintain the aircraft.Wright R-1820 Cyclone, turbocharged, the flying schedule may be a factor in the crash.
You need to know the complete history of this plane. After it's many non-war time functions, and after it was restored to it's WW2 specs, it flew a lot with very few problems. As it is, with only one engine giving problems it SHOULD have been able to return safely. Hate to say it but even with the many hours of flying time the pilot had, I have a dreaded feeling that en the end, this crash is going to be listed as the pilot making huge mistakes in dealing with one engine out.
Cat, there are other factors, like "load shift" (pax movement) and other mechanical failure in cabling and flight surfaces; we DON'T have all the facts yet. Most important, the interview with the FE (Flight Engineer), the 3rd cockpit crew member.
@@jazzcatt This is a sad day for American Aviation. I feel horrible. The aircraft appear to be low and slow on approach, Hit the ILS antenna structure and the made contact with the runway with the main landing gear in a uncontrolled manner, lost yaw directional control, Ground loop to some degree and then the remaining stored energy cause the aircraft uncontrolled to come to a stop at the airport deice station. The aircraft inspection records and history are part of the NTSB investigation. I await the probable cause determination from the NTSB. I was trained as a NTSB mishap investigator Manager, I do not work for the NTSB, at least not yet. www.ntsb.gov/Training_Center/Pages/TrainingCenter.aspx This was after NASA crash event of STS107 An in-flight break up during reentry into the atmosphere on February 1 killed all seven crew members and disintegrated Columbia. Immediately after the disaster, NASA convened the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to determine the cause of the disintegration. The source of the failure was determined to have been caused by a piece of foam that broke off during launch and damaged the thermal protection system (reinforced carbon-carbon panels and thermal protection tiles) on the leading edge of the orbiter's left wing. During re-entry the damaged wing slowly overheated and came apart, eventually leading to loss of control and disintegration of the vehicle. The cockpit window frame is now exhibited in a memorial inside the Space Shuttle Atlantis Pavilion at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
@@uploadJ You are right. I spoke too soon. It could have been a combination of things going wrong, other than the obvious engine problem. I'll be waiting to hear the details when they finally figure it all out.
@@gulag113 I remember the Columbia accident. I remember wondering what kind of foam it was that broke away. Was it a very hard foam or was it soft, and wondered if it caused damage to the wing due to the tremendous speed of re-entry. It's been a long time and I don't remember the details.
This was posted an hour ago, but I think this is the same hearing that was posted earlier today. Okay a minute and 7 seconds and it's definitely the same briefing. Why would the originating organization not provide its own briefing, until after it's already posted on RUclips? Step up your game, run these live, and monetize your videos - the government's broke
othername1000 Ha. I can tell you’ve never worked in government. To accept money from RUclips would create a bookkeeping nightmare and very strict rules on accepting monies. These investigations move at half the speed of smell , as they should , so hold your horses. It’s gonna be 2 years.
@@BustedWalletGarage yeah I know. You think they could do better with their Channel though. Somebody there's got to have a kid that could teach them how to do it. Stuff is usually late, have to search all over the place to find scheduled briefings. I'd much rather watch hearings. I've watched every hearing that's available on this and on other channels. And that's only the few incidents that I can find. Except for the one on another Channel, Air Boyd's I think, where the audio is so jacked up it's useless and unwatchable. NTSB only has a few on their website, linked through Facebook videos if I remember right , and a few here.
An overrun accident can occur because of any number of causes and the gear issue is also something that can be caused by numerous issues. Both can be very serious or very minor in terms of damage. If the aircraft passed a 2019 Airworthiness check and the regular inspections required, it must have been repaired properly after the 2 incidents.
Наука
Reporter: "are the breakaway poles designed to breakaway?" Wow. Valuable data to be presented publicly from the NTSB is being wasted with these questions.
Reminds me when one of my workers asked me, "What time is the 4 o'clock meeting?"
I think Ms. Homendy did a grest job in the B 17 interview. Having been brought up during the WWII years, the B-17 was a part of our everyday talk. I had the distinct priviledge of flying in " Setimerntal Journey," a few years back and it was one of the most moving experiences in my life...and yes..I would do it again in a heartbeat. Never Forget!
Very well done and informative report. God bless those that lost their lives and their families as well as those that were injured. A devastating loss. So sad.
Have the NTSB people repeat the question so everybody can hear it
Unfortunately even when she does remember to repeat the question she doesn't repeat it. She summarizes it, and often her summery is not focusing on the meat of the question, nor is her reply. Sure would help if these idiot news agencies would send people out that have aviation experience and experience with these older planes, when an accident involves them.
@@jazzcatt It would be even better if the NTSB sent a board member with actual aviation experience. Homendy has none.
If I was up there presenting during the Q&A, I would have to ask, "Did you not hear anything I said during the first part of this brief?"
They just don't listen, and if anything she says has to do with aviation, they don't understand it, nor do they care to.
As an ATP rated pilot and CFI along with being former TV reporter, I can tell you most reporters know very little about aviation. You can see this in the questions. They don't teach anything about flying in journalism school. Over the past few decades it's become s a low paying job for many nowadays and many are very young. With that said, there are good reporters out there and some are pilots too... I know a few.... It's up to us in the aviation community to keep the facts on track and accurate.
Best I can tell, they don't teach anything about journalism anymore, either,
I know very little about aviation but the little I know made me roll my eyes and begin to get pissed at the stupidity of most of the reporter's questions.
@@ansonpanz1100 Amen on that!!!
Oh frikkin' Bruther! If a reporter doesn't know squat about this particular old plane they should NOT be allowed to ask a question!! JEEZ! OK folks, go to the Blancolirio channel and look for his video that gives the history of this particular plane.
I remember after the PSA 727 crash in San Diego after the PSA collided with a Cessna 182 doing IFR training and vector by a controller, that Los Angeles Channel 9 newsreader did a demonstration of how someone doing IFR training would wear a hood, and she put the hood on herself BACK TO FRONT WITH THE HEADBAND OVER HER EYES!
@@pb3616 Oh brother! I would have thought she'd know which way to put it on, but then again, if you've never seen something you might just not have a clue.
I remember that crash well as I live in San Diego. I did not know, or at least don't remember, that the Cessna pilot was doing IFR training.
Can't hear audience questions, please repeat them. tnx
This could be done post-production by dubbing-in an "audience" mic ...
Just a suggestion, please repeat the questions prior to answering since we can't hear them.
I just finished reading a book about Jimmy Doolittle. He was one of the major drivers in getting WWII aircraft on 100 Octane.
If I'm not mistaken, nearly all warbirds during the war were running on octane ratings as high as 130 anyway. 100 octane is all we have now for avgas commercially available to my knowledge.
@@flyurway I totally agree.
@@flyurway I remember using 80/87 octane in small aircraft and they changed to 100 Low Lead. Didn't know that 80/87 was still available.
What a great briefing. Very clear and to the point. Sad it happened but very impressed with NTSB work.
But NOT impressed with the reporters questions. How can you answer stupid questions without looking like you yourself are either stupid or covering something up? I feel sorry for her having to deal with these idiots!
"I heard these engines are less reliable", Mr. Reporter I think you should find some better sources.
they are Wright Cyclone 9 R-1820-97 nine cylinder radial engines fitted with an external General Electric turbo superchargers.
very reliable engine with proper maint.
IMO, these briefings are not necessary because media reporters do not understand much, if anything at all, regarding aviation. What a waste of the NTSB’s time.
But at least they are posted so they can be seen and heard without media (mis)interpretation.
How the hell is the guy from the NTSB not 100% sure if 100LL Avgas is widely used in internal combustion engines?
Probably can't go on record until chemical analysis and reports are actually finished. They also have to match that fuel with samples taken from the equipment, and holding tanks that were used to refuel the plane as well. They can say it appears to be 100LL, but they can't go on record saying for sure that it is, until the results are back.
Jennifer Homendy wouldn't know the difference between a wing tip and a felt tip. No aviation experience whatsoever. Its apparent that to be on the board of the NTSB its not what you know that matters - Its who you know. Jesus Christ
Agreed! From wiki:
"In 1996 and 1997, Homendy worked as a government relations manager at the American Iron and Steel Institute. From 1997 to 1999, she was a legislative representative for the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department. From 1999 to 2004, she was a legislative representative for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. From 2004 to 2018, she was a Democratic staff member for the United States House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. In 2018, she was appointed as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. On May 19, 2021, it was announced that Homendy would be nominated to serve as chair of the NTSB."
I do not see much direct transportation industry experience in there and certainly nothing that would make one think she knew much about any of the major sectors, especially aviation. Being a lobbyist and congressional staffer just doesn't make for a resume in my book. She is a far cry from having the knowledge that Robert Sumwalt did.
Is this the final on scene briefing?
this aircraft was built by the Douglas Aircraft Co in Long Beach in 1944 the engines powering it is 4 Wright Cyclone 9 R-1820-97 nine cylinder radial engines. The Collings Foundation flew this B-17 many times as i seen it this year.
I have to laugh: news agencies send reporters who have absolutely no idea about airplanes! Looks like the press is looking for fault with the type and age of the aircraft, and the type of fuel. Any aircraft which has been maintained according to its specific airworthiness certificate is good to go. Any one familiar with aircraft knows about the types of fuels. However, they were not bright enough to enquire whether the NTSB is considering the threshold as the solid white lines painted on the runway or the actual very end of the paved runway. Sometimes the heavy white lines denoting the threshold are 200 to 300 feet after the start of the pavement.
My guess is: a sudden complete engine failure or a micro down burst.
So sad about the deaths. Relieved some could escape (likely through the entrance hatch on the rear starboard side of the aircraft). Sad the very airworthiness of all current B17s will be questioned. This is obviously not a type issue; these tings could carry 6000 odd pounds of cargo (bombs) so 14 or 15 people would not question the carrying capability.
Is she asking questions? She keeps ending her statements with an upward inflection like it's a question.
Just a thought, pitot static system may have a developed leaked or the airspeed readout was flawed and not correct. I always approach high and hot in my multi-engine aircraft, the aircraft will slow down quickly near ground when the gear and flaps are deployed. The B17 was high performance aircraft, no doubt, many were lost in the war.
I know they instruct these planes, engines and they inspect the skin everything. I know no pilot or crew member would take off in a plane that had a problem. My question is from 1980 how many planes have been removed from flight status to not able to fly and how many planes were removed because they crashed. Once the plane crashes you are lucky to have parts. With so few planes left flying what is better. Having the full plane in tact so people to walk through and look at vs allowing the few left become a pile of scrap and the body count. She said 16 were registered that doesn’t mean flight worthy. I think less then 7 are flight worthy. I know in France they have a flight worthy plane but the museum grounded it so it is not lost. At what point are they so valuable we can’t afford to lose 1 even though it is air worthy? I dearly love these plane and want to see them in the air, but at what cost? I hope someone can answer.
People have the freedom to make their own choice. Yes it would be ashamed if the last flyable one was destroyed but that's their decision not mine or anybody else's At least in this country, the United States,. It's an entirely different thing to try to say you can't fly it because they're too valuable. I mean it's one thing to say that they're not flyable because of some defect or airworthiness So who's going to make that determination that they're too valuable to fly? Privately owned foundations.Are owned by private citizens or
The flight worthy B-17’s number 16 as of today.
Not sure how many are in museums or in various stages of restoration for display purposes, but you can visit one of the most famous of these at the National Museum of the US Air Force in Dayton, OH. It is suspended with bomb bay doors open, gear up, and a full display of static information and interactive exhibits concerning the heavy bombers during WWII. With four large hangars of exhibits, as well as some outdoors, the history of the Army Air Force and its successor US Air Force is extremely well documented and preserved. Initially started after WWI in 1923 and moving several times over the years, its present home was started in the 1970's and has been expanded to the largest (and oldest) military aviation museum in the world.
John E. Yup I agree with your answer it is up to the individual owners. Having taken a look and it’s not scientific in anyway just a survey it seems these older plane tend to crash more then being pulled. But the data for me is difficult to find and from a pure historic point of view I want to see them. I love to see old military planes I think our military needs to make sure all of the USA war machines are left into museums. As a tax payer I am all for that. Of course we look at the B52’s and we are pretty sure they will be flying at 100 years. Built at different times. Wwii equipment I think was built to a less standard then equipment made later on. I would love to live to see a b52 flying in 2048. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am all about preserving our history.
@David Christensen
"Home of the brave and land of the free" - what do you suggest?
It might have been helpful if they described the purpose of adding lead to gasoline. It is refined at much higher octane and lead or other additives are introduced to reduce the octane or bang when the plugs fire the fuel mix.
Octane rating increases the ability of the fuel to resist detonation, lead (specifically tetra-eythel lead) increases octane rating, but other chemicals are used in gasoline these days, due to the toxicity of lead.
Fun side fact, the same person who invented leaded gas, also pioneered the use of CFCs (chemicals that depleted the ozone layer) in refrigeration systems.
Almost flew on that plane when they came through San Diego. Sad.
Quien me puede decir, que dice ella y quién es??
The questions these dingbats come up with! Like, "did the runway approach lights contribute...", for God's sake, they're on the ground, once you hit those lights you've already crashed! The guy asking about leaded gas, like he's some techno guru making some kind of point! Wtf, ALL these old engines and pretty much all of aviation piston engines now still run on leaded gas. Avgas is "100LL" meaning 100 octane Low Lead (and 87 was discontinued years ago). The lead is there to lubricate the valve seats, etc., and it adds to the octane rating.
What I want to know is why could this plane not maintain altitude on 3 engines in the first place. Not to mention, since he lost an engine on the right side, why did he make right hand turns to get back? In multi training you're always taught to "raise the dead" meaning you do everything possible to keep the wing with the dead engine high, that's basic and I can't imagine why the pilot, with his experience, didn't do that. He should've been making left turns to get back. Makes me wonder then if there wasn't something wrong affecting all the engines and #4 just happened to be the first to quit which may explain why he was losing altitude with 3 engines still running.
It appears the good 3 engines had full power. You are correct. The Pilot choose the flight path. Could have been slow for some reason, maybe the airspeed readout was not correct. This has killed many pilots, airspeed reading not correct. The aircraft did maintain altitude, it was cleared to land from the audio recording.
@@gulag113 Witnesses all say he came in low over the trees and he contacted the ground 1,000' before the runway so he was coming in way too low. Don't know if that was a matter of airspeed or just bad judgement, we'll have to wait until they finish the investigation. For now all we know is that he was low and turning into the dead engine but we don't know why.
@@flyurway
Best I can tell from the Press Briefing. The aircraft contacted the ILS antenna structure just after the perimeter Fence at the airport. This contact would have further slowed the airspeed. Best I can the aircraft touch down on the hard runway, with loss of control present, Lost rudder and brakes for yaw forces, Ground looped~90degs the aircraft and hit the deice structure and burned. I agree about the investigation, I will read the initial report and the final probable cause as the NTSB reports become public.
@test more
The NTSB has the engines. They may try and start them. Do not know. The induction systems temp is one of the gauges, one gauge for each engine, the Pilot seemed to be only concerned with one engine. It is a small airport. The fence and antenna are very close together.
Will see what the report from the NTSB states
stall the wings, remove lift, crash, very common, Slow on final, wing down, very sad day for american aviation.
Close the investigation. You figured it all out from your chair. Thanks for all your hard work. We should all feel safer in the air thanks to your due diligence...........
Getting harder to get parts and qualify people to maintain the aircraft.Wright R-1820 Cyclone, turbocharged, the flying schedule may be a factor in the crash.
You need to know the complete history of this plane. After it's many non-war time functions, and after it was restored to it's WW2 specs, it flew a lot with very few problems. As it is, with only one engine giving problems it SHOULD have been able to return safely. Hate to say it but even with the many hours of flying time the pilot had, I have a dreaded feeling that en the end, this crash is going to be listed as the pilot making huge mistakes in dealing with one engine out.
Cat, there are other factors, like "load shift" (pax movement) and other mechanical failure in cabling and flight surfaces; we DON'T have all the facts yet. Most important, the interview with the FE (Flight Engineer), the 3rd cockpit crew member.
@@jazzcatt
This is a sad day for American Aviation. I feel horrible.
The aircraft appear to be low and slow on approach, Hit the ILS antenna structure and the made contact with the runway with the main landing gear in a uncontrolled manner, lost yaw directional control, Ground loop to some degree and then the remaining stored energy cause the aircraft uncontrolled to come to a stop at the airport deice station.
The aircraft inspection records and history are part of the NTSB investigation.
I await the probable cause determination from the NTSB.
I was trained as a NTSB mishap investigator Manager, I do not work for the NTSB, at least not yet.
www.ntsb.gov/Training_Center/Pages/TrainingCenter.aspx
This was after NASA crash event of STS107
An in-flight break up during reentry into the atmosphere on February 1 killed all seven crew members and disintegrated Columbia. Immediately after the disaster, NASA convened the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to determine the cause of the disintegration. The source of the failure was determined to have been caused by a piece of foam that broke off during launch and damaged the thermal protection system (reinforced carbon-carbon panels and thermal protection tiles) on the leading edge of the orbiter's left wing. During re-entry the damaged wing slowly overheated and came apart, eventually leading to loss of control and disintegration of the vehicle. The cockpit window frame is now exhibited in a memorial inside the Space Shuttle Atlantis Pavilion at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
@@uploadJ You are right. I spoke too soon. It could have been a combination of things going wrong, other than the obvious engine problem. I'll be waiting to hear the details when they finally figure it all out.
@@gulag113 I remember the Columbia accident. I remember wondering what kind of foam it was that broke away. Was it a very hard foam or was it soft, and wondered if it caused damage to the wing due to the tremendous speed of re-entry. It's been a long time and I don't remember the details.
Is it just me but has anyone noticed that the NTSB official standing behind her looks a lot like that old movie actor Sterling Hayden?
This was posted an hour ago, but I think this is the same hearing that was posted earlier today. Okay a minute and 7 seconds and it's definitely the same briefing. Why would the originating organization not provide its own briefing, until after it's already posted on RUclips? Step up your game, run these live, and monetize your videos - the government's broke
othername1000 Ha. I can tell you’ve never worked in government. To accept money from RUclips would create a bookkeeping nightmare and very strict rules on accepting monies. These investigations move at half the speed of smell , as they should , so hold your horses. It’s gonna be 2 years.
@@BustedWalletGarage yeah I know. You think they could do better with their Channel though. Somebody there's got to have a kid that could teach them how to do it. Stuff is usually late, have to search all over the place to find scheduled briefings.
I'd much rather watch hearings. I've watched every hearing that's available on this and on other channels. And that's only the few incidents that I can find. Except for the one on another Channel, Air Boyd's I think, where the audio is so jacked up it's useless and unwatchable. NTSB only has a few on their website, linked through Facebook videos if I remember right , and a few here.
othername1000 you can read the actual reports online too
Are they adding Methanol/Ethanol to AVGAS these days ?
Unbelievable that this went through two accident. Very sad.
An overrun accident can occur because of any number of causes and the gear issue is also something that can be caused by numerous issues. Both can be very serious or very minor in terms of damage. If the aircraft passed a 2019 Airworthiness check and the regular inspections required, it must have been repaired properly after the 2 incidents.