https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-faa-says-collings-foundation-cannot-carry-passengers-20200325-twq2alj7i5gztllf6h4p22mjyi-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3LtpmSkiFTMUxzXAlOUxTlvInCa1stM84jXklKDvHyUJQwNgvxOneW8N4

Link to FAA findings on 2019 Nine-O-Nine crash in Connecticut.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-faa-says-collings-foundation-cannot-carry-passengers-20200325-twq2alj7i5gztllf6h4p22mjyi-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3LtpmSkiFTMUxzXAlOUxTlvInCa1stM84jXklKDvH

Damn. Revoked.

The FAA should have done it years ago.

Based on what?

They should be inspected hard and brought into compliance before being allowed to fly again.

I'd like to know the details of the regulations behind their operation - how was the aircraft registered and what mechanism allowed them to take paying passengers?  
I'd guess restricted category with a deviation authorized to take paying passengers?

I hate buearucracy as much as anybody, but isn't safety squarely in the middle of the faa's purpose in life?  
We have building codes for buildings, crash standards for cars, and all sorts of requirements for passenger aviation service.  
This operation demonstrated that they were not capable of safely transporting paying passengers so the faa stepped in.  

To rehash the details, this is my understanding:
This non profit organization flies antique aircraft that have no normal airworthiness certification and takes paying passengers on joyrides.  They took off with a known engine problem, then crash for an unknown reason after 1 of 4 engines loses power on the lightly loaded aircraft that had more than adequate power to continue flying safely.  

To be fair, the faa only said no more paying passengers - they did not stop them from flying their airplanes.  
Unless there's more details I've missed I'm not upset that they can no longer take paying passengers.  

I was shocked to read about the lackadaisical and flat out illegal approach to MX and op's. You'd think that something as rare as that would be maintained and operated at a level akin to that used on spacecraft.

Shabby maintenance. Reasons might have been lack of money, burnout, incompetence, and/or complacency. I suspect a mix of those reasons.

I was shocked when I walked up to the aircraft and began visually inspecting it. Then, I spent time observing the body language, facial expressions, and behavior of the mechanic and pilot.

What, specifically, did you see and deduce?

I agree.

Pilot was chief of maintenance at 75 years old.

Modern had nothing to do with it. Flightworthy has nothing to do with modern. Properly flown and operated has nothing to do with modern.

I fly certificated helicopters with the smallest safety margins ever certified by the FAA. But I don't fly them if they are broken or sick.

There's a fine line between hard core and stupid.

What I do when approaching an aircraft is look at the overall external condition. I note any flaking paint, grime, body damage, condition of/missing fasteners, condition of glass, rubber, fluid leaks, etc. That can tell me how much general TLC the machine receives from the people charged with maintaining it, but more important how much those people care, and perhaps the level of resources they have at their disposal.

Next, getting a closer look by opening or removing inspection and access panels. Some panels were open and some engine cowls were removed the day I looked this aircraft. I used this opportunity to get close looks at a few components within critical systems *without* touching. Then I boarded the aircraft and went through the same methodical procedure gained from years of performing pre-flight and post-flight inspections, and inspections performed during preventive and reactive maintenance, again *without* hands on.

This aircraft had a great deal of flaking paint. There was grime on flight control cables that hadn't seen a rag run across them for inspection in who knows how long, leaking oil that needed wiping off, and exhaust deposits that needed cleaning. None of this was being addressed. In contrast, the other aircraft at the show appeared to be well cared for.

I deduced the people charged with maintaining this aircraft were negligent, and the aircraft was a risk.

"...Collings did not comply with its own “safety management system," the crew chief was not aware a safety and risk management program existed and Collings “failed to maintain and apply on a continuous basis a safety and risk management program that met or exceeded ... FAA policy."

The FAA also found “notable maintenance discrepancies existed with the B-17G, yet the Collings director of maintenance signed inspection records — dated as recently as Sept. 23, 2019 — indicating no findings of discrepancies.” Collings’ maintenance director was Ernest McCauley, 75, who was the chief pilot the day of the crash.

“Collings did not have a structure to ensure adequate oversight of his decisions to conduct passenger-carrying operations such as the October 2 flight," the FAA decision reads. “This indicates Collings lacked a safety culture when operating the B-17G.”

An inspection of the bomber’s engines found problems significant enough to cause the FAA to question “whether the engines were inspected adequately and in accordance with the applicable maintenance requirements.”

Specifically, the inspection found that magneto and ignition failures existed in the aircraft’s No. 4 engine. Magnetos, engine-driven electrical generators that produce voltage to fire the engine’s spark plugs, were not functioning properly. An attempt to jury rig one had left it inoperative, according to the report. A second magneto on the No. 4 engine, when tested, produced a weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders it was supposed to fire.

Inspectors also found that all spark plugs required cleaning and that all of the electrode gaps were out of tolerance. Further engine inspection “indicated signs of detonation and associated damage," the decision reads... "

"...The FAA said the discrepancies discovered during its inspection “indicate maintenance, or lack thereof, occurred in a manner contrary to maintaining the aircraft" in accordance with its general maintenance manual.

An inspection of maintenance records “lack key information and, in some cases, indicate maintenance was either not performed at all or was performed in a manner contrary to ... requirements."

Allowing the Collings Foundation to continue to carry passengers aboard its aircraft “would adversely affect safety,” according to the decision. The FAA continues to gather facts, the decision reads, “that indicate Collings lacked a commitment to safety [and] did not take seriously its safety management system program.”... "

Look up the "Living History Flight Experience" exemption program under which they were flying.

In short, the FAA expected the aircraft to be maintained and operated according to FAA Part 135 standards.  They expected the pilots to be trained in accordance with that same standard.

Collings didn't follow those rules correctly, and the FAA correctly revoked their LHFE exemption.

But, I was more curious about your statement that "The FAA should have done it years ago."  Again, based on what?

I told you.

No offense to whatever your experience is with operating for-hire aircraft, but that is a thoroughly asinine statement.

I've flown for a half-dozen for-hire flying operations, plus a USAF career, and all of the airplanes were *working* airplanes that had shitty looking paint -- it never was a reflection of how the aircraft were mechanically operational.

I fly numerous warbirds that are cared for very diligently (and I participate in the maintenance), and some of them have paintjobs that look like absolute hell.

I also know of numerous aircraft that look great, but knowing the owners/operators/maintainers, I'd never ride or fly.

Your "flaking paint" and "dirt on the control cables" was a stupid argument when you made it last year, too.

None of that is an indicator that the chief of maintenance was pencil whipping engine inspections and pilot training records.

My training and work experience was obviously different than yours. The shit I witnessed would never pass muster. I, and everyone else I worked with, were held to higher standards.

And which of those operations involved radial-engine aircraft?

Seriously, when you say stuff like "leaking oil that needed wiping off, and exhaust deposits that needed cleaning" as if that was something unique, you really undercut your credibility to comment on this.

Is there anything in the report that has specific verbage of testing or confirmation of the fuel in the aircraft? When it first occurred all the rumors I heard online pointed to completely wrong fuel pumped into the plane causing the engines to stall and then crash.

It seems strange that some grime or some dirty spark plugs would cause a crash. It would have to be all of them , so much that multiple engines failed.

You put credence in your knowing the people who operate aircraft in making judgements as to the cause edition of the aircraft, yet ignore mine.

The bottom line is I saw what I saw concerning both the aircraft and the people charged with running it, then I made a judgement.

It's apparently somehow more credible when you do the same.

So, are you connected with the Collings Foundation?

BTW, I'm familiar with how radials work. Doesn't mean they're exempt from seeing rags.

Spark plugs in the lower half of radial engines tend to see quite a bit of oil, but that wasn't the only problem as the faa  statement clearly indicates.

ETA they tested fuel early in the initial inspection and it was gtg.

Tragic all the way around, and sad the airplane wasn't maintained the way it should have been.  I wouldn't be comfortable as a passenger, with both guys up front over 70.

We're still beating around a newspaper article that was strangely released the same day as the FAA revocation letter. Still no official NTSB investigatve report. Why did the FAA go out of its lane to comment on this revocation of the LFHE letter when it was expiring just 5 days later ?

FAA out of its lane?! This is part of what they do.

That's probably 70% of all large cabin Part 91 crews.

However, to your point, I tend to agree.

The pilot of the B17 was type rated.

The mechanic and the pilot appear to have been the same guy. Was he talking to himself ?

The pilot was the director of maintenance, the crew chief was the mechanic.

No, no connection whatsoever other than knowing many of the people and aircraft.  Just a warbird pilot who has been around the air patch a time or two and know what is, and is not, normal for operations in this sphere.

I'm not disagreeing with the FAA report by any stretch...I'm disagreeing with your methodology for determining that there was or was not satisfactory maintenance occurring. You seem to see the FAA findings as validation of your observations on a single tour stop, and I'm saying what you observed is commonplace in the "working" warbird community and not directly indicative of what the NTSB seems to have found.

The NTSB report isn't completed or released yet.

The reason the newspaper article was written was the FAA's revocation of Collings' LHFE exemption, and the FAA used some of the not-yet-released findings from the NTSB as reasoning for their decision.

So assuming the information fragments are true, you have an engine with two bad magnetos, one jury rigged and failed, one overly weak.  Add in spark plugs outside of gap spec and or faulty.  Makes logical sense that it would not run smoothly or consistently.

There are three more engines.   Something else added to cause the crash.

My guess when it first happened, and my continued opinion until the final report comes out, will the the two old people up front. They could have landed straight ahead, on the crosswind runway, instead entered the downwind.

Remember, the information that was released is not the actual accident report -- it is extracts from the (as of currently un-published) report that were used by the FAA in determining to revoke Collings' LHFE exemption.

There will undoubtedly be a lot more in the full NTSB report discussing what failed and when, and what actions the crew took.

My methodology was the methodology taught by every aircraft maintenance school I attended, including USMC and civilian.

Oh, so you actually can tell if an aircraft is airworthy based on chipped/flaking paint, exhaust residue, and grease on control cables.

I gotta tell you, there's a lot of aircraft flown by Delta Air Lines that you wouldn't consider airworthy but the FAA does.

Old radial engines leak oil, isnt it normal?

It's quoted every damn time these threads come up but, yes, "if it's not leaking it's out of oil."

Yet it crashed anyway...

And, as was said, my point was that the fact there was a crash was not validation of deriving there was some sort of problem based on those observations.

I'll be eagerly awaiting reading about the flaking paint, the grimy control cables, the oil that needed wiping, and the exhaust stains in the findings section of the NTSB report.

what a pity

You don’t have to eat a whole egg dollars rotten!

My take from reading this is neglect regardless of the reason. A quick google says the plugs and mags should have been checked every 100 hours. If the plug gaps are wide you will get hard starting which he had.  I see get thereItis mentioned here a lot in small plane crashes where the pilot flew usually into crap conditions and augured in.  Here it looks like the same thing trying to keep the show on schedule no matter what condition the plane is in.  I like seeing warbrds flying and don't want them grounded.

But, again, only one engine failed in this case. That alone should not cause a crash. Yes, it seems as if they weren't doing their due diligence with regards to maintenance. But that alone is not why this plane crashed. I'm waiting for the full ntsb report that properly puts the blame on pilot error.