Continue Discussion - visit the forum 10 replies
October 2019

system

300 feet AGL on a midfield right downwind is not ‘getting there’ unless you’re in a J-3.

October 2019

system

If you have already lost #4 and #3 is losing power necessitating feathering #3 prop, those pilots were faced with getting the airplane back to Runway 6 turning into what appears two dead engines. That would be consistent with a max altitude gain of 500ft with a loss of 200 feet by mid-field on a right downwind due to two engines on the right side failing. Those right hand turns would have to be very gentle trying to keep what little airspeed they had up, G loads low, plus doing it with a boot-full of left rudder at the same time…basically cross-controlled trying to get lined up with 06. It also appears the right wing contacted the ILS lights which would further swing the airplane to the right. I would not be surprised if the NTSB finds out the two left engines, while making power, they were not making full power and were spooling down as 3 and 4 had already done.

It was quite a feat of airman-ship to nurse a low and slow, heavy bomber doing right turns into two dead engines with no more than 500 feet of altitude to begin with and make it back to the airport. Although short of the runway, it was still under control when they contacted the ILS lights. Right side dead engines, right side contact with ILS lights…not much to help you turn left or even stay straight under those circumstances.

I believe that they were using their CRM skills to the utmost, staying very busy yet focused on getting that airplane back on the ground without a loss of control. And they succeeded but for those ILS lights aiding in turning the airplane into the deicing hangar. While the progress was slow, what other choice did they have?

They were busy is an understatement. Lousy ending in spite of heroic efforts to keep flying the airplane. I believe these efforts displaying exemplary flying skills allowed for some to survive. With all the GoPro cameras, surveillance video, survivor recollections, and what evidence can be collected from the remains of the cockpit, engines, and instrumentation, the cause will be found for the failure of two engines and rapidly losing power on the remaining two.

2 replies
October 2019

system

Gettin’ short and sad for all.

October 2019 ▶ system

system

When suffering engine failure(s) in multi-engined aeroplanes, there comes a time when if you haven’t already mentally made your multi into a single – and acted upon that thought – you are already dead.

October 2019

system

Rule# 1 on an “engine out” in a multi engine aircraft is “clean up the airplane” and don’t put the landing gear down. unless you have the have the runway made. Landing “gear up” does very little damage to the air frame.

1 reply
October 2019 ▶ system

system

“Landing gear up does very little damage to the air frame.”

And when you’re trying not to die, who cares, anyway?

1 reply
October 2019 ▶ system

system

I don’t think that the pilot was actually aware of the seriousness of the problem(s) onboard. This idea is supported by the pilot’s lack of urgency on the radio and his actions to fly a “pattern” instead of land immediately. It looks a lot like he’s thinking that he had a lot more available than he actually had so “why worry” about cleaning up or aiming at the first available runway because it sure looks like he did not realize that it was going bad in such a hurry.

October 2019

system

Does anyone know how much fuel was on board in addition to the 160 gallons loaded earlier in the day? Were there other flights that day?

October 2019 ▶ system

system

<>
Since when did an ILS have lights on the ground? ILS refers to INSTRUMENT Landing System. Are you perhaps referring to the Approach Lighting?

October 2019

system

I do not want to Monday Morning QB this. I would just like to add a few thoughts having flown King Airs to C172s in and out of BDL. There is always that moment of indecision of “try for the field” or land off field. The environment around BDL is there are flat large tobacco fields surrounding the airport especially on the right hand traffic side of 6. One possibility. Another possibility was landing on 33, the wind was calm and it was CAVU so 33 was an option that would have saved several miles of flight and one turn since they were already on the crosswind for 6. They could have declared an emergency used the crosswind of 6 as the downwind for 33 and probably had enough energy to land maybe even hot on 33 which is still 6847 ft.

I agree with Jim H. that to nurse a B-17 with one maybe 2 dead or dying engines was a feat of airmanship! We will never really know since to my knowledge there was no recorder but I am sure all the various cameras in the area will be examined.