Todos
← Back to Squawk list
FAA says no passengers on Collings Foundation aircraft after deadly CT crash
In a recent ruling, the Federal Aviation Administration revoked the Collings Foundation’s permission to have passengers aboard its aircraft after a deadly crash last October, citing various safety reasons. The ruling comes nearly six months after a World War II B-17 bomber Nine O Nine — owned by the Collings Foundation — crashed soon after taking off from Bradley International Airport on Oct. 2, 2019. (www.ctpost.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Very damning report to the point that the FAA should revoke ALL licenses, order an inspection of every one of their craft by an outside company, and fine them up the backside. Stupid j-asses placing people's lives in crap equipment.
The captain and flight crew are responsible for each flight. It's up to them to cancel a flight.
It's up to the company to properly maintain ALL aircraft, not just 1. Collins has more than 1 aircraft. If spotty maintenance was on this craft, what are the others that fly the sky like?
Clean link:
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-faa-says-collings-foundation-cannot-carry-passengers-20200325-twq2alj7i5gztllf6h4p22mjyi-story.html
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-faa-says-collings-foundation-cannot-carry-passengers-20200325-twq2alj7i5gztllf6h4p22mjyi-story.html
Read the FAA report.. Although some might argue that it was the FAA's responsibility to "monitor" them, it was, first and foremost, the operators responsibility to comply with required preventative and reactive maintenance requirements. As an aircraft owner, it is my responsibility to ensure that annual inspections, 100-hour inspections, SBs, ADs etc are completed--and not just because I am afraid that the FAA might "audit"me. It is because of my responsibility to myself and my passengers. All bucks stop with the pilot and crew.
But the FAA *should* verify that carriers like them are following requirements and that their planes are air worthy. To not do that is dereliction of duty. The FAA is still suffering under sequestration, and likely political agenda meddling too.
But part of this is why would someone want to fly in a plane that old with an unknown record. I'd on some lever love to experience flying in a bomber, but damn, that is so potentially dangerous. I'm just sad for the families of the dead. So tragic.
But part of this is why would someone want to fly in a plane that old with an unknown record. I'd on some lever love to experience flying in a bomber, but damn, that is so potentially dangerous. I'm just sad for the families of the dead. So tragic.
Respectfully, Robert Cowling, I've flown on 909 more than a two dozen times in the past 20 or so years, I've never felt unsafe in 909 or any other warbird. This aircraft is old but, in my opinion, not unsafe. Why did I fly in this aircraft? Because I had a great uncle who was a waist gunner on B17. He started talking to me about his experiences flying over wartime Europe before they had escorts all the to Berlin. I felt his presence on every excursion into history... in fact, '909' isn't the only B17 I've been privileged to ride. FYI, there is potential danger in every endeavor, Hell a rock from Pluto could whizz from the sky and hit you... This tragic crash killed a friend of mine:in his hands '909' was a ballerina, the engines a Wagner Symphony, the smells a trip down memory lane... I have a bunch time as a flying crew chief on C-119F aircraft...
Would you have flown in it had you known that basically the company ignored the most basic maintenance? Would you fly your C119 knowing your mechanics were literally jury rigging parts with no inspections?
Respectfully Steve, if you’ve flown dozens of times in that aircraft over the last 20 years, that likely means most of those flights were likely not in the last year.
Everyone could, and I would hope should always feel safe in any aircraft. Sadly, we know only too well that quite often the feelings of unsafe only come moments after people realise that their lives depend (or are in some cases sadly limited to) the next few seconds.
All too often we see those ‘next few seconds’ come days/weeks/years after someone else botched, or even worse skipped something they should have done properly.
I have no doubt the pilots and crew never had unsafe feelings while flying that aircraft right up until a few moments after they realised they had a reason to feel unsafe, and by them it was too late. Who knows, had proper checks and maintenance been undertaken those same pilots and crew might still be flying today, and still not feeling at all unsafe.
Everyone could, and I would hope should always feel safe in any aircraft. Sadly, we know only too well that quite often the feelings of unsafe only come moments after people realise that their lives depend (or are in some cases sadly limited to) the next few seconds.
All too often we see those ‘next few seconds’ come days/weeks/years after someone else botched, or even worse skipped something they should have done properly.
I have no doubt the pilots and crew never had unsafe feelings while flying that aircraft right up until a few moments after they realised they had a reason to feel unsafe, and by them it was too late. Who knows, had proper checks and maintenance been undertaken those same pilots and crew might still be flying today, and still not feeling at all unsafe.
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-faa-says-collings-foundation-cannot-carry-passengers-20200325-twq2alj7i5gztllf6h4p22mjyi-story.html?fbclid=IwAR09KfGKQVS2xvEGO4e3nqhDglw7aKD1bmY2HoBCv00drYUw9iKOs3puE6M