quote:

They muffed it up for everyone, with scrutiny and changes coming for all other operators of historical aircraft, that give rides.

Are the other organizations not under the same constraints in terms of finances, technical know how, scarcity of parts, etc. that you have mentioned about the Collings Foundation in your previous posts? Maybe if there had been more scrutiny to begin with, this would have been caught before people died. Your posts seem to imply that Collings Foundation had a reputation for shoddy operations and yet the previous level of scrutiny didn’t uncover that their procedures were faulty and they didn’t even follow their faulty procedures.

As a non-pilot, non-insider, regular person who has paid for these rides in the past, I’d like a little assurance that I’ll be coming back from my 30 minute ride in one piece, still alive.

Among the public, reputation stems more from shiny paint and cool stuff.

I can go back 30 years with associates who have flown for X operator and see a clear history with Collings. What they did here, they did a long time ago, and have simply scraped by with luck.

The Commemorative Air Force (nee, confederate airforce, etc) is popular, but has a history of crashes.

The public often makes the assumption that the aircraft wouldn't be flying unless a dedicated group of professionals were supporting the project like homage to a shrine. The truth is that in most cases many of those working on the aircraft and flying them are either part time volunteers, or those who paid to be there. CAF is such a group; one gets a paramilitary rank title and the ability to be an aircrew member, by paying for the privilege. Never a high standard for selection. Consequently, they've had a relatively high rate of mishaps, given the few hours they fly.

Then again, the public jumps on a regional airliner and sits down behind the least experience that the industry has to offer; often kids with a few hours and no judgement, and until just a few years ago, paid poverty wages.

The FAA had oversight assigned to Collings; the FAA representative died, and though the Collings chief pilot continued to attempt contact for a period, he got no reply, and eventually gave up. It wasn't until the Windsor Locks crash that the FAA assigned someone; two someone's. Two barn doors shut after the horses were long gone.

Did he make an intersection take off on runway 06?

This link has a clearer diagram of the short flight, sure looks like he did.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-...ndled-b17g-emergency

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00460AD.PDF

Yeah, it may have been legal, but was it smart?

It wouldn't have been my choice, but it wouldn't have altered the outcome of this event.

The captain/director of maintenance knew he had a significant magneto problem, and was fouling plugs. His plugs were out of tolerance, as were the mags. Large radials foul easily on avgas; if the engines are warm enough to take off, it's better to get it operating, rather than a long taxi, to prevent fouled plus...but that wouldn't be a problem if they manually leaned, instead of autoleaned, on the ground.

There literally wasn't a single thing they did right with the event, or the operation in general.

Having spent 4 years maintaining and flying the
CF-104 with a civilian demonstration team I can
Tell you doing proper maintenance starts at the
top of the organization. Most of us were x military
with similar maintenance and flying experience.
I can assure you nobody was going to jump in the pilot seat of a F-104 with questionable maintenance. The team is still operating today
after 24 years. BTW most of us were un-paid volunteers