Liberty Bell accident, hopefully the truth.

[AussieMan]

Even in Australia the media had a field day with sensationalising this accident. But Ray Fowler, Chief pilot for the Liberty Bell Foundation seems to put the record straight. Here is a letter he has written about the accident.

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-...june-2011.html

[SSI01]

Thanks for the article!

Typical media. Very little to no research, lots of supposition, and a dash of pure fiction thrown in to "spice up" the story. Reporting what actually happened, including outstanding examples of quick thinking, excellent airmanship, and concern for the safety of others are never thought of. But then, by their own admission, they are not there to merely report the news - they must manufacture the news.

[Bomber_12th]

I look forward to seeing where the Liberty Foundation heads into the future. They seem to be very active in their goals of having a B-17, they can call theirs, flying again. Their P-40E was recently sold (to Walt Bowe, and now based at the Sonoma Valley airport in CA), to perhaps help fund the work they have underway on B-17 rebuild activity. They recently acquired the B-17G forward fuselage (from 44-83387) which had been used as a studio prop for the 12 O'Clock High movie in 1948, and later the TV series of the same name. This had been inside a bar in Colorado for many years, and then was recently purchased and brought to California for restoration and inclusion into a static B-17 project. It is expected that this forward fuselage will be introduced into the rebuild of "Liberty Belle". Their other B-17 (44-83790), which was recovered from Dyke Lake, continues to progress separate from the "Liberty Belle", and its forward fuselage structure is looking quite complete these days. Just a rumor, but it was interesting to read on the Key Publishing Forums, about a couple months ago, that there was some talk of interest in purchasing "Sally B" and bringing it to the U.S.

[Daveroo]

ive often wondered if that fire department was a volunteer department?..or paid...and if theyve had any repercussions for not making an attempt to active suppress the fire."soft soil" is NOT an excuse if they didnt have a type 3 handy,or only had a water tender,which would be to heavy to attempt to drive on a wet plowed field ,there is allways whats called a "hose lay"..or "hose advance" ,in the pictures on this link,you see the engine just sitting and two firefighters just standing watching,almost enjoying the show (that from my memory of how we firefighters think,,,"dang aint them flames purddy??",maybe its the illness of firefighting..but every firefighter ive ever been around has done the same thing...lol)

BUT back on topic....they should have done a hose lay with minimum a inch and a half for IA,,and second in could have run a two and half or two and made an attack on the fire.....rather than just stand there...wasnt that from from wher the engine was parked to the plane...weve laid 20 times more hoseline just to get to the fireline of wildland fires,and still beaten back the fire.....those guys just plain didnt do the job....i have to ask...had that been a house on a dug up dirt road,right after a rain...would they allow the house to burn rather than chance a stuck engine?......shamefull!

[Sascha66]

ive often wondered if that fire department was a volunteer department?..or paid...and if theyve had any repercussions for not making an attempt to active suppress the fire."soft soil" is NOT an excuse if they didnt have a type 3 handy,or only had a water tender,which would be to heavy to attempt to drive on a wet plowed field ,there is allways whats called a "hose lay"..or "hose advance" ,in the pictures on this link,you see the engine just sitting and two firefighters just standing watching,almost enjoying the show (that from my memory of how we firefighters think,,,"dang aint them flames purddy??",maybe its the illness of firefighting..but every firefighter ive ever been around has done the same thing...lol)

BUT back on topic....they should have done a hose lay with minimum a inch and a half for IA,,and second in could have run a two and half or two and made an attack on the fire.....rather than just stand there...wasnt that from from wher the engine was parked to the plane...weve laid 20 times more hoseline just to get to the fireline of wildland fires,and still beaten back the fire.....those guys just plain didnt do the job....i have to ask...had that been a house on a dug up dirt road,right after a rain...would they allow the house to burn rather than chance a stuck engine?......shamefull!

Daveroo, I was thinking exactly the same thing!

[Wittpilot]

First off. This is not at all a *new* release from Ray or the Foundation. Ray & a Foundation volunteer took off ahead of the B-17 and had already landed when they got the news. This statement was written right there at the airport and I believe was published the next day or maybe a day or two after the incident.

As for getting another B-17, we are doing everything in our power to obtain another aircraft to call our own. We are fortunate to have worked out a deal to fly "The Movie Memphis Belle" on a loan deal from the Tallichet Family. Our tour is going well so far this year. I have meant to set down many times to update everyone on the goings on, but real life has kept me away from the computer these days. Working as well as attempting to coach high school soccer.

As far as how the airframes owned by Don Brooks & the Foundation will play into the restoration of Liberty Belle is still as clear as mud. I think they are keeping all their options open.

In regards to the fire department. Yes, had they reached the plane, she would have been saved. But they didn't, and that is that. The fact of the matter is, is that the field was pretty bad, and the fire departments main goal is to make sure everyone is safe. It just wasn't meant to be. I will always remember the very instant I heard what had happened, and the image that appeared on my cell phone when I looked it up... You can all imagine the feeling in my stomach at that moment.

On an interesting note, I actually go to fly in the Belle with Bud, the guy flying in the right seat on that fateful day. Got to do quite a bit of flying two weekends ago here in Columbus... I shall upload a photo or two when I get a moment.

-Witt

[Daveroo]

witt..i realise what you say is true about safety first..well actually i cant remember the slogan we used to say...but like a structure fire..human life comes first,then fire suppression,and over haul...with exposure protection thrown in the mix...but my point to what i was saying..it was obvious the crew and passengers were safe early on,and in my opinion anyway..there is no excuse not to have made a IA hose lay on the active fire..in the link at the top of the thread here..its obvious they did after the fact..it shows a firefighter putting either a foamy "wet-water" or badly mixed foam on the plane after the fact.seeing those two firefighters just standing there watching is almost offencive to me (me personally) they should have been humpin hose and aggressively attacking that fire...no excuses,that airplane was someones personal property as far as those firefighters should have been aware,and it is their duty and what they've committed their lives to do...to protect the publics life and property..getting an engine stuck in the mud should not have been an issue...

Had i been the engineer,id have pointed the nose of my engine at that aircraft and hit the throttle and made the beast dig until it couldnt move forward anymore,,and id have made damned sure my crew were packed up (had on their SCBA)and ready to fight fire,when the engine stalled in the "mud"..bingo..all out and lay line to the fire,i would have hit the panel and have gotten water flowing,and if i was equipped with foam..it would have been in effect....we would NOT have just stood there and watched...

[Trans_23]

Aurora is a fairly good size city so my guess is they have a paid department.

Just checked. They are paid. http://iaff99.org/index.cfm?section=1

A post from a firefighter in another forum:Fire trucks are significantly heavier than your average pick up and could easily get bogged down in mud. Consider that an average pumper weighs in at over 38,000 lbs, and runs road tires, not high flotation off-highway tires like many ARFF rigs do, the chances for them getting stuck and not only being unable to extinguish the B17, but being out of service until a heavy duty recovery vehicle can pull it out push 100%. And until it is recovered, the rest of the community is without its services.

[Daveroo]

ok..he has a point,and i do agree with it...BUT..they have more units.mutual aid.and other systems in place to cover anything in such a case.again..even had they NOT run the mud..as they didnt..there was NO excuse not to lay line and fight the fire.. none what so ever.and if the only reason was.."they didnt want to get stuck" or its only a plane...then those men or women should quit the fire service...they dont belong in the fraternity.

i know other members of this forum are members of the fire service or have ties to it,and im sure they agree with me that once you taste the thrill of attacking a fire..it gets into you blood,sweat,skin,brain..however you want to say it..its ingrained in you..and for the majority..it never goes away...yes i made a joke about the "oh look at da pruddy fire"....and those kind of comments happen all the time...like you'll roll out of the barn and not just see thick black smoke boiling into the sky,but you see flames licking 100-150 feet into the skyline above the surrounding homes and buildings,and you think in your brain..oh chit!!! but you yell outloud to the guy in the other jumpseat.."dude its really goin an blowin!...YAAAHOOOO!!!!" you strap on your SCBA tighten everything up,and when the engine rolls to a stop yer off in a flash and dragging hose to the door ready to make entrance while the cops are yelling at people surrounding the block to stay back!!!!

my point?..you never ever stand there with your hand up your butt and watch!!!!

[PRB]

My initial reaction to this incident was the same as yours, Dave. It was inconceivable to me that there was nothing they could do but watch it burn. I still have a hard time with that one. I understand all the arguments that have been made, but still, the account from the crew in that posting seems a little strained, meaning if you got them in a bar over a beer and asked them what they really think, it might be slightly different, and more in the direction of Dave's observations. Just a hunch...

[Skyhawk_310R]

You folks are being truly charitable to the on scene fire department. I credit your character for that. I won't be so charitable.

To the point of protecting the fire truck, last I heard, trucks stuck in the mud can be easily enough recovered. Rarely if ever do they suffer damage from getting so stuck, and generally a good quality pressure steam wash to the undercarriage does wonders to clean off the mud!

Yes, first priority is to protect and save lives. Second priority however then becomes first priority once those lives are saved and accounted for. The second priority of any fire department has always been preservation of valuable property. The fire department was, therefore, severely remiss in carrying out their second priority of duty!

They certainly had all the rehearsed answers ready to go. They know they failed and to the degree that professionals fall their justifications become all the more important. I've found that those most willing to shirk duty tend to be the best at crafting cover stories. But, blunt truth is they had the opportunity to save a national treasure and did not even try to! I don't see many fire department send national treasures to the scenes of fires. Frankly, you risk that truck to save that treasure.

They shirked their duties and rightly earned condemnation for it. When this happened, the aviation community pretty much united to express their outrage. I joined that chorus back then. I repeat it now yielding nothing whatsoever of my profound disgust originally felt.

Ken

[pfflyers]

If the field was so bad, how did they manage to land a B-17 on it without collapsing the gear or nosing over?

[Daveroo]

You folks are being truly charitable to the on scene fire department. I credit your character for that. I won't be so charitable.

To the point of protecting the fire truck, last I heard, trucks stuck in the mud can be easily enough recovered. Rarely if ever do they suffer damage from getting so stuck, and generally a good quality pressure steam wash to the undercarriage does wonders to clean off the mud!

Yes, first priority is to protect and save lives. Second priority however then becomes first priority once those lives are saved and accounted for. The second priority of any fire department has always been preservation of valuable property. The fire department was, therefore, severely remiss in carrying out their second priority of duty!

They certainly had all the rehearsed answers ready to go. They know they failed and to the degree that professionals fall their justifications become all the more important. I've found that those most willing to shirk duty tend to be the best at crafting cover stories. But, blunt truth is they had the opportunity to save a national treasure and did not even try to! I don't see many fire department send national treasures to the scenes of fires. Frankly, you risk that truck to save that treasure.

They shirked their duties and rightly earned condemnation for it. When this happened, the aviation community pretty much united to express their outrage. I joined that chorus back then. I repeat it now yielding nothing whatsoever of my profound disgust originally felt.

Ken

i had no intention of being charitable,i just dont speak well....i dont "articulate" well...and we cant cuss on here or my postings may have been totally different.....

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Yeah obviously not wildland forest fire fighters trained in hose lays water transfers in line mark IIs etc. Isn't there a heli with a bucket somewhere nearby? What about a SEAT? One retardant hit could perhaps have dealt with that fire. Farmer probably would have paid for the retardant fertilizer effect. What is a B17 worth? I guess what baffles me the most is the last image of the fire department spraying foam in a green field with a knee high crop some time later. What is up with that?

-Ed-

[Daveroo]

well even city fire departments should know how to do a hoselay....i mean what if the hydrants are very far apart.....ok..the line lays off the hosebed..but there are times you have to hand jack to a distant hydrant thats on the next block or something if its a really big fire..say a furniture warehouse...or if the structure is set back 400-500 yards off the street..they need a hoselay...

[Wittpilot]

This picture from flickr pretty much sums up the situation for me....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/konabish/5898334404/

[CWOJackson]

This picture from flickr pretty much sums up the situation for me....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/konabish/5898334404/

Thanks for posting, and I tend to agree.

[Wittpilot]

I realized going through some old threads that I do not believe I ever posted any photos from this summer with the "Movie Memphis Belle".....

I have a couple on another computer, but here is one to wet your appetite....

[Daveroo]

LOL witt..great pic....id have loved to be in your shoes there.

[stansdds]

I have been there and done that,
my only advice, don't wear a hat!


Hey, I'm a poet and didn't know it.

[n4gix]

...but your shoes show it
'cause they're longfellows!

[Wittpilot]

I should add that shortly after this picture, we did a couple of approach stalls.... Having only ever done a stall in a Stearman, this was indeed quite the experience.........-

[StormILM]

I have something to add to this. I am a former Firefighter/EMT/Fire Engineer & Certified Line Fire Officer with a decade of high call volume experience. I have actually responded to multiple aircraft related emergencies including remote crash sites. First off, there are varying conditions and landscapes which do not allow heavy fire apparatuses to be deployed due to their weight and being top heavy plus most fire apparatus do not have low pressure tires designed to cope with soft ground. Looking at the amount in which the B-17's large/wide tires sank into the soil, there's zero question it would have easily caused any street type fire apparatus to become stuck well before reaching the burning aircraft. I have participated in multiple investigation boards where an Engineer made a decision to drive into a scene with soft soil or a sloped incline which caused an apparatus to become stuck or roll over causing injury and great damage if not the total loss of very expensive equipment & vehicles. It takes very little for one of these apparatuses to get stuck all the way up to their bottom and worse, suffer axle and PTO transfer case damage rendering the pump completely useless. I have on many occasions made the call to not proceed down certain roads or through fields that were an obvious risk to the fire apparatus becoming stuck, disabled/damaged and I stand by every single decision I ever made in such matters even though property was lost in the event. One other matter to consider is this. Most fire apparatuses have very limited water supply on board. Let's just say that my primary attack pumper is equipped with a 1000 gallon tank and multiple hand lines capable of discharging 125 to 250 gpm(gallons per minute) on a given fire. That gives between 8 to 4 minutes of water flow at those gpm rates but in most aircraft fires, the btu's being emitted by the fire exceed the available gpm needed to knock the fire down. If I were able to safely get an apparatus into a remote spot, I would most likely blitz attack the fire using the deck gun(deluge gun) capable of 1500 gpm discharge(depending on pump capacity) to try and get an upper hand on such a fire(much like a airport crash/fire apparatus does). Even then that gives 45 seconds of water flow and the tank is dry without a hydrant, tanker or catch-all portable tank being nearby. Even then, there's no guarantee the aircraft would have or could have been saved. I've been through enough training classes with airport fire crews and seen quite clearly that even with maximum AFFF foam flow, the aircraft on fire was most often lost. Once the metals in the airframe ignite, its very difficult to extinguish them. So in hindsight, I'm inclined to support the primary incident commander in not risking immobilization/damage to fire apparatus/equipment which might have placed equipment vital to the public safety of their community at risk of damage/loss when the total loss of the B-17 was likely unpreventable. The loss of the B-17 is sad, yes, but in the end, to condemn the fire crews for the loss is 100% wrong.

[PRB]

Thanks StormILM. Interesting insight! My heart wishes they had done more, but your perspective is needed too...

[StormILM]

I would also add, I am certain those firefighters felt badly in holding back for the reasons they did(even fully justified) and I've been in those boots before and it's not an easy decision to make and in fact, very painful considering what we're charged to do in the performance of duty. However, it's a rule without exception that we never place personnel or equipment at unnecessary risk. We're no good to the public if we end up dead or lose vital equipment in the process of a bad decision.