I doubt it - they were just out of altitude. The best outcome would have been to leave at the apex of the climb - instead of turning......but there could be many reasons why they did turn instead. I'm sure it will come out in the investigation.You'd have to wonder if they'd be better off staying onboard and trying to pull out of the dive more before impact.
Snowbird crash in CYKA
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
- Jean-Pierre
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Do you happen to know if the military pilot are trained not to attempt low altitude turnback after an engine failure on takeoff like civilian pilot are?
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
No - I don't, I would guess that it's pretty standard training though for anyone....military or not.
But there are still many reasons that they turned.
BTW a link to the seats
http://www.ejectionsite.com/ct114seat.htm
But there are still many reasons that they turned.
BTW a link to the seats
http://www.ejectionsite.com/ct114seat.htm
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Localizer wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 2:03 pmLocalizer wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:02 pm
Those things should have been retired years ago .. the Snowbird name can live on in a new jet.That's not it? ... That's all you got? ... I can except "That's not it" had it been followed with an intelligent reason.That's not it.
I'm not saying this accident has to do with maintenance or anything related, but the Tutors had their day .. what's wrong with gracing the CT-155 with Snowbird colours and beginning a new chapter?
I hope to God everyone is ok .. it would be nice to see something positive come out of what's evolving into a shitty 2020.
These Tudors are not high hour air-frames, they are still young in terms of accumulated fatigue. They were Canadian built and still carry a source of National pride. There is no need to currently retire them, they do not see large hours annually.
The problem is simple, it is a Single Engine jet. These will always be unsafe in my opinion. With redundancy built into most aircraft systems nowadays, the overwhelming elephant in the room is the single engine. This is why the F-35 should never be considered for Canada and our High Arctic environment. Birdstrike, compressor stall, lose an engine and big trouble........these are not great gliders. In this case it appears very likely they lost power at about the worst point in time, and tried for altitude while they still could. They failed to get the full 180° and entered a stall. The video will play a very important role in the investigation, however it looks fairly clear as to what happened.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
98 Corolla wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 7:33 pm It was not 90 degree nose down when they ejected. Not even close. Airspeed was actually pretty low too due to just coming out of the spin. I thought modern ejection seats were supposed to be zero-zero certified. Their chutes weren't even close to being open despite traveling a fair distance through the air.
This is how it should go:
https://youtu.be/YxMLkEYgT78
0/0 yes. Assuming on the ground, not going down. The flight path vector was nose down, even if the aircraft attitude was not.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Sad day , when the folks trying to help us through this , are hurt .
Big hugs , Condolences and much love to the Snowbirds and their families .
Big hugs , Condolences and much love to the Snowbirds and their families .
-
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
That direction of takeoff puts you over the city - perhaps some effort on the pilot's behalf to not put the plane through someone's house?boeingboy wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:08 pmI doubt it - they were just out of altitude. The best outcome would have been to leave at the apex of the climb - instead of turning......but there could be many reasons why they did turn instead. I'm sure it will come out in the investigation.You'd have to wonder if they'd be better off staying onboard and trying to pull out of the dive more before impact.
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
That's one scenario I was thinking of... although it was more like not letting it plow through the downtown core.That direction of takeoff puts you over the city - perhaps some effort on the pilot's behalf to not put the plane through someone's house?
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
A few points of clarification from a guy with 1600 hours on the Tutor (not Tudor, for the record):
- although the airframes are getting close to 60 years old, the engines are not. They have a TBO and service life they did when they were first introduced (those figures I am not sure of). These engines are likely still in production as it is the same basic engine (GE J85) that is used by the USAF and their fleet of 500+ T38 Talon fleet. The Tutor is the J85-Can 85 while the T38's is a J85 - 5A version.
- ejection is all about physics and the aircraft vector when ejection is initiated. The seat has the same inertial characteristic as the aircraft hosting it - the velocity vector is downward, so is the seat; if the aircraft is in a steep, nose-down attitude, so this the seat and if the aircraft is banked so is the seat. With a gimballed seat, there is some assistance provided by the rockets as the will aid in changing the ejection path; notice in that CF18 video how he went out of the aircraft in a 90 degree bank and the rockets maneuvered to provide a slight vertical upward component.
- the idea with an engine failure in single engine military jets is to exchange airspeed for altitude to get away from the ground, buy some time to sort things out and assess whether one can return to the same runway. The idea in the Tutor is to apex at 130 kts (above the stall speed) and assess if one can get to a downwind position abeam the threshold of the take-off runway at or above 1500 ft agl; this is known as "low-key". If you can't achieve that then the idea is to jump out.
I do not wish to debate whether the engines are good or bad or whether decisions were right or wrong but simply provide facts on this forum. I will say, however, that the Tutor jet is perfectly safe even at its ripe old age; engine failures with this aircraft, like any military jet aircraft, have occurred from their introduction in the 1960's and throughout their history. This engine failure occurred at the worst possible time, shortly after take-off before the aircraft could achieve lots of energy (potential, i.e. altitude, and kinetic, i.e. airspeed).
This is a terrible tragedy wherein a goodwill tour turned tragic in the blink-of-an-eye. My hope and prayer is that they get to the bottom of what happened, adjust as necessary and continue the Snowbirds with the Tutor aircraft.
- although the airframes are getting close to 60 years old, the engines are not. They have a TBO and service life they did when they were first introduced (those figures I am not sure of). These engines are likely still in production as it is the same basic engine (GE J85) that is used by the USAF and their fleet of 500+ T38 Talon fleet. The Tutor is the J85-Can 85 while the T38's is a J85 - 5A version.
- ejection is all about physics and the aircraft vector when ejection is initiated. The seat has the same inertial characteristic as the aircraft hosting it - the velocity vector is downward, so is the seat; if the aircraft is in a steep, nose-down attitude, so this the seat and if the aircraft is banked so is the seat. With a gimballed seat, there is some assistance provided by the rockets as the will aid in changing the ejection path; notice in that CF18 video how he went out of the aircraft in a 90 degree bank and the rockets maneuvered to provide a slight vertical upward component.
- the idea with an engine failure in single engine military jets is to exchange airspeed for altitude to get away from the ground, buy some time to sort things out and assess whether one can return to the same runway. The idea in the Tutor is to apex at 130 kts (above the stall speed) and assess if one can get to a downwind position abeam the threshold of the take-off runway at or above 1500 ft agl; this is known as "low-key". If you can't achieve that then the idea is to jump out.
I do not wish to debate whether the engines are good or bad or whether decisions were right or wrong but simply provide facts on this forum. I will say, however, that the Tutor jet is perfectly safe even at its ripe old age; engine failures with this aircraft, like any military jet aircraft, have occurred from their introduction in the 1960's and throughout their history. This engine failure occurred at the worst possible time, shortly after take-off before the aircraft could achieve lots of energy (potential, i.e. altitude, and kinetic, i.e. airspeed).
This is a terrible tragedy wherein a goodwill tour turned tragic in the blink-of-an-eye. My hope and prayer is that they get to the bottom of what happened, adjust as necessary and continue the Snowbirds with the Tutor aircraft.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
So is it just not feasible to put a modern gimballed ejection seat into the Tutor? You would think with the single engine threat and the low altitude flying the Snowbirds do it would be a priority to protect the crews.
- Jean-Pierre
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
When the Snowbird crash in Atlanta last year there was issues with the ejection sequence as well.
From a Dec. 1, 2019 article on Avweb:
From a Dec. 1, 2019 article on Avweb:
Domon-Grenier was taken to a hospital as a precaution but released that evening. He reported “anomalies” with the ejection but the RCAF did not elaborate on what went wrong.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Here is a pretty decent summary by Juan Browne. Not all the details but he's probably better than many of the "experts" adorning the news.
Gives some good description of the ejection sequence and the engine/airframe history of the Tutor.
In the comments there is a former Snowbird pilot also giving some information about the seat.
https://youtu.be/10Og_7sqU7s
Gives some good description of the ejection sequence and the engine/airframe history of the Tutor.
In the comments there is a former Snowbird pilot also giving some information about the seat.
https://youtu.be/10Og_7sqU7s
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
I have been wondering if it could have been a partial power loss initially and then failed totally near the apex of the climb as he was planning a turn away from population/ back to the airport. Leaving no excess energy through the turn leading into stall/spin. To his credit he was out of the spin fast.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
I’m curious why most military jets seem to adopt a profile of staying low and building up airspeed rather than doing a best rate climb? I know that Snowbirds are performers and it looks cool and I enjoy doing it myself on occasion but it seems to introduce a lot of risk.
At a Vy climb, you’re already at the highest altitude you’d achieve when your engine fails, you’re at a manageable nose high attitude, and you’re close to best glide or minimum sink.
You aren’t in the parasitic drag regime that’s going to rob a significant amount of energy from your zoom climb, and you don’t need to do a pitch up that will rob even more energy.
I don’t really see it as giving you any more time, either, because now you have to both concentrate on the maneuver and the emergency, rather than just pitch to minimum sink and use the altitude you already have to deal with the emergency.
At a Vy climb, you’re already at the highest altitude you’d achieve when your engine fails, you’re at a manageable nose high attitude, and you’re close to best glide or minimum sink.
You aren’t in the parasitic drag regime that’s going to rob a significant amount of energy from your zoom climb, and you don’t need to do a pitch up that will rob even more energy.
I don’t really see it as giving you any more time, either, because now you have to both concentrate on the maneuver and the emergency, rather than just pitch to minimum sink and use the altitude you already have to deal with the emergency.
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
- 98 Corolla
- Rank 2
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:26 am
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Good point pie. You're also out of the birdstrike danger zone faster.
-
- Rank 0
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 8:50 am
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
How have all these GENIUS's and arm chair flyers missed the most important part of that video. Everyone is saying he was trying to do a 180 to get back, pilot error, planes are old a garbage. First of all, they could have hit a bird. Which has brought down much new jets that's this. Second. Why did it take him so long to punch out? He was trying to point the jet away from town and residential areas. He sacrificed the crew for the bystanders below. He is a god damn hero. He was not trying to get back or save the jet, he was trying to save lives below. He did exact what he intended to do. Enough disrespect
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 8132
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: Winterfell...
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Punching out of an out of control aircraft that went down in a residential area seems to contradict everything you said.
The Thompson River was right there, and there are no residences in a right hand pattern.
Why are only certain pilots sacrosanct? What meaning does the word hero have if it’s abused so much?
The Thompson River was right there, and there are no residences in a right hand pattern.
Why are only certain pilots sacrosanct? What meaning does the word hero have if it’s abused so much?
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
-
- Rank 0
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 8:50 am
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
He would have had no time to cross over to the right pattern. He was on the left side of the formation. Which is probably why he broke left initially. Would he not have to cross over more houses to get to the river at that point? We're talking seconds here. He could have just punched out safely and let the jet land where ever.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:06 am Punching out of an out of control aircraft that went down in a residential area seems to contradict everything you said.
The Thompson River was right there, and there are no residences in a right hand pattern.
Why are only certain pilots sacrosanct? What meaning does the word hero have if it’s abused so much?
- schnitzel2k3
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 11:17 pm
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
No one should be questioning or arm-chairing Capt. MacDougall's decision making, other than those members from the Forces and TC who are required to for the analysis of the accident.
IMHO, Capt. MacDougall did everything he could with the very few options he had, including recovering from a low altitude incipient spin, to minimize loss of life and collateral damage. I am sure he is mourning heavily tonight over the loss of his passenger, friend and team member, Capt Casey.
It is unfortunate to say the least, that the Tutor's weren't equipped with better safety equipment to help get the crew away from an emergency situation. I am sure that will be something the Forces may take into consideration going forward.
Sad times indeed.
IMHO, Capt. MacDougall did everything he could with the very few options he had, including recovering from a low altitude incipient spin, to minimize loss of life and collateral damage. I am sure he is mourning heavily tonight over the loss of his passenger, friend and team member, Capt Casey.
It is unfortunate to say the least, that the Tutor's weren't equipped with better safety equipment to help get the crew away from an emergency situation. I am sure that will be something the Forces may take into consideration going forward.
Sad times indeed.
Last edited by schnitzel2k3 on Mon May 18, 2020 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.