Snowbird crash in CYKA

[Cliff Jumper]

Pot, meet kettle.

[cncpc]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

I accept his credentials and experience. I'm sure lots of other people do as well.

You and your other two ghosts are the only ones that accept yours.

Edited.

[fleet16b]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

I accept his credentials and experience. I'm sure lots of other people do as well.

You and your other two ghosts are the only ones that accept yours.

Shut your piehole. Adults are talking here.

Annnd here is a classic example of why AVCanada is discounted as a legitimate Aviation forum and why so many walk away from it .
Adults ? CNCP, you are very far from that category
Your childish insecurities continue to be front and centre

[fleet16b]

In typical fashion, you're arguing just to argue. I'm stating some details that agree with the gentlemen on here that have military experience, and you're saying I can't say the sky is blue because I'm not a meteorologist.

I never suggested any deep knowledge, weird opinions, or anything that's not on google.

Zoom climbs in military trainers at 200kts average 600-900 feet. At 250kts they average 1100-1600.feet. That's from several manuals on google. For example http://www.t6bdriver.com/uploads/6/4/7/ ... 14_fti.pdf

Granted there are some differences for aircraft type. I have no idea what a tutor would be. It wouldn't be zero though.

I haven't flown a rocket either, but I understand there is a flamey firey thing that blows downward. Makes a lot of noise.

Ok I got it now.

You have no military aviation experience and a grand total of zero hours in a Tutor.

Thank you for your important opinion.

Whether some of us have Tutor time or not the same result happened that we have seen many times in all sections of aviation. One does not have to be a military pilot or have Tutor time etc to be able to form an idea of what most likely happened. There are common fundamentals in aerodynamics that reach across all scenarios and this seems to be one of them.
Low attitude , low speed , loss of lift, stall , spin , crash .
I don’t think anybody here can dispute those facts
I can’t wait to read this investigation but I fear some of the facts may be suppressed .

[AirFrame]

Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left...

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

[fleet16b]

Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left...

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP
Clearly in this case the SOP(which nobody can produce thus far) appears to have not worked for them.
Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat . Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that
It may be SOP but that does not make it correct or safe
Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation
We will see what the investigation brings out
No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

[tsgarp]

Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left...

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP
Clearly in this case the SOP(which nobody can produce thus far) appears to have not worked for them.
Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat . Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that
It may be SOP but that does not make it correct or safe
Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation
We will see what the investigation brings out
No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

I know when we practiced similar scenarios in the Harvard II it was not uncommon to zoom towards low key for a PFL.

[Rockie]

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP

I doubt you'd find it written anywhere except possibly a basic formation briefing. But you can take it as fact from a former CF-18 pilot that if you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position. It is basic formation discipline that saves lives.

You may recall a C130 crash in Edmonton where a 3 plane formation overhead break was planned and briefed to deliberately lose sight of each other during the turn to downwind. The break was planned with appropriate intervals between aircraft, and each sequential aircraft was supposed to use 1/2 G less in the turn to further ensure separation. Guess what happened?

Rule # 1. Don't lose sight of lead.
Rule # 2. If you lose sight of lead turn away from their last known position.

You can believe experienced military pilots who did this day in/day out or you can believe your flying club buddies. Your pick.

[fleet16b]

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP

I doubt you'd find it written anywhere except possibly a basic formation briefing. But you can take it as fact from a former CF-18 pilot that if you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position. It is basic formation discipline that saves lives.

You may recall a C130 crash in Edmonton where a 3 plane formation overhead break was planned and briefed to deliberately lose sight of each other during the turn to downwind. The break was planned with appropriate intervals between aircraft, and each sequential aircraft was supposed to use 1/2 G less in the turn to further ensure separation. Guess what happened?

Rule # 1. Don't lose sight of lead.
Rule # 2. If you lose sight of lead turn away from their last known position.

You can believe experienced military pilots who did this day in/day out or you can believe your flying club buddies. Your pick.

Rockie
Thank you for your response
I mentioned the SOP because some of the (ex) Military people here refer to the maneuver as being part of it
It would be both an educational and interesting to read .
Obviously this discussion consists of the many possible scenarios that could have caused the accident . All of them are plausible reasons in spite of some of the comments.
At this point I’m not believing anyone and will be interested to read the Investigation Report.

[fleet16b]

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP
Clearly in this case the SOP(which nobody can produce thus far) appears to have not worked for them.
Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat . Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that
It may be SOP but that does not make it correct or safe
Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation
We will see what the investigation brings out
No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

I know when we practiced similar scenarios in the Harvard II it was not uncommon to zoom towards low key for a PFL.

Thanks I understand that that may be SOP
However , looking at the videos , it appears that he either made the left turn after the zoom to low key or the zoom caused enough airspeed loss to induce a stall dropping the left wing.

[frosti]

Those questioning why he turned back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2zB7Z-b6Kc

Very similar, but no neighbourhoods to worry about there. Also didn't seem to stall the aircraft during the turn.

[fleet16b]

Those questioning why he turned back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2zB7Z-b6Kc

Very similar, but no neighbourhoods to worry about there. Also didn't seem to stall the aircraft during the turn.

An interesting video and it shows that he did not make it back to the runway either

[tsgarp]

Thanks I understand that that may be SOP
However , looking at the videos , it appears that he either made the left turn after the zoom to low key or the zoom caused enough airspeed loss to induce a stall dropping the left wing.

I can't comment on what the pilot in the incident did. All I can say is that it looks a fair bit like what I've seen done in similar, simulated, situations in the Harvard II. I'll also say that in those practice scenarios the failure was initiated when the energy state clearly favoured one option or the other (the failure either came when it was clear that you had to eject, or your clearly had enough energy to zoom back).

During the pretake-off brief we decided a minimum energy state (X KIAS and Y MSL) required before we would attempt a zoom. Any failure below that was an ejection. My first reaction to an EFATO, (only ever in the sim, thank heavens), was to check IAS and ALT. If I was above the briefed minimum energy state, action the Red-Page and turn for low key. If I was below the minimum energy state, eject. I know the Hawk guys did something similar also.

[tsgarp]

Those questioning why he turned back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2zB7Z-b6Kc

Very similar, but no neighbourhoods to worry about there. Also didn't seem to stall the aircraft during the turn.

An interesting video and it shows that he did not make it back to the runway either

The zoom to low key serves two purposes. The zoom gets you away from the ground and buys you time to assess the situation. The turn points you towards a useable landing surface. You initiate a zoom to low key because you might have enough energy to make it back to the runway. The maneuver puts you in the best position to accomplish this and increases the amount of time you have to assess options. Sometimes you find yourself at low key and realize that you aren't going to make the runway, so ejection becomes the best option.

[fleet16b]

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5593259

[Gannet167]

An interesting video and it shows that he did not make it back to the runway either

Your logic is flawed. I can show you tons of videos where guys ejected straight ahead. Since none of them made it to a runway either, should we conclude that ejecting straight ahead is a flawed method?

The point is not that the Hawk made it or didn’t. The point being made is simply that the turn for low key is not unusual and can, if correctly done, in some instances result in a successful landing. This is preferred mainly because if a landing is relatively assured and carried out, its much safer than an ejection. In this video of the Hawk off 29R in CYMJ, the attempt was made to get to low key. If partial power was recovered or if he had more energy, the Hawk, and CYKA Tutor might’ve landed. In the end the Hawk couldn’t make low key and an ejection was carried out. There was nothing unsafe about the zoom or turn and if anything, it preserved options rather than continuing ahead which would’ve eliminated options. Only by turning and using up 100 kts of energy can you attempt this.

A 172 or Fleet doesn’t fly with 100+ kts of excess energy to bleed in a turn, so it makes no sense to try. In a GA airplane you’re forced landing after and engine fail. The only question is where and if you’re under control. Better to preserve control and land ahead because you have so little energy that using any in a turn generally is disastrous. Since you have no option but to stay with the aircraft, a controlled off field landing usually works out best. If a 172 had 1000 hp at was at 200 kts and/or 3000’ by the end of the runway, it would be a different story and making low key would be easily done without using up precious energy and having reduced control. Also, if you have an ejection seat, it is not a forgone conclusion that you’ll be riding the plane to the ground. If it appears that low key isn’t possible, you have an escape system.

I am merely trying to say that in this aircraft the zoom and turn for low key is a very reasonable way to handle the situation and commonly done. I am not looking for an argument or to one-up anyone. I don’t advocate it in a Cessna, I too was taught it won’t work out it a Cessna. When I flew other airplanes, I was taught other methods. I don’t fly a heavy wide body. I wouldn’t proclaim a blanket statement criticizing, for example, an emergency decent by arguing the correct way is to roll inverted and pull. Different airplanes, different methods.

Thankfully the tutor didn’t continue straight ahead, resulting in ejecting into the city.

After the initial zoom and turn, I wont comment or speculate on what happened in the cockpit, I wasn’t there and it’s not my place. See Mover’s YT video on professionalism and speculating.

In the Hawk video, no pulp mill, no river, no population, no rising terrain on both sides. Obviously this is a very familiar airfield. Bird goes in at :07, the decision to eject was made about :45 That’s about 38 seconds of time, not 12.

[Gannet167]

Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that

In the midst of handling this entire event, what you're suggesting requires that 2 radio lead to coordinate staying clear. There's no time to say "can you stay clear of me? I'm having an engine problem and I'm about to turn". Where should lead go? Where is 2 going? What altitude? Lead likely had no idea that 2 had an issue until he either looked back at his wing and saw no airplane, or heard 2's radio call (if 2 had time to make one). 2 needs to zoom anyway, so rather than coordinating a deconfliction plan on the radio and wasting time during a major in flight emergency, the SOP is to zoom and turn away from lead. Time permitting, you tell lead you're off and where you are.
[/quote]

[Gannet167]

I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

Really?

one of the #1 rules in aviation and one that has been there since the beginning , LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD if you loose the engine in take off. ...
This was a totally avoidable had he have followed the rules .
The investigation will at some point address this turn back decision

...

are you a pilot ?
If you are and were not trained to land straight ahead when losing an engine on take off , you were poorly trained.
I’ve been in Aviation my whole life

...

I don’t know any pilot that does not know this rule of thumb and I very surprised that you don’t.
It’s been in training syllabus around the world since the start of aviation.
How could you not know this ?

It sure doesn't seem as if you're trying to understand, but rather have it all figured out and know a lot about parts of aviation that you've never flown. Please try to understand there may be things you don't know. We're just trying to have a reasonable conversation. Making sweeping assertions from an uninformed position, prognosticating about things without knowledge and speculating doesn't aid in the dialogue.

[fleet16b]

Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that

In the midst of handling this entire event, what you're suggesting requires that 2 radio lead to coordinate staying clear. There's no time to say "can you stay clear of me? I'm having an engine problem and I'm about to turn". Where should lead go? Where is 2 going? What altitude? Lead likely had no idea that 2 had an issue until he either looked back at his wing and saw no airplane, or heard 2's radio call (if 2 had time to make one). 2 needs to zoom anyway, so rather than coordinating a deconfliction plan on the radio and wasting time during a major in flight emergency, the SOP is to zoom and turn away from lead. Time permitting, you tell lead you're off and where you are.

[/quote]
No I would assume that the a/c in trouble would have made some kind of quick call to Twr as to trouble and that there would be some kind of SOP that the other aircraft would have c/out to keep away. (?)
I agree maybe there was no time for a call from the stricken aircraft and in that case the other aircraft would have just been continuing on oblivious to the problem

[fleet16b]

Gannet167
Thank you for the responses
I have a question.
What is the standard climb rate for the Tutor on takeoff
In the video and on the close to 100 times I’ve seen the snowbird shows , they appear to always do shallow climb outs
Now I understand doing that in a show to keep thing close for the crowd but this was not a show situation
So IF they did a shallow climb out , why , that would just decrease the safety factor would it not ? Especially in this situation