Snowbird crash in CYKA

[PilotDAR]

I know that the military depends upon many pilot skill sets which are foreign to civil flying, and require specialized training, but...

There's a reason the RCAF prefers to train pilots that don't already have pilot's licenses... They spend a lot of time "untraining" things.

Isn't the very basic pilot training pretty well common both civil, and entry level military? I have had the impression that a lot of air cadet and basic pilot training [in the military path] is contracted to civil FTU's (who may operate 172's). Honest question...

On the flip side, there is training being conducted in the civil world, which is not a part of any military training. The most basic elements of pilot training are pretty common, regardless of the candidate's proposed career path.

[fleet16b]

Nobody blamed anyone or came to any foreigner conclusions as to what happened.

Well, you did:

It’s pretty obvious that he tried to make it back and stall spun instead .
This was a totally avoidable had he have followed the rules .

Further , GA , Airline , ultralight, Military , it doesn’t matter our backgrounds there is always something for all of us to learn.

Something we can both agree on.

Where exactly am I blaming anyone ?

[fleet16b]

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.

But as #2 was blind to his leader, he had no way of knowing where his leader was. All he knew was that he pulled up and could no longer see his leader. Lead could be oblivious to #2's departure. The safest thing is to put some separation between #2 and lead when breaking formation, which he did. First a pitch up to zoom, then a gentle rolling turn to the left.

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

Not sure where you're seeing that "they did that". Every video i've seen shows lead continuing downrange and then making a wide turn to the left to monitor his wingman.

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

The aircraft wasn't stalled until it was half-way through the turn. For someone with your claimed time in aviation, you can surely see that in the various videos of the incident. I could. It looks like he had lift on the wings right up until the apex of his turn, but there just wasn't enough energy left to bring it over the top and fly back down the backside.

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 .

You are to be applauded for expanding your skillset. I encourage you to learn from what others here are telling you as well, and not to blindly stick by training received in a 172 during your PPL. There's a reason the RCAF prefers to train pilots that don't already have pilot's licenses... They spend a lot of time "untraining" things.

For some reason on this site people think I’m a C172 driver
Not sure where that came from
I flew one 2-3 times about 30 years ago but did not mention it here
That’s about it

[Gannet167]

Where exactly am I blaming anyone ?

Here

This was a totally avoidable had he have followed the rules .
The investigation will at some point address this turn back decision

[Gannet167]

85B4BF7B-61C1-485B-B7B7-A3203A37B31B.jpeg

Here is the Checklist for the Tutor
It confirms the Zoom maneuver but says nothing about low key / turn back to try for the runway

That checklist is many years out of date. The engine doesn’t go to idle. However, neither in the new one nor in any checklist I’ve ever seen is the pilot given direction on how to land. It may say “as soon as possible” or “as possible/practicable” etc, but it never says join a 12 nm file for an ILS, or fly a straight in visual, or join the circuit on downwind or base. That’s left to the pilot. “If possible Carry out a forced landing” is the most specific I’ve seen. How you get to the runway, including such commonly used and fully functional methods as low key, is up to the pilot. You will not see low key in any check list. I’d like to see any checklist that explains exactly how to fly (yoke .... pull, rudders... center ball, attitude ..... set for climb). There’s no checklist for that, it’s called doing some of that “Pilot” thing. The checklist is for how to manage and configure the aircraft. It isn’t for how to fly.

[Gannet167]

Isn't the very basic pilot training pretty well common both civil, and entry level military? I have had the impression that a lot of air cadet and basic pilot training [in the military path] is contracted to civil FTU's (who may operate 172's). Honest question...

Fair question. Without too much thread drift, it is somewhat relevant to our conversation, there’s no real civilian training. There is some contracted “training”, done by civilian pilots on the Grob in CYPG. It is about 12 hrs and not intended to train but rather to weed out. The real training begins in CYMJ on the next phase and starts from scratch assuming zero flight experience, regardless of Grob time or if you have an ATPL or 3000 hrs of fighter time (previously winged pilots from some select Air Forces /Navies such as the RAF, Royal Navy, Italian Air Force, Hungarian, South African, to name a few are recognized as fully trained). All training following that is from military instructors or retired military instructors, I believe with the exception of the King Air in YPG, where civilian instructors teach in the sim.

The most basic elements of pilot training are pretty common, regardless of the candidate's proposed career path.

Attitude, power, trim are the same. But there are profound differences in aircraft handling, equipment and culture that are very significant and important.

[fleet16b]

Where exactly am I blaming anyone ?

Here

This was a totally avoidable had he have followed the rules .
The investigation will at some point address this turn back decision

Gannet167

Yes I guess I did say that
I’m big enough to say that I’m obviously wrong.
My apologies to anyone I have offended
Now that I have learned more from some of the Military people commenting , I would agree that it appears that the Military SOP was followed.

[fleet16b]

85B4BF7B-61C1-485B-B7B7-A3203A37B31B.jpeg

Here is the Checklist for the Tutor
It confirms the Zoom maneuver but says nothing about low key / turn back to try for the runway

That checklist is many years out of date. The engine doesn’t go to idle. However, neither in the new one nor in any checklist I’ve ever seen is the pilot given direction on how to land. It may say “as soon as possible” or “as possible/practicable” etc, but it never says join a 12 nm file for an ILS, or fly a straight in visual, or join the circuit on downwind or base. That’s left to the pilot. “If possible Carry out a forced landing” is the most specific I’ve seen. How you get to the runway, including such commonly used and fully functional methods as low key, is up to the pilot. You will not see low key in any check list. I’d like to see any checklist that explains exactly how to fly (yoke .... pull, rudders... center ball, attitude ..... set for climb). There’s no checklist for that, it’s called doing some of that “Pilot” thing. The checklist is for how to manage and configure the aircraft. It isn’t for how to fly.

Thank you first he verification
The checklist is not mine , the screenshot was provided by a friend

[leftoftrack]

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.

But as #2 was blind to his leader, he had no way of knowing where his leader was. All he knew was that he pulled up and could no longer see his leader. Lead could be oblivious to #2's departure. The safest thing is to put some separation between #2 and lead when breaking formation, which he did. First a pitch up to zoom, then a gentle rolling turn to the left.

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

Not sure where you're seeing that "they did that". Every video i've seen shows lead continuing downrange and then making a wide turn to the left to monitor his wingman.

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

The aircraft wasn't stalled until it was half-way through the turn. For someone with your claimed time in aviation, you can surely see that in the various videos of the incident. I could. It looks like he had lift on the wings right up until the apex of his turn, but there just wasn't enough energy left to bring it over the top and fly back down the backside.

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 .

You are to be applauded for expanding your skillset. I encourage you to learn from what others here are telling you as well, and not to blindly stick by training received in a 172 during your PPL. There's a reason the RCAF prefers to train pilots that don't already have pilot's licenses... They spend a lot of time "untraining" things.

For some reason on this site people think I’m a C172 driver
Not sure where that came from
I flew one 2-3 times about 30 years ago but did not mention it here
That’s about it

I have a 150hrs in a 152/172 from 20 years ago and I get the, you're a flight sim pilot. also, because my jet time has 2 or more engines, I am also unqualified to comment on single engine ejection seat equipped aircraft that stall spin spiral dive then park in Dave's garage, while killing the passenger that the aircraft commander abandoned. maybe in 10 years I might too graduate out of the sim and into a 172

[Gannet167]

I am also unqualified to comment on single engine ejection seat equipped aircraft that stall spin spiral dive then park in Dave's garage, while killing the passenger that the aircraft commander abandoned. maybe in 10 years I might too graduate out of the sim and into a 172

Is there a point to this trolling drivel? You understand that this is an incredibly sensitive issue to be poking fun at and making snide sarcastic comments about? This was a severe accident and had awful results for many people involved. Many are still grieving. Perhaps show a little consideration and discretion rather than making inflammatory comments that add nothing to the discussion. As has been explained repeatedly, he did not abandon anyone. Please, give it a rest.

[tsgarp]

There's a reason the RCAF prefers to train pilots that don't already have pilot's licenses... They spend a lot of time "untraining" things.

This is not correct. The RCAF is quite unconcerned with previous flying experience. The initial recruiters might even give you a few points for holding a license (depending on what the recruiting policy of the day is)

[oldyellr]

People, I originally came here to get information on the crash, how and why it happened, etc.
I was hoping to see comments on https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbi ... -1.5593259 about a possible bird strike.
"In a preliminary report issued Monday, investigators said video footage from the crash showed a bird was very close to the right-side air intake of the aircraft's single engine during takeoff. It's possible the bird struck the air intake, the report suggested."
All I'm seeing here is day after day of bickering over procedures. Is there a different thread I should be following?

[goldeneagle]

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

If you look at the satellite view and extend runway centerline, strait ahead is over the river for a considerable distance. Strait ahead would have been into the river, not the city. Dont think they could have reached the city strait ahead. But it's academic, they turned, and most in the know suggest that was the correct action.

[Zaibatsu]

People, I originally came here to get information on the crash, how and why it happened, etc.
I was hoping to see comments on https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbi ... -1.5593259 about a possible bird strike.
"In a preliminary report issued Monday, investigators said video footage from the crash showed a bird was very close to the right-side air intake of the aircraft's single engine during takeoff. It's possible the bird struck the air intake, the report suggested."
All I'm seeing here is day after day of bickering over procedures. Is there a different thread I should be following?

On this page. ???

Between self-proclaimed experts who don’t have a clue, obvious trolls, and self righteous virtue signallers who have absolutely no problems speculating on other fatal crashes, I’d say the prospect of gleaning any useful information from this site approaches zero.

Let’s wait for the real experts to chime in when the report is released.

It’s quite possible a foreign object like a bird took out the engine. The crash investigators will likely make a conclusive determination after they’ve analyzed the wreckage.

[cncpc]

People, I originally came here to get information on the crash, how and why it happened, etc.
I was hoping to see comments on https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbi ... -1.5593259 about a possible bird strike.
"In a preliminary report issued Monday, investigators said video footage from the crash showed a bird was very close to the right-side air intake of the aircraft's single engine during takeoff. It's possible the bird struck the air intake, the report suggested."
All I'm seeing here is day after day of bickering over procedures. Is there a different thread I should be following?

I don't know if they said that. There is in one frame a slightly darker spot at some elevation ahead of the airplane, looking up at a steep angle. Some other video taken at the end of the runway.

Had a look at the Pelton video. Slowed it down and frame by framed it. Yes, there is in a few frames, in what is a side view, some dark area consistent with a dark object. But not in the frames immediately before the pop or bang sound. In the video process, sometimes there is a tweening between those frames the camera actually captured. This involves digital creation of an imagined frame. Those frames can have things show up that weren't there.

If you look at the Pelton video from the start, you will see a large black bird fly from left to right across the view, coming from the departure end. A crow, at least, if not bigger. While they are still on the roll.

The pop happens at 44 seconds into that video. Amplified, it certainly does sound like something hitting metal.

I don't know why the RCAF doesn't simply say "The pilot reported..." Unless he doesn't recall, which is a possibility.

[cncpc]

People, I originally came here to get information on the crash, how and why it happened, etc.
I was hoping to see comments on https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbi ... -1.5593259 about a possible bird strike.
"In a preliminary report issued Monday, investigators said video footage from the crash showed a bird was very close to the right-side air intake of the aircraft's single engine during takeoff. It's possible the bird struck the air intake, the report suggested."
All I'm seeing here is day after day of bickering over procedures. Is there a different thread I should be following?

On this page. ???

Between self-proclaimed experts who don’t have a clue, obvious trolls, and self righteous virtue signallers who have absolutely no problems speculating on other fatal crashes, I’d say the prospect of gleaning any useful information from this site approaches zero.

Let’s wait for the real experts to chime in when the report is released.

It’s quite possible a foreign object like a bird took out the engine. The crash investigators will likely make a conclusive determination after they’ve analyzed the wreckage.

I'd say that people like Gannett, tsgarp, Rockie, Boeing Boy, and some others here are real experts and I'm glad they are here and are commenting. A good bit of useful information has already been provided by posters on here, who don't meet any of the cooked up descriptions you've given. Trolls, yes, that has been bad.

[frosti]

Does it really matter at this point if it was a bird or otherwise? I’d be more concerned why the tutor is still equipped with a ejection system that has low survivability unless you are under ideal conditions. Three ejections, including the one in October, and three reported anomalies. The team is already having a hard time finding pilots, this incident won’t help. Look at the teams pilots, it used to be fighter guys with 1000h, now as in SB11s case, he was an ex-herc guy. This doesn’t make anyone less capable of flying small jet trainer in formations, but it seems like the quality of experience has diluted over the years.

We shall see how many of the team, techs/PAOs including, return to flying the tutor, I can see a large loss of confidence in the ejection system as it sits now.

[Schooner69A]

Can't believe the number of people (on this means and others) who seem to think that an ejection seat with limits of 60 knots (or so) and 150 feet (in level flight) is antiquated. The seat I used when I 'steeped over the side' shortly after take-off and joined the "Caterpillar Club" was rated at 90 knots and 200 feet. Anything lower than that is a bonus!

The seat system in the Tutor is quite adequate for the job; I suppose it would be nice to have a seat capable of "Zero-Zero", but I'm guessing that there either isn't one available, the cost would be prohibitive, or one can't be retrofitted...

Regardless, 60 knots/150 feet is quite a respectable system...

[Heliian]

People, I originally came here to get information on the crash, how and why it happened, etc.
I was hoping to see comments on https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbi ... -1.5593259 about a possible bird strike.
"In a preliminary report issued Monday, investigators said video footage from the crash showed a bird was very close to the right-side air intake of the aircraft's single engine during takeoff. It's possible the bird struck the air intake, the report suggested."
All I'm seeing here is day after day of bickering over procedures. Is there a different thread I should be following?

Days ago this was discussed, that's most likely the reason for loss of power.

The unknowns are from the time after the aircraft climbed. Why was control lost so quickly? Was there other problems with controllability?

[L39Guy]

Does it really matter at this point if it was a bird or otherwise? I’d be more concerned why the tutor is still equipped with a ejection system that has low survivability unless you are under ideal conditions. Three ejections, including the one in October, and three reported anomalies. The team is already having a hard time finding pilots, this incident won’t help. Look at the teams pilots, it used to be fighter guys with 1000h, now as in SB11s case, he was an ex-herc guy. This doesn’t make anyone less capable of flying small jet trainer in formations, but it seems like the quality of experience has diluted over the years.

We shall see how many of the team, techs/PAOs including, return to flying the tutor, I can see a large loss of confidence in the ejection system as it sits now.

I will let the Board of Inquiry do the analysis of the escape system but my two cents worth is that it worked as advertised. Zero-Zero, Zero-60 that all assumes the aircraft is still on the ground. In the air, the physics change (see my post a week or two ago about the issue of the inertial platform at the time of ejection). When these two people left the aircraft, it had both a serious downward vector (descent rate), an ejection attitude almost parallel to the surface and perhaps even a roll component. Those are three factors that seriously degrade the performance of any seat, including the beloved Zero-Zero seat; in fact, it's debatable that a Zero-Zero seat would have any different outcome.

My interactions with the Snowbirds dates back 30 years when I was a QFI in CYMJ, but many of the 9 plane team were pipeline Tutor instructions with about 1,000 or more hours of Tutor experience; many of the coordinators (SB 10 and 11) had no jet experience apart from their wings training and a lot of them came from the helicopter world. I don't see any degradation in experience at all.

I will say, however, that they 3 year tours as opposed to 2 years leads to more "corporate" experience in the organization; the maneuvers, particularly many of the 9 plane ones that loop or roll are more difficult (larger degrees of separation from the lead) than they were 30 years ago. That is a tribute to the skill and experience of the recent SB pilots.