Snowbird crash in CYKA

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by tsgarp »

fleet16b wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:10 am

I said he should have used the age old basic EFTO procedures
You know what, if you don't want to listen to guys who have actually flown the Tutor and similar aircraft, so be it. People can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor qualified pilots wrote, and decide for themselves.
---------- ADS -----------
 
RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by RatherBeFlying »

There was mention of altitude loss turning back.

Glide ratio in a turn is less than in wings level glide. I suspect that it's cos(bank angle), in which case a 45° bank reduces the vertical lift component by ≈ 29% and a 60° bank halves it.

In a turnback after power loss, you have to thread the needle between increasing stall speed or descent rate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
RedAndWhiteBaron
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 813
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: In the left seat, admitting my mistakes

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by RedAndWhiteBaron »

Here's what I understand from this thread, the facts as I understand them:
  • There was an unforseeable bird strike shortly after takeoff, destroying the only available source of thrust
  • The pilot did not have time to relight
  • Landing ahead, or even turning for a field (not the runway), is not advisable in a Tutor, as your descent rate and vertical impact speed will therefore bury your gear. A belly landing is right out. In both cases, terminal wackiness will ensue.
  • Zooming with the energy available to the pilot is not ill-advised.
  • The pilot had sufficient energy to make the runway.
  • The pilot had to make a split second decision, evaluating the risks both of turning back and of ejecting while pointing the aircraft to a place where it wouldn't kill anyone else
And then the rest is conjecture.

If I am mistaken, I welcome any and all corrections.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by pelmet »

RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:18 pm Here's what I understand from this thread, the facts as I understand them:
  • There was an unforseeable bird strike shortly after takeoff, destroying the only available source of thrust
  • The pilot did not have time to relight
  • Landing ahead, or even turning for a field (not the runway), is not advisable in a Tutor, as your descent rate and vertical impact speed will therefore bury your gear. A belly landing is right out. In both cases, terminal wackiness will ensue.
  • Zooming with the energy available to the pilot is not ill-advised.
  • The pilot had sufficient energy to make the runway.
  • The pilot had to make a split second decision, evaluating the risks both of turning back and of ejecting while pointing the aircraft to a place where it wouldn't kill anyone else
And then the rest is conjecture.

If I am mistaken, I welcome any and all corrections.
A safe airspeed was not maintained and the aircraft stalled.
---------- ADS -----------
 
kevind
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:09 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by kevind »

---------- ADS -----------
 
RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 683
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by RatherBeFlying »

The video in the previous post displays many, if not all, of the pages in the complete report which discusses authoritatively many of the issues discussed in this forum. There is a possibility pressure may be applied to remove the video; so, don't wait too long before viewing it.

There have been other turnback attempts in Tutors without success - with fatalities.

Protection of civilians is a strong motivation for a turnback, but then you will most likely end up outside the envelope of an outdated ejection seat.

Should Tutors be operating out of airports where residential areas are exposed in the case of an engine failure?
---------- ADS -----------
 
J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by J31 »

Very sad gut retching subject. The report and the video place some "tough love" to the people making decisions to keep flying the Tutor in its current state.

Retire the Tutor and transition to the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II for a Canadian aerobatic team.

Black Falcons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orvd9af9ujs

Red Arrows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0Ur6rP62U
---------- ADS -----------
 
fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by fleet16b »

As some in the know have stated in this thread , I think there is no doubt that the Tutor could continue on for sometime . Maybe this accident will prompt the RCAF to up
grade some of the safety equipment if they feel it’s needed
Thru out this discussion , some of us have been attacked by the military types on this page.
However , the conclusions by the RCAF as well as the above posted video confirm what some of us here predicted was the case all along.
As stated by the RCAF ( and clearly by the pilot himself) the pilot attempted to return to the airfield without sufficient altitude or airspeed after suffering a cpsr. stall .
An age old aviation no no and a situation that has killed many people as well as other Snowbirds over the years
Hopefully the RCAF gets rid of this procedure and returns to the basic rule .
---------- ADS -----------
 
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by tsgarp »

Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.
---------- ADS -----------
 
linecrew
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:53 am
Location: On final so get off the damn runway!

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by linecrew »

J31 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:01 am
Retire the Tutor and transition to the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II for a Canadian aerobatic team.
I'm pretty sure this is not an option because these fleets are in a unique situation whereby the aircraft are owned by the Government of Canada, but leased to and maintained and serviced by CAE for the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC) program. They aren't regular RCAF aircraft like the rest of the fleet.
---------- ADS -----------
 
fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by fleet16b »

tsgarp wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:51 pm Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.
Corrected ? For what
I among others have been steadfast that the pilot committed an age old aviation no no which resulted in a stall , spin accident
Even the RCAF is admitting that .
When some of us suggested that we were constantly flamed when the military guys here circled their wagons and tried to deflect the obvious
---------- ADS -----------
 
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by pelmet »

J31 wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:01 am
Retire the Tutor and transition to the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II for a Canadian aerobatic team.
Not affordable these days. If anything, the Snowbirds could be retired. Canadians probably prefer to keep them, so we'll keep them.

Flying has risks and military flying has more risk. That is part of the job that is accepted by military personnel. The Snowbirds are an all-voluntary group. Risks come from having a single engine that could be taken out by a bird or fail in some other manner, midair collisions, flying into the ground, etc. All of these things have happened.

The pilots and crew have an advantage over many other airshow pilots in that they have ejection seats. Unfortunately for those volunteers, the ejection seats don't have an envelope for certain conditions. In addition, pilots who perform certain unapproved maneuvers in an emergency may place themselves into hazardous positions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by tsgarp »

fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:59 am
tsgarp wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:51 pm Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.
Corrected ? For what?
Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.
---------- ADS -----------
 
karmutzen
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by karmutzen »

Engine was not disabled, the small bird impact caused a compressor stall that was not mitigated by the pilot.

Compressor stalls on turbines are not uncommon in some of the aircraft I fly. Most damage comes from pilots misinterpreting and mishandling the aircraft after the compressor stall. Usually only requires a small reduction of the power lever, then add power again.

Any Tudor pilot that can address the compressor stall in that specific type of aircraft and outline current SOP to mitigate?
---------- ADS -----------
 
fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by fleet16b »

tsgarp wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:46 am
fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:59 am
tsgarp wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:51 pm Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.
Corrected ? For what?
Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.
You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you want
Regardless whether people have sometimes been successful, the history of the maneuver thru out aviation has proved to kill more people than save them
At one time the Military also forbid it. We will see what changes ,if any, are implemented
Further , military training or not , most of these guys are low total time pilots that are flying high performance aircraft
Many have less time than some of us here. Military training or not there are bound to be some RCAF pilots that make simple basic airmanship mistakes. In this case , post Cpsr. stall , that exactly what the pilot did. (Not my opinion - as stated by the RCAF)
Further , you practiced in a SIM? And in an aircraft where you had the luxury of applying power of need be
Have you ever had a real engine failure of take off ? It a lot different than a SIM or practice
Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
Turning back not so much. It’s a much higher risk option.
Outside of preventing an aircraft for impacting a populated area, the turnback serves no real purpose but to try to save the airframe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by fleet16b on Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by tsgarp »

fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pm
tsgarp wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:46 am
fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:59 am

Corrected ? For what?
Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.
You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you want
Regardless whether people have sometimes been successful, the history of the maneuver thru out aviation has proved to kill more people than save them
At one time the Military also forbid it. We will see what changes ,if any, are implemented
Further , military training or not , most of these guys are low total time pilots that are flying high performance aircraft
Many have less time than some of us here. Military training or not there are bound to be some RCAF pilots that make simple basic airmanship mistakes. In this case , post Cpsr. stall , that exactly what the pilot did. (Not my opinion - as stated by the RCAF)
Further , you practiced in a SIM? And in an aircraft where you had the luxury of applying power of need be
Have you ever had a real engine failure of take off ? It a lot different than a SIM or practice
Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
Turning back not so much. It’s a much higher risk option.
Outside of preventing an aircraft for impacting a populated area, the turnback serves no real purpose but to try to save the airframe.
What I truly wish is that I were in a position to give you some time in the circuit with a Tutor, Hawk or Hvd II. I think you’d be surprised at what can be done in these aircraft.

Like I said before; people can read what you wrote then they can read what the guys qualified on type wrote. After people have read both opinions, I’m happy to let them decide for themselves. If you see that as an attack on you, then I’m sorry; it wasn’t meant to be.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by photofly »

fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pm Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by fleet16b »

photofly wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:01 pm
fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pm Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?
To be more clear ;
Slight heading changes while maintaining a positive forward direction with sufficient and safe airspeed.
Making aggressive turns as in 90deg or more as has been seen so many times in aviation is not a good idea
---------- ADS -----------
 
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
fleet16b
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1195
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:49 am
Location: aerodrome of democracy

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by fleet16b »

tsgarp wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:51 pm
fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pm
tsgarp wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:46 am

Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.
You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you want
Regardless whether people have sometimes been successful, the history of the maneuver thru out aviation has proved to kill more people than save them
At one time the Military also forbid it. We will see what changes ,if any, are implemented
Further , military training or not , most of these guys are low total time pilots that are flying high performance aircraft
Many have less time than some of us here. Military training or not there are bound to be some RCAF pilots that make simple basic airmanship mistakes. In this case , post Cpsr. stall , that exactly what the pilot did. (Not my opinion - as stated by the RCAF)
Further , you practiced in a SIM? And in an aircraft where you had the luxury of applying power of need be
Have you ever had a real engine failure of take off ? It a lot different than a SIM or practice
Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
Turning back not so much. It’s a much higher risk option.
Outside of preventing an aircraft for impacting a populated area, the turnback serves no real purpose but to try to save the airframe.
What I truly wish is that I were in a position to give you some time in the circuit with a Tutor, Hawk or Hvd II. I think you’d be surprised at what can be done in these aircraft.

Like I said before; people can read what you wrote then they can read what the guys qualified on type wrote. After people have read both opinions, I’m happy to let them decide for themselves. If you see that as an attack on you, then I’m sorry; it wasn’t meant to be.
I would certainly relish the chance .....
Further I was not singling out any one person as an attacker but was meaning the general overall attitude of the majority of the military types commenting
A circling of the wagons attitude for sure
---------- ADS -----------
 
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA

Post by photofly »

fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:31 pm
photofly wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:01 pm
fleet16b wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pm Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?
To be more clear ;
Slight heading changes while maintaining a positive forward direction with sufficient and safe airspeed.
Making aggressive turns as in 90deg or more as has been seen so many times in aviation is not a good idea
But it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? If you can turn up to 90 degrees, why can’t you turn 180? Just do two turns of 90, if you like.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”