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.
Snowbird crash in CYKA
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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.
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.
- RedAndWhiteBaron
- 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
Here's what I understand from this thread, the facts as I understand them:
If I am mistaken, I welcome any and all corrections.
- 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
If I am mistaken, I welcome any and all corrections.
I will dance the sky on laughter-silvered wings.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
A safe airspeed was not maintained and the aircraft stalled.RedAndWhiteBaron wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:18 pm Here's what I understand from this thread, the facts as I understand them:
And then the rest is conjecture.
- 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
If I am mistaken, I welcome any and all corrections.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
- Location: Toronto
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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?
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?
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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
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
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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 .
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 .
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.
-
- 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
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.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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?
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?
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you wanttsgarp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:46 amErroneously 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.
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.
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.........
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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.fleet16b wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pmYou and others can continue to defend the turnback all you wanttsgarp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 8:46 amErroneously 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.
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.
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.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
I would certainly relish the chance .....tsgarp wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:51 pmWhat 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.fleet16b wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 1:08 pmYou and others can continue to defend the turnback all you wanttsgarp 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.
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.
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.
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
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird crash in CYKA
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.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.