Snowbird crash in CYKA

[cncpc]

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

I very much appreciate the comments of the military posters in this thread, and all of them.

[rookiepilot]

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

I very much appreciate the comments of the military posters in this thread, and all of them.

+1 to this, CNPC. Learned a few things.

[digits_]

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

....


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.

I would hypothesize that a field at +-30 or 40 degrees will be visible in front of you without the need to significantly turn your head. Looking to the side or behind you in a stressful situation could result in inadvertent pulls on the control column while turning to see further behind you.

Other than that the classic arguments such as 'harder to judge your altitude' or 'you'll screw up the turn' still hold some merit to me as well.

[scdriver]

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

....


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.

I would hypothesize that a field at +-30 or 40 degrees will be visible in front of you without the need to significantly turn your head. Looking to the side or behind you in a stressful situation could result in inadvertent pulls on the control column while turning to see further behind you.

Other than that the classic arguments such as 'harder to judge your altitude' or 'you'll screw up the turn' still hold some merit to me as well.

That's very true, really easy in a scenario like that to not glance at airspeed, apply inadvertent backpressure, and suddenly you're at a very uncomfortable airspeed.

[fleet16b]

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.

I don’t think that would be a realistic option.
It increases your workload in the middle of a situation where speed and altitude are trying to be maintained .
It would complicate a situation where keeping things as simple as possible is better
I emphasize again , if you read the bios of some of the people flying for the Team , many are relatively low time ( no disrespect intended ) compared to the teams years ago.
I think this is a significant factor that is being overlooked .

[Outlaw58]

Fleet, read what others are trying to tell you.

When you have an ejection seat, your decision-making process is very different than when you fly an aircraft that don't. Having flown with one makes it much easier to appreciate those differences.

Your options in similar situations are not binary ie 1= continue and land straight ahead (+ or - 45 deg) or 0= turn back to the airport. Having an ejection seat gives you to option to make an attempt if you still have the energy and remain within the ejection enveloppe. If you are going to "see" if you can make it, you're not going to half-ass it or there is no point. Hindsight 20/20 is a benefit he didn't have at the time, and that is why folks like myself find you very narrow-minded in your assessment of the situation. It just isn't that back and white.

That's all I will say on this. My dad use to say, there is none as blind as someone who doesn't want to see.

58

[PilotDAR]

I have never flown a jet, nor an ejection seat equipped airplane, so my view of this whole situation is admittedly incomplete. I have never received training which in any way suggests a return to the departure runway in the case of an EFATO. But, there is lots of training I have never had.

I have had four EFATO's, which put me on the ground, 'never damaged a plane doing it - luck! I have flown out of Kamloops airport many times and know the area well.

Knowing this, I always take off expecting it, and give some thought as to where I'm going. Sure, it may not be straight ahead - no point in flying further off shore at Toronto Island Airport! So my glide path may involve a turn to keep myself nearer somewhere good, or away from somewhere bad. But I'm always thinking about the proverbial school yard. I do not want to put others at risk because of my choice to fly. If it all goes quiet, I'm sure going to point the plane away from people as much as I can manage. Anything I fly, I know I'm riding it to the ground, so less mess will be better if I'm gliding it to a forced landing.

But, I will avoid flight over built up areas as much as practical, and certainly loosing control over a built up area. If I knew that ejecting were a choice for me, I can imagine pointing the plane somewhere relatively harmless, assuring it's going to get there, and then ejecting. But, that's just my single engine GA pilot way of thinking about things....

[fleet16b]

Fleet, read what others are trying to tell you.

When you have an ejection seat, your decision-making process is very different than when you fly an aircraft that don't. Having flown with one makes it much easier to appreciate those differences.

Your options in similar situations are not binary ie 1= continue and land straight ahead (+ or - 45 deg) or 0= turn back to the airport. Having an ejection seat gives you to option to make an attempt if you still have the energy and remain within the ejection enveloppe. If you are going to "see" if you can make it, you're not going to half-ass it or there is no point. Hindsight 20/20 is a benefit he didn't have at the time, and that is why folks like myself find you very narrow-minded in your assessment of the situation. It just isn't that back and white.

That's all I will say on this. My dad use to say, there is none as blind as someone who doesn't want to see.

58

I appreciate that there is a different thought pattern when an ejection seat is an option
However my point is the ejection seat option did not help him at all on this case because his decision to turn back in the first place was done with insufficient speed resulting in a stall
Had he followed the age old rule regarding eFto , things would’ve no doubt been much better than they ended up.
Ejection seat they give you more options but in some cases it’s also compounding the problem by making you attempt a more risky maneuver such is the case here

[RatherBeFlying]

When you have an ejection seat, your decision-making process is very different than when you fly an aircraft that don't.

There's a big difference between an outdated ejection seat with a narrow envelope and one that will still save you close to the ground heading down and not quite wings level.

In the SN, the top of zoom was in the seat envelope, but the subsequent maneuvering (understandable given the desire to avoid vulnerable areas) took them outside. The pilot only survived with serious injuries because the roof he impacted cushioned his fall.

A wider envelope would have permitted the pilot more time to avoid vulnerable areas and eject successfully including the passenger. Newer trainers allow the pilot to eject both seats.

Flying in mountainous terrain, a vortex can yank the rug out from under you in a blink of an eye. A 20 kt margin above stall ain't enough in a 30 kt shear, which can happen with a vortex in a 15 kt wind.

[fleet16b]

The quote below is straight from an RCAF Instructors mouth .
(Like I’ve said all along the “turnback “ at low altitude with engine failure is NOT a good idea .
There are many here that seem to think it’s standard RCAF procedure . )

“ I can’t speak to the source who gave you this info on another forum. All I can reference is what we teach RCAF student pilots, day to day, here at the Big 2.

The straight ahead zoom is the standard response to a suspected engine malfunction, so long as the the aircraft is in a suitable energy state to do so. If in a low energy state, we teach as you suggest - fly the airplane (adopt a straight ahead gliding attitude) then handle the emergency appropriately based on the situation. (If low altitude - a timely ejection is highly encouraged).

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

[photofly]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

[fleet16b]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

The reason it’s not taught is that it’s a dangerous practice.
It’s been one of the #1 “don’t do’s “
from the very beginning of aviation.

[photofly]

Dangerous like spins? And stalls?

[fleet16b]

Dangerous like spins? And stalls?

Exactly like spins and stalls

Look at the Kamloops incident
The pilot zoomed as per training .
However , he was did not maintain sufficient forward airspeed in order to assess the situation resulting in a stall /spin scenario
In other words he never even got the stage where he could have attempted a turn back

[Big Pistons Forever]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

Thread drift I know so apologies in advance. For PPL students I teach no turn backs below 1000ft AGL. A turn back is 8 times more likely to result in a fatal accident vs crashing straight ahead. Practically speaking the EFATO danger zone is less than 2 minutes of every flight so I personally think that it gets more attention than it deserves. You are more likely to have the engine fail in the 58 other minutes of your typical 60 minute flight so practicing the cruise flight engine failure scenario is IMO of more practical value.

The secret to surviving a forced landing is hitting the ground in a wings level, slight nose up attitude under control and at a moderate speed. If you do that you will likely survive no matter what you hit. The reason turn backs are so often fatal is that it requires a steep low altitude turn. Get a little slow and the airplane departs controlled flight and hits the ground in a steep bank very nose low attitude which is almost always fatal.

Finally the accident statistics suggest that at 2/3 rds of the engine failures are caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot. The best way to handle an engine failure is to not have the engine fail in the first place or immediately restore power.

[photofly]

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”

And perhaps that’s the problem.

One cannot help but observe that if it was something that was taught instead of improvised on the spot, outcomes would improve.

Thread drift I know so apologies in advance. For PPL students I teach no turn backs below 1000ft AGL.

Hopefully military pilots aspire to a higher standard. Especially military display pilots. What do you teach CPL students?

…it requires a steep low altitude turn. Get a little slow and the airplane departs controlled flight

I would have to dispute this characterization, as would anyone who regularly practices accelerated power-off stalls, say in a 45 degree bank, as every pilot should. Of course the aircraft is not aware of the altitude, and a pilot’s ability to conduct a gliding steep turn at low altitude need not be any worse than their ability to conduct a gliding steep turn at high altitude, which is to say excellent, with appropriate supervised training and practice.

TP13747 even recommends instructors review this scenario with students.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem is ground rush. As a result of working as a bird dog and fire bomber pilot I have a lot of experience maneuvering at low level. The visual picture out of the windshield in a steeply banked altitude and low to the ground can be frightening especially if the pilot is already stressed by a sudden critical emergency.

This would be exacerbated if the shock of the emergency results in a delay lowering the nose which means the airspeed has dropped and the airplane is rolled before establishing a sufficient nose down altitude.

I would suggest that this is a good example of what should be vs what is. The accident record suggests that the average pilot is better flying straight ahead or only turning enough to avoid a large obstacle while concentrating n maintaining good control of the airplane, rather then Immediately starting a maneuver that must be done almost perfectly to succeed and which will have a very high penalty if poorly performed

I tell CPL students the same 1000ft. A 200 hr CPL is still a very low time pilot

[photofly]

With respect, I think your argument is circular: you’re using the poor accident record of a manoeuvre that isn’t trained as evidence that the manoeuvre should not be trained.

I think it’s pretty clear that not training it isn’t dissuading pilots from trying it, so not training it isn’t the answer. I interpret the poor accident record of the untrained manoeuvre is evidence that it should be trained, until it can be done.

And as usual, the glider pilots in this community are laughing at us.

I also think your characterization that is has to be done “almost perfectly, or else” is overstating the case.

[Big Pistons Forever]

With respect, I think your argument is circular: you’re using the poor accident record of a manoeuvre that isn’t trained as evidence that the manoeuvre should not be trained.

I think it’s pretty clear that not training it isn’t dissuading pilots from trying it, so not training it isn’t the answer. I interpret the poor accident record of the untrained manoeuvre is evidence that it should be trained, until it can be done.

And as usual, the glider pilots in this community are laughing at us.

I also think your characterization that is has to be done “almost perfectly, or else” is overstating the case.

To train the maneuvers you would have to actually do it from a low altitude. I think the risks this imposes is unacceptable for the given benefit. Training the maneuver at altitude is IMO negative training because the ground rush is absent.

When I was as a full time instructor the club I worked at required an annual proficiency check for renter pilots. A PPL flight test style forced approach was one of the required exercises. In a 2 year period not one of the pilots were able to execute the forced approach to the PPL flight test standard on the first attempt. So if the average PPL could not handle a engine failure in cruise flight, is practice turn backs going to make them safer ?

If you look at the accident record the No 1 cause of fatal accidents is loss of controlled flight at low altitude, generally a stall/spin during a very badly mishandled circuit. The number one cause of non fatal bent metal accidents are various landing and takeoff mishaps as a result of poor aircraft handling skills,

So if you want to practice maneuvers that are most likely going to result in an accident practice slow flight maneuvers and precision landings.


I also have a current glider instructor rating. I teach the current widely used glider rope break SOP. Below 250 Ft AGL land straight ahead, above 250 AGL turn back. Since the glider will have at least 4 times better glide performance the time from rope break to land and the relative difficulty is similar to a GA airplane having an engine fail at 1000ft AGL. If anything the glider 250ft turn back is easier than a powered airplane turn back from 1000 ft yet glider turn backs from below 250 are not considered an appropriate response to a low attitude rope break.

[photofly]

Your perspective is appreciated. I still disagree with the tenor of your argument which is that this is too difficult so don’t train for it.

To put some perspective on it, every single engine trainer I’ve flown can execute a gliding 180 degree turn and lose no more than 250’ altitude. Every single one. 300’ if you’re sloppy with airspeed. It would be up to a pilot of a more sophisticated type to familiarize him or herself with the relevant performance of their airplane. I don’t align myself with your low expectations of other pilots.

What one decides to do with a power loss is up to the PIC at the time but I think it’s negligent not to teach people both what is achievable, and what they can achieve.