Snowbird replacement aircraft

[jakeandelwood]

The exact same way except you’d have one more fatality.

Yes, probably, If it stalled and spun. But maybe he wouldn't have pitched up and stalled it if an eject option wasn't avialable and he was forced to put it down the best he could. I'm no military jet pilot so I may be completly wrong and out of my legue

[boeingboy]

I'm not a military pilot but I have a few ex-military friends with ex-military aircraft. The one thing you do not do if you can help it is try and land a crippled high performance craft. It ends well so infrequently - the odds' of survival are nil - it's practically suicide. Some guys have "cold" seats which I and a lot of other warbird operator think is insane. Those guys wear a chute - but have to hope whatever goes wrong is at altitude and they are able to sort out an uneventful bailout. Most guys I know will only fly with "hot" seats - and those are the guys I go for a joy ride with.

[boeingboy]

This response was from an acquaintance on another forum to some who commented on my thread. He is back east in the states....Ex US Navy:

"Originally Posted By: Showboatsix
It appears that the pilot made the most rookie mistake of attempting to turn back to the airport runway when the engine failed, during the turn a stall spin occurred, leaving no room for a ejection to be successful.

At that altitude he had no possible way to return to the runway."

Not necessarily accurate. You’re trying to apply GA airplane logic to a tactical jet.

He likely was attempting to execute a climbing left hand turn to ‘low key’ in order to intercept the emergency landing profile. In a jet fitted with ejection seats, the mindset changes. An off-field forced landing is very likely to be fatal, and is typically only attempted in the case of ejection failure. As such, it makes sense to at least attempt to intercept the ELP and make the runway—if you can’t intercept the profile with an adequate energy state, pull the ejection handle.

We don’t know what the indications in the cockpit were. Was the engine rolling back? Or was it a sudden catastrophic failure? Where were the populated areas surrounding the field? Lots of unknowns.

The only “fault” I see here is the delayed ejection decision. But initiating the climbing turn to assess whether the ELP could be intercepted—that I don’t consider to be bad headwork. I can’t even tell you how many times I practiced that exact maneuver in the T-45. Hang out near an F-16 base and you’ll see it all day long. This should have been one of those “right hand on the stick, left hand on the handle” type of maneuvers. But, once again, I don’t know what was happening inside the jet.

Now, in a light piston single? Unless you’re certain you can make it back, look for a forced landing site in front of you.

posted by Gooneybird
It was what, about 10-12 seconds from when the pitch up started until the seats left the plane. Take away the ejection sequence time & there's not much time left to absorb what's happening, get your hand on the ejection seat handle and pull. I certainly won't Monday night quarterback him.

...and - my buddies answer

Exactly. If I’m in that same position, and I smoke a bird and/or have an engine failure, I’m immediately going for low key. It’s almost muscle memory.

I’ve lost half a dozen buddies to ejections outside the envelope, to include one of my closest friends. At low altitude, you can go from very survivable to zero chance in literal tenths of a second.

[jakeandelwood]

I see all your points. I don't have military experience to know but like you said the mindset difference with an ejection option would be different.

[complexintentions]

I’m curious to know what if any of those four things were more important than maintaining aircraft control close to the ground.

Indulge us, Rockie.

The first two are obvious to any current or former military jet pilot.

1. Identify the engine failure (while in close formation focused on the lead aircraft), initiate a climb, assess, and attempt a restart.
2. Turn away from the last known position of the lead aircraft since he's lost sight of him.

The rest I will not share here because as I wasn't there that would be speculation no matter how educated, but they would certainly be front and centre in my brain.

If you didn't think of the first two I guarantee you wouldn't think of the rest either, nor obviously did leftoftrack or complexintentions. Putting oneself in this pilot's seat when they have no experience to be able to and then passing judgement is intolerable, especially when it's done in such an asshole way.

12 seconds.

Jesus you're defensive. Nope, don't have much formation flight experience, but sure as hell do with recognizing engine failure. Go ahead, tell us how that's harder too in a military jet versus a civilian one. I'm sorry but task-loading isn't unique to any particular niche of aviation. Neither is energy management.

I referred to a very specific portion of the profile, the part where airspeed deteriorated to produce the stall/spin. Neither of the two things you mentioned negate the need to maintain sufficient airspeed to keep the wing flying. Tragically, once that happened the aircraft's fate was all but sealed. So yes, I will be very interested to learn why that particular event happened. Hope that's summarized delicately and tolerably enough for you.

Your drama-queen "12 SECONDS" isn't instructive. Everyone knows there's not much time or options left when a stall happens close to the ground. Reference was made of turning to low-key as a muscle-memory action. Muscle-memory drills are near-instantaneous actions, a lot less than 12 seconds, that is their purpose: to remove the time needed for a decision. And yes, accordingly, are sometimes performed incorrectly. Sometimes shit just happens and the holes lined up pretty terribly for this crew.

We're all human, even "current or former military jet pilots". Perhaps best if you just leave that schtick behind and focus on it as an aviation accident where only the presence of an ejection seat was the difference between the loss of two lives versus one.

[L39Guy]

I'm not a military pilot but I have a few ex-military friends with ex-military aircraft. The one thing you do not do if you can help it is try and land a crippled high performance craft. It ends well so infrequently - the odds' of survival are nil - it's practically suicide. Some guys have "cold" seats which I and a lot of other warbird operator think is insane. Those guys wear a chute - but have to hope whatever goes wrong is at altitude and they are able to sort out an uneventful bailout. Most guys I know will only fly with "hot" seats - and those are the guys I go for a joy ride with.

My L39 does not have hot seats and I am entire okay with that.

Unlike a Hornet or an F5 or a 104 Starfighter, the L39 is a rugged airplane, with rugged landing gear and a relatively low approach speed and stall speed. the stall speed, for example is 89 kts, not too much different than the Tutor.

I have done the thought exercise many time of what I would do with an engine failure. In fact, I live life in that aircraft assuming there is going to be one. At altitude (FL280), there is generally a runway within gliding distance (about 40 nm) across this vast country of ours including Northern Ontario - the nearest airport function is always upon on the display to aid in quick decision making. Even transiting from Vancouver Island to Alberta, one is almost always within theoretical gliding distance of a runway, theoretical because one may not get over a mountain range between you and the airport.

Losing an engine and operating at lower altitude during take-off or landing is a little more problematic but the beauty of the L39 is that the aircraft was designed to operate from fields so the landing gear and airframe are built to handle this - the Tutor jet is not as durable however. Landing on a road or highway would be a better choice is one is available and this aircraft could handle it easily. And finally, there is always the option of putting it into the trees - with a strong airframe, three-point harness, flying helmet and a relatively slow speed one would have a fighting chance of surviving - post impact fire would be the big concern.

It is during take-off and landing where one is super vulnerable - not a lot of energy (speed and altitude) and not a lot of time or options. This is a risk for sure that one just has to live with and have a bit of a plan before taking off or landing.

I would submit that these considerations are the same for any single-engine aircraft, jet or prop, turbine or piston. In terms of odds or probabilities, I would submit that the reliability of a jet compared to a turboprop or piston-prop aircraft works in the favour of the jet, particularly one like an L39 (or Tutor). (Notwithstanding all of these considerations, owning an aircraft with hot seats is massive and expensive maintenance issue as well as a security issue at civilian airports).

As I have noted in earlier posts, SB 11 was in the worst possible situation when the engine failed - low, relatively slow (i.e. energy). He did not have many options but his choice to a) get away from lead, b) exchange airspeed for altitude, and c) head to low-key while trying to get a re-light or some power out of the engine was entirely sound and expected of him. And, as I have noted earlier, I think very few jet pilots would have nailed achieving 130 kts at the apex of the climb - it is difficult to do if you have not practiced that maneuver from a variety of entry airspeeds at that position. While it appears that he overshot 130 kts and stalled, he also was able to achieve a higher altitude too with the extra airspeed he lost. That also bought time and distance from the ground.

I think it is incredibly easy to armchair quarterback the actions of this aviator. Based upon my experience as an instructor on this aircraft and my overall experience, I believe that he did a remarkable job and should be credited with saving one life and being fractions of a second away from saving another after being dealt a very poor hand.

[Rockie]

Jesus you're defensive.

Defending, not defensive. And like I said...tough shit.

Go ahead, tell us how that's harder too in a military jet versus a civilian one. I'm sorry but task-loading isn't unique to any particular niche of aviation. Neither is energy management.

When you gain some experience losing your one and only engine crossing the departure end while in close formation, having a few seconds to zoom, carry out an attempted relight, turn away from lead, make the decision to abandon the aircraft and intitiate it...THEN you can come on here and pontificate about not stalling at the apex of a climb while commanding the ejection and pulling the handles yourself. Until then you're just more uninformed noise from the peanut gallery.

[boeingboy]

Thanks for your thoughts L39 - they are insightful.

My L39 does not have hot seats and I am entire okay with that.

…and thats ok. Some guys are and some aren't. I do know something about how much a PITA they can be to keep live. I suppose it also depends on the aircraft type. I know enough about an L39 to say "look - an L39"

I guess from your statement's an L39 would fair much better than a Mig17 or 21. Or an F100 or A4. I know if you loose the stove on an A4 - you better hope the seats are hot as they glide like a brick. Let's face it - military aircraft are built for one thing, and that's not to be a good glider. If something goes wrong they are disposable so best to jump out. The government can always buy another. If the particular type one has could come out of an unfortunate situation relatively ok - then that's ok. It's just a personal decision each has to make.

[tsgarp]

The exact same way except you’d have one more fatality.

Yes, probably, If it stalled and spun. But maybe he wouldn't have pitched up and stalled it if an eject option wasn't avialable and he was forced to put it down the best he could. I'm no military jet pilot so I may be completly wrong and out of my legue

Most high performance aircraft do not do well with off field landings. The wing loading on them is such that they have a high glide speed and a high stall speed. Remember that kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed, and all that kinetic energy has to be expended to bring the aircraft to a stop. If there is a runway, then the energy is transformed into heat by the brakes. If there is no runway then a lot of the energy is expended in 'mechanical deformation', which is a physicist's way of saying breaking things. Add to the fact that the canopy opens upwards, so if the aircraft flips over, (which is common in off-field forced landings), the crew is stuck in it.

I understand that the idea of pitching up after an engine failure is pretty foreign to most civilian pilots. There are two major factors that separate a single engine jet from a civi aircraft in this case. The first is the ratio of climb speed to stall speed. Most light civi trainers stall at around 45 kts and climb around 70kts. The climb speed is less than twice the stall speed, so there isn't much in terms of excess energy (remember, energy is proportional to speed squared). My understanding is that the Tutor stalls around 70 kts and climb out is around 180 kts, so climb at about 3 times the stall and significantly greater energy. The best way to conserve this kinetic energy is to convert it to potential energy (altitude). That is the purpose of the zoom climb.

The other major factor is the prop. When the engine fails in a propeller driven aircraft the prop turns into a very effective speed brake due to drag from wind milling. When the engine fails in a jet there is no significant increase in drag.

These two factors together make the zoom climb the best option after an engine failure, provided the aircraft has reached a certain energy state (a certain speed and altitude). Before the aircraft reaches this energy state the best option is to eject.

A zoom climb is generally not an option for a typical light aircraft because the cruise/climb speed is already pretty close to the best glide speed and the drag from the wind milling prop is so great that the aircraft will have already decelerated to close to best glide speed by the time pilot has a chance to react.

Just looking at the video from this incident, it very much looks like the engine failed very close to the eject/zoom decision point. That pilot was put in a position where he had a very short time to select from very limited and very unappetizing options. I'd be very hesitant to lay blame on this pilot; I believe there may have been no practical way to salvage any better outcome.

[tsgarp]

Jesus you're defensive.

Defending, not defensive. And like I said...tough shit.

Go ahead, tell us how that's harder too in a military jet versus a civilian one. I'm sorry but task-loading isn't unique to any particular niche of aviation. Neither is energy management.

When you gain some experience losing your one and only engine crossing the departure end while in close formation, having a few seconds to zoom, carry out an attempted relight, turn away from lead, make the decision to abandon the aircraft and intitiate it...THEN you can come on here and pontificate about not stalling at the apex of a climb while commanding the ejection and pulling the handles yourself. Until then you're just more uninformed noise from the peanut gallery.

Rockie, you have a way of making even the people who agree with you wish you'd just shut up.

[L39Guy]

Thanks for your thoughts L39 - they are insightful.

My L39 does not have hot seats and I am entire okay with that.

…and thats ok. Some guys are and some aren't. I do know something about how much a PITA they can be to keep live. I suppose it also depends on the aircraft type. I know enough about an L39 to say "look - an L39"

I guess from your statement's an L39 would fair much better than a Mig17 or 21. Or an F100 or A4. I know if you loose the stove on an A4 - you better hope the seats are hot as they glide like a brick. Let's face it - military aircraft are built for one thing, and that's not to be a good glider. If something goes wrong they are disposable so best to jump out. The government can always buy another. If the particular type one has could come out of an unfortunate situation relatively ok - then that's ok. It's just a personal decision each has to make.

Both the Tutor and the L39, being training aircraft and not front line fighters, are are pretty benign in comparison to any Mig or western flighter aircraft. The glide ratio of the Tutor is 2 nm forward for every 1,000 ft of altitude loss, the L39 is 1.5 nm/1000 ft. Both have an optimum glide speed (L/D max) of 130 to 140 kts. The L39 needs about 500 ft more at high key, low key and final key than the Tutor. And finally, their stall speeds are both around 90 kts. I operate the L39 from a 4,300 ft runway and it does it fairly comfortably.

Tutors have been landed on highways - I know of one ~1984 in Portage and I believe there was one since then.

My L39 has parachutes and a procedure to step over the edge but I would never use it. One would get hit by the horizontal stabilizer doing that and it would kill you for sure.

A lot of it is perception. To give another example, a few years ago I did a refresher ground school in the US. The instructor, an airline guy too, was shocked that I did reduced power take-offs (like a good airline guy); his opinion was balls-to-the-wall every time even if one has 8,000 ft of runway (for a 3,000 ft take-off run).

[DadoBlade]

L39Guy said his L-39 has a stall speed of 89 knots. The stall speed of the CL-41/CT-114 is significantly slower. It is capable of a wide performance range, possessing a top speed at altitude of 795 kmh (429 kt) and a diving speed of 885 kmh (478 kt) against a relatively low stalling speed of 71 kts. The Tutor is furnished with kinda heavy manual flight controls, and of course the faster you go, the heavier the control input. One could hear the occasional grunt through the mask whilst performing high speed low level manoeuvres.

[AuxBatOn]

Not sure where you got 71 kts but in his cong and weight, you’re looking more around 90 kts. Also, the controls are extremely light.

[L39Guy]

The controls are manageable including at high speed.

Here is the definitive word on stall speeds; the MTOW is 8500 pounds.

CT114 Stall Speeds.PDF

CT114 Stall Speeds

(1.08 MiB) Downloaded 67 times

[Rockie]

That’s at 1G level flight. Increase the load factor you increase the speed, decrease the load factor you decrease the speed.

[valleyboy]

For me there should be no replacement aircraft and the snow birds and they should be allowed to fade into memories of years past. The team has outdated equipment, lack of proper funding and the real reason to justify such teams if far past. The military does not accept new pilots off the street anymore and they are required to receive or have post secondary education and even then you are not guaranteed a aircraft "commander" position.

The safety issue and loss of life potential is always there and not just pilots but spectators and/or local residents.There is a large group who consider this acceptable, I'm on the fence on that one but airports certainly need more room than some can offer to allow distancing to increase safety.

The main issue politically is the money, they are under funded. The practical approach is to take the money spent on the snow birds and invest it back into the military and upgrade the tools our military work with on a daily basis. Keeping our troops safe as possible is paramount.

I find the snow birds are a determent but for some strange mystical reason they are being treated by people who are keeping their old dog alive where putting him down is the humane thing to do.

[L39Guy]

I am sorry to see that you have such a dim outlook. Many of your assertions are simply wrong such as lack of proper funding (they have a whole squadron that maintain the aircraft, the aircraft are due for an avionics upgrade for example), the RCAF doesn't hire off the street (they have a pilot shortage and do hire off the street), etc. Life is too short to try to address all of your inaccurate statements.

And by the way, since the "snow birds" is a proper name it is capitalized, i.e. Snowbirds.

[jakeandelwood]

I am sorry to see that you have such a dim outlook. Many of your assertions are simply wrong such as lack of proper funding (they have a whole squadron that maintain the aircraft, the aircraft are due for an avionics upgrade for example), the RCAF doesn't hire off the street (they have a pilot shortage and do hire off the street), etc. Life is too short to try to address all of your inaccurate statements.

And by the way, since the "snow birds" is a proper name it is capitalized, i.e. Snowbirds.

Well the RCAF does a horrible job in my opinion of recruiting. I've tried and tried and tried to get hold of a recruiter who is even the slightest bit interested in talking to me and have had zero luck. It would help also if they got rid of the university degree requirement, contrary to popular belief it doesn't make people smarter.

[tsgarp]

Well the RCAF does a horrible job in my opinion of recruiting. I've tried and tried and tried to get hold of a recruiter who is even the slightest bit interested in talking to me and have had zero luck. It would help also if they got rid of the university degree requirement, contrary to popular belief it doesn't make people smarter.

The RCAF doesn't control it's own recruiting. None of the three branches do. Recruiting policy and procedures are set by Chief of Military personnel who is a Lt. General/Vice Admiral with the same standing as the Comd of the RCAF. I'm not going to comment on recruiting policies.

I'm sorry you've had trouble getting in contact with a recruiter. PM me and I will see if I can put you in touch with someone.

[leftoftrack]

in loose formation, being the trailing aircraft and losing your engine, why the fear of an air to air?