Snowbird replacement aircraft

[Zaibatsu]

Come on. Are you going to wait for the report to find out if the plane crashed, too?

Undisputed facts:

The aircraft did stall.

The aircraft did spin.

You can wait for the report, but I can already tell you that those will be findings.

Unless the aircraft suffered from a centre of gravity issue or lack of control continuity, only the pilot is responsible for it departing controlled flight.

The engine failure will likely be maintenance error or mechanical failure and will be the root cause of the crash but will not contribute to how it was handled.

No disrespect to the pilot. That’s the worst case scenario for just about everyone. You play the hand you are dealt, revert to your training, and when it’s real life not simulator or training nobody and I mean nobody is perfect.

[tsgarp]

Harper had allocated 775M to replace the Tutors, Trudeau cancelled this in 2018

Is 775M anywhere near enough to buy 12-13 replacement jets plus parts for a demo team?

I'm honestly not sure, just used to seeing much larger numbers when procuring new military hardware.

What did the jets from down under cost Trudeau?

T-6s are around 10m USD each. Not sure what would be needed in terms of spares.

Don’t be surprised if you see the Snowbird replacement merged with, or added onto, another program like Future Fighter Lead-in Training or Future Aircrew Training. It would take advantage of economies of scale.

[Gino Under]

Zaibatsu

Wow!!..
Well, I shall certainly expect to sit in speculative judgement of you one day. In fact, when you do “buy the farm” I’ll let the CTSB know there’s no need for a follow up investigation because you will have simply fuctup. Nothing to it. No missing link. No Swiss cheese model. No contributing factors. Save the money. Move along.
Got it.

Gino

[tsgarp]

What's the point of an air demonstration team these days anyway? I could certainly understand the necessity during the Cold War in-so-far as continuing and assisting recruitment.

Why are we spending tax dollars on it now? The manned fighter is yesterdays concept. Why are we risking lives of pilots and civilians on the ground? There could have been a 7 year old on a bike under that wreckage.

There is little a pilot in an aircraft can do that can't be done by drones or space surveillance.

To answer your questions in order:

Air demonstration teams serve the same purpose as orchestras, art galleries and the Olympics.

Manned fighters will change, but they aren’t going away anytime soon. Drones look good right now because we haven’t fought anyone even remotely close to our abilities since Desert Storm I. If you want to know what would happen if we relied on drones to fight a peer or near peer nation look up the incident where the Russians shot down a Georgian drone about 10 years back.

The pilots are all volunteers. That 7 year old could just as easily be under a chunk of ice that detaches from a faulty lav valve on a ‘67.

A manned aircraft can operate without electronic navigation and when communications with the controlling agency are jammed. A satellite follows a set path and is highly visible and predicable to many potential adversaries. A manned aircraft can show up anywhere, anytime.

[schnitzel2k3]

Harper had allocated 775M to replace the Tutors, Trudeau cancelled this in 2018

Is 775M anywhere near enough to buy 12-13 replacement jets plus parts for a demo team?

I'm honestly not sure, just used to seeing much larger numbers when procuring new military hardware.

What did the jets from down under cost Trudeau?

T-6s are around 10m USD each. Not sure what would be needed in terms of spares.

Don’t be surprised if you see the Snowbird replacement merged with, or added onto, another program like Future Fighter Lead-in Training or Future Aircrew Training. It would take advantage of economies of scale.

Thank you!

[linecrew]

"Key moments in the Snowbirds crash"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGS3dmuPlPo

[linecrew]

why would they buy a new airframe? The aircraft commander fucked up royally. engine failure should not equal stall into spin into a spiral into a house. Its not the planes fault this turned out the way it did. Please don't spend a billion of my tax dollars on a frame that will end up the same way when handling an emergency incorrectly.

Have you called DFS to offer your extensive knowledge and experience with both the Tutor and conducting accident investigations? Here’s the number: 1-888-927-6337. Just let them know you’ve already cracked the case and they can grab a beer.

it'll take them 6 weeks to get the metallurgical results from the engine manufacturer, another 6 weeks to come up with wording that say's the Commander of the aircraft royally fucked up. but in 3 months come back to this post after their inital report is issued, and tell me I'm wrong

Sooo...with a full tank of gas behind you, two people onboard and (what seems like) a total loss of engine power, then zooming to try and turn airspeed into altitude, what would have been the non-fucked up solution you would have applied? Certainly if you can call out this pilot as having made colossal errors, you would possess enough superior knowledge to be able to tell us exactly what you would have done...and don't just give us a cop-out, obvious answer that you wouldn't stall the plane because you weren't in that cockpit and can't possibly know all of the factors that lead to this accident.

[leftoftrack]

Have you called DFS to offer your extensive knowledge and experience with both the Tutor and conducting accident investigations? Here’s the number: 1-888-927-6337. Just let them know you’ve already cracked the case and they can grab a beer.

it'll take them 6 weeks to get the metallurgical results from the engine manufacturer, another 6 weeks to come up with wording that say's the Commander of the aircraft royally fucked up. but in 3 months come back to this post after their inital report is issued, and tell me I'm wrong

Sooo...with a full tank of gas behind you, two people onboard and (what seems like) a total loss of engine power, then zooming to try and turn airspeed into altitude, what would have been the non-fucked up solution you would have applied? Certainly if you can call out this pilot as having made colossal errors, you would possess enough superior knowledge to be able to tell us exactly what you would have done...and don't just give us a cop-out, obvious answer that you wouldn't stall the plane because you weren't in that cockpit and can't possibly know all of the factors that lead to this accident.

Aviate-Navigate-Communicate

Im thinking the first mistake he made was pitching to turn airspeed into altitude. maitain the altitude you have hold for best glide and start picking the spot your life depends on. No sense in burning off the energy you have to see options that you wont make cause you have no more energy.

Runway centerline on both runways have water for 10 miles straight ahead, so pull a sully and be invited to a superbowl. if it doesn't look good well you leave.

What you don't do, is pull to the chest and at the apex kick hard left rudder over a residential neighborhood. Im not sure how you look at that video and think that was fine or that was normal method of dealing with an emergency. Im sorry that this accident happened, and sure we can wait for a report to tell us what the video showed us. Do we need to though?

[TT1900]

Im thinking the first mistake he made was pitching to turn airspeed into altitude. maitain the altitude you have hold for best glide and start picking the spot your life depends on. No sense in burning off the energy you have to see options that you wont make cause you have no more energy.

Proof of complete ignorance.

[Jet Jockey]

There are a few things to consider about any replacement aircraft for the Snowbirds.

First, is cost and the ability to fund it. With lots of deferred equipment acquisitions on the horizon (CF18 replacement) a lot of $ will be tied up. And that is to say nothing of the $250 billion that the COVID response is going to pile onto the national debt. IMHO, there is no money available to buy replacement aircraft.

Second, the Tutors, in the big picture, cost almost next to nothing to operate. The aircraft are long since bought and paid for, there are tons of spare aircraft and parts sitting in Mountain View, and that the biggest cost is the maintainers that are doing the maintenance in Moose Jaw. Fuel burn is a fraction of any replacement aircraft.

Third, while Sunday's accident was an enourmous tragedy one cannot let that event interfere with rational thought. As an example, let's say the Snowbirds get a Hawk replacement - another single engine aircraft - and it has a similar engine failure just after take-off. There is no guarantee that the same scenario would not have unfolded. If avoiding an accident involving an engine failure is to replace one single engine aircraft with another at great cost, you have accomplished nothing. And, as I have pointed out on another thread, while the airframe is nominally almost 60 years old the engines are relatively new and are still in production to satisfy the 500+ T38's the USAF still flies that use the same, basic engine. It is of note that none of the Tutor accidents are a result of the 60 year old airframe failing; they all seem to be engine related.

A better ejection seat? The new models are quite large and likely would not fit into the Tutor cockpit. And even if they did, an engineering program to support a 12 operational aircraft fleet is tough to justify.

Finally, I would submit that if there was not a fatality in this accident (and the margin between being a successful and unsuccessful ejection in this case being in the order of seconds), this accident like the one in October would not be as big an issue nor the replacement of the Tutor be such an issue.

Couldn't agree more.

[AuxBatOn]

it'll take them 6 weeks to get the metallurgical results from the engine manufacturer, another 6 weeks to come up with wording that say's the Commander of the aircraft royally fucked up. but in 3 months come back to this post after their inital report is issued, and tell me I'm wrong

Sooo...with a full tank of gas behind you, two people onboard and (what seems like) a total loss of engine power, then zooming to try and turn airspeed into altitude, what would have been the non-fucked up solution you would have applied? Certainly if you can call out this pilot as having made colossal errors, you would possess enough superior knowledge to be able to tell us exactly what you would have done...and don't just give us a cop-out, obvious answer that you wouldn't stall the plane because you weren't in that cockpit and can't possibly know all of the factors that lead to this accident.

Aviate-Navigate-Communicate

Im thinking the first mistake he made was pitching to turn airspeed into altitude. maitain the altitude you have hold for best glide and start picking the spot your life depends on. No sense in burning off the energy you have to see options that you wont make cause you have no more energy.

Runway centerline on both runways have water for 10 miles straight ahead, so pull a sully and be invited to a superbowl. if it doesn't look good well you leave.

What you don't do, is pull to the chest and at the apex kick hard left rudder over a residential neighborhood. Im not sure how you look at that video and think that was fine or that was normal method of dealing with an emergency. Im sorry that this accident happened, and sure we can wait for a report to tell us what the video showed us. Do we need to though?

First step of the emergency procedure for a suspected engine malfunction in the Tutor: ZOOM - IF POSSIBLE, WINGS LEVEL

[L39Guy]

It’s always interesting to watch the “experts” come out of the woodwork with their learned opinions and this is no exception. What did Pancho Barnes from the movie The Right Stuff call these people, Pohdunks?

In addition to my post Tuesday, I would add the following observations based upon comments made since then:

Leftoftrack has lots of insight and seems to have the accident all figured out:

“The aircraft commander fucked up royally. engine failure should not equal stall into spin into a spiral into a house. Its not the planes fault this turned out the way it did. Please don't spend a billion of my tax dollars on a frame that will end up the same way when handling an emergency incorrectly.”
“Aviate-Navigate-Communicate

Im thinking the first mistake he made was pitching to turn airspeed into altitude. maitain the altitude you have hold for best glide and start picking the spot your life depends on. No sense in burning off the energy you have to see options that you wont make cause you have no more energy.

Runway centerline on both runways have water for 10 miles straight ahead, so pull a sully and be invited to a superbowl. if it doesn't look good well you leave.

What you don't do, is pull to the chest and at the apex kick hard left rudder over a residential neighborhood. Im not sure how you look at that video and think that was fine or that was normal method of dealing with an emergency. Im sorry that this accident happened, and sure we can wait for a report to tell us what the video showed us. Do we need to though?”

Bearing in mind that from the moment the engine appeared to fail to the time of ejection is about 12 seconds; not a lot of time but with a lot going on – formation flight, engine failure, low altitude, low speed, built-up area, non-pilot crew member, etc. That’s a lot of issues that have to be processed in such as short time.

What the PIC of that aircraft did was perfectly sound. He pulled up to exchange kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy (altitude) which kept them away from the ground and bought time (precious little) to assess; his decision to pitch to the left was sound as well as he was in formation and the standard manoeuvre is to get away from the other aircraft lest one also has to deal with a mid-air collision too.

With an optimum glide speed of 130 kts (best L/D speed), that is the target airspeed when doing the energy exchange; I estimate that they were about 100 ft AGL and about 190 kts when the engine failure occurred so there was only 60 kts of excess speed. Theoretically, that buys 320 ft of altitude if there is no energy loss but there is from profile drag and induced drag, particularly when pulling g (kinetic energy = potential energy or 1/2mV^2=mgh). 320 ft is not a lot of altitude under the best scenario. Clearly, the PIC overshot 130 kts which lead to a stall (it appears) but it also lead to a higher altitude too – I would submit that very few, experienced jet pilots would have aced hitting 130 kts on the pullup under those circumstances.

Turn up and away is also sound if one was able to get partial thrust out of the engine to make a landing on either the departure end of the runway or the arrival end. I am sure that the PiC would have been doing the idle>air start drill to try to get something out of the engine but to no avail.
Leftoftrack also can’t tell the difference between an induced spin (rudder hard over) and an incipient spin, which is what occurred here.

Gino Under should start reading newspapers to understand what is going on in the world. His observation shows a stunning lack of knowledge of current affairs and the role of Canada’s military:

Don’t forget our military’s role of recent years.
Snow shovelling.
Sandbagging during floods.
Working in old age homes.
Peacekeeping.
Recovering stranded Canadians who were told to stay home before this pandemic really got up to speed.
Using our bases as quarantine facilities (God bless those based in Trenton who skirted exposure)
Tells us everything we need to know about our governments view of our military.

He would be surprised to learn that the CAF is or was in Latvia and Romania with the army and air force (CF18’s), in Mali (C130’s, Griffons), South Sudan (C130’s), the navy in the Pacific Ocean (Korea), Mediterranean, Straits of Hormuz, etc.

[frosti]

A better ejection seat? The new models are quite large and likely would not fit into the Tutor cockpit. And even if they did, an engineering program to support a 12 operational aircraft fleet is tough to justify.

Finally, I would submit that if there was not a fatality in this accident (and the margin between being a successful and unsuccessful ejection in this case being in the order of seconds), this accident like the one in October would not be as big an issue nor the replacement of the Tutor be such an issue.

Are there no modern ejection seat systems available that will fit inside a tutor? Nevermind the engineering required to make it work, will anything physically fit with the canopy closed? I have zero issues with an engine failure, bird ingestion or whatever else led up to the point of ejection. However when you pull those handles I better have 100% confidence that the system will give me chance of survival. You can argue that the seat worked as designed, assuming the investigation finds it did, but that's still 1960's tech designed in the 50's.

This crash was very public, tones of witnesses, crash into a neighborhood and a death. In October it was none of that, pilot crashed in a cow field and essentially walked away. Where were the calls for replacement aircraft then? People only become experts when it's convenient. Even in this accident, you watch, by the end of the month it will be forgotten.

[L39Guy]

The modern seats that I have seen are a lot deeper than what was on the Tutor - there is a great display from Martin-Baker at the RAF Museum in Herdon, London. I suspect that the rocketry, gimbals, etc. take more room than the relatively simple rockets on the Tutor seat but I am no expert I just suspect it will be difficult given the floor to canopy space available and perhaps even the lateral space too.

Retrofitting ejection seats can be done; the Vintage Wings F86 Sabre had Tutor ejection seats installed in that aircraft.

[leftoftrack]

It’s always interesting to watch the “experts” come out of the woodwork with their learned opinions and this is no exception. What did Pancho Barnes from the movie The Right Stuff call these people, Pohdunks?

In addition to my post Tuesday, I would add the following observations based upon comments made since then:

Leftoftrack has lots of insight and seems to have the accident all figured out:

“The aircraft commander fucked up royally. engine failure should not equal stall into spin into a spiral into a house. Its not the planes fault this turned out the way it did. Please don't spend a billion of my tax dollars on a frame that will end up the same way when handling an emergency incorrectly.”
“Aviate-Navigate-Communicate

Im thinking the first mistake he made was pitching to turn airspeed into altitude. maitain the altitude you have hold for best glide and start picking the spot your life depends on. No sense in burning off the energy you have to see options that you wont make cause you have no more energy.

Runway centerline on both runways have water for 10 miles straight ahead, so pull a sully and be invited to a superbowl. if it doesn't look good well you leave.

What you don't do, is pull to the chest and at the apex kick hard left rudder over a residential neighborhood. Im not sure how you look at that video and think that was fine or that was normal method of dealing with an emergency. Im sorry that this accident happened, and sure we can wait for a report to tell us what the video showed us. Do we need to though?”

Bearing in mind that from the moment the engine appeared to fail to the time of ejection is about 12 seconds; not a lot of time but with a lot going on – formation flight, engine failure, low altitude, low speed, built-up area, non-pilot crew member, etc. That’s a lot of issues that have to be processed in such as short time.

What the PIC of that aircraft did was perfectly sound. He pulled up to exchange kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy (altitude) which kept them away from the ground and bought time (precious little) to assess; his decision to pitch to the left was sound as well as he was in formation and the standard manoeuvre is to get away from the other aircraft lest one also has to deal with a mid-air collision too.

With an optimum glide speed of 130 kts (best L/D speed), that is the target airspeed when doing the energy exchange; I estimate that they were about 100 ft AGL and about 190 kts when the engine failure occurred so there was only 60 kts of excess speed. Theoretically, that buys 320 ft of altitude if there is no energy loss but there is from profile drag and induced drag, particularly when pulling g (kinetic energy = potential energy or 1/2mV^2=mgh). 320 ft is not a lot of altitude under the best scenario. Clearly, the PIC overshot 130 kts which lead to a stall (it appears) but it also lead to a higher altitude too – I would submit that very few, experienced jet pilots would have aced hitting 130 kts on the pullup under those circumstances.

Turn up and away is also sound if one was able to get partial thrust out of the engine to make a landing on either the departure end of the runway or the arrival end. I am sure that the PiC would have been doing the idle>air start drill to try to get something out of the engine but to no avail.
Leftoftrack also can’t tell the difference between an induced spin (rudder hard over) and an incipient spin, which is what occurred here.

Gino Under should start reading newspapers to understand what is going on in the world. His observation shows a stunning lack of knowledge of current affairs and the role of Canada’s military:

Don’t forget our military’s role of recent years.
Snow shovelling.
Sandbagging during floods.
Working in old age homes.
Peacekeeping.
Recovering stranded Canadians who were told to stay home before this pandemic really got up to speed.
Using our bases as quarantine facilities (God bless those based in Trenton who skirted exposure)
Tells us everything we need to know about our governments view of our military.

He would be surprised to learn that the CAF is or was in Latvia and Romania with the army and air force (CF18’s), in Mali (C130’s, Griffons), South Sudan (C130’s), the navy in the Pacific Ocean (Korea), Mediterranean, Straits of Hormuz, etc.

yup, totally think he actually kicked full Left rudder

[L39Guy]

Looks like you don’t have any jet experience either since one does not need nor use the rudders in a single engine jet except for crosswind landings and take-offs.

[leftoftrack]

Looks like you don’t have any jet experience either since one does not need nor use the rudders in a single engine jet except for crosswind landings and take-offs.

my jet experience is limited to multi-engine time. we definitely use rudder to maintain coordination. Now admittedly I dont know the engine out procedure of the Tudor. Having said that, is an engine failure suppose to result in a stall spin spiral dive and parking it in someone's house with half the crew dead and luckily that's the only fatality? Cause if thats the goal then he aced it. He shit the bed, it's like those idiots that shut down the wrong engine in Indonesia in the ATR. He either didn't know the drill or he didn't preform it. We don't need to buy new planes cause a pilot fucked up and someone died

[Bavros]

.

[leftoftrack]

yes

[leftoftrack]

P.S. Commander Dick MacDougall was confirmed to have left the aircraft first. He litteraly abandoned his passenger. Can we stop with the Hero bullshit and start with the Court Marshall proceedings?