Snowbird crash in CYKA

[Daniel Cooper]

It is unfortunate to say the least, that the Tutor's weren't equipped with better safety equipment to help get the crew away from an emergency situation. I am sure that will be something the Forces may take into consideration going forward.

Amen to that. I would not be hesitating with the decision to bail out or save this aircraft. Get as high as you can and punch out and hope it's high enough for that parachute to open in time.

[cncpc]

It is unfortunate to say the least, that the Tutor's weren't equipped with better safety equipment to help get the crew away from an emergency situation. I am sure that will be something the Forces may take into consideration going forward.

Amen to that. I would not be hesitating with the decision to bail out or save this aircraft. Get as high as you can and punch out and hope it's high enough for that parachute to open in time.

It's not clear of to law, or seat malfunction(s) but that Julio says that is a 0-60 set, so too low...?

For those not familiar with the lay of the land there, this is the overview. Yellow dot is where the pilot landed. Aircraft very close by.

cash machine near me

[cncpc]

This is where the pop sound came. The view is of the zoom and turn right option.

[boeingboy]

Looks like he didn't even have to turn right. As soon as he pulled up he was pretty much over the banks of the river...

[goates]

So is it just not feasible to put a modern gimballed ejection seat into the Tutor? You would think with the single engine threat and the low altitude flying the Snowbirds do it would be a priority to protect the crews.

There was at least at least some interest in replacing the ejection seats, though I'm not sure where it is at.

This CT-114 life extension page talks about installing zero/zero ejections seats, but looks to have been superseded.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-def ... s-990.page

However, the new one doesn't explicitly mention ejection seats.
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence- ... sp?id=1438

Condolences to the families and squadron.

[bodyflyer2]

So they say it is a 0 alt - 60 kts minimum seat, I read above. That's fine when travelling level and the ejection seat can give you a couple hundred feet of extra altitude, plus some extra forward speed, giving time and airspeed to help deploy the parachute.

In this accident, clearly the velocity vector, heading downwards steeply, was a big part of the problem. They just got out too late.
Not that I'm saying what 1000 well trained pilots would do in the same suddenly evolving situation. How many would have stalled out and spun as they climbed for altitude with airspeed rapidly bleeding off? Or punched out slightly earlier? Or took even longer to make that decision?

My contribution is that while I'm hazy on the details of different ejection systems, I have to say that the basic system used to deploy the parachute on the Tutor really is pretty ancient.

A modern ejection seat (including ones around for, I dunno, 40+ years), uses a mortar firing off some sort of heavy slug that will pull out the main parachute.

(Or the mortar will fire off something which pulls out a small extraction parachute which pulls out a bigger drogue parachute, which in turn pulls out the main parachute. But at slow speed the mortar system still will stretch the main canopy out. Systems vary and I don't recall all the details offhand. Martin Baker can be quite different than the ACES II for example. Even if I'm wrong on some details, I think I should be right for the overall system at slow speed. At high speed there is more staging where some stages are delayed until the speed reduces sufficiently for the next speed.)

But on an old school system like for the Tutor, the pilot wears a parachute on their back, and straps into the seat. The parachute isn't integrated into the ejection seat. The parachute deployment happens an old fashioned way: First, automated systems release the pilot's seatbelt, a sling tensions and pops the pilot out of the seat, and a cable pulls the ripcord on the backpack. Then the pilot chute (really the same as a drogue chute in this context) has to catch air and pull the main parachute out.

Having a mortar system like on a modern system gets the pilot or drogue chute out there faster, and stretches out the whole parachute system very rapidly, instead of waiting that little bit extra time for a pilot chute, not much different than that of a skydiver in the 1960's, to pull the main parachute out and stretch it all out. Before which it really isn't really going to be inflating.

In watching a couple videos online, I sure wasn't impressed with how quickly things were going, not seeing any canopy inflation until a little bit at the very end for one person. I haven't tried to zoom videos and go frame by frame, but the whole ejection sequence wasn't impressive like Anatoly Kvochur at the 1989 Paris airshow, or the 2010 Lethbridge CF-18 ejection. I doubt the survivor had a full canopy by the time he impacted the house or whatever he hit. Hard to tell with everything happening far from the camera.

[AirFrame]

I’m curious why most military jets seem to adopt a profile of staying low and building up airspeed rather than doing a best rate climb? I know that Snowbirds are performers and it looks cool and I enjoy doing it myself on occasion but it seems to introduce a lot of risk.

I have a theory that may or may not be valid.

At a Vy climb, you're gaining maximum altitude rapidly, but if the fire goes out, you have next to zero time to recognize, assess, and act. Staying low and building smash means if the fire goes out you have more time for the assessment before you're down to critical airspeeds. If it happens down low at high speed, the only manoeuver needed is to pitch up... Not much of a drain on resources there. Then you can assess until you either resolve it, come up with a plan to deal with it, or hit your eject speed.

In a combat environment I expect the reason is to stay low to reduce visibilty to insurgents in the area, and then rapidly climb out of range of ground fire at high speed, rather than slowly climb at Vy where it's easier to target you.

[Aux1]

Condolences to the family, friends, coworkers of Capt. Jennifer Casey.
Thoughts and best wishes for Capt. Richard MacDougall.

[Flyboy757]

Condolences to the family, friends, coworkers of Capt. Jennifer Casey.
Thoughts and best wishes for Capt. Richard MacDougall.

X 2

[I WAS Pez]

Condolences to the family, friends, coworkers of Capt. Jennifer Casey.
Thoughts and best wishes for Capt. Richard MacDougall.

^This.^

[Zaibatsu]

Condolences to the family, friends, coworkers of Capt. Jennifer Casey.
Thoughts and best wishes for Capt. Richard MacDougall.

^This.^

Exactly!

[JBI]

I've known Captain Jenn Casey for 13 years. The tributes that have been coming in are on point. She was pretty spectacular. Her enthusiasm, wit and joyful spirit was contagious. The Snowbirds and Canadian Aviation have lost a wonderful soul. Blue Skies my friend.

I hope Capt. MacDougall makes a full and speedy recovery.

[patter]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866

[Heliian]

Stumbled across this video today about ejection seats and the people who've used them.

https://youtu.be/Aa1Ba_NEobs

It's dated from 1981 but the information still holds true today.

A big takeaway I got from it was a short bit about how the "newer" seats didn't actually give you more time but a better chance of survival. Also, there is a lot of psychological discussion about mentalities in training vs. combat and when to get out.

[ohoh]

That's probably the best resolution for video that I've seen in the media. Has anyone else noticed the bird go into the right hand intake at 3:57 - 3:58.

[ohoh]

These last 2 screen captures show pretty clear, and anything following there is no sign of the bird.

[L39Guy]

Or how about a drone?

[Heliian]

That looks like an awefully small object to completely shut a turbine down but it is possible.

[ohoh]

I'm definitely no expert but comparing the jets to the "object" I'd say hawk, falcon or crow size...bigger then a sparrow but smaller then an eagle.
Maybe it was a drone, but it is most certainly gone once the jet passes, immediately followed by "pull up".
The engine in these is small as well,

[ohoh]

Sorry, another post ended up in between my post and the video I'm referring to.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866