Snowbird crash in CYKA

[Gannet167]

Ahhh nope , he turned left towards civilian residences resulting in wreckage within a housing survey.
To his right or straight there was no population
Most likely , he was right handed which means left turns were more natural. So chose a quick left turn in attempt to make it back to the airfield

He was in echelon left. In a formation. You zoom away from the other aircraft, not towards. That’s basic form 101. It has nothing to do with left or right handed. That has no effect on which way pilots turn. He probably would’ve preferred to go right since he was in the right seat of the aircraft.

[Gannet167]

https://youtu.be/hML8DXwdrbo

C.W. Lemoine "Mover" has quite a well done and informative channel. He has a very interesting background in various military and commercial aviation. He says it well in the above video at 07:49.

[fleet16b]

With all due respect to the occupants , one of the #1 rules in aviation and one that has been there since the beginning , LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD if you loose the engine in take off.
It’s pretty obvious that he tried to make it back and stall spun instead .
This was a totally avoidable had he have followed the rules .
The investigation will at some point address this turn back decision

Zoom and turn to low key is the standard way to handle an engine failure on takeoff. It’s briefed, its trained for over and over, its what you do. Dozens of these have been successfully flown to a landing. It has been that way “since the beginning.” There is no “rule” he didn’t follow. Please show me where in the RCAF orders it is a rule. The CARS don’t apply but even they don’t have a rule.

This is not a 172 or a Fleet, it isn’t flown the same. The turn back may or may not have worked in this case, an ejection may have been required regardless, but the zoom and turn for low key is absolutely the correct response in a jet at those speeds. Low key generally will not work in a GA aircraft, and the dumbbell is also generally a poor choice, the energy and aerodynamics are very different. It’s done all the time in high performance aircraft.

First off with all due respect , are you a pilot ?
If you are and were not trained to land straight ahead when losing an engine on take off , you were poorly trained.
I’ve been in Aviation my whole life and this was ingrained into me thru out my trading and by many many pilots long after
I don’t know any pilot that does not know this rule of thumb and I very surprised that you don’t.
It’s been in training syllabus around the world since the start of aviation.
How could you not know this ?
You are correct it’s not a 172 or a Fleet and it does not have the wing area or glide ratio of either
That is why it is so important to keep up the airspeed as in nose down straight ahead - not turns that bleed off airspeed .
He was correct in zooming for altitude and once achieved could have put it into a stable forward glide speed in preparation to eject . I have Never heard that one should zoom and turn and in fact past SBirds that have been interviewed about the incident all quoted the zoom technique but none mention turning after zoom.
You would have to be blind to not see that aircraft become a brick the minute he turned , that was the fatal move.
Only he knows why he did .
The scenario of maintaining his course straight ahead and then ejecting wound have been the better choice . The aircraft would have gone into the river or fields beyond . The other aircraft in the formation was well ahead of him and would have been no factor in his decision to turn left towards a populated area.
Hindsight of course is golden , we will have to wait and see what the investigation finds

[Gannet167]

First off with all due respect , are you a pilot ? If you are and were not trained to land straight ahead when losing an engine on take off , you were poorly trained.

Yes I am a former military pilot. I have taught this exact maneuver, simulating failed engine on takeoff and other positions, probably hundreds of times and flown it myself likely hundreds of times over several years. It is well documented in numerous training and standards documents. I would beg to differ about the training. Incidentally, while training and working with Brits, Hungarians, Germans, Italians, USAF, to name a few, they all also use a similar method when flying similar performance aircraft. My point is merely to say that zooming for low or final key position was not unusual and is a product of decades of experience and training and many air forces do it. It has been successful in recovering aircraft and made some ejections unnecessary.

I’ve been in Aviation my whole life and this was ingrained into me thru out my trading and by many many pilots
I don’t know any pilot that does not know this rule of thumb and I very surprised that you don’t.

Hardly a convincing argument to say you’ve been in aviation for a long time. There are many who have been as well, what’s the point? I have too. May I ask, while we’re comparing backgrounds, how much of you life long experience in aviation has been in high performance single engine military aircraft that fly at high energy state? There will be many things that would seem very odd and exotic to anyone with a GA or commercial background. That doesn’t invalidate them. It just means it’s an area of aviation, a realm of performance envelope that is not well known or understood by those who haven’t flown it.

I do know of this “rule “of thumb, It’s just not a rule of thumb that is always applicable here as it may be in GA. I wouldn’t attempt it in a 172. The Tutor is a very different aircraft that generally has excess energy that permits maneuvering for landing, and has an ejection seat. This changes the options tremendously.

You are correct it’s not a 172 or a Fleet and it does not have the wing area or glide ratio of either ... That is why it is so important to keep up the airspeed as in nose down straight ahead - not turns that bleed off airspeed

A 172 glide ratio is about 1:9. A Tutor is closer to 1:12. That means it glides better. if you have excess energy to zoom, you also may have some to turn and may have enough to reach a runway. If not, the seat is generally still an option. This is why the zoom and attempt low key. I am aware of how to maintain airspeed.

I am merely trying to point out that zooming for low key is a normal and entirely valid method of handling an engine failure at that point. Although it may go against some well known conventions in GA, it is a functional method in an aircraft such as a Tutor and has been used successfully.

Hindsight of course is golden , we will have to wait and see what the investigation finds

This is something I can agree with.

[cncpc]

First off with all due respect , are you a pilot ? If you are and were not trained to land straight ahead when losing an engine on take off , you were poorly trained.

Yes I am a former military pilot. I have taught this exact maneuver, simulating failed engine on takeoff and other positions, probably hundreds of times and flown it myself likely hundreds of times over several years. It is well documented in numerous training and standards documents. I would beg to differ about the training. Incidentally, while training and working with Brits, Hungarians, Germans, Italians, USAF, to name a few, they all also use a similar method when flying similar performance aircraft. My point is merely to say that zooming for low or final key position was not unusual and is a product of decades of experience and training and many air forces do it. It has been successful in recovering aircraft and made some ejections unnecessary.

I’ve been in Aviation my whole life and this was ingrained into me thru out my trading and by many many pilots
I don’t know any pilot that does not know this rule of thumb and I very surprised that you don’t.

Hardly a convincing argument to say you’ve been in aviation for a long time. There are many who have been as well, what’s the point? I have too. May I ask, while we’re comparing backgrounds, how much of you life long experience in aviation has been in high performance single engine military aircraft that fly at high energy state? There will be many things that would seem very odd and exotic to anyone with a GA or commercial background. That doesn’t invalidate them. It just means it’s an area of aviation, a realm of performance envelope that is not well known or understood by those who haven’t flown it.

I do know of this “rule “of thumb, It’s just not a rule of thumb that is always applicable here as it may be in GA. I wouldn’t attempt it in a 172. The Tutor is a very different aircraft that generally has excess energy that permits maneuvering for landing, and has an ejection seat. This changes the options tremendously.

You are correct it’s not a 172 or a Fleet and it does not have the wing area or glide ratio of either ... That is why it is so important to keep up the airspeed as in nose down straight ahead - not turns that bleed off airspeed

A 172 glide ratio is about 1:9. A Tutor is closer to 1:12. That means it glides better. if you have excess energy to zoom, you also may have some to turn and may have enough to reach a runway. If not, the seat is generally still an option. This is why the zoom and attempt low key. I am aware of how to maintain airspeed.

I am merely trying to point out that zooming for low key is a normal and entirely valid method of handling an engine failure at that point. Although it may go against some well known conventions in GA, it is a functional method in an aircraft such as a Tutor and has been used successfully.

Hindsight of course is golden , we will have to wait and see what the investigation finds

This is something I can agree with.

One ass...handed to.

Okay, muh belly is jiggling. Well done, Gannett.

[Capt. Underpants]

Fleet16, you need to wind your neck in. You’ve obviously never spent one day in our Air Force, your lack of even the most basic knowledge of how it’s done says it all.

[fleet16b]

Fleet16, you need to wind your neck in. You’ve obviously never spent one day in our Air Force, your lack of even the most basic knowledge of how it’s done says it all.

Your correct , I’ve never been in the RCAF.
However, if you are a pilot , you know, that civilian or military most of the basic laws of flying are the same. In this case the age old rule proved correct . “Don’t turn back “
It doesn’t matter “ how it’s done” , trained to or not the left turn was fatal . Hate to break it to you but even RCAF training can be wrong . At the very least this procedure should be reviewed after all it killed one of them.
Jump all over me ( as is the AVCanada way)I can take it but you can’t dispute the turn was disastrous.

[PilotDAR]

As I am not a military trained pilot, and have no jet time, so I've been more in reading mode, than posting about this sad event. Having flown out of Kamloops many times, I can understand the the pilot suffered a power loss at about the least favourable point during departure which could have happened. Having never been trained to consider ejecting, I've always been trained to fly the aircraft to the greatest chance of a successful forced landing, which does mean that the airplane must be under control as you prepare to arrive to the surface. An eastbound departure from Kamloops offers few attractive forced landing areas, other than maybe the river.

I can empathize with this pilot that planning to eject with the airplane pointed along it's departure path after ejection would place it at high risk of crashing into the city, so a turn away from the city was appropriate before ejecting. A 45 degree heading change (which, incidentally, would also conform to GA training) would have pointed the stricken plane away from the city, and I would think still allowed successful ejections. With my modest training, I have never been trained to consider attempting a turn back for a downwind landing on the departure runway, there is too much risk of loss of control during that turn. Perhaps it's different in the military, but in the GA world, pilots should remind themselves that an attempt at a turnback can lead to a spin entry, and loss of control, which is why it is trained against in the GA environment.

Obviously, this pilot had only seconds to apply his training to a loss of power, so I trust did the best he could do with the training he had received. None of us are assured the best outcome from our best effort.....

[AirFrame]

Your correct , I’ve never been in the RCAF.
However, if you are a pilot , you know, that civilian or military most of the basic laws of flying are the same. In this case the age old rule proved correct . “Don’t turn back “
It doesn’t matter “ how it’s done” , trained to or not the left turn was fatal . Hate to break it to you but even RCAF training can be wrong .

"You're" not familiar with RCAF training, but are sure it's wrong.

Stick to your 172 or your Fleet, when flying underpowered aircraft alone your procedure will work just fine.

[Gannet167]

A split second decision has to be made. Continuing straight ahead with an engine malfunction of unknown magnitude would put the aircraft over the most densely populated area. If the engine can't be relit or partial thrust regained, it results in both having to eject over a built up area with many hazards and sending the aircraft, full of jet fuel, into downtown Kamloops. Continuing straight ahead would've been disastrous. With a good amount of excess energy, you can zoom and/or turn, and still hypothetically reach a runway (preferred option) and if on the way to low key, it's determined that there's insufficient energy, eject (backup option). The left turn likely mitigated a great deal.

Zooming and turning right while in echelon left in formation would go against a lot of training. In the split second reaction required in formation, at a low level, it would be unusual to go blind on lead and then turn into lead's last known position. Instinctively, most guys would go away from lead. Even if one did turn right, you'd have to contend with the river and a pulp mill. Ejecting into the water at that altitude and in that seat is a very bad option. Even in a good ejection you're very possibly injured, tangled in risers, under water with a parachute canopy on the surface of the water, wearing 25 lbs of gear. If you're not unconscious from the 20 g ejection, didn't injure neck or back in ejection or impact with water, don't have a broken arm or leg (not uncommon) the water is cold and moving.

After zooming and turning right, you're over the water for most of the glide to low key. If it appears that you can't make low key, you've left yourself in a terrible place to eject. In addition, ejecting over large industrial complexes like pulp mills with tall structures, large flammable things, high tension electrical wires, dangerous equipment, etc is generally a bad idea.

Even if it was obvious that there was not sufficient energy to zoom and turn to make low key, turning left by about 45 degrees at least puts the trajectory for the aircraft and ejection away from population. With the benefit of sitting at 1g and 0 kts, looking at Google Earth, zooming and turning left was the preferred initial action and I'd do the same thing. From that point, I will not comment or speculate on what happened inside the cockpit.

It can be said that there was precious little time to do anything and it was an extremely challenging position to do anything from. It's perhaps the worst possible moment. Consider that after the engine malfunction, while sitting in the right seat and staring at lead's wing on the right, you'd have to look away for a half second to glimpse at engine instruments on the left, analyze and diagnose what's happening (and ensure for example you don't have an AC compressor failure which sounds and vibrates similar to an engine compressor stall and is located directly being the cockpit just like the engine), initiate a zoom, radio lead that 2 is off with engine failure - proceeding low key (etc), tell the other occupant to prepare to abandon, look left cross cockpit and turn, look for other traffic, look at airspeed and altitude likely for the first time (in close form you rarely look at instruments as you're flying off lead and more than a half second is too long to look away) assess energy state, look for low key position, assess glide performance, consider wind aloft and on ground, Ideally make radio call, all while carrying out the emergency memory drill to relight the engine and looking at engine gauges to analyze if you're getting anything back, trimming for glide, looking at where you are and where you might want to eject. 12 seconds, the first 2 to 3 likely absorbed analyzing what is happening and building SA after only staring intently at lead's wing up to that point. Likely there was 7 to 9 seconds of useful time to handle anything. It brings to mind the scene from the movie "Sully" where he says "can we get serious now?"

[Gannet167]

Jump all over me ( as is the AVCanada way).

Pot, meet kettle.

[CL-Skadoo!]

I could put down a long list of my credentials, tell everyone that my mother birthed me in the navigator's seat of a dc-4 while my dad flew an NDB approach with 3 engines on fire, or...I could just say this and avoid looking foolish:

Hindsight of course is golden , we will have to wait and see what the investigation finds

[Heliian]

How many hours did the accident pilot have?

[fleet16b]

I’m really not sure what airport you guys are looking at but Kamloops turning left after takeoff brought the Aircraft heading directly for a residential area
Turning right would’ve brought the aircraft over a hilly area just before an industrial area

It appears that the aircraft stalled and spun and crashed after the left turn was initiated due to loss of airspeed.
Most likely the same scenario would’ve happened if he had turned right
Now there is a third scenario also and my question is what was the mission briefing of the flight ?
Though it is hard to tell in the video it appears that both Aircraft took off and did not carry out a maximum climb departure instead choosing to stay low make their presence known as they went by the neighbourhood on the left.
Now for the third scenario. As we all know the Aircraft suffered some sort of loss of power, compressor failure, bird ingestion, who knows for certain at this point. You can hear a pop as the aircraft goes by and in my experience building and working on jet engines for 24 yrs is does sound like a cpsr failure .... but that’s hard to make that call for sure
As per peoples quotes here the pilot was trained to zoom for maximum altitude and he did do that.
However the question is did he intend to turn left towards a built-up area or did he pull up to abruptly in the zoom and stall the aircraft which pitched left. That is also a plausible scenario.
Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left towards a built up residential area it just does not make sense.
Now it’s been stated here on the forum that landing straightahead and possibly coming down in the water was more dangerous than coming down in a residential area with powerlines buildings trees and vehicles. Sorry but I don’t think so.
The Aircraft stalling at the top of the zoom and stalling to the left makes much more sense than saying he initiated a left turn towards an inhabited area.
Can someone on this forum copy and past the RCAF training procedure that states that the pilots should initiate a turn at low altitude during an engine failure ?
Thats contrary to all flight training anyone I know has ever heard of
Further it was stated that things are different in a high performance aircraft than small light aircraft
Well try that with a WW2 Harvard or a P51 for example and you will get the same result as what happened at Kamloops
Again proof is in the pudding whether it’s a C-172 , Harvard , P-51 or a Tutor, it’s not a good idea
Don’t believe me as 2 people I personally knew that were killed doing just that. both were highly experienced high time pilots and still the lure of the runway got them both

We all agree that we will have to see what the investigation finds
It’s been an interesting discussion
Take care all and fly safe

[BTD]

Thats contrary to all flight training anyone I know has ever heard of

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Translates to: I can’t think of why it would be that way, therefore it can’t be that way.

From an outsider perspective who has flown light, commuter and commercial airliners but has no knowledge of military jets; Gannet you have done a fine job articulating your arguments and why it MAY have been done a certain way.

fleet, I’m sorry, but it is clear you are out of your depth here.

[cncpc]

A split second decision has to be made. Continuing straight ahead with an engine malfunction of unknown magnitude would put the aircraft over the most densely populated area. If the engine can't be relit or partial thrust regained, it results in both having to eject over a built up area with many hazards and sending the aircraft, full of jet fuel, into downtown Kamloops. Continuing straight ahead would've been disastrous. With a good amount of excess energy, you can zoom and/or turn, and still hypothetically reach a runway (preferred option) and if on the way to low key, it's determined that there's insufficient energy, eject (backup option). The left turn likely mitigated a great deal.

Zooming and turning right while in echelon left in formation would go against a lot of training. In the split second reaction required in formation, at a low level, it would be unusual to go blind on lead and then turn into lead's last known position. Instinctively, most guys would go away from lead. Even if one did turn right, you'd have to contend with the river and a pulp mill. Ejecting into the water at that altitude and in that seat is a very bad option. Even in a good ejection you're very possibly injured, tangled in risers, under water with a parachute canopy on the surface of the water, wearing 25 lbs of gear. If you're not unconscious from the 20 g ejection, didn't injure neck or back in ejection or impact with water, don't have a broken arm or leg (not uncommon) the water is cold and moving.

After zooming and turning right, you're over the water for most of the glide to low key. If it appears that you can't make low key, you've left yourself in a terrible place to eject. In addition, ejecting over large industrial complexes like pulp mills with tall structures, large flammable things, high tension electrical wires, dangerous equipment, etc is generally a bad idea.

Even if it was obvious that there was not sufficient energy to zoom and turn to make low key, turning left by about 45 degrees at least puts the trajectory for the aircraft and ejection away from population. With the benefit of sitting at 1g and 0 kts, looking at Google Earth, zooming and turning left was the preferred initial action and I'd do the same thing. From that point, I will not comment or speculate on what happened inside the cockpit.

It can be said that there was precious little time to do anything and it was an extremely challenging position to do anything from. It's perhaps the worst possible moment. Consider that after the engine malfunction, while sitting in the right seat and staring at lead's wing on the right, you'd have to look away for a half second to glimpse at engine instruments on the left, analyze and diagnose what's happening (and ensure for example you don't have an AC compressor failure which sounds and vibrates similar to an engine compressor stall and is located directly being the cockpit just like the engine), initiate a zoom, radio lead that 2 is off with engine failure - proceeding low key (etc), tell the other occupant to prepare to abandon, look left cross cockpit and turn, look for other traffic, look at airspeed and altitude likely for the first time (in close form you rarely look at instruments as you're flying off lead and more than a half second is too long to look away) assess energy state, look for low key position, assess glide performance, consider wind aloft and on ground, Ideally make radio call, all while carrying out the emergency memory drill to relight the engine and looking at engine gauges to analyze if you're getting anything back, trimming for glide, looking at where you are and where you might want to eject. 12 seconds, the first 2 to 3 likely absorbed analyzing what is happening and building SA after only staring intently at lead's wing up to that point. Likely there was 7 to 9 seconds of useful time to handle anything. It brings to mind the scene from the movie "Sully" where he says "can we get serious now?"

Thanks for your very knowledgeable inputs. Much appreciated. I have a couple of questions.

It's not discussed much, but do you agree that if the failure was only partial at the time the left turn was made, return to field was at least as good an option as ejecting?

There was the incident at Atlanta where the pilot ejected but reported abnormalities in the ejection sequence. Do you know what those abnormalities were and if there was some rectification made that would have given Capt. MacDougall full confidence in an ejection choice for him and Capt. Casey. I guess I'm asking if there were lingering issues from Atlanta that may have shaded the choice towards the turnback.

[fleet16b]

Thats contrary to all flight training anyone I know has ever heard of

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Translates to: I can’t think of why it would be that way, therefore it can’t be that way.

From an outsider perspective who has flown light, commuter and commercial airliners but has no knowledge of military jets; Gannet you have done a fine job articulating your arguments and why it MAY have been done a certain way.

fleet, I’m sorry, but it is clear you are out of your depth here.

That’s the quote you chose to be unhappy about?
The truth hurts I guess ..,., yes it is contrary to flight training taught in schools right now......... don’t take my word for it go check for yourself.
I have already fully admitted I have no military flying background
other than flying WW2 aircraft . However , when it comes to basic flying rules , I am more than qualified.
You can sign up for flying lessons anywhere in the world and you will be taught to stay as straight a possible in an engine failure on take off mode .
Out of my depth ? Lol ok ...., I have asked some questions that some obviously feel uncomfortable . Sorry but this is as an Aviation Forum.
While I have not flown jet aircraft , I do have 40 years of flying experience ,so no I’m not ignorant but thank you for the insult
It’s interesting that you have to result to personal attack but hey this is AVCanada , the home to that kind of behaviour so it’s not surprising . I have no fear of the AV Canada Bullies that lurk here
Further, accusing me of arguing is just a cop out for someone that’s has no useful input . I’m the first to admit that there are people here more qualified that some of us therefore I simply want to hear all sides regarding the accident

This incident is no special military only scenario , it’s one that has been played out many many times with the same sad result
Having never heard of the military training that teaches people to turn while in a no power incident, I have asked to see the RCAF syllabus but nobody seems to be able to provide it.
I’ll end this by saying that if you have a problem with my posts, don’t read them ..... you don’t have to resort to insults .... just move along .

[iflyforpie]

Thats contrary to all flight training anyone I know has ever heard of

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Translates to: I can’t think of why it would be that way, therefore it can’t be that way.

But it’s being countered by other fallacies. The Argument from Authority logical fallacy in particular. You haven’t flown high speed military jets with ejection seats, therefore your argument is invalid.

However... all of the arguments explaining why a jet pilot would do something different than a 172 pilot are countered by the empirical evidence of this aircraft entering nearly the identical situation a 172 would have if it attempted the same thing: An aggravated stall and incipient spin too close to the ground to recover. The argument about trying to avoid a residential area is countered with the ensuing crash in the middle of a residential area when many other options were available. The argument over ejection considerations is countered by and an ejection that killed the PAO and only by sheer luck saved the pilot. There is no way an ejection over the Thompson River upright, under control, at speed would have been more dangerous than the low altitude down vector ejection that happened.

[BTD]

I chose that quote because it is relevant to the fallacy I pointed out. Highlighting a fallacy is not a personal attack or bullying.

“Out of your depth” is no insult, it is an observation. I am also “out of my depth” when it comes to the specifics of military emergency training. You admit yourself you have never flown a military jet, nor have experience in any jet. That doesn’t make your opinion invalid by default, but it lends more credibility to those who have. However, I was providing an outside perspective to the argument.

Further, accusing me of arguing is just a cop out for someone that’s has no useful input .

I feel a Monty python moment, but I never accused you of “arguing”. You have taken a contrary position. And used an argument to reason why. A fallacious one.

You can sign up for flying lessons anywhere in the world and you will be taught to stay as straight a possible in an engine failure on take off mode .

Except where they don’t. Example the RCAF for single engine jets apparently. And perhaps other militaries around the world.

[BTD]

Thats contrary to all flight training anyone I know has ever heard of

This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Translates to: I can’t think of why it would be that way, therefore it can’t be that way.

But it’s being countered by other fallacies. The Argument from Authority logical fallacy in particular. You haven’t flown high speed military jets with ejection seats, therefore your argument is invalid.

However... all of the arguments explaining why a jet pilot would do something different than a 172 pilot are countered by the empirical evidence of this aircraft entering nearly the identical situation a 172 would have if it attempted the same thing: An aggravated stall and incipient spin too close to the ground to recover. The argument about trying to avoid a residential area is countered with the ensuing crash in the middle of a residential area when many other options were available. The argument over ejection considerations is countered by and an ejection that killed the PAO and only by sheer luck saved the pilot. There is no way an ejection over the Thompson River upright, under control, at speed would have been more dangerous than the low altitude down vector ejection that happened.

Take note interested parties. This is how you make a great counter argument. Well put ifly. And I take no personal offence.

I will make a few points. If my position was Gannett is right because he has been there, the argument from authority position would be a valid critique. But I believe what I said was he did a good job communicating his position and why...

Gannet you have done a fine job articulating your arguments and why it MAY have been done a certain way.

As to the imperial evidence, we don’t know the statistics of the military response to this scenario in general vs this one specific instance. If it turned out that 1000 flights in this scenario had a successful outcome vs this 1 without our opinions on what the pilot may have done might change. We simply don’t know at this point. And if what has been said previously about the military procedure is accurate, we don’t know if it is a failure of the policy/procedure or a pilot error or some other cause as yet unknown.

The argument over ejection considerations is countered by and an ejection that killed the PAO and only by sheer luck saved the pilot.

Lastly I don’t think that statement is accurate. The fact that the results were what they were doesn’t demonstrate that those considerations weren’t a factor in his decision making. If a rescue attempt during a hostage situation is unsuccessful and the hostage is killed, that doesn’t demonstrate that the rescuers didn’t take the hostages’ safety into consideration. Sometimes things just go bad.

Good thoughts though and I appreciate a good counter argument.

[2R]

The first time I was shown the impossible 180 EFATO turn was at two hundred feet in Cessna by a TC class one instructor who used to run the flight school in Kamloops . He was also a Funeral Director .
I am reluctant to demonstrate it to most pilots , as the average pilot has a better survival rate landing straightish ahead. I would have no qualms demonstrating the 180 to an aerobatic pilot , but I am reluctant to show the “impossible turn “ to low time non aerobatic type pilots . Due to the requirement to unload the wing in the turn by adjusting the attitude which can be counter intuitive to someone without aerobatic experience . Unload the wing too much and you are in negative g mode where planes bend easier . Such exercises are best done in aircraft with a g meter at a very safe altitude .
An aerobatic pilot can make those turns in a Cessna easy enough . With zero time in a Tutor I could not say how easy it is to change direction or how to control the energy and attitude to get the best performance out of a bad situation . Nope I would not know where to start , if I could rent one for a month or two ,I might get a clue .

Ever wondered why training aircraft have so many wrinkles in their skin ?

[Gannet167]

It's not discussed much, but do you agree that if the failure was only partial at the time the left turn was made, return to field was at least as good an option as ejecting?

Partial power may allow you to stay level or shallow the descent. Either way you want to find a runway, if you can’t, then ejecting is your last option. The first choice is always to find a runway, however there are some phases where it’s clearly impossible and the decision to eject isn’t much of a decision, its the only option.

There was the incident at Atlanta where the pilot ejected but reported abnormalities in the ejection sequence. Do you know what those abnormalities were and if there was some rectification made that would have given Capt. MacDougall full confidence in an ejection choice for him and Capt. Casey. I guess I'm asking if there were lingering issues from Atlanta that may have shaded the choice towards the turnback.

Those abnormalities will be part of the report and when it’s released it will be public. I'll let it disclose the little that I know and hopefully much more. I am told the abnormalities were significant, it's quite lucky that things turned out as well as they did. It is no secret that the seat in the Tutor has had problems over the years. I'm sure everyone who flies it is well aware of its characteristics and the details of Atlanta. I don't think it influenced the decision, the attempt at low key isn't anything new, it is what a Harvard or Hawk pilot would do as well, and the seat in those aircraft is quite good. I don't believe anything has been modified on the Tutor seat in several years. A formal risk assessment would likely be done and have to be approved to return to service.

[tbayav8er]

That’s the quote you chose to unhappy about
The truth hurts I guess ..,., yes it is contrary to flight trading taught in schools right now......... don’t take my word for it go check for yourself.
I have already fully admitted I have no military flying background
However , when it comes to basic flying rules , I am more than qualified.
You can sign up for flying lessons anywhere in the world and you will be taught to stay as straight a possible in an engine failure on take off mode .
Out of my depth ? Lol ok ...., I have asked some questions that some obviously feel uncomfortable . Sorry but this is as an Aviation Forum.
While I have not flown jet aircraft , I do have 40 years of flying experience ,so no I’m not ignorant but thank you for the insult
It’s interesting that you have to result to personal attack but hey this is AVCanada , the home to that kind of behaviour so it’s not surprising . I have no fear of the AV Canada Bullies that lurk here
Further, accusing me of arguing is just a cop out for someone that does not agree with you. I’m the first to admit that there are people here more qualified that some of us therefore I simply want to hear all sides regarding the accident

This incident is no special military only scenario , it’s one that has been played out many many times with the same sad result
Having never heard of the military training that teaches people to turn while in a no power incident, I have asked to see the syllabus but nobody seems to be able to provide.
I’ll end this by saying that if you have a problem with my posts, don’t read them ..... you don’t have to resort to insults .... just move along .

Here's the concern. You are an aviation headcase. Yes, one option is not to read them. But for those who know you are a headcase, the fear is that those who don't will read them, with potentially bad outcomes. Gannett knows more than you do. Waaaay more. He's not saying "Hey, over here, look at me".

There was some guy on here LemonMeringuePye or something like that. He had some pulled from his ass theory about flying approaches behind the power curve and he was adamant that he was right, and that all the sane people who told him he was wrong were just people who lacked his innovative approach to doing plainly stupid things. He was an engineer from Oliver, or so he said.

You're like him. He doesn't come around much. You should emulate him.

Ahh yes resorting to insults because you can’t have a mature discussion
So let’s get this straight ;
I’m a nutcase because I ask questions and look at all the scenarios
Please quote one on my comments that a novice would read that would potentially get them killed .
We all know that turning back to an airport without sufficient speed and altitude will in most cases result in a stall
Spin crash
If a novice reads that and lands straight ahead I’m endangering them ? Please, don’t be ridiculous BUT if some military pilot say it can be fine under certain circumstances and the novice reads that because hey after all the guy flies jets, it’s ok?
That would get the novice pilot killed In most cases
Again I’m a nut case ? How ? , are you some aviation psychiatrist ?
Maybe you should stop resorting to insults When you can’t counter a point and also have someone help you with your insecurities.

Ugh. I had three full paragraphs typed out giving this guy $h!t, but decided not to feed the troll anymore. All I can do is shake my head at this fleet guy. Congrats on your "40 years in aviation". A large percentage of us on here are professional pilots, and a number of people on this forum have military jet, formation, and tutor experience. So learn your audience before you spew your Cessna 172 expertise on people with high performance jet experience.

RIP to Captain Casey, and wishing Captain Macdougall a speedy recovery from this terrible accident. I have a couple of close friends on the team this year, and this is really tough for everyone.

[boeingboy]

I am reposting this here from another thread as It has very insightful discussion from someone who actually did this (flying tactical military jets) Perhaps it is explained differently and will help some people here grasp reality...


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.

[PilotDAR]

I have an honest, rookie question, reminding readers that I have never flown a jet, and claim no experience in that class of aircraft.

Gannet said:

by Gannet167 » Sat May 30, 2020 9:30 pm

............... A 172 glide ratio is about 1:9. A Tutor is closer to 1:12. That means it glides better.

And I take Gannet at his/her word.

And Boeingboy said:

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.

Honest question:

If the Tutor jet glides better than a 172, wouldn't that make it even more suited to an off field landing? Okay, I get that the approach speed may be faster, or the landing gear less suited to a rough surface, but my GA experience tells me that a better gliding plane is usually easier to force land...

I'm not suggesting that I think the Tutor could have been easily force landed, or that the pilot should have attempted this, but I'm just asking a more basic question.... My flying boat glides like a set of car keys, 80 MPH gliding approach, probably doing 1000 FPM down, higher numbers than a 172 (glides less well). But, I can glide land it. Is the Tutor similar?