Snowbird crash in CYKA

[BTD]

This is hyperbole. But extremes may illustrate sometimes.

The space shuttle had a terrible glide ratio for the last few minutes of the flight, but from the time it started reentry until touchdown it flew halfway around the world starting with an altitude of 400 000 feet. Mind you it started at Mach 25. That’s a hell of a glide ratio. But I can’t imagine any point in that profile when an off airport landing would be favoured.

Now onto a real answer from someone else...

[Gannet167]

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...

Fair question. I believe the weight, relatively higher landing speed, high pressure narrow tires (assuming you even can get or want the gear down) are factors. Certainly hitting trees etc In a very rigid airframe at typical landing speeds isn't great. A softer surface makes a cartwheel likely. If the aircraft stops upside down, the canopy can't be opened and ejection is no longer an option.

I'm not sure glide ratio is that essential in the actual landing, or perhaps better stated, simply because it glides well may not necessarily make it easier to handle in a landing (although glide and landing characteristics may be coincidental or related) nor make it handle the touchdown on an unprepared surface as well. Glide may help you reach a better landing site, but I would guess the shape and size of the belly (or gear, if used) C of G, speed at touchdown, pitch authority, nature of the surface, wind, etc are probably more vital to how easily the aircraft is controlled and how well it handles touch down and deceleration off field.

Getting out requires a bit of work. This varies by design but typically you need to first put your seat pin in to safe the seat so as to not risk the seat firing and killing you, in some aircraft the inter seat sequencer needs to be selected solo before pinning, then 2x parachute risers, 2x seat pack fittings, leg lines, lap belt, oxygen hose, oxygen mask, emergency o2 hose, comcord etc. Then hope the canopy can be opened and your arm isn't broken.

In an aircraft with an ejection seat, particularly a newer 0/0 seat, it doesn't make much sense to attempt an off field landing. The aircraft is likely a write off anyway and survival is questionable. Better to use the seat which generally gives a high degree of survivability.

[cncpc]

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.

I ask about partial power because it does seem like a turnback was the reason for the left bank. In that scenario, Capt. MacDougall is able to make a sound judgment that he has a good chance of saving the aircraft, and the eject option was always available above 60 knots. It is always my approach in these times to refrain from criticism of the pilot until professionals make their report. Even then, I generally pass no remarks. In this case, we have one character who has a different approach. He tries to elevate himself by a self ascribed and superior competence to question the judgment of a pilot who is surely one of the best trained aerial demonstration pilots in the word. And yourself. But, his whole rant has little relevance in the event of a total failure, and none if this initially developed as a partial failure followed by an inadvertent stall/spin. It may be that the situation worsened to a total power loss in the turn, and the wing just dropped. Your man did a hell of a job getting that spin stopped.

I accept your belief that Atlanta wouldn't have caused hesitation on the eject, but one seat did not work at all, and by accounts from the scene it is considered a miracle that Captain MacDougall did survive.

There is no flame observed out of the tailpipe or anywhere else in this whole sequence. What, if anything, do you make of that? I would think if the compressor "stopped" or slowed down, the fuel air mixture in the power section would go off and you'd see the excess fuel in the form of flame out the tailpipe, or is that not a correct view? Is it possible for fuel to be starved from the power section, some type of failure of supply?

[Cleared4TheOption]

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...

Glide ratio means absolutely nothing about the survivability of a forced landing. The important part is the speed with which you impact. A 172 has a best glide of about 60kts and a stall speed somewhere around 40kts. I don't know but I would think a Tutor being a high performance aircraft would have a best glide around 120-140kts and probably a full flap stall over 70 kts. That's getting close to 4 times the kinetic energy if it weighed the same, but this is a much heavier aircraft. Things are far more likely to go wrong or run out of space.

[Cliff Jumper]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

[telex]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

[Cliff Jumper]

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

Which position/statement is up for debate?

[telex]

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

Which position/statement is up for debate?

So you have no military aviation experience?

[Cliff Jumper]

So you have no military aviation experience?

Which of my statement would require military expertise?

The only statement which mentions military is #3, but that is easily google-able.

I still don't understand which point you disagree with.

[telex]

So you have no military aviation experience?

Which of my statement would require military expertise?

3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.

Please expand. Feel free to be specific.

How much energy would remain after a zoom climb?

What would you recommend happen at the top of zoom climb?

How many times have you completed the maneuver?

[Cliff Jumper]

But I didn't suggest any of those things.

You're suggesting that I rewrite military procedure, I'm just saying a turn-back from 1500 isn't a terrible idea.

[telex]

But I didn't suggest any of those things.

You're suggesting that I rewrite military procedure, I'm just saying a turn-back from 1500 isn't a terrible idea.

So as I previously stated; no military aviation experience.

Opinions are nice though.

['97 Tercel]

classic Avcanada exchange

[Cliff Jumper]

In typical fashion, you're arguing just to argue. I'm stating some details that agree with the gentlemen on here that have military experience, and you're saying I can't say the sky is blue because I'm not a meteorologist.

I never suggested any deep knowledge, weird opinions, or anything that's not on google.

Zoom climbs in military trainers at 200kts average 600-900 feet. At 250kts they average 1100-1600.feet. That's from several manuals on google. For example http://www.t6bdriver.com/uploads/6/4/7/ ... 14_fti.pdf

Granted there are some differences for aircraft type. I have no idea what a tutor would be. It wouldn't be zero though.

I haven't flown a rocket either, but I understand there is a flamey firey thing that blows downward. Makes a lot of noise.

[telex]

In typical fashion, you're arguing just to argue. I'm stating some details that agree with the gentlemen on here that have military experience, and you're saying I can't say the sky is blue because I'm not a meteorologist.

I never suggested any deep knowledge, weird opinions, or anything that's not on google.

Zoom climbs in military trainers at 200kts average 600-900 feet. At 250kts they average 1100-1600.feet. That's from several manuals on google. For example http://www.t6bdriver.com/uploads/6/4/7/ ... 14_fti.pdf

Granted there are some differences for aircraft type. I have no idea what a tutor would be. It wouldn't be zero though.

I haven't flown a rocket either, but I understand there is a flamey firey thing that blows downward. Makes a lot of noise.

Ok I got it now.

You have no military aviation experience and a grand total of zero hours in a Tutor.

Thank you for your important opinion.

[Cliff Jumper]

Pot, meet kettle.

[cncpc]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

I accept his credentials and experience. I'm sure lots of other people do as well.

You and your other two ghosts are the only ones that accept yours.

Edited.

[fleet16b]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

I accept his credentials and experience. I'm sure lots of other people do as well.

You and your other two ghosts are the only ones that accept yours.

Shut your piehole. Adults are talking here.

Annnd here is a classic example of why AVCanada is discounted as a legitimate Aviation forum and why so many walk away from it .
Adults ? CNCP, you are very far from that category
Your childish insecurities continue to be front and centre

[fleet16b]

In typical fashion, you're arguing just to argue. I'm stating some details that agree with the gentlemen on here that have military experience, and you're saying I can't say the sky is blue because I'm not a meteorologist.

I never suggested any deep knowledge, weird opinions, or anything that's not on google.

Zoom climbs in military trainers at 200kts average 600-900 feet. At 250kts they average 1100-1600.feet. That's from several manuals on google. For example http://www.t6bdriver.com/uploads/6/4/7/ ... 14_fti.pdf

Granted there are some differences for aircraft type. I have no idea what a tutor would be. It wouldn't be zero though.

I haven't flown a rocket either, but I understand there is a flamey firey thing that blows downward. Makes a lot of noise.

Ok I got it now.

You have no military aviation experience and a grand total of zero hours in a Tutor.

Thank you for your important opinion.

Whether some of us have Tutor time or not the same result happened that we have seen many times in all sections of aviation. One does not have to be a military pilot or have Tutor time etc to be able to form an idea of what most likely happened. There are common fundamentals in aerodynamics that reach across all scenarios and this seems to be one of them.
Low attitude , low speed , loss of lift, stall , spin , crash .
I don’t think anybody here can dispute those facts
I can’t wait to read this investigation but I fear some of the facts may be suppressed .

[AirFrame]

Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left...

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

[fleet16b]

Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left...

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP
Clearly in this case the SOP(which nobody can produce thus far) appears to have not worked for them.
Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat . Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that
It may be SOP but that does not make it correct or safe
Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation
We will see what the investigation brings out
No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

[tsgarp]

Nobody I’ve spoken to about this incident can understand why he would’ve turned left...

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP
Clearly in this case the SOP(which nobody can produce thus far) appears to have not worked for them.
Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat . Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that
It may be SOP but that does not make it correct or safe
Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation
We will see what the investigation brings out
No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

I know when we practiced similar scenarios in the Harvard II it was not uncommon to zoom towards low key for a PFL.

[Rockie]

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP

I doubt you'd find it written anywhere except possibly a basic formation briefing. But you can take it as fact from a former CF-18 pilot that if you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position. It is basic formation discipline that saves lives.

You may recall a C130 crash in Edmonton where a 3 plane formation overhead break was planned and briefed to deliberately lose sight of each other during the turn to downwind. The break was planned with appropriate intervals between aircraft, and each sequential aircraft was supposed to use 1/2 G less in the turn to further ensure separation. Guess what happened?

Rule # 1. Don't lose sight of lead.
Rule # 2. If you lose sight of lead turn away from their last known position.

You can believe experienced military pilots who did this day in/day out or you can believe your flying club buddies. Your pick.

[fleet16b]

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP

I doubt you'd find it written anywhere except possibly a basic formation briefing. But you can take it as fact from a former CF-18 pilot that if you lose sight of lead you turn away from their last known position. It is basic formation discipline that saves lives.

You may recall a C130 crash in Edmonton where a 3 plane formation overhead break was planned and briefed to deliberately lose sight of each other during the turn to downwind. The break was planned with appropriate intervals between aircraft, and each sequential aircraft was supposed to use 1/2 G less in the turn to further ensure separation. Guess what happened?

Rule # 1. Don't lose sight of lead.
Rule # 2. If you lose sight of lead turn away from their last known position.

You can believe experienced military pilots who did this day in/day out or you can believe your flying club buddies. Your pick.

Rockie
Thank you for your response
I mentioned the SOP because some of the (ex) Military people here refer to the maneuver as being part of it
It would be both an educational and interesting to read .
Obviously this discussion consists of the many possible scenarios that could have caused the accident . All of them are plausible reasons in spite of some of the comments.
At this point I’m not believing anyone and will be interested to read the Investigation Report.

[fleet16b]

Nobody? So, nobody in your group of non-military friends with no formation experience. How about the dozen or so military or military-aware people here on AvCanada who all say this is SOP?

Yes some , not all of the military guys have stated that
I have requested someone post the SOP so that we may all see it but nobody has come forward with said SOP
Clearly in this case the SOP(which nobody can produce thus far) appears to have not worked for them.
Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat . Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear ? It certainly appears that they did that
It may be SOP but that does not make it correct or safe
Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation
We will see what the investigation brings out
No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

I know when we practiced similar scenarios in the Harvard II it was not uncommon to zoom towards low key for a PFL.

Thanks I understand that that may be SOP
However , looking at the videos , it appears that he either made the left turn after the zoom to low key or the zoom caused enough airspeed loss to induce a stall dropping the left wing.