Harvard II ejection Moosejaw, Jan 24/14

[CFR]

Yep, first Harvard II the CF destroys since they got them, almost 14 years ago.

How bad was the Harvard damaged that had the ground ejection?

[trampbike]

It was off the flight line for a while (I don't know how long), but it is flying today.

[karmutzen]

Nice thing about the internet you can look at a few hundred gear malfunction landings, I don't buy the "better to eject" argument. In this case all they had was an unsafe gear indication - could have been just the prox switch and landing might have been fine, or it might have folded and they'd slide to a stop.

This isn't the TSB, this is a casual chat forum where we can freely judge every single event brought to our attention. I laughed like hell when I read the reason they'd bailed, the only sobering fact was my taxpayer wallet was 10 million lighter.

[iflyforpie]

Nice thing about the internet you can look at a few hundred gear malfunction landings.

That's great. How many of them were jammed or asymmetrical extension? Of those, how many were written off anyways? How many had a canopy that could easily jam if the plane was overturned?

Like I said earlier, the plane was doomed as soon as the gear jammed. It might have been a $10,000,000 plane, but it cost you as a tax payer less than you spent on that double double.

[GyvAir]

I know, I know. The nerve..

Ah yes, no AvCanada accident thread would be complete without at least one poster admonishing or mocking another for expressing curiosity and speculating about the details of an event and not waiting for the official report to be issued in due course by the proper authorities.
Is the irony/hypocrisy of the fact that they too are reading the exact same open forum about the event? Reading it out of what, a somehow more valid or perhaps more professional curiosity than the rest of us? For those that don’t wish to witness or take part in the unofficial discussion and speculation, I’m sure you can sign up for some variety of media feed from TSB Canada for the civilian side of things. No suggestions for staying on top of military reports.

Anyways.. 4 days after all the mainstream news sources were reporting on the event, the CADORS has been updated to state that the occupants did in fact eject from the aircraft, but alas, not much more to sate our curiosity:

Date Entered:
2014-01-28
Narrative:
UPDATE: JRCC Daily SAR Summary for January 24 [T2014-00099]: (501982N 1053355W - CA60262 : MOOSE JAW AIR VICE MARSHAL C M MCEWEN). 406 personal locator beacons picked up by SARSAT. Moose Jaw contacted JRCC and advised that Harvard 156102 had crashed South of Moose Jaw airport. Both pilots ejected safely and both ‘seatpack’ ELTs activated and were turned off. Emergency vehicles arrived on scene and picked up the pilots. No further assistance required. Case closed.
O.P.I.:
Further Action Required:
No

[GyvAir]

So, out of curiosity only, having elected to eject from an aircraft such as this, with the luxury of a bit of time to think about it, is there a mechanism in place to control where the $4-11 million aircraft touches down? Can the autopilot be set to direct it to a nice open field, pre-selected for such an occasion? Can it be controlled to some degree by remote control? (This is rampant speculation on my part about the capabilities of a military aircraft with a fancy avionics suite) Or, do you just set the trim for what you think will be a reasonable rate of descent with the sans-pilot CofG and lack of canopy and hope it doesn't leave the province, or find the one farmhouse in the vicinity of its flight path?

[trey kule]

You are correct. I was mocking you. The same way I mock the people who rush to see an accident, and gather to revel in the misery of others

Now as to your last post....there is, or was a CF5 on a pedestal outside CFB Cold Lake.

The story , iIRC , was that the pilot made a little oopsie and selected gear down at to high a speed. Gear disappeared. He punched out. The plane went on to belly land in a field...structural damage resulted in the aircraft being written off, but otherwise looks good, and was placed on top of the pedestal.
Someone there could probably verify this and correct any errors I made.

As to the harvard, they had lots of time and a visual inspection by another aircraft, so I would think they probably said goodbye where its final resting place would not cause to much damage.

There are some rather humorous stories about such incidents. In one instance a plane was scrambled with the intention of shooting down the damaged plane after the pilots ejected. Plane pitched up, stalled, and proceeded to go the earth with nary a shot being fired.

Its interesting how so many are fixed on the cost of the plane, and show absolutely no concern that there were actually two people in it making literally a possible life or death decision. They chose what they believed to be the lesser of two evils. And that should be the end of the story.

I have every faith in the military to investigate the accident, determine why the gear was damaged, make an analysis of it, and , if changes need to be made, make them. It is a different world than the civilian world, and a very different world from the twitter generation.

I am done with this thread

[GyvAir]

You are correct. I was mocking you. The same way I mock the people who rush to see an accident, and gather to revel in the misery of others

No problem.. I just hope you realize that for all intents and purposes, you are standing cheek by jowl, looking at the same thing, for a selection of the same variety of reasons as those you're mocking.
In any case, I'm happy nobody was hurt too. I'm not questioning the judgement of the flight crew or any of those on the scene advising them. I'm sure all involved in the decision were well informed and competent. Just like many others in the industry though, I have what I consider to be a healthy technical curiosity as to what happened to cause an event and how it was dealt with. Sure, we could talk about it perhaps better informed a year or two from now when a report is issued. If I happen to notice a report being issued, I probably will talk about it then. But, reality is, human nature is to talk about an item when it's news, not old news. So, here we are.

Thanks for the ejection stories.

Edit: My only reason for mentioning the $4-11 million was playing on other posts I’ve read here over the last few days discussing the unit cost and what makes them the price they are, including some presumably whiz-bang avionics.

Edit: Not that it matters in the least what I would have done, as I have no involvement and chances of my ever flying an aircraft with the option to eject are roughly 0.0%, but yeah the cost of the aircraft would have crossed my mind and been a consideration. In the end though, to quote another AvCanada poster from another thread here involving a mechanical failure leading to a damaged aircraft:

I woulda done the same thing. When that bitch fails on me at the worst possible moment, I don't owe it a goddamned thing.

[trampbike]

I don't buy the "better to eject" argument. In this case all they had was an unsafe gear indication - could have been just the prox switch and landing might have been fine, or it might have folded and they'd slide to a stop.

Do you actually know that it was only an unsafe gear indication? Back in your lane.

I laughed like hell when I read the reason they'd bailed, the only sobering fact was my taxpayer wallet was 10 million lighter.

The aircraft was owned by Bombardier and privately insured, your wallet is unaffected.

So, out of curiosity only, having elected to eject from an aircraft such as this, with the luxury of a bit of time to think about it, is there a mechanism in place to control where the $4-11 million aircraft touches down? Can the autopilot be set to direct it to a nice open field, pre-selected for such an occasion?

There is no autopilot on the Harvard II. It's a basic trainer and IFR is thaught without the help of an autopilot at this stage of training. Heck the GPS has to be turned off for the first instrument test. Controlled ejection: climb to a safe altitude (about 4000'AGL), set the aircraft on the bailout vector (only empty fields in that direction), trim heavily nose down, punch out.

Like I said earlier, the plane was doomed as soon as the gear jammed. It might have been a $10,000,000 plane, but it cost you as a tax payer less than you spent on that double double.

And in this case, it actually cost 0$ to the taxpayers.

[CFR]

Unless things have changed dramatically over the years (I understand the new seat is a "softer" eject) the decision to eject (when there is time to make such a decision) is not taken lightly. While incredibly reliable these days, ejections have their own dangers. I am confident in the crews training and believe that with the assistance they got from the other AC and help from the ground, they chose the safest course of action. There is no CF pilot that I know who would chose to eject for the fun of it!

PS As a taxpayer I am glad that our Air Force has good equipment available to protect the lives of the people who protect me! I don't much care about the aircraft in a case like this.

[Rowdy]

You folk are seriously still bickering about this????

[iflyforpie]

Like I said earlier, the plane was doomed as soon as the gear jammed. It might have been a $10,000,000 plane, but it cost you as a tax payer less than you spent on that double double.

And in this case, it actually cost 0$ to the taxpayers.

Cool, so 5,000,000 of us simultaneously won a free coffee on Roll Up The Rim To Win!

[trampbike]

As I wrote before, it is part of the contract: Bombardier is responsible for the aircrafts. They are privately insured.

[Donald]

You folk are seriously still bickering about this????

Is there a reason to not discuss this particular incident?

Is it off-limits for some reason?

[Rowdy]

You folk are seriously still bickering about this????

Is there a reason to not discuss this particular incident?

Is it off-limits for some reason?

No, I just think its ridiculous that people are still bickering over whether it was the right choice to eject or not. The joys of avcanada

[Donald]

No, I just think its ridiculous that people are still bickering over whether it was the right choice to eject or not. The joys of avcanada

You new here?

First Air, Borek, Northern Thunderbird, etc, etc. Lots of crashes, some higher profile than others, all of them emotionally connected to some posters but interesting to almost all posters.

This particular crash is interesting to a lot of pilots simply because ejecting is not an option for them.

I for one am curious why the gear was damaged from a touch and go.

Let the discussion, pontificating, and speculating continue....

[trampbike]

I for one am curious why the gear was damaged from a touch and go.

It was damaged because of a hard landing.

[Gannet167]

Over 200,000 hours, probably well over a million landings, and one hard landing - not a bad record for a relatively high performance aircraft doing somewhat challenging maneuvers with pilots who are sent solo after about 10 hours on an 1100 hp, 300 kt machine. Most of them with less than 40 hrs total time.

So, out of curiosity only, having elected to eject from an aircraft such as this, with the luxury of a bit of time to think about it, is there a mechanism in place to control where the $4-11 million aircraft touches down??

If the pilot has time to execute a controlled ejection, there is a bailout radial that is specified from the on field VOR. This takes the plane into an uninhabited area. Generally, it's trimmed nose down before the ejection.

I don't buy the "better to eject" argument. In this case all they had was an unsafe gear indication - could have been just the prox switch and landing might have been fine, or it might have folded and they'd slide to a stop.... I laughed like hell when I read the reason they'd bailed

Try reading the previous posts. They did not merely have an unsafe indication. Do you really think the AF would have people eject for an unsafe gear indication? Do you have any idea how many ejections would have happened this week alone if that were the case? There was a chase plane in close formation that observed the damage. Parts were found on the runway. It was obvious what they had - the gear was barely connected to the aircraft, not a simple prox switch. Experts with many thousands of hours on type and vast technical knowledge of the aircraft were involved and the decisions taken were not done lightly.

You may laugh like hell, but there are several examples of aircraft ending up upside down, with no possible egress for the crew out of the upward opening canopy while the post crash fire burned. Had that happened here, everyone would be crying "why didn't they just eject??? That's what the seat is for - to not put human life in unnecessary peril."

[lownslow]

Question for the RCAF guys here:

I assume you have some sort of dispatch (maybe it has a cooler military name) in near constant contact with all RCAF aircraft in the area. Let's say all of a sudden their radio comes to life with, "Hey dudes, we got a problem here. Might have to eject." What happens next?

I know what the procedure is at my company when something is going wrong and you have time to talk about it, I'm curious to know the similarities and differences between that and the military way.

LnS.

[bradley]

Question for the RCAF guys here:

I assume you have some sort of dispatch (maybe it has a cooler military name) in near constant contact with all RCAF aircraft in the area. Let's say all of a sudden their radio comes to life with, "Hey dudes, we got a problem here. Might have to eject." What happens next?

I know what the procedure is at my company when something is going wrong and you have time to talk about it, I'm curious to know the similarities and differences between that and the military way.

LnS.

In Moose Jaw, each fleet has it's own "ops". That's where pilots sign planes in and out and the ops guys on duty would have been in contact with the aircraft. I haven't flown the Harvard in a few years, but ops is who you call if you need technical advice; there is an instructor on duty, plus the maintenance guys are right next to them. Arranging another aircraft to come and inspect the gear, like what happened in this case, could be coordinated through the tower or ops.

For those who seem to think they should have belly landed, the Harvard II does belly land like a dream (titanium strips under the wings and all), but that only works if you can get all the gear up. Landing with only one gear extended, or one of the mains stuck part-way or damaged is a recipe for losing control once you touch down. In fact, the emergency procedures actually say to consider an ejection in certain landing gear scenarios. Remember you are sitting in a big bubble, you would be trapped if that thing flipped.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Try reading the previous posts.

Boy you are sure setting the bar high.

For some posters actually making the effort to see what information has already been posted would just get in the way of their mindless rants.

Anyway from the published information my personal opinion is these guys made the best of a bad situation. I knew a guy who died in a T 28 landing accident. The airplane wound up upside down but intact with no fire but he was crushed to death in his seat. Looking at how high the GIB sits in the Harvard I would not want to take the risk.

[Donald]

I for one am curious why the gear was damaged from a touch and go.

It was damaged because of a hard landing.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, why the go after such a hard touch?

Are military touch and goes different from civilian ones, some sort of carrier training?

[North Shore]

And in this case, it actually cost 0$ to the taxpayers.

Nonsense. Agreed that there's no direct cost to us, but Bombardier doesn't supply the aircraft for free. Yes, they are insured, but insurance companies are in business to make money - lots of it, so they won't be giving away a replacement aircraft. Premiums will go up, and Bom will either put their rates up, or accounted for x hull losses per x flight hours, and we are paying for it that way...
Agreed, again, that it's probably costing us less than the cost of a dubbledubble per year. OTOH. a nickel here, a nickel there, as far as the government is concerned, and we're talking millions pretty quickly!

[Pop n Fresh]

And in this case, it actually cost 0$ to the taxpayers.

Nonsense. Agreed that there's no direct cost to us, but Bombardier doesn't supply the aircraft for free. Yes, they are insured, but insurance companies are in business to make money - lots of it, so they won't be giving away a replacement aircraft. Premiums will go up, and Bom will either put their rates up, or accounted for x hull losses per x flight hours, and we are paying for it that way...
Agreed, again, that it's probably costing us less than the cost of a dubbledubble per year. OTOH. a nickel here, a nickel there, as far as the government is concerned, and we're talking millions pretty quickly!

Three cheers and trip to Caesars steak house is in order for that.

It's not as simple as "privatization is bad." It can be as simple as adding a requirement to make a profit competes with wastefully doing things at cost.

Those planes have enough hours on them that I presume they were close to fully rebuilt via maintenance. Who has that contract?

I made a new thread to chat about this sort of thing outside of this area. We even found out bombardier is not supplying them at all, a separate company is. They bought the planes with bonds purchased by people with more money than you. It's a "non-profit" company but they will own some assets at the end. Unlike the military they will sell the planes and then? Profit, again that money won't go to you either. Unless you are heavily involved in Milit-air, in which case we should hang out and go flying. I'm off on Thursdays currently.

[Outlaw58]

I for one am curious why the gear was damaged from a touch and go.

It was damaged because of a hard landing.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, why the go after such a hard touch?

Are military touch and goes different from civilian ones, some sort of carrier training?

You have to picture this:

A VERY hard landing (so hard that it damages the gear!) and a big bounce back in the air. Choices: up or down? Down will hurt like hell so up it is…Full throttle, overshoot and let's gather our thoughts and think about this.

The rest has been covered at length. Don't touch anything gear related for now, meet with a chase plane, observe gear damage, report findings to pilot/tower/ops, even if gear goes down parts of it are still on the runway so does it go up? NOPE. Talk some more with ops, review options and decision to jettison the plane is made.

Btw, I wasn't there all all my info comes from this thread. But I am pretty sure that is very close to how things went down. BZ for all involved.

JP