Originally Posted by
monkey416
Wow dude, You would think someone with your experience would avoid making such a massive assumption/generalization. Facts first my friend. I did a tour instructing on Tutors and turnbacks were not taught nor were they encouraged while I was there, neither were they taught on 2 other aircraft types I was a QFI on in the RCAF. I personally never planned on turning back to a reciprocal while I was flying those jets and I was fortunate to never have been in that position. I dont know what the Snowbird trg syllabus is. I'm not convinced he was turning back and personally I would prefer he get to tell his story to the investigators vice everyone engaging in speculation. I've been involved in enough accident investigations on fighters and trainers over the year to know that even when things are on tape, the reality can be very different than what it appears to be. There have been cases in the CT114 where pilots have lost control because of seat/strap issues in the past. So yeah, there is some stuff on tape but we really don't know what was going on in that cockpit. Various people have put out various theories that may or may not be true. The only thing I am willing to say for sure is that with the amount of time these team members spend in the low level environment, there is really no good reason for them not to have a better seat. We are talking about an escape system where you are out of the envelope in the final turn and in my mind, considering the results of many CT114 ejections, it really is a shame to watch someone else die because of it.
OK, so we disagree. I was taught low level turnbacks a student on the JP way back in 62/63, so I know the procedure, but we did not teach or practice them in my time as a QFI.
So. I stand by my comments based on A my experience on a similar jet and B, the fact that the whole flight is clearly seen on the video. The video SHOWS him turning back, otherwise why turn TOWARDS rising terrain which would effectively reduce his ejection height. If not a turnback, what was it?
Its a long time since I flew and instructed on the 737. On that jet , on certain runways , there
was an emergency turn procedure, which, in the event of engine failure on take off above V1 the turn took one AWAY from terrain, so that terrain clearance was assured despite the reduced climb gradient.
.... and no, I dont know what was going on in the cockpit, but I do have a pretty good idea, which I will keep to myself. The nearest I have been to that was losing an engine in a very heavy Canberra ( big JP on two engines, a potential killer on one) at about 100 feet just after take off, too low and slow to eject on our Mk 2 seats, some choice words were spoken, rapid decisions made but we got away with it, just. If we had had MB Mk4 seats or better we would have been out.
So the Tutor does not have a. CVR or. FDR. so if you have been involved in accident investigation you will know you have an enormous amount of vital evidence but that video is invaluable. The pilot survived, the wreckage is not at the bottom of the sea ,the accident site is accessible. and the engine manufacturers will be able to determine whether or not it was developing thrust at impact, I am confident the real situation will be revealed in due course.
So I will leave it to them, now.
But finally, in this months edition of Sport Aviation, the EAA magazine, there is an excellent article on 180 turnbacks, including NTSB statistics, on such. It was written by a former Shuttle commander and test pilot, so no armchair quarterback or amateur.
Yes, I know it refers to light aircraft but the principles are the same.
Well worth a read, whatever single you fly, you might be surprised, very surprised, at the statistics.
(Although the term altitude is used in the article wheras HEIGHT is the correct term)