Originally Posted by
ChrisVJ
While there has been a fair amount of speculation here about 'turning back' I am surprised there has been little discussion but rather only acceptance of the training "Zoom, restart, eject."
I am reliably informed, as several RCAF vets have mentioned, that the training at Moose Jaw is 'Zoom, attempt restart and if fail, eject.' There was no training aimed at turning back. As my kids tell me, (three of them have recently flown Harvards at MJ) there are standing instructions in all sorts of situations to eject rather than attempt to save the aircraft.
I get the reasons for Zoom. There is, if I recall my early principles of flight at Kidlington, the square of the resistance with increasing speed and therefore lowering the speed as quickly as possible will conserve considerable energy which in turn allows more time to make choices. It also increases the height for ejecting, allows for a better situation awareness with regard to terrain, (and in GA for choosing a field, hopefully,)
However, on the other hand it decreases speed (and kinetic energy) far more quickly. It leaves the aircraft close or at least closer, to stalling at the top of zoom and puts in in a state where almost any control input except elevator down can cause a spin. All this in a moment where the pilot is trying a restart, assessing the situation, checking the terrain and deciding if he needs to eject. If the aircraft does level out he does then have more time but if levelling fails you have shortened the 'action time' dramatically.
I counted (roughly) tow, maybe three seconds of zoom and maybe 1 second after the wing went down to ejection. How much longer would the crew have had in a steady climb, level off at 90 knots and glide before reaching, say, the height at which the engine failed and ejecting?
If the "zoom" was a continuation of the climb you would lose more total energy due to drag but you would have more time for assessment and restart attempt, you would have a controllable aircraft and a steady platform for ejection.
I am persuaded by this incident that attitude is at least as important for ejection at low level as height bearing in mind that even this fifty year old seat is 0/60.
My kids all went on to fly helicopters so I have no idea what training they do on fast jets but, bearing in mind that this pilot came from transport I wonder if there is discussion, sim training and briefing for Snowbird pilots but it is accepted that pilots are competent in "Zoom" and there is no further actual practice in pulling out of formation and zooming in EFATO. Maybe an ex Snowbird can tell us.
I could be way off the mark here but it seems a sensible question compared to some of the other theories put forward and " the word handed down through the ages" should be questioned on a regular basis.
First off, to the military guys...is it reasonable to say that the simple fact of the bang, whether coupled with seeing the incoming bird or not, is reason to initiate the zoom and turn away from lead? Nothing else. No horns, lights, just the bang. No evidence of power loss yet.
To Chris above...this is the time sequence between events, with the bang being zero.
Bang 0 secs.
Climb: 1 sec
Turn evident: 5 secs
30 deg bank: 7 seconds
Start of spin: 10 secs
Eject: 16 secs