CF 18 down, Lethbridge, Alberta.

[fltlt]

Practicing for this weekends airshow, CF 18 goes down, pilot ejected ok.

CF-18 crashes, burns at Lethbridge airport (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/crashes+Lethbridge/3315226/story.html?tab=PHOT)

[mbenz7846]

Some additional pictures here of the last few seconds:

Lethbridge CF-18 jet fighter crash - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/lethbridge-cf-18-jet-fighter-crash/article1650255/)

[The Nr Fairy]

More pictures.

Photoblog - Pilot ejects an instant before fighterjet crashes (http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/23/4739027-pilot-ejects-an-instant-before-fighterjet-crashes)

[Double Zero]

Fltlt,

" Ejected the plane " - well that's one way of looking at it !

[Bigt]

In the video.....is that realy `Staying alive` by the Bee Gees being played on the PA?

Some of the still photos appear to show exhaust nozzles at different diameters as the pilot leaves

[jayteeto]

Ouch, those pictures show him with his chin on his chest, he must feel like he has been headbanging at a Motorhead concert this morning!
Good news that he got out safely, as Whacky Wheeler used to say...... "Chief can I have another jet please? This one seems to be broken"!!!

[Bullethead]

Here's a link to the vid.

CF-18 fighter jet crashes in Lethbridge (http://www.globallethbridge.com/story.html?id=3315229)

Lucky boy!

Regards,
BH.

[Craven Moorhed]

I'm glad 'Boozer' got out OK.
Amazing pics & vid.

[BOAC]

Ouch, those pictures show him with his chin on his chest- very easy to do if the ejection decision is sudden (as this would have been) and there is no time to brace back against the headrest. I finished up with two huge black bruises beneath my eyes where the oxy mask was pushed in and some neck/shoulder strain that took a while to go away - but preferable to the other option:)

[Buster Hyman]

Is it just the angle, or did the top of the seat hit the canopy away from the aircraft? :confused:

[Lightning Mate]

That brings back vivid memories of my 'chute opening low over the fireball.

Sharpens the mind no end.

[Rhys S. Negative]

Very reminiscent of Anatoly Kvotchur's exit from the MiG-29 at Le Bourget, which was due to asymmetric engine response at the crucial moment, as Bigt suggests.

[DelaneyT]

Looks like a* 'slow-speed' *{practice} demonstration pass just above the runway... with a classic aerodynamic stall.
*
*
Likely cause ??
*
*
What is the most common cause of airshow type mishaps, from historical safety investigation data ?
*
*
:(

[Finn47]

When the canopy flies away, at roughly 0:26 in the video, two bright flashes can be seen on both sides of the canopy which most likely came from the canopy jettison system rocket motors? Watch it in full screen and pause it at 0:26 and a half.

[Lightning Mate]

pass just above the runway... with a classic aerodynamic stall.

Maybe loss of dynamic directional stability at high alpha. My aeroplane suffered that.


What is the most common cause of airshow type mishaps, from historical safety investigation data ?

Total lack of skill by the pilot - that's what.


"Ejected the plane" - well that's one way of looking at it !

Sure is.....!!!

LM
(Competition winner IAT 1976).

[jimgriff]

Buster- It's the angle of the pic- The canopy was well clear of the seat.
Lucky guy! They don't come much closer than that.:\

[Lightning Mate]

They don't come much closer than that

Some do............

[rigpiggy]

Look very closely at the photos, the aircraft lost an engine in high alpha flight similar to what happened in Paris to the Mig 29. The left jet nozzle is full open one as normally would be expected at at full burner and the right nozzle is closed. In the next photo, there is a gout of flame from the left engine, but not the right this is probably due to the engine ingesting the fuel/flame. In addition the the aircraft rolled right most likely due to full power, and below Vmc min control speed where the aerodynamics of the rudder do not have enough power to overcome the yaw/roll response.
Read more: CBC News - Calgary - Fighter jet crashes at Alberta airport (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html#socialcomments#ixzz0ubkKgA9r)

[hoodie]

rigpiggy"]Read more: CBC News - Calgary - Fighter jet crashes at Alberta airport (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/07/23/lethbridge-crash-cf18-airshow-military-plane-alberta.html#socialcomments#ixzz0ubkKgA9r) [/COLOR]

I know it's hardly news, but Lord - aren't there some weird people in this World? :eek:

According to several Canucks on the discussion thread at that CBC link, this was no accident - it was deliberately pre-planned by their Government in order to justify the CAF procurement of F-35. :8

[Tankertrashnav]

Some do............


Come on, Lightning Mate, do tell, we're dying to know!

[Buster Hyman]

Thanks Jim...of what little I know, I just couldn't see how they'd both fire in such a way to cause that risk.

[Lightning Mate]

Tankertrashnav,

Go Goggle:

Accident Jaguar T2 XX828 01 June 1981

Me got MB handle.......wanna pic?

.... or you wanna know about IAT aerobatic trophy?

wannanuvver pic?

All you have to do is ask.

[WeeWinkyWilly]

What is the most common cause of airshow type mishaps, from historical safety investigation data?I'm still haunted by some of the mistakes that I made over many low-level displays (jets/big radials/ 4 engined/glider/helo). I guess it's just a stage that you can go through in a military career. The motivation was never to stun the crowd, it was always that you had to/needed to show your peers that you could "cut the mustard".....mixed in with an element of immortality and "it won't ever happen to me". The mistakes were many and varied. On one (grad parade), due to comms difficulties with the Master of Ceremonies, I'd forgotten to arm the smoke before rolling inverted at 300ft overhead and pushing during the high-speed advent pass from behind the crowd. I then fumbled the initial lunge for the side-panel switch, and due to inattention/lack of "push", never quite getting the post-overflight inverted zoom height for the pull-through back over the parade ground. That ensuing pull-through was on the buzz/buffet/judder and I had absolutely nothing left to play with (but they told me later that it had sounded "awesome" all the way round the bottom) - and yes, with that all important visual aid of "smoke".

On an earlier display, after the work-up practice sessions at the satellite, I inadvertently left the ventral speedbrake out for the hammerhead tail-slide over the parade ground.....as well as over-pitching and not nailing it in the true vertical. To complicate matters I had a "licenced to interfere" rear-seater. Because of the extended board and due to the fully forward correcting stick input, it fell on its back and we did a turn of an inverted spin before the couples sorted themselves out and we found the nose-down vertical for the half-roll to line and pullout. My vivid memory is of the crowd below splitting to the four points of the compass - toute suite. The RH gear went unsafe (M.I. barber-pole) during the pull-out but I pressed on with the display. Why? The show must go on. I excused myself for that verticality cock-up on the grounds that the check-pilot in the rear had tried to show me his version of my display over the satellite airfield ten minutes earlier - and very nearly cancelled our tickets. I was not hyperventilating, but I was distracted. Anybody would be.
I resolved to get it right for the next grad, but for that, I managed a wholly different can of jackanapes. The final flypast to conclude the display involved approaching the dais at 300ft agl from crowd-front, erect, configured, whilst extreme-yawing L&R, wings-level, in orchestral metronomic syncopation with the band music. The final application of left-ruddered yaw was rushed due to a tailwind, the urgency being to peel off to the right in an accelerating steep turn whilst still short of the dais and while cleaning up. Unfortunately, running out of room, I broke the natural yawing cadence and overcooked it. Due to surprise (and bum reflexes), I only realised it as I was flicking past 90 degrees of left bank. I had little choice but to continue the rapid LH roll through the inverted and pull hard, converting to a dishing steep-turn right (and overspeeding the gear retraction). Friends on the ground, and familiar with the standard display, thought I was just cockily extemporising. I wasn't.

On another type (4 eng), due to a late night I screwed up the time hack at the briefing and ended up mixing it up with a formation of 4 Canberras- through departing the IP a minute early. I still have visions of aircraft flashing by left and right as they broke. Friends in the crowd told me that it looked for all the world like a coordinated cross-over and nobody criticised the inept stunt. Lead Nav told me later that he'd suspected that I'd got the on-stage time wrong, but said nothing.

In yet another fiasco, during a practice over the base I let the jet's nose drop badly during a garbage roll at 300 ft AGL. I'd always had limited success with that maneuver up to that point, yet I was loathe to drop it from my display..... as it was traditional. A visiting two-star brass-hat saw it and I got carpeted - but they never did any more than question my judgment.... not my competence, nor technique. I'd actually thought I was dead (face full of ground only) - and don't know to this day how I extricated myself. I eventually nailed that maneuver, as I had to. Why? Because it was always included in that display - no matter who flew it. The trick was to enter the roll nose-low and pitching up whilst adding power. Nobody ever told me, I worked it out for myself. In those years, one's training for displays was limited to getting nominated and sitting rear-seat with the incumbent for a run-through (two if you were lucky).

For the jet trainer display I developed a phobia about doing the stall turn at low-level and always did a very unobvious slow and ballistic wing-over in lieu. Whilst it was a solution for the phobia, it was probably more hazardous than a properly executed stall turn. But the phobia stemmed from a hung-up, over-ruddered stall turn over a satellite airfield. Nobody at home there. It would have been a very lonely unobserved death, a tell-tale pall of smoke in the far distance and no "ops normal" call. Later, in the big radial, I developed a phobia about doing anything but a stall turn to the right at low-level. That meant that, to be true to my tight sequence, I always had to enter the arena from stage right. I had many animated discussions with leader people at air-show briefs who just wouldn't accept that quirky foible. The rotten machine just didn't want to go round to the left - against engine/prop torque - so it was quintessentially a matter of survival to hold sway in any such argument. I flew that display so many times, mainly because of initial under-confidence, that I eventually became complacent. Two events nearly brought me back to earth. The first was a radio dropping out of its rack-mount during an inverted loop and the second was due to that uncontrollable variable of undetected wind-drift. The XO had already warned me about my Derry reversing too close to the display line and here I was, about to overfly the crowd-line. Halfway through the Derry I converted into an inverted turn away and became totally disoriented. I watched video of it later and it almost looked intentional, but it was merely a panic-stricken last-ditch attempt to avert further verbal laceration from the XO. So maybe you don't want to hear it, but more often than anybody would ever realise, display pilots are often reacting like a trapped mongoose. Whether victims of circumstance, nonchalance, overconfidence or just poor judgment, you will often be watching a man in impure survival mode - but never realising it unless a tragedy happens.

I normally felt at home in close formation at low-level but whilst playing "follow the leader/catch me if you can" at 300ft over my leader's AirForce alma mater one Sunday, returning from an air display, I instantly learnt the value of never underexpecting the unexpected. Without telling me, he'd let his buddies know that we'd be over at a particular time. I was slowly realising something was afoot because Lead had entered a quick orbit then set heading, leaving me on his wing on listening watch on the enroute VHF whilst himself slipping over to a secret UHF freq for a private chat with his mates. I wasn't privy and just staying riveted in echelon right when I suddenly saw lead enter what I initially discerned as a roll into a RH turn at 300ft. He may have called it - but on his "silent" freq. Almost too late, I realised that he'd apparently forgotten I was there and was slow-rolling right (i.e. into me) in the ontop. I popped up and slow-rolled to the left (over him) into echelon left. He never mentioned it later and obviously just assumed that I'd copied his R/T advisory and coped well with his oblivious pecadillo roll. In the interest of a quiet life and continued friendship, I never took him to task. Error leads to later terror.
On yet another 4Eng type an older, more mature WeeWinky developed an impressive end of display exit stage right that involved a lightweight, well below VMCA maximap flapped climb from 100ft to 3500ft at a body angle of around 45 degrees nose-up. Copilot was quite junior and trusting, but FE's were old salts and unhappy about it. I rationalised that even if we lost an outboard we were so light-weight that I could simply bring the symmetrical engine's P/L back quickly and stuff the nose down. Nobody in authority ever questioned the questionable practice and it became a standard. So much for authorisation and supervision in the days of yore. The impressive display sequence was the driver. Safety was all about not getting it wrong, never about safety buffers for malfunctions and misjudgment.... but I had that selectively covered too. CO had been hammering the more junior non-QFI display pilot for a series of overstresses. His excuse was that the g meter was well outa sight. I didn't have that problem. The g meter from my sailplane was always masking-taped to the AoA chevrons on the coaming in front of me - for my tight shenanigans.

But the closest I ever came to oblivion was in accepting a last minute invite to display a Blanik at a glider meet. As a grand finale to an impromptu thrown together sequence of barrells, slow-rolls, stall turns and loops, I dove short of the threshold, pulling up at 10feet/95knots for what was supposed to look like a loop but culminating in a severe nose down bunt with a simultaneous gear down and flap and flare. I'd done it previously with great flare in a plastic sailplane but the Blanik had quite different aerodynamics. The bunting transition to nose down was commenced far too slow and way too nose-high and that nose was very slow coming down to gain anything like flare-speed. The transition to flare was almost 20 knots slow but with max flap and the gear went down at touchdown - and the oleo bottomed out. The video looked good later and the clapping was genuinely enthusiastic as I raised the canopy. However a closer examination of the video disclosed a dark green stain down the lower front of the khaki-green flight suit. I've never come closer to screwing the pooch. It was my last ever flying "display". I never go to airshows nowadays as it would be too traumatic for both me and my family to see someone buy the farm. Those who've never done "display" should always consider their motivation for doing it and the high probability of becoming a statistic... or worse, doing a Ramstein rehash. There were many more incidents than those cited above but I became expert at rationalising my short-comings and congratulating myself for adapting to the situation (i.e. getting away with it yet again). It was only with elderly hindsight that I ultimately realised that I was surviving not by skill or cunning - but only by the Grace of God.

[Tankertrashnav]

Bloody hell Lightning Mate - and I get annoyed when a gull nicks me pasty on the harbourside at St Ives!

Go on - lets all see the pics!

(I notice that was a bad year for Hunters - 5 lost out of what I assume was a tiny fleet)

[Lightning Mate]

Bloody hell Lightning Mate - and I get annoyed when a gull nicks me pasty on the harbourside at St Ives!

Go on - lets all see the pics!

Sorry mate - no pics of the crash site, but standby for IAT Trophy and MB handle.

LM

[John Farley]

rigpiggy

How nice when somebody actually looks at the evidence and knows what they are talking about.

As for loss of directional control at hight alpha in an F-18 a few LERX lessons are perhaps indicated.

[StopStart]

LM, is this you......?

Greenham 1976 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgfYOLKDXZg)

A brief glimpse at 1:50...
:)

Glad to see the FA18 chap got out safely

[G-CPTN]

BBC News - Pilot escapes from fighter jet moments before crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10748900)

[glad rag]

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00782/crash1_782081gm-f.jpg

[Samuel]

A great advert for Martin Baker...

I have witnessed a number of ejections, three in fact, although two were from the same 64 Sqn Javelin at Tengah in 1966. The throttle locks engaged, apparently, on short finals, and the thing about live ejections is that there is a moment of slight incredulity at what you're watching.There's a moment of "well, you don't see that every day". The canopy flies off, then two bangs in quick succession. Oddly enough the aircraft sort of landed itself in a convenient paddy field. When I collected the pilot, a Flt Lt, walking along the road, it turned it to be his third ejection. He looked as though a single malt and a cigarette would have been welcome, but I unfortunately had neither! I think 64 might have held the record for ejections from Javelins!

[Arm out the window]

Bravely told and sobering tales, WWW. Well worth a read for anyone involved in display flying.

[Cobra98]

Note the rudders are hard over to the left.

In the video you can hear him bring the throttles up, then he brings them up more and the aircraft departs.

[GreenKnight121]

The F/A-18 seems to have a tendency towards asymmetrical nozzle status just before impact at airshow crashes... the stills from just before impact on this one show the same "one open, one closed" configuration.

WWW, I'm sure you appreciate how "helpful" Tower is being to this senior USMC aviator (Colonel Jerry Cadick)... (the listed cause was "disorientation leading to failure to properly execute maneuver"... it was supposed to be a "square Immelman", but he failed to roll 90° at the top before pulling back, thus heading down instead of horizontally away from the crowd).

YouTube - FA-18 El Toro Airshow Crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keCnK4kh65U)

Fortunately, he survived and flew again after major surgery (severe facial fractures, etc).

[MightyGem]

It was my last ever flying "display".
Jesus WWW, it took you long enough to take the hint! :eek:

[Capn Bloggs]

WeeWillyWinky,
The motivation was never to stun the crowd, it was always that you had to/needed to show your peers that you could "cut the mustard"
How true. Thank you very much for your post; very enlightening. :ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

LM, as for following the aircraft int the fireball, this seems a pretty regular occurence, such that it is suprising that the seat rockets are not also programmed to change the trajectory.

I am thinking of the Buccaneer en route Paris Air Show IIRC that clipped the tanker and the crew landed in the fireball or F4 at, I think Lajes, that was hit by a tanker and again the crew banged out and landed in the fireball.

I found another Buccaneer incident in the 50s though I could not find a reference to the one I mentioned en route paris so I may have been mistaken.

[clunckdriver]

Having spent a season entertaining the "Ice Cream Lickers" the point must be made that the average Joe in the crowd wouldnt know if the aircraft was at max Alpa or fifteen degrees less, my point being why risk both the aircraft and your neck to demonstrate to less than one in ten thousand that even when flying in lousy conditions with a hangover that you can fly the aircraft to its limit? Only once in a full season did anyone mention to me "you are cheating in your loops, Yes I am," I replied," but I will be here in one piece at the end of the season" . The keener who replaced me managed to kill himself after just a few shows. Well do I remember a BBC interview wth Fangio, in my mind the greatest F1 driver ever, when asked how fast he intended to go he replied, "only just fast enough to win". If one is doing a demo for potential buyers of your airplane then it might pay to fly to the limit, but for Joe Public its a waste of time and effort, as well as not worth the risk to ones own butt!

[Neptunus Rex]

Pontius Nav
Shortly after the Paris event, the Bucc pilot told me that he was convinced that he had left his ejection too late, and that the thermal from the fireball actually helped open his canopy!

[sitigeltfel]

as for following the aircraft int the fireball, this seems a pretty regular occurence, This happened to the Patrouille de France pilot, Athos 2, when he crashed near here a few months back. As well as the standard ejection injuries, he received minor burns before being pulled clear of burning undergrowth by spectators and passing motorists.

[PFR]

This image is pretty awesome also...all that metal about to impact....thankfully "sans pilote" courtesy MB..:ok:

http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/images/users/900/james-cheng/4739046.jpg

[Arcanum]

as for following the aircraft int the fireball, this seems a pretty regular occurence

This Harrier pilot was fortunate (sort of) that he was over water:

YouTube - You don't see this every day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5uEguTYq3U)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Quite interesting, appropriate even that the music playing in the background of the Canuckdian CF-18 crash video was 'Staying Alive'!:ok:

And, there's no way that jet was anywhere near its Alpha limits...may have been a little slow though...:uhoh:

[Matthew Parsons]

WWW,

Thanks for the great read. I think the orders today are written based on simliar experiences from the past, making it harder for us to go places we just don't want to be.

You said, "The motivation was never to stun the crowd, it was always that you had to/needed to show your peers that you could "cut the mustard"". Couldn't agree more. I was flying a helicopter display at a small town event. Other helicopters were there, including some friends from the past. At the point in the program where I was expected to "demonstrate the manoeuvrability of the helicopter", the normal hovering, sidewards, rearwards flight was straightforward, but I was restricted from my normal routine of more difficult sequences so I put together a few manoeuvres that my friends would admire. (??) After I landed, they were somewhere between mildly impressed and completely indifferent. However, once we met with the crowds, there were many highly enthusiastic responses to my show, such as "wow, you didn't move at all during the hover" and "I had no idea you could fly backwards".

Lesson learned was that the target audience is easy to impress with many of the normal manoeuvres. What's hard and dangerous for us may not add anything to the enjoyment of the actual audience.

Cheers,
Matthew.

[MaxTOW]

Forgive me for sticking my head in on a military stream but I just wanted to confirm Bews wasn't injured badly. It seems he was quite alright -

"Bews was treated at a hospital for a sore back and scraped arms and released Friday."

Durango Herald News, Cutting it close (http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2010/07/25/Cutting_it_close/)

:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Well, they can always build another F18. :ok:

[DelaneyT]

... there's no way that jet was anywhere near its Alpha limits...may have been a little slow though...(-FoxtrotAlpha18)


...then why did it fall out of the sky ?


Some CF-18 crash history:

CF_18_Hornet (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CF-18/cf_18_hornet.htm)

[Lonewolf_50]

For Delaney T:

A previous post noted that it might have been missing one of its two engines at precisely the wrong time. Take a look at the large photo with the pilot in the parachute and the rockets from the seat firing.

The nozzles of one engine are much further open than the other. I would not have noticed it had he not mentioned it. Though the actual issue will likely come out in time, if you are at a high AoA turn under G, losing an engine/thrust in the middle of that can make for a quick departure from controlled flight.

[NutLoose]

Typical American Aircraft types, just like their movies, everything has to end in a big fireball..............

Meanwhile back in the UK another sequence :p

Tiger Moth crash landing at Headcorn | Airplane-Pictures.net (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/news.php?p=751)

[Ali Barber]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one; if they can use the aircraft again, it was an excellent one!

That was a good landing!

Some excellent quality pics on here - and glad that everyone has survived largely unscratched.

[BOAC]

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one; if they can use the aircraft again, it was an excellent one! - I think this quote is generally assumed to apply to those landings where you remain inside the a/c?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...then why did it fall out of the sky ?

I'd suggest that's up to a BoI or whatever the Canadian equivalent is to determine, not you, me, or anyone else on this forum! :hmm:

[Ali Barber]

I was referring to the Tiger Moth pics.

[MudRat_02]

That CF-18 is going to require another center barrel replacement.

[Capn Bloggs]

As the "Old Mice" used to say....they will make saucepans out of them one day so there is no point in dying in them!

PS: you're supposed to go "Over The Hedge", not through it. :)

[Madbob]

In case you hadn't noticed, this clip YouTube - CF-18 Crash (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4yMVM2Vxas) on Youtube shows the ejection sequence very clearly.

The canopy goes at about 75 degrees AOB and the seat leaves at about 80 degrees and by this time the jet has a definite downward vector......though obviously it is hard to assess the sink rate. All of this would have put the pilot outside the seat envelope of many earlier generation seats, viz the Pt. Mugu F4 tragedy in 2002.

What is different here is that the seat is fitted with gyros so that the rocket's thrust is fired assymetrically so that the seat turns in flight to point "up". The vector changes very clearly.

Well done M-B.:ok:

[BOAC]

M-B - thanks - that explains the puzzle I had with the geometry of seat/a/c in the first picture we saw. Awesome seat - well done MB as you say

[Nanook10]

The pilot has released a statement and among other things stated that "Martin Baker is my new best friend." :ok:

[BOAC]

Indeed.Happy 'second birthday', Boozer. When you get time, a quick note to the lads on the factory floor is much appreciated.

[PFR]

Very nice thought to let the "guys & girls" at M-B know their "handy-work" is appreciated:ok:

P.S. Is "Boozer's" statement on "tinternet" anywhere?

[Nanook10]

Statement from pilot of CF-18... | Air Force Articles | News and Events - Air Force News | Air Force | DND/CF (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=10782)

[Neptunus Rex]

The Martin Baker website confirms 7,325 lives saved to date by their amazing seats. What a proud record.

[jimgriff]

There are no gyro's fitted to the rocket pack on the seat on the CF-18. Just good design and a fair wind!
More info here-
So you want to know more about the (http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/NACES.html)

[DelaneyT]

...always nice to see that Martin-Baker equipment works as advertised, but the primary question remains as to why the CF-18 "system" failed in this mishap. After all, the primary purpose of this entire flyby/demo operation was to publicly show how great that CF-18 system works.

Video of the mishap is brief but revealing. It shows a low speed runway pass at very low altitude, with a smooth transition to a classic asymmetric stall (right wing drop) and a right yaw before nose low impact.

The aircraft stalled because it was flying too slow for those conditions. Lack of adequate speed might have been a piloting problem or some aircraft malfunction. A clean F-18 normally has lots of thrust available and flys well even on one engine.

Differing engine nozzle configurations seem abnormal. Spectators report that one afterburner engaged just prior to impact, and the impact video section indicates the left engine might have been in AB. A malfunction on one engine could account for all that, but absent any other obvious problems (smoke/fire, aircraft oscillations, etc) it seems a lower probability. Bird-strike is also possible, but likely would have been noticed by the many spectators.

It's also possible the pilot had one engine in idle and controlling thrust entirely with the other throttle... perhaps to demonstrate CF-18 single-engine capability (as part of the formal flyby practice, or merely to himself). That would account for nozzle difference and sudden use of only one AB (..and the quick yaw just before impact).

Getting behind-the-Power-Curve at low altitude can be big trouble, even for modern high-performance jet fighters.

Also, early flight testing (mid-1990's) of F-18E/F revealed a significant aerodynamic problem -- sudden uncommanded "wing drop" (asymmetric stall) during certain maneuvers; physical wing modifications corrected the problem... but perhaps the CF-18 has some similar behavior in unusual circumstances ?

[PFR]

Nanook10 - thanks for the link:)

and DelaneyT interesting post...

[AirwayBlocker]

A malfunction on one engine could account for all that, but absent any other obvious problems (smoke/fire, aircraft oscillations, etc) it seems a lower probability. Bird-strike is also possible, but likely would have been noticed by the many spectators.


Global National video report has an eyewitness Roland Booth in the report who said "All of a sudden you could hear pop, pop, pop, sparks came out of the one engine. The aircraft banked to the side, the next thing the pilot had to bail out..."

[Stitchbitch]

Well done to him for realising his situation and doing something about it whilst he still had time. Hope he gets the beers in for the Squippers (chute) and Armourers (seat).:ok:

[dat581]

The Hornet has never had any form of wing drop problem unlike the Super Hornet. It would seem that the aircraft was flying at a high angle of attack on the low side of the lift drag ratio sweet spot and thus required quite a bit of power to counter the drag. Lose an engine and suddenly not enough thrust is available to maintain height and angle of attack or to recover to level flight without loss of more height than was available in this case.

[DelaneyT]

...no good reason to risk the pilot and aircraft in such airshow/demo operations.

What exactly is the benefit ?

Amusement ? :(

[Capn Bloggs]

It's also possible the pilot had one engine in idle and controlling thrust entirely with the other throttle... perhaps to demonstrate CF-18 single-engine capability (as part of the formal flyby practice, or merely to himself). That would account for nozzle difference and sudden use of only one AB (..and the quick yaw just before impact).

That's ridiculous.

[lomapaseo]

The pics seem to confirm the RH engine has lost all power while the LH engine is at high power.

At the time of the lawn dart the LH engine has blocked airflow but still fuel which of course leads to the burning out the tail pipe.

I am surprised about some of the aircraft performance comments suspecting asymetrical thrust leading to uncorrectable roll. This machine having little lever arm effect. Of course if like the Mig bird ingestion mentioned earlier, at very low speed and altitude an engine failure might lead to little room for recovery.

[APerson]

Well, I had no intention of joining or posting as I was just doing some web surfing but I felt the need, the need for...a reply, sorry.

Video of the mishap is brief but revealing. It shows a low speed runway pass at very low altitude, with a smooth transition to a classic asymmetric stall (right wing drop) and a right yaw before nose low impact.
It is quite amazing that you have determined all of this from a quick clip of video. Without knowing the full story it is only speculation at this point. I have been flying Hornets for a number of years and in my personal speculation (Which I personally hate doing) it looks to me like something happened with his right engine. As the spectators mentioned a popping sound, this is a classic sign of a compressor stall, which was one of the reasons the design of the intakes on the Super Hornet were changed to provide better airflow at high AOA. While it does to appear to be a stall, the question needs to be answer how the stall occurred. That being said ...

The aircraft stalled because it was flying too slow for those conditions. Lack of adequate speed might have been a piloting problem or some aircraft malfunction. A clean F-18 normally has lots of thrust available and flys well even on one engine.Quite incorrect. Airshow manuevers are not done anywhere close to the edge of the envelope because of the extreme emphasis on the safety of those at the demonstrations. This particular maneuver is done at an altitude and AOA that the pilot has roughly a 50% chance of recovering the aircraft should they catastrophically lose an engine. Even if it is unrecoverable, they have enough time and authority to put the jet in a safe place before jumping out. As far as I know, this is the first time this has ever happened during this maneuver to a Hornet ever.

Differing engine nozzle configurations seem abnormal. Spectators report that one afterburner engaged just prior to impact, and the impact video section indicates the left engine might have been in AB. A malfunction on one engine could account for all that, but absent any other obvious problems (smoke/fire, aircraft oscillations, etc) it seems a lower probability. Bird-strike is also possible, but likely would have been noticed by the many spectators.I would agree with this as a bird strike that would take out and engine would have made a lot more noise and if the engine catastrophically failed there would have a lot more evidence of that on the tape. Having personally watched a Hornet engine eat itself on a fan blade, it is quite a fireworks show. I won't get into the nozzle discussion but to say that it is something that is part of our instrument scan to ensure both nozzles are scheduling correctly.

It's also possible the pilot had one engine in idle and controlling thrust entirely with the other throttle... perhaps to demonstrate CF-18 single-engine capability (as part of the formal flyby practice, or merely to himself). That would account for nozzle difference and sudden use of only one AB (..and the quick yaw just before impact).Nope, simply not possible for reasons that mentioned above about safety. WWW said it perfectly in his long post and I agree whole heartily.

Getting behind-the-Power-Curve at low altitude can be big trouble, even for modern high-performance jet fighters. Sometimes bad things happen. That's why the procedures are in place. It's just a bunch of CF, wires, and metal. The pink fleshy body is the important part and it lives to fly another day.

The pics seem to confirm the RH engine has lost all power while the LH engine is at high power...

...at very low speed and altitude an engine failure might lead to little room for recovery.
If I were a betting man I would bet this will be the eventually outcome.

[lomapaseo]

Aperson

The noise that a bird strike makes is the noise of an engine stall. So if the engine compressor ate the bird for lunch that's all you would get or see.

I do agree however that if it's the fan that breaks than the Titanium sparks out the bypass will make a big lightshow. However by now the safety office probably already knows what broke and I don't mean to get ahead of them :)

[APerson]

Yeah, you are totally correct, I was trying to get across that if it was a small bird, it likely wouldn't have done enough damage that quickly. We have had many a bird strike where the aircrew didn't know until they landed and saw the blood trail down the intake. A bird would have to big enough to essentially cause a fan blade to be thrown I would think, but as you said, we ain't the experts on this subject.

[saudipc-9]

The Hornet high alpha pass is designed to be flown at 25 alpha which would allow a recovery from a single engine failure. However, there are still alot of things that have to happen correctly in order to recover successfully. One issue not working in Boozers favour that day was the very high density altitude. Just glad that Boozer is ok and will return to flying soon.

[ninja-lewis]

Can anyone confirm whether a Canadian study found the benefits of twin-engines (specifically in the CF-18) over a single engine to be insignificant - whatever problem caused the loss of one engine generally damaged the other as well?

[GreenKnight121]

The USN would find any such study to be very suspect, as its experience (with far more aircraft over vastly more operating hours) is that very few incidents of both engines failing are due to any cause other than fuel starvation (or battle damage).

The USN has, on the other hand, had thousands of single-engine failures (including where the engine came apart and damaged surrounding structures) where the second engine either brought the aircraft back or kept operating until the aircraft became unable to fly due to other reasons.

I am aware of close to a score of aircraft that returned to either the base or carrier where I was stationed with one engine out, but in that time only 5 twin-engined aircraft from those bases were lost... three of those at sea with no communication from the crew to indicate what caused the crash, one was damaged beyond repair in an airshow accident caused by pilot disorientation leading to pilot error, and one of those was due to a pair of pliers left in the aircraft during depot-level repair jamming the elevators at a slight down angle (the crew attempted to regain control for several minutes before ejecting as they dropped below 2000' agl in a wings-level attitude with both engines running).

[lomapaseo]

Well you can also add in the twin pods of the B52's and B1 etc.

very few cases of taking out both podded engines even with non-containments from one engine to the other. The biggest problem was correctly identifying and handling fire detection issues and not shutting down a good engine.

The ruskies have a bit of data on this as well.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

You don't put a second engine into a fighter in case one of them fails!:ugh: But single engined fighters have substantially more redundancy built into them and their ancilliaries.

Although the F-16 is the only modern single-engined fighter operated in the west built in any numbers, since the early 90s, the ratio of single vs twin/multi engined aircraft losses due to engine failures is at virtual parity.

[robbreid]

Pilot tells us his version of events;

CF-18 pilot recalls harrowing tale of survival - CTV News (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100817/bews-recalls-cf18-crash-100817/)

[Runaway Gun]

Great to see and hear his recollection.

I'm surprised he didn't thank the Pprune Armchair Aviators for their help in discussing what he did wrong. ;)

[BEagle]

Soon, Bews felt that the jet was possessed by some other force.

:\

Epic piece of TV journalism!

[BOAC]

Epic indeed - I imagine he wishes he had NOT spoken to the journos

""I was feeling turbulence," he said. "My perception was that I had turbulence with a downdraft." - almost like a stall........................

"he watched with disbelief as the CF-18 plummeted to the ground and burst into a massive fireball." - who writes this stuff? As if he expected much else.........a bit like my Harrier ejection - yep, I was really surprise when it crashed 200 feet away from me.

"Soon, Bews felt that the jet was possessed by some other force - err - over here we call it 'gravity'.

It is always edifying to read an actual transcript of what he said and run it alongside this stuff.

[GreenKnight121]

Hmmm... "The winds were strong". "I felt turbulence and a downdraft".

115 KIAS... if he is flying into the wind and it drops speed... or with the wind and it picks up speed... then he is suddenly at well below 115 KIAS, and stalls.

[DelaneyT]

The CF-18 mishap pilot account confirms the obvious -- aircraft stall under controlled (but high risk) conditions.

No mention of any aircraft malfunctions, compressor-stalls, bird-strikes, cockpit warning lights/audio, etc.

Brief mention of turbulence, which the pilot considered commonplace under those circumstances.

Slow/Low pass at 115 knots & 25 degrees leaves no margin for error at that altitude. Normal F-18 Final Approach Speed is ~130 Knots.

Pilot seems bewildered as to why his aircraft fell out of the sky. He thinks he was flying at 115 Knots... perhaps that was the problem -- it would only take a very brief pilot distraction inside/outside the cockpit to drop to stall speed.

:sad:

___________________

95 % of this video/interview focused on the ejection/pilot health... with little discussion on accident cause. Obviously a staged public-relations event by the RCAF PR office.

[DelaneyT]

...almost 10 months since this CF-18 mishap -- and no hint of a final investigation report.

Must be a very thorough investigation & reporting process.

[TLB]

See interim report at:

CF188738 Hornet... | Fighters | Reports - Investigation | DFS | Air Force | DND/CF (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs-dsv/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=11159)

[GreenKnight121]

From the Investigator:

During an airshow practice at Lethbridge County Airport, Hornet CF188738 experienced a loss of thrust from its right engine while conducting a high alpha pass at 300 ft above ground level (AGL). Unaware of the loss of thrust but feeling the aircraft sink, the pilot selected military power on both throttles to arrest the descent. The aircraft continued to sink and the pilot selected afterburner on both throttles. The aircraft immediately began to yaw right and continued to rapidly yaw/roll right, despite compensating control column and rudder pedal inputs. At approximately 150 feet AGL and about 90 degrees of right bank, the pilot ejected from the aircraft. The aircraft continued to yaw/roll right with its nose descending in a tight right descending corkscrew prior to hitting the ground nose first.

The ejection and seat-man separation worked flawlessly but the pilot was injured when he touched down firmly under a stable chute. After landing, the parachute shroud lines became entangled around the pilot’s left leg and the parachute re‑inflated before it could be released, causing him to be dragged several hundred meters. The pilot was able to release the remaining Koch fittings just as members of the Sky Hawks, the Canadian Forces parachute demonstration team, arrived on scene to provide assistance. First aid was administered to the pilot who was subsequently transported to the Regional Hospital.


Field examination of the engines did not reveal any anomalies. Both engines were sent to the Quality Engineering and Test Establishment for a detailed inspection. Concurrently, photogrammetric analysis is taking place to ascertain certain flight and engine parameters which could not be recovered from the Advanced Memory Unit and other recording devices. Finally, modeling and simulation has been undertaken to better understand the factors (e.g., throttle splits, altitude) affecting the aircraft’s recovery under various conditions.


The investigation will be focussing on the loss of thrust experienced by the right-hand engine, the factors that precluded an in-flight recovery of the aircraft, and CF-18 demonstration pilot training.




So the final report is pending a report from the Quality Engineering and Test Establishment on its examination of the engines before it can be written.

[DelaneyT]

...there should be a "Final" report issued sometime this century; not sure what the RCAF calls it, formally.

That October 2010 report is merely an interim/preliminary investigation report... outlining the facts to date -- and the direction of the remaining full investigation.

Final reports usually state the 'primary cause' of the mishap investigated.


10 months seems excessive for the investigation... when the pilot survived in good condition, wreckage was readily accessible, and there's video of the incident. Sixty days used to be the USAF standard for Class A mishaps.

[DelaneyT]

All rumour of course {-- Just This Once}


...well, rather odd that rumour is the only thing available to Canadian citizens, after a 10 month formal investigation. As a minimum, another brief interim report should have been issued, summarizing the status of the investigation & expected completion date.


Why the official silence and secrecy ?

At this late stage of a relatively straightforward mishap investigation... 99% of the available facts have likely been collected & analyzed. Either those facts are inconclusive... or the RCAF brass doesn't like the conclusions that those facts point to.

[DelaneyT]

..was every one's presumption given the evidence to hand. However, I understand that the initial investigation could find nothing wrong with the engine or associated systems! --Just This Once

Presumptions may indeed be the problem.

If there's nothing found wrong with the engines or aircraft -- what other possible cause could there be for an aircraft to fall out of the sky ?

[Nanook10]

Minor point - the RCAF ceased to exist in 1968. There was an interm report about this but perhaps it was missed.

[saudipc-9]

The scuttle around the F/A-18 community is that everything on the aircraft is allegedly ok and they could not find a definitive reason for the engine 'shutdown'. The various OEMs are pointing at each other and the investigation is/was barely moving forward. The recent leverage applied by the US Navy looks to have helped and things are apparently moving, but no rumours have leaked as to the cause.

All rumour of course.

Not true. There is a cause suspected (known) but nothing will be published until 100% of the investigation is complete. The very public nature of the accident requires us to have all bases covered.

[DelaneyT]

...over a year now since this CF-18 crash -- and still no 'final' investigation report released publicly. The Canadian Air Forces (CAF) call their final mishap investigation reports-- a "Final Safety Investigation Report" (FSIR)

Interesting that another CF-18 crash in Nov 2010 also had extensive delays in public release of its initial safety report.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/458974-cf-18-crash-initial-safety-report.html?#post6605109

...seems to be a trend here on how CAF handles adverse public relations information concerning aircraft crashes (?)

Is anybody here familiar with the longer term history of Canadian Air Forces safety investigation board processes & results ?

[saudipc-9]

Is anybody here familiar with the longer term history of Canadian Air Forces safety investigation board processes & results ?

Yes I am. What are you hunting for?

[DelaneyT]

...Yes I am. What are you hunting for?


What's the typical timeline for CAF investigation/report on an aircraft loss or major mishap ? (.. how long does it usually take CAF to figure out what happened & issue a public, summary report ?)

How are CAF investigation/safety boards formed ? (..is there a professional investigation team always at the ready, or are they assembled ad hoc for each incident... from the ranks ?)

Who makes the final decision on public release of CAF safety investigation reports ? What is the report review process ?

What's the general reputation of past CAF safety investigation boards for objectivity & timeliness ?

Thanks

_________

[P.S.]: on the Nov 2010/Cold Lake CF-18 loss -- do you consider it odd that CAF withheld public release of the initial safety report for 6 months... waiting until a 3-day national holiday weekend in the quiet summer months... to release that brief, routine report ?

[saudipc-9]

on the Nov 2010/Cold Lake CF-18 loss -- do you consider it odd that CAF withheld public release of the initial safety report for 6 months... waiting until a 3-day national holiday weekend in the quiet summer months... to release that brief, routine report ?

Mmmm, I was going to answer your questions until I read your question above which reeks of a conspiracy/cover up angle. You must be a Jurno and if you want any information you can contact NDHQ with an official Access to Information request!

[GreenKnight121]

Quote DelanyT:
Is anybody here familiar with the longer term history of Canadian Air Forces safety investigation board processes & results ?
Yes I am. What are you hunting for?

Anything to support his conspiracy-theory.

He doesn't want to hear anything which disproves a conspiracy.

[DelaneyT]

Still no RCAF final report on this mishap, after two (2) years (?)

Not even an interim report on the current status of the investigation.

[Brian Abraham]

Final report CF188738 Hornet... | Fighters | Reports - Investigation | DFS | RCAF | DND/CF (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/dfs-dsv/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=11159)

Epilogue:

During an air show practice at Lethbridge County Airport, CF188738 experienced a loss of thrust from its right engine while conducting a high angle of attack (AOA) pass at 300 feet (ft) above ground level (AGL). Unaware of the problem but feeling the aircraft sink slightly, the pilot selected maximum afterburner on both throttles in order to overshoot from the manoeuvre. The aircraft immediately started to yaw right and continued to rapidly yaw/roll right despite compensating control column and rudder pedal inputs.

With the aircraft at approximately 150 ft AGL and about 90 degrees of right bank, the pilot ejected from the aircraft. The aircraft continued in a tight descending corkscrew to the right prior to hitting the ground nose first.

The ejection system worked flawlessly, but the pilot was injured when he landed firmly under a fully inflated parachute.

The investigation revealed a number of factors that contributed to this occurrence. The engine malfunction was likely the result of a stuck ratio boost piston in the right engine main fuel control (MFC) that prevented the engine from advancing above flight idle when maximum afterburner was selected. The large thrust imbalance between the left and the right engines caused the aircraft to depart controlled flight and the aircraft was unrecoverable within the altitude available. The subtle nature of the engine malfunction that was not detected by the pilot when the overshoot was attempted.

In response to this occurrence, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) expedited the implementation of a program to upgrade all CF188 MFCs. Additionally, the RCAF made changes to the conduct of the CF188 air show routine by increasing the high AOA pass altitude from 300 feet AGL to 500 feet AGL, improving the air show training program and ensuring that both engines of the CF188 air show aircraft have upgraded MFCs.