Canadian Forces Snowbirds CT-114 down in British Columbia

[grizzled]

Early yet. Few details except one Tutor has impacted a house in Kamloops

[MarkD]

A CT-114 is down in Kamloops, BC; pilot is reported to have ejected
https://cfjctoday.com/2020/05/17/plane-crash-in-brocklehurst/

Video: https://twitter.com/supermario_47/status/1262101139966750720

[Airbubba]

This was their planned flight for this morning. They spell takeoff a little differently in this graphic.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x782/eylvqa1xkamfgna_7faafa6f909bc33e22454191ec47df74072758e5.jpg

[Airbubba]

A couple of pictures from social media.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x1200/eypfnolucaaakdk_49af5294867b29ec2d1333795bfefe206e119e51.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x1200/eypfg5gueaai1rc_16b0e30aab90add7380a038c7274c51761e90555.jpg

[Airbubba]

A still from a video taken at the airport.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1578/snow_large__af01b15b3a64d01e970e4a3a3c1cdb4a7732f55e.jpg

[Smurfjet]

I'm a level headed person, but this year has chipped away at my sanity. When the tour was announced I prayed to every single deity not to have to read this headline.

Per Ardua Ad Astra.

[Airbubba]

A disturbing social media report.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/886x182/snow_2_fb1757c5886f33a8c01f7e6da6e636aa3036417c.jpg

[Airbubba]

More reports from local social media of a possible female fatality, not confirmed.

It appears that the planned flyover was cancelled for weather and the planes were going to reposition to Comox.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1011x409/snow_3_e455260077558a887b8c4cccdd656ec3bd322bfa.jpg

[evansb]

Clearly, weather does not appear to be a factor in this tragic crash. A 45-degree angle of bank on departure seems de rigueur for some Snowbird manoeuvres, however control of the bank angle, which includes pitch, appears to have rapidly deteriorated.

[Airbubba]

From Kamloops This Week: Witnesses saw at least one pilot eject before the plane crashed. He landed on the roof of a house on nearby Schreiner Street and was rescued by Kamloops Fire Rescue.

A witness told KTW a second person, a female, appeared to have succumbed to her injuries.

Dana Hings is a retired nurse from New Westminster who is visiting her daughter in Brock.

“We were in the garden and we heard a large crash,” Hings told KTW, noting they heard calls for medical help.

Hings and her daughter rushed to the backyard of the home and found a person who appeared to be deceased.

“I saw a deceased female with catastrophic injuries,” Hings said. “It looked like she hit a tree. It’s insane. It’s not supposed to happen. This [the Snowbirds tour] is supposed to be a good thing and she died.”

The Royal Canadian Air Force released a statement at 12:54 p.m. on Sunday: “The RCAF has been made aware that a Canadian Forces Snowbirds aircraft crashed in the vicinity of Kamloops, B.C. Our priority at this time is determining the status of our personnel and supporting emergency personnel. When appropriate, more information will be made available."

Cory Pelton was on Aviation Way, watching the planes, when he saw the crash and drove to the house the plane hit.

“You could smell raw fuel everywhere. I ran into the backyard and, just as I jumped over the back fence, I saw the elderly couple coming out. I asked if there was anyone else in there or any pets and they said no, that’s it.”

He said the plane hit the attached garage and a little bit of the house.

Another witness, a Kamloops man who did not wish to have his name published, said he was at the airport for an hour before the crash to watch the Snowbirds squadron take off as they were to continue their cross-Canada tour by heading to Vancouver lsland.

He said two jets took off together and all looked normal as they rose above the airport.

“All of a sudden, one of the planes suddenly went up, straight up, quite high, then it started dropping and doing a barrel roll,” he said. “It did a few spirals and I saw the ejector seat pop out. Then I saw a big fireball, an explosion.”

He said those watching the planes take off initially did not realize anything was wrong as the one Snowbird began climbing vertically, then descended with barrel rolls.“We thought it was going to do some kind of cool trick,” he said. “It was incredible. I can’t believe I saw it.

https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/with-video-snowbird-jet-crashes-into-kamloops-house-1.24136744

[dead_pan]

Awfully sad news. My thoughts and prayers to all those involved

[alexhara]

More information and videos here: https://aerobaticteams.net/en/news/i312/Snowbirds-plane-crashed-into-house-during-take-off-at-Kamloops.html

[metro301]

Loss of thrust / engine failure. I can not link the video, from a different angle. You can hear the eng pop over the end of the runway.

[dave.rooney]

Apparently there were issues during the ejection sequence when Capt. Kevin Domon-Grenier ejected from his Tutor last October in Georgia.

From a Dec. 1, 2019 article on Avweb:
Domon-Grenier was taken to a hospital as a precaution but released that evening. He reported “anomalies” with the ejection but the RCAF did not elaborate on what went wrong.

The ejections in this case looked as if the seats left the aircraft OK, but didn't counteract the descent at all. Do the Snowbirds' Tutor's still use the old Weber seats?

[pattern_is_full]

Cell-phone videos of the take-off, immediate pitchup and roll, and crash, here: https://aerobaticteams.net/en/news/i312/Snowbirds-plane-crashed-into-house-during-take-off-at-Kamloops.html

I don't hear a "pop" until the impact (or maybe the ejection) - but maybe it's lost in the audio.

[metro301]

Cell-phone videos of the take-off, immediate pitchup and roll, and crash, here: https://aerobaticteams.net/en/news/i312/Snowbirds-plane-crashed-into-house-during-take-off-at-Kamloops.html

I don't hear a "pop" until the impact (or maybe the ejection) - but maybe it's lost in the audio.

At 10 seconds on the second linked video. Double pop later for both ejection seats. I had ear buds in when I heard it.

[JPJP]

Oufff. That wasn’t pretty. :(

Both seats are evident departing the jet. Only one parachute is visible just before entering the tree line. A number of the Squadrons support staff are female.

Condolences to the team and families.

[pattern_is_full]

At 10 seconds on the second linked video. Double pop later for both ejection seats. I had ear buds in when I heard it.

Roger that. I still can't hear it myself, but that coincides with the start of the pitchup.

[admiral ackbar]

Apparently there were issues during the ejection sequence when Capt. Kevin Domon-Grenier ejected from his Tutor last October in Georgia.

From a Dec. 1, 2019 article on Avweb:


The ejections in this case looked as if the seats left the aircraft OK, but didn't counteract the descent at all. Do the Snowbirds' Tutor's still use the old Weber seats?

Don't know if they are Weber seats but an ex-RCAF Snowbird mechanic on CTV News Channel said they are not zero-zero seats.

Is it possible something went very wrong early and the pilot was trying to get altitude to safely eject but was not able to? Will obviously have to wait for the investigation, unsure if it is CTSB that investigate military incidents.

[tartare]

Is it normal to see trails of brown/black smoke from an ejection seat?
Possibly given age of jets and not zero zero seats.
Haven't seen that before...

[RAFEngO74to09]

Another couple of photos of the rescue of one of the ejectees from the roof of a house - click on them to enlarge

https://twitter.com/DandyTourDriver/status/1262123560480280576/photo/2

[Tashengurt]

Strange looking ejection. Outside seat envelope with rate of descent? Seats both seemed to have a downward trajectory.

[evansb]

tartare "...smoke on ejection.." It is usual. Ejection seats are propelled by small rockets.

LKF. Aircraft ejections usually result in injury to the ejectee. Lately, the odds of getting injured upon ejection is kinda 50/50. An improvement since I last checked. Seats and training are getting better, apparently.

[tartare]

Ejection seats are propelled by small rockets. What did you think? Rubber bands?

Yes - I do know that :rolleyes:
Have a look at multiple ejection videos on the web.
Flames, yes.
A bit of white smoke, occasionally.
First time I've seen that degree of brown/black smoke.
And there's more from one seat than the other.
The Tutor is a 1960s era aircraft - does it still use the Weber seats?
Perhaps just a different type of propellant...

[pattern_is_full]

City will hold press conference at 16:45 local. Impact was on the north shore of the Thompson River in Brocklehurst area (Tranquille/Crestline/Glenview/Schreiner Streets). One female confirmed dead of catastrophic injuries - "It looks like she hit a tree."

https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/with-video-snowbird-jet-crashes-into-kamloops-house-1.24136744

[tartare]

Anyone know if the Tutor has command ejection?

[harrogate]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x579/screenshot_20200518_095455_twitter_77dafedd0438851799480ae4f b3a66d0793f5457.jpg

[dave.rooney]

The Tutor is a 1960s era aircraft - does it still use the Weber seats?
Perhaps just a different type of propellant...

I asked the same question... I can't find anything saying otherwise. Also, when Capt. Kevin Domon-Grenier had to eject last October, he reported "anomalies" during the ejection sequence. Again, I couldn't find any specifics on that.

IMO, it's past time to ditch the Tutors and maybe spend the money on some BAE Hawks like those used at NFTC in Moose Jaw.

[Monarch Man]

Speaking as a former QFI.

Looks initially like an engine failure after T/O, followed by an attempt to trade energy for altitude and then a turn back leading to a loss of control and ejection.
basing my judgement entirely on the video and audio recordings.

[megan]

Capt. Casey joined the Snowbirds in 2018 and served as a spokesperson. Prior to that, she was a reporter, anchor and producer with NEWS 95.7 in Halifax. RIP

[Airbubba]

Snowbirds crash victim was Haligonian, former journalistOfficial sources have confirmed that one person has died in a tragic accident that occurred in Kamloops, earlier today

about an hour ago

By: HalifaxToday Staff

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x697/casey_2__d1548a95cd95ff3177582ff65d5d574d69e8855e.png
Official sources have confirmed that one person has died in a tragic accident that occurred in Kamloops, B.C. earlier today.

"It is with heavy hearts that we announce that one member of the CF Snowbirds team has died and one has sustained serious injuries," says a Tweet from the Snowbirds.

HalifaxToday has confirmed that Captain Jenn Casey, who served as a spokesperson for the Snowbirds, was on the plane when it crashed.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/450x600/headshot_pilots12_5da7426b438fbb5c6c5ee0bfe972f5ad266e256c.j pg



Casey grew up in Halifax, getting a Bachelor of Arts at Dalhousie University and attending journalism school at the University of King's College. Prior to joining the Canadian Armed Forces, Jenn was an employee of NEWS 95.7 working as a reporter, an anchor and as a producer for The Rick Howe Show.

According to her online profile (http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/snowbirds/standard-template-biography-snowbirds.page?doc=captain-jenn-casey%2Fjucn33uv&fbclid=IwAR1IDdBi3lp5Wa5MI94ijjZgPpnDKG_FBNhiSzXJgDD9nHCxZOn DE109hhU&utm_source=halifaxtoday.ca&utm_campaign=halifaxtoday.ca&utm_medium=referral) with the Air Force, Casey has been with the Snowbirds since November 2018. The RCAF confirmed in a Tweet that Casey's family has been notified.


https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-news/snowbirds-crash-victim-was-haligonian-former-journalist-2358557

[tdracer]

Yes - I do know that :rolleyes:
Have a look at multiple ejection videos on the web.
Flames, yes.
A bit of white smoke, occasionally.
First time I've seen that degree of brown/black smoke.
And there's more from one seat than the other.
The Tutor is a 1960s era aircraft - does it still use the Weber seats?
Perhaps just a different type of propellant...

No familiarity with ejection seat boosters, but solid Ammonium Percolate (AP) propellant based rocket motors have a variety of exhaust characteristics - everything from dirty brown/black to white to basically invisible. It all depends on the propellant blend used - which in turn depends on the desired thrust characteristics.

[tartare]

I asked the same question... I can't find anything saying otherwise. Also, when Capt. Kevin Domon-Grenier had to eject last October, he reported "anomalies" during the ejection sequence. Again, I couldn't find any specifics on that.

IMO, it's past time to ditch the Tutors and maybe spend the money on some BAE Hawks like those used at NFTC in Moose Jaw.

Any fatal accident is dreadful - moreso when a face is put to the name - RIP Ma'am.
Yep, wondered if it was a stall on attempted turn back when watching the video.
Questions around smoke and propellants - I was thinking about the age of the seats - and if the `chute deployed on Captain Casey's...

[JPJP]

Speaking as a former QFI.

Looks initially like an engine failure after T/O, followed by an attempt to trade energy for altitude and then a turn back leading to a loss of control and ejection.
basing my judgement entirely on the video and audio recordings.

Thats exactly what was going through my tiny brain as I watched the (poor) tape - Appears to be a slightly left wing low attitude, then the jet departs to the right. Recovers to wings level briefly, then the ejection, with a significant rate of descent.

The description of the retired nurse at the scene wasn’t an easy read.

[JPJP]

IMO, it's past time to ditch the Tutors and maybe spend the money on some BAE Hawks like those used at NFTC in Moose Jaw.

I wonder where the RCAF could have found a dozen early block Hornets ? They seem to make a great display jet, and they’d be no stranger to the RCAF.

sarcasm off :suspect:

[Flight Alloy]

Any amount of negative vertical speed can overcome even the newest 0/0 seats. A certain envelope must be fulfilled in order for the seats to have a chance of working successfully. It seems control was lost prior to ejection, which was done at an undesirable energy state. Any idea on the glide performance of the Tutor, plenty of empty land around the airport...

[evansb]

"...negative vertical speed.." is a term known to less than 0.01 per cent of the world's populace. I understand you none the less.

[pattern_is_full]

Any idea on the glide performance of the Tutor, plenty of empty land around the airport...

Departing runway 09, not all that much empty land. Rising terrain all quadrants, hills, bluffs or benches, industry, suburbs (including the impact point), and the heart of the downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kamloops+Airport/@50.6954212,-120.4160195,15126m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x3a17ce6b644e87ce!8m2!3d50.7052 202!4d-120.4417902

But there is the Thompson River directly on runway heading (either runway, it bends around the airport). However, I have no clue how well a Tutor would handle a ditching, nor whether a visiting crew would recognize that option unless they'd had a special briefing.

[Bob Viking]

It is not unusual for the majority of the Snowbirds team to be from non-FJ backgrounds. The RCAF is also very short on FJ pilots as it is.

As nice an idea as an RCAF team flying Hornets sounds I think they would really struggle to man it. Especially as a 9-ship.

BV

[Fonsini]

Engine failure on takeoff, every pilot’s nightmare. I hope he gets plenty of support - the death of his colleague is going to be hard on him.

[Tashengurt]

If you watch the video on tw@tter don't read the comments, they'll boil your eyeballs.
Utmost sympathy for those involved but also for the little girl watching, that'll stay with her.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Clearly a spin from a low speed turn, (turnback?) you can see in the video the beginning of the autorotation.

So far as ejection height is concerned, on a Martin Baker seat , non zero zero, you needed, as. a rule of thumb, a minimum height of 10 percent of your rate of descent to compensate for the seat’s rate of descent at the moment. of ejection.

If, repeat if, indeed, it was a turnback following engine failure it shows the reason, certainly when I was a QFI why lowlevel turnback practice was stopped. Ie, if it does not work out, you may well be faced with a low level ejection in a descending aircraft,ie outside the seat’s performance envelope.

Very sad.

[dead_pan]

Some similarities with the recent Reds crash at Valley, albeit that was a simulated engine failure as I recall.

A very sad day - thoughts and prayers to all touched by this tragedy

[JagRigger]

Firstly, a tragic accident and all condolences.

Then thoughts turn to aerobatic teams flying obsolescent / largely retired types - pretty common ? Reds are still using legacy Hawks, Blue Angels legacy F18's, Snowbirds....

[monkey416]

negative on the command eject. side by side seating. yet another brutal chapter for the RCAF this year. Jenn was the PAO for the CF-18 demo team a bunch of years back. Really nice girl.

[wanderinwilco]

I was taught you never attempt a turnback from an engine failure after takeoff. Have things changed?

[monkey416]

I would say that throwaway lines like that arent really helpful - lets be honest, investigators havent done their thing yet and you cant know that was what the pilot was doing. and....it is not really true, it would depend on the training, aircraft performance, etc. I have flown for various air forces, about 3/4 of which train and plan for turnbacks depending on the circumstance. there are times where they make sense, and times where they dont.

[WeeWinkyWilly]

….you are going to crash. Speaking as a low-level jet aerobaticist, what were he thinking?....pulling up after take-off (low energy) into a barrel roll and compounding that by losing the roll-rate at the top, just as the picture out the front changed to dire (due to the high terrain they were rolling towards).
I often did some silly things (uncoord garbage rolls at 300ft agl - until I learnt the secret script and thereafter did it confidently), but nothing ever that stupid? You don't even need to hit the buffet to get that eject imperative. But then again, I did leave the ventral speedbrake out during a pitch-up tailslide topping at 3000ft, tried to full-fwd stick recover the vertical, and entered three full turns of an an inverted spin after it fell on its back, so I guess we are all guilty at times of stoopid and thoughtless. During the90 nose-down recovery on that buzz, buffet, judder evolution, I can still see (in my nightmares) whole hordes of spectators below running radially outwards.
Never letting things develop is the secret sauce. Not starting without sufficient smash is the secret saviour. Low and slow or high, slow and face-fulla dirt is formulaically fatal.
Not trying to be smart. I was essentially self-taught.... and soon learnt to stop trying too hard or being in anyway adventurous. An earnest discussion with my CO (who saw that very proximal garbage roll) also helped re-orient my bravado. He was talking to the CAS in front of the O's Mess when he saw the CAS expression change to horror - as he viewed me in the distance over the CO's shoulder. As I said later, on his carpet, "no sweat boss, I'm on top of it now. There's a bit of a trick to it.".

[ASRAAMTOO]

My deepest sympathies to all those touched by this crash.

For now I'm not going to comment on how the aircraft arrived in the position it did. I do however find myself surprised by the video of the ejection. I am very familiar with MB seats and the sequencing thereof but know very little about the seats fitted to the CT 114.

The large smoke plumes and lack of an early seat separation were a surprise to me. I would have expected seats of that vintage to use sequenced charges (or even a single charge) as they moved up the rails and for an immediate drogue deployment with separation occurring as soon as tumbling stopped.

Difficult to accurately assess height and ROD but it looked like a better result should have been obtained.

So the question is, did the seats work as specified? In which case they are probably not suitable for use in the "high risk" environment of a formation display team.

Several have commented on the Snowbirds use of what is essentially a vintage jet for their displays. I am not against that providing the risks are minimised. Lets face it the alternative would probably be a Harvard 2 or disbandment. I wonder if the fitment of something like an MB Mk 8 seat has ever been considered for the Snowbirds CT 114. I know it is available as a retrofit for the T37 which also has (albeit different) a Weber seat.

Perhaps the conversation was along the lines of " we struggle to justify the costs of the Snowbirds as it is, if you insist the current seats are unsafe we will just can the team".

Whatever happens as a result of this accident I hope the Snowbirds continue. I'd love it to be in the CT 114 but I think it will cost money. Hopefully that money can be found.

[QDM360]

I was taught you never attempt a turnback from an engine failure after takeoff. Have things changed?

Well, no. But taking off from runway 09, an ejection straight ahead would have sent the jet to downtown Kamloops. Lots of houses everywhere. I can understand that the pilot was looking for an alternate option and trying to steer the jet away from the inhabited areas.

[junior.VH-LFA]

….you are going to crash. Speaking as a low-level jet aerobaticist, what were he thinking?....pulling up after take-off (low energy) into a barrel roll and compounding that by losing the roll-rate at the top, just as the picture out the front changed to dire (due to the high terrain they were rolling towards).
I often did some silly things (uncoord garbage rolls at 300ft agl - until I learnt the secret script and thereafter did it confidently), but nothing ever that stupid? You don't even need to hit the buffet to get that eject imperative. But then again, I did leave the ventral speedbrake out during a pitch-up tailslide topping at 3000ft, tried to full-fwd stick recover the vertical, and entered three full turns of an an inverted spin after it fell on its back, so I guess we are all guilty at times of stoopid and thoughtless. During the90 nose-down recovery on that buzz, buffet, judder evolution, I can still see (in my nightmares) whole hordes of spectators below running radially outwards.
Never letting things develop is the secret sauce. Not starting without sufficient smash is the secret saviour. Low and slow or high, slow and face-fulla dirt is formulaically fatal.
Not trying to be smart. I was essentially self-taught.... and soon learnt to stop trying too hard or being in anyway adventurous. An earnest discussion with my CO (who saw that very proximal garbage roll) also helped re-orient my bravado. He was talking to the CAS in front of the O's Mess when he saw the CAS expression change to horror - as he viewed me in the distance over the CO's shoulder. As I said later, on his carpet, "no sweat boss, I'm on top of it now. There's a bit of a trick to it.".

You really think this was a planned barrel roll after take off on a pairs take off proceeding on a ferry flight with Pax onboard?

[Mozella]

Well, no. But taking off from runway 09, an ejection straight ahead would have sent the jet to downtown Kamloops. Lots of houses everywhere. I can understand that the pilot was looking for an alternate option and trying to steer the jet away from the inhabited areas.
I strapped into my first ejection seat equipped aircraft back in 1965. Since then I have NEVER heard any pilot or backseater talk about not ejecting promptly in order to avoid a populated area. Of course normal flight planning tries to avoid flying over houses to reduce noise pollution and/or keep from dropping bombs and stuff in Aunt Maud's back yard, and so on. If there is a town some distance off the end of a runway, I imagine the person writing the departure procedure would take that into account so that a normal departure would include a turn. That is generally the case for both military and civilian flying.
Generally speaking, you don't want to eject unless you have to. It's dangerous, it hurts, and there is a lot of paperwork associated with any ejection. However, when it IS time to eject........... well...... you EJECT and you don't want to waste a millisecond because doing so might get you killed. It's that simple.
And in this case, it looks like the plane actually crashed in somebody's front yard, the pilot ended up on a roof, and the passenger not far away.
The idea of sacrificing yourself on the off chance that you might steer away from a school yard is a myth perpetrated by an uneducated media.

[NutLoose]

That was painful to watch, my heartfelt condolences to the young lady who lost her life, and my thoughts are with the injured pilot, one wishes you a speedy full recovery, both physically and mentally..

One also wonders how the woman you hear calling him a show off just prior to ejection is feeling and one hopes she too does not have nightmares over it,.

[monkey416]

You really think this was a planned barrel roll after take off on a pairs take off proceeding on a ferry flight with Pax onboard?
I think the investigation will show that you are correct. Didnt look like one to me. That aircraft and pilot were not part of the show team.

[standbykid]

I think the investigation will show that you are correct. Didnt look like one to me. That aircraft and pilot were not part of the show team.
Yep, they're not doing aerobatics as such, more a formation flyover tour of Canada in stages. I assume the deceased was not actually a pilot but a team member, PR as I understand it. Not totally convinced non essential personnel should be flying in these circumstances. Apparently apart from the two spare Tutors they don't have any support aircraft.

[TBM-Legend]

The Blues are re-equipping with Super Hornets..

[Tashengurt]

That was painful to watch, my heartfelt condolences to the young lady who lost her life, and my thoughts are with the injured pilot, one wishes you a speedy full recovery, both physically and mentally..

One also wonders how the woman you hear calling him a show off just prior to ejection is feeling and one hopes she too does not have nightmares over it,.

That 'woman' is clearly a young child. Let's hope she doesn't have nightmares.

[Nige321]

Yep, they're not doing aerobatics as such, more a formation flyover tour of Canada in stages. I assume the deceased was not actually a pilot but a team member, PR as I understand it. Not totally convinced non essential personnel should be flying in these circumstances. Apparently apart from the two spare Tutors they don't have any support aircraft.
The flight wasn't part of a flyover.
The team were transitting to another location...

Apparently apart from the two spare Tutors they don't have any support aircraft.
Neither do many other teams...

[TBM-Legend]

RAAF Macchi's used to practice EFATO turn backs all the time in my day. I'm not aware that there was ever any crashes from this practice. To me it looks like an EFATO with the speed to height and maybe just got too slow for the turnback, stalled and sadly the end...

[junior.VH-LFA]

Yep, they're not doing aerobatics as such, more a formation flyover tour of Canada in stages. I assume the deceased was not actually a pilot but a team member, PR as I understand it. Not totally convinced non essential personnel should be flying in these circumstances. Apparently apart from the two spare Tutors they don't have any support aircraft.

The team were conducting a formation transit, a positioning leg. It is common for team members other than aircrew to travel with the formation. All of this information was easily found using google.

[junior.VH-LFA]

RAAF Macchi's used to practice EFATO turn backs all the time in my day. I'm not aware that there was ever any crashes from this practice. To me it looks like an EFATO with the speed to height and maybe just got too slow for the turnback, stalled and sadly the end...

I wonder how many turn backs occurred for real (genuine question/curiosity), and also what the height gates for them were in the Macchi. CFS is still teaching turn backs in the PC-21; but with a gate height a lot higher than what was shown in the video. Not to say what's right or wrong, I don't have the experience.

Another thing that is I guess at a glance unique is that the Tutor is not in current active service in the RCAF, unlike flying something like the T-6 or the Hawk (or PC-21/9 in the RAAF) which pilots would have been trained to fly on pilots course, FIC, while at the schools etc. The only Tutor time the crew have is time the pilots presumably have as part of the team; not through any other posting or tour.

[Obese]

Does the Tutor engine have a chip detector?

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I'm surprised that a straight ahead climb followed by an ejection wasn't selected. A turn back from that altitude looks impossible to me. Surely such a calculation is routine for every single engine jet takeoff in a military aircraft?

WWW

[derjodel]

Why would they pull up like that after what seems a normal TO?

They planned (or ad hoc decided to do) an aerobatic maneuver which ended badly
Somatogravic illusion
Technical problems (control surface, engine,...)
Health issue (anything from a bee i the cockpit to something else)
Cockpit management (e.g. PNF took control, made a mistake in the process)
Trading speed for height in order to eject
CoG issue (doesn't seem like it)
?

It's impossible to say which is true. But they did indeed climb, stall(?), bank so that the cockpit was pointing towards the sky and eject. Could as well be a planned ejection, with an unfortunate outcome.

[monkey416]

Probably turning away from the city/river/mountains. Take a look at google earth, its been ages since i flew in there but theres not many places to go to. i dont think he was trying to make the airfield.

[derjodel]

Was the video taken from here (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6985719,-120.4326779,3a,75y,349.27h,100.55t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMEHpxjBh96rXg5w4aSvndtcGSzm9u0GV1N _tM0!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2 FAF1QipMEHpxjBh96rXg5w4aSvndtcGSzm9u0GV1N_tM0%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya216.86647-ro-0-fo100!7i10240!8i5120), across the road?

[dave.rooney]

I was taught you never attempt a turnback from an engine failure after takeoff. Have things changed?

I had a look at Google Maps of the area around CYKA. An engine failure on takeoff leaves you with the choices of a Domtar pulp & paper mill on the south side of the river, or residential neighbourhoods on the north (and the river straight ahead). None of those options seem particularly good. Perhaps the pilot was at least trying to turn towards the northwest where there's a bit of open space near the airport as well as the golf course.

[medod]

So to be clear, the Snowbirds don't fly practice EFATO PFLs? If not surely they must brief to only leave above a certain height and speed, not start turning.

All very odd; jet enters what looks like an uncoordinated turn, spins to the right through a full rotation, and seems to briefly (self?) stabilise as the crew leave. No smoke, flame or debris from the jetpipe before the pull-up, no change in engine note that I can hear.

[dead_pan]

RAAF Macchi's used to practice EFATO turn backs all the time in my day. I'm not aware that there was ever any crashes from this practice. To me it looks like an EFATO with the speed to height and maybe just got too slow for the turnback, stalled and sadly the end...

But presumably this training was for conventional single ship take-offs and climb out where you would have had more height to play with (and more awareness of your options) albeit probably less speed?

I guess the investigation will establish whether he could have made the turn if he kept lower/faster, or at least got the a/c pointing back at the airfield or some open space and given him and his PAX a better chance of a survivable ejection. So very sad.

[cappt]

At 10 seconds on the second linked video. Double pop later for both ejection seats. I had ear buds in when I heard it.
I can hear it, a muffled pop @ :09-10sec. It could also be a car door in the background but it engine trouble is highly suspect.

[Airbubba]

From PM Trudeau:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/992x257/trudeau_ba8a00dcc136aad3bdbd62044d50dbd77e7028ce.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1356/17762283_web1_190719_pwn_snowbird_2_cb439a1134f4c8a6d28d0a7f 05c3e42560a74293.jpg



It is not unusual for the majority of the Snowbirds team to be from non-FJ backgrounds. The RCAF is also very short on FJ pilots as it is.

In this case the pilot came from the C-130 community:

After getting his degree in 2009, he entered flight training in Moose Jaw, Sask. in 2010 and got his wings in Portage La Prairie, Man. in 2011 and began flying the C-130 Hercules in operations around the world from 2011 to 2017, including an air-to-air refuelling role with CF-18s.“They had to send one guy to Moose Jaw (the home base of the Snowbirds) and my name came up to teach at the school. I taught on the Harvard-2 aircraft for two years,” he said. “It is very much a lead into doing the Snowbirds. By being on base I was asked to try out and went through the process.”

MacDougall joined the Snowbirds last August and said it’s a tremendous honour.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/provincial/snowbird-pilot-flies-a-mission-of-thanks-over-sackville-nb-448287/

[TIMTS]

I just listened to a podcast interview with a former Snowbirds CO, and one of the things he mentioned is the lack of luggage space in the Tutor.
Looking at the picture of Capt. Casey in the Tutor there seems to be a duffel bag stuffed on top of her seat. I have seen pics of F-16s with a bag behind the seat, and an F-15E with a big duffel on top of the WSO instrument panel. Could this bag, if present during the flight, have interfered with the proper seat functioning?

Ken

[Tashengurt]

I just listened to a podcast interview with a former Snowbirds CO, and one of the things he mentioned is the lack of luggage space in the Tutor.
Looking at the picture of Capt. Casey in the Tutor there seems to be a duffel bag stuffed on top of her seat. I have seen pics of F-16s with a bag behind the seat, and an F-15E with a big duffel on top of the WSO instrument panel. Could this bag, if present during the flight, have interfered with the proper seat functioning?

Ken

Worryingly the other seat seems to have a bag there as well as does the aircraft behind. Certainly there's a dark shape atop the seat.
I do see a headset beneath the bag though so perhaps this is 'remove before flight' stowage?

[geo10]

I would expect a "remove before flight item" to be red (or other bright) color, but there are more knowledgable folks here to comment on that.

[derjodel]

I just listened to a podcast interview with a former Snowbirds CO, and one of the things he mentioned is the lack of luggage space in the Tutor.
Looking at the picture of Capt. Casey in the Tutor there seems to be a duffel bag stuffed on top of her seat. I have seen pics of F-16s with a bag behind the seat, and an F-15E with a big duffel on top of the WSO instrument panel. Could this bag, if present during the flight, have interfered with the proper seat functioning?

Ken

Is this the seat? http://www.ejectionsite.com/ct114seat.htm
Look at the side view, there's an arm with a drogue parachute, which at some point extends right where the bag is. If my life depended on it I would certainly not want an object on top of this design!

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/438x761/cl41_3_351b1ca934e955e0a47dfe31b6c999a05135b3ce.jpg

[Tashengurt]

I would expect a "remove before flight item" to be red (or other bright) color, but there are more knowledgable folks here to comment on that.

Yeah, I didn't mean a purpose made cover etc, just an ad hoc item in a handy place whilst they're on the ground.

[jimf671]

Seen.

That's an awful lot of 'remove before ...'.

[derjodel]

I think they definitely fly with the bags there! Look at this site: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4526123-181/canadas-snowbirds-aerobatics-team-takes?artslide=5

Look at the first picture: bags on the wings.
Second picture, I'm fairly sure it's the same bag on the seat.
That space is empty when they do shows (picture 3)


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1592x1034/screenshot_2020_05_18_at_20_07_28_93326481875bcf0d9d9d7ca779 33c203be85b801.png
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1264x936/screenshot_2020_05_18_at_20_07_53_51d1a594c79d1e2ec24545f1fd d62ae263840beb.png
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/575x383/snowbird_6_with_bill_and_maj_searle_bu_orig_0cb93db3eeea19ce 82d8af04a62e331d41743785.jpg

[Airbubba]

I just listened to a podcast interview with a former Snowbirds CO, and one of the things he mentioned is the lack of luggage space in the Tutor.
Looking at the picture of Capt. Casey in the Tutor there seems to be a duffel bag stuffed on top of her seat.

It sure does look like a duffel bag of some sort rather than a seat cover. I just found a higher resolution version of the original picture and put it into the post above. From some of the file names it looks like this picture may have been taken in July 2019.

A friend who flew with the Blue Angels in the early 1990's said they had a mechanical over the North Pacific and diverted into Cold Bay, Alaska. Many of us have used PACD for an ETOPS alternate on the NOPAC routes. I've never been there myself (except in the simulator).

The hospitality was warm and when the team got things patched up and they were ready to leave the pilots were all given huge frozen fish as a traditional native honor. I guess the C-130 was already in ANC so they put the fish in the cockpit and bent them somewhat to fit into the canopy. My friend did express some concern that an ejection with a fish on top might not go as planned.

[Nige321]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/480x360/image_49613e2a63542c8d240256ff45a54fbd967723e3.jpeg
A cursory search on Google images would indicate they routinely fly with an overnight bag on top of the seat...🤔

[Capn Bug Smasher]

It sure does look like a duffel bag of some sort rather than a seat cover. I just found a higher resolution version of the original picture and put it into the post above. From some of the file names it looks like this picture may have been taken in July 2019.

I'm sure it's a duffel bag. The brand appears to be Osprey... they do nice haversacks for hiking... never heard of them doing ejection seat covers.

Bloody hell if true - I wonder if there's a Safety Case for it - normalisation of deviance? RIP.

[tdracer]

So the question is, did the seats work as specified? In which case they are probably not suitable for use in the "high risk" environment of a formation display team.


Just thinking out loud here, but:
AP based solid rocket propellant is very stable and stores quite well (in my amateur rocketry activities I've successfully used AP propellant reloads that were 20+ years old), with one exception:
It can become very difficult to ignite. A layer of oxide often forms on the exposed surfaces which interferes with the ability of the igniter pyrogen to ignite the propellant. This can result in one or more of what we call a 'chuff'' where the propellant partially ignites (resulting in a 'chuff' of exhaust), then a pause while the chamber pressure/temp come back up and either it 'chuffs' again or it properly ignites.
Perhaps an decades old ejection seat rocket motor didn't light cleanly?

[Arnie Madsen]

A retired Snowbird pilot was interviewed and he said the ejection system is not 0/0 it is 0/60 (or 60/0) .... it is old school and you need a lot more altitude than modern seats .... he also said the pilot followed procedures for power failure .... nose up , gain altitude , hit air-start .... and if no start then eject ..... and that is exactly what the pilot did ... except he ejected a bit late.

I listened to the video and there is definitely an engine "pop" just after takeoff and that is when the pilot tried to gain altitude.

(my guess) is the delay in ejecting was maybe because the pilot wanted to make sure his passenger ejected .... she was part of the team but as public relations .... she would have had some training but he wanted to make sure.

No witness reports of chutes fully opening .... pilot hit a roof and badly injured .... sadly the lady passenger hit a tree and did not survive.

Only "good" thing is the jet went straight down into a front yard so minimum residential damages

[tartare]

My deepest sympathies to all those touched by this crash.

For now I'm not going to comment on how the aircraft arrived in the position it did. I do however find myself surprised by the video of the ejection. I am very familiar with MB seats and the sequencing thereof but know very little about the seats fitted to the CT 114.

The large smoke plumes and lack of an early seat separation were a surprise to me. I would have expected seats of that vintage to use sequenced charges (or even a single charge) as they moved up the rails and for an immediate drogue deployment with separation occurring as soon as tumbling stopped.

Difficult to accurately assess height and ROD but it looked like a better result should have been obtained.

So the question is, did the seats work as specified? In which case they are probably not suitable for use in the "high risk" environment of a formation display team.

Several have commented on the Snowbirds use of what is essentially a vintage jet for their displays. I am not against that providing the risks are minimised. Lets face it the alternative would probably be a Harvard 2 or disbandment. I wonder if the fitment of something like an MB Mk 8 seat has ever been considered for the Snowbirds CT 114. I know it is available as a retrofit for the T37 which also has (albeit different) a Weber seat.

Perhaps the conversation was along the lines of " we struggle to justify the costs of the Snowbirds as it is, if you insist the current seats are unsafe we will just can the team".

Whatever happens as a result of this accident I hope the Snowbirds continue. I'd love it to be in the CT 114 but I think it will cost money. Hopefully that money can be found.

Exactly.
That ejection looks very odd indeed - I've never seen smoke like that.
Possible EFATO or low thrust - use of energy to climb to height, attempted turn back and stall.
They were well into the stall before they got out; must have been right on the edge of the seat envelopes.
Pictures of those bags on top of the seats just beggars belief...

[junior.VH-LFA]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/rag3ozf_ec535a7bf65bce83b6c544530fb4bb4a2ec72e4a.jpg


Photo of the incident departure. No bags on top of the seats.

[ASRAAMTOO]

Just thinking out loud here, but:
AP based solid rocket propellant is very stable and stores quite well (in my amateur rocketry activities I've successfully used AP propellant reloads that were 20+ years old), with one exception:
It can become very difficult to ignite. A layer of oxide often forms on the exposed surfaces which interferes with the ability of the igniter pyrogen to ignite the propellant. This can result in one or more of what we call a 'chuff'' where the propellant partially ignites (resulting in a 'chuff' of exhaust), then a pause while the chamber pressure/temp come back up and either it 'chuffs' again or it properly ignites.
Perhaps an decades old ejection seat rocket motor didn't light cleanly?


Except I don’t think this type of seat has a rocket motor.

[ASRAAMTOO]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/rag3ozf_ec535a7bf65bce83b6c544530fb4bb4a2ec72e4a.jpg


Photo of the incident departure. No bags on top of the seats.

If this is indeed the actual departure then it would appear that the person who landed on the roof was in the right hand seat. Is it normal for non aircrew passengers to sit in the left hand seat of a Tutor?

[unmanned_droid]

Indeed, the earlier photo of Captn Casey sitting in 'her' jet has her name below the cockpit on the left side too.

In the video from the guy smoking I hear a pop as the aircraft draws level with him, but I don't hear a pop from the video with the girl saying 'show off'.

Very sad event.

[Airbubba]

If this is indeed the actual departure then it would appear that the person who landed on the roof was in the right hand seat. Is it normal for non aircrew passengers to sit in the left hand seat of a Tutor?

I had the same thoughts. Captain MacDougall had the red team helmet when he landed on the roof. Captain Casey appears to be in the left seat wearing a gray helmet in this photo.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x1080/rag3ozf_ec535a7bf65bce83b6c544530fb4bb4a2ec72e4a_2_large__c3 42e03c4fff8e65f3a6183d5942bc204a4cc619.jpg

[Airbubba]

Media Conference today featuring Snowbirds Commanding Officer Lieutenant Colonel Mike French. By request, he answers many of the same questions in English and French.

He calls the mishap a confluence of worst case scenarios and says that yesterday it became their worst nightmare.

https://youtu.be/bSnC8n_6NrU

[RAFEngO74to09]

Opinion and a bit more background on the CT-144 from You Tube user "blancolirio" who is a former USAF pilot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10Og_7sqU7s

[RAFEngO74to09]

From my point of view as a former OC Armament in the days when we had RAF-manned ejection seat bays, the Weber CL-41 seat is a very old design dating back to the 1950s.

When calling it a "0/60" seat, that is before taking any downward vector into account - and there was a significant one here.

Also, the CL-41 does not have a rocket pack and the associated "dial-a-weight" function which adjusts the angle of the rocket pack to have the line of thrust through the C of G of the seat occupant.

It was not until the late-1960s when seats like the Martin Baker Mk H7 used in the Phantom started to get all the bells and whistles that most fast jet aircrew today would be familiar with.

MB H7 Seat: http://www.ejectionsite.com/f4seat.htm

Weber CL-41 Seat: http://www.ejectionsite.com/ct114seat.htm

[Airbubba]

Opinion and a bit more background on the CT-144 from You Tube user "blancolirio" who is a former USAF pilot:

While I appreciate him offering his expert analysis as a former tanker pilot, I'm not sure his claim at 4:00 that the Snowbirds are by far the largest jet demonstration team with the largest number of aircraft in formation is correct.

[jimjim1]

Photo of the incident departure. No bags on top of the seats.

Hmmm.

Other images show that Capt Jennifer Casey had a team red helmet. Also shown are her designation and name "Public Affairs Officer * Capt Jenn....." beside the cockpit.

This image does not have a three word title and the LHS occupant has a grey helmet.

Also the background is not appear to me to be consistent with a takeoff from Kamloops 09. There should be a big river behind the aircraft (not visible) and rising ground far behind that.About a mile away from the runway.

Finally they were on a transit and they do seem to carry bags on transits.

Of course many of these can be explained away but I don't think that is the flight in question.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/819x755/snowbirds_background_fc5a7bec51937445d1587cc119591a1f803c55d d.jpg

[jimjim1]

Pilots seem to fly from both LHS and RHS, perhaps it depends on their position in the formation?

[Airbubba]

Hmmm.

Other images show that Capt Jennifer Casey had a team red helmet. Also shown are her designation and name "Public Affairs Officer * Capt Jenn....." beside the cockpit.

This image does not have a three word title and the LHS occupant has a grey helmet.

Here's a still from a recent video showing the gray helmet. The name on the side looks something like 'Avionics Technician Cpl Kay'. The headphones (or hearing protectors) and possibly a dark bag seem to be behind the seat.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1891x864/jenn_2__d215e72a95a4b9412d84a852b328c84e8dfcc1e8.jpg


Here is a Facebook post by a photographer who goes by the handle of Saspotting:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1629/saspotting_large__45537ea5bbf076b0469eec0130195b42b081af96.j pg
https://www.facebook.com/saspotting/

I'd say the pictures are probably legit.

[cncpc]

Yes - I do know that :rolleyes:
Have a look at multiple ejection videos on the web.
Flames, yes.
A bit of white smoke, occasionally.
First time I've seen that degree of brown/black smoke.
And there's more from one seat than the other.
The Tutor is a 1960s era aircraft - does it still use the Weber seats?
Perhaps just a different type of propellant...
I thought that was unusual.

An observer saw the pilot "20 feet off the ground" and his parachute was still straight up. The nurse who worked on the passenger said her seat was beside her and the parachute was trailed but not open. Nurse interviewed on CBC an hour ago. She said she cannot believe the pilot survived.

[ozbiggles]

I’m pretty sure the red you are seeing on her helmet is a visor cover.

For me it was vintage era ejection seats that led to her untimely death. I’m not sure that is forgivable. When the last option becomes the only option and it is older than you are....

[Airbubba]

I’m pretty sure the red you are seeing on her helmet is a visor cover.

Yep, it says 'PAO'. Here it is on the red helmet from a picture posted above.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1798x1080/17762283_web1_190719_pwn_snowbird_2_2_large__56871c71d021d5a 812b8aae4a9f398dba7d580d1.jpg

For me it was vintage era ejection seats that led to her untimely death. I’m not sure that is forgivable. When the last option becomes the only option and it is older than you are....

The predictable calls to ground the planes from 'experts' including a New York aviation lawyer and a guy who was a Canadian Forces aviation technician in the 1980's:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/crash-shows-it-s-time-to-ground-the-snowbirds-aging-tutor-jets-experts-say-1.4944146

https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1960912

[cncpc]

I had a look at Google Maps of the area around CYKA. An engine failure on takeoff leaves you with the choices of a Domtar pulp & paper mill on the south side of the river, or residential neighbourhoods on the north (and the river straight ahead). None of those options seem particularly good. Perhaps the pilot was at least trying to turn towards the northwest where there's a bit of open space near the airport as well as the golf course.

There were two choices...eject or ditch in the river. The river was straight ahead and into wind. Eject raised the issue of positioning the aircraft to avoid ground damages and injuries. There was no possibility of that from a right turn after a second or so of the zoom. The other Tutor was well clear.

Had he been able to transition from the zoom to glide north to eject the aircraft would have come to earth in desert hills. Had he turned right, he could have pointed anywhere south and ejected at the top of the zoom or after stabilizing for optimal eject conditions. There is nobody on the south side of the Thompson. Nothing but desert hills.

Land on the river, unstrap and get out seems so obvious, but I suspect that is not something the military would ever consider. There was no realistic place to do a forced landing on land, certainly not that pulp mill.

Here is the overhead. The two yellow pins are where the pilot was found and where the aircraft impacted. It is 900 yards north to a safe impact area.

https://i.postimg.cc/KjjGrQSd/yka-overhead.jpg (https://postimg.cc/N2hvQ604)is regions open on sunday (https://banks-nearme.com/)

[tartare]

I wouldn't want to ditch in a jet.
The two times I've taken a ride, you're trussed up and tied in real damn tight - as you want to be.
Leg restraints, g-trousers hose and O2 feed, plus coms plug and the five point harness.
It's quite disconcerting at first.
Even with the quick release, you're not going anywhere in a hurry.
Given how quick things happen in a jet - if you needed to get out really fast - you'd be pulling the handle...!

[ozbiggles]

Airbubba, I hate to say it and in my post I only referring to the seat....but I think it is time for those old girls. You could sway me with a 0/0 bang seat but then there is the age old problem the jet still has to go somewhere. Keep a few for museum flying under strict conditions but I actually think the news story you quote is fairly reasonable. It seems that is the plan in the next few years anyway.
I wonder too if the Pilot had part of his thought process as it was happening the risks of having a passenger have to bang out as well. Not a criticism, just another thing going on in the busiest environment you could ever have. A lot of things went wrong that day.

Yep, ejection is a last option.....right before ditching a jet!

[777Goose]

Tutor Engine failure
zoom idle airstart
i have my checklist somewhere but it is a memory item one doesn't forget.
the pilot was new to type in January.
The pilot did not maintained control of the aircraft following an engine event and allowed a stall/spin to develop.
the seats are 0/60 in level flight and the sequence was initiated outside the envelope.
no pilot is looking down, nor are they able at the zoom attitude to say I'm avoiding a residential area

Ejection failure due to loss of aircraft control and subsequent ejection outside of the seat envelope.
a very unfortunate event that the pilot will be haunted with for the rest of his life.
RIP sister and we're here for you brother.

Ex Tutor pilot/FSO

[cncpc]

Departing runway 09, not all that much empty land. Rising terrain all quadrants, hills, bluffs or benches, industry, suburbs (including the impact point), and the heart of the downtown.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kamloops+Airport/@50.6954212,-120.4160195,15126m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x3a17ce6b644e87ce!8m2!3d50.7052 202!4d-120.4417902

But there is the Thompson River directly on runway heading (either runway, it bends around the airport). However, I have no clue how well a Tutor would handle a ditching, nor whether a visiting crew would recognize that option unless they'd had a special briefing.

I understand the Tutor has a stall speed of 70 knots. Gear up it should be quite simple to ditch. McArthur Island is under 1.5 miles from the point at top of zoom and prior to the left turn. Not to land there, but close to shore, or right up against either riverbank. The river flows west there.

I suspect the military way is to try and get it somewhere safe and eject.

[wiggy]

I understand the Tutor has a stall speed of 70 knots. Gear up it should be quite simple to ditch.

Ditching might be "simple" but you do need to be mindful of the point tartare made upthread about unstrapping when you mentioned ditching in your earlier post.

I can't speak take for the Weber product but I strapped into and unstrapped from various versions of M-B seats a few times in my formative years and it's not a simple task to unhook yourself completely from a ejection seat and simply climb over the side, even in the event of a rapid egress on the ground from an intact stationary aircraft.

It can also be a seriously risky process if for any reason the seat cannot be made safe and remains "live".

BTW back to tdracer's point about the quality of the "smoke"..given, as it is being claimed, these weren't rocket seats what did produce the smoke trails, Seat cartridges? Drogue gun?.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Tutor Engine failure
zoom idle airstart


Ex Tutor pilot/FSO
It may be a drill to do when you have speed and or height, altitude, but not at low level and relatively low speed as in just after take off. There is surely not the time at low level to get the engine back up to useful thrust and no guarantee it will start if, say the flameout or rundown, was caused by mechanical failure such as hp fuel pump drive.

Although we were taught turnbacks on the Jet Provost when I was a student in 62/63 its one reason we later stopped Low level turnbacks in the RAF many, about 40 years, ago.

I will now leave this to the investigation team to analyse.

RIP to the lady and condolences to her family and the team.

Ex RAF QFI and ejectee.

[Dan Winterland]

I can't speak take for the Weber product but I strapped into and unstrapped from various versions of M-B seats a few times in my formative years and it's not a easy, quick, simple task to unhook yourself from a ejection seat and climb over the side, even in the event of a raid egress on the ground from an intact aircraft. It can also be fraught with risk if the seat is live.

I think you can use the manual separation to egress rapidly in a ditching situation. The parachute will come with you, but so will the seat pack. I'm sure that was the procedure on the MB Mk4 we used on the JP where you needed the seat pack for the dingy.

Although we were taught turnbacks on the Jet Provost when I was a student in 62/63 its one reason we later stopped Low level turnbacks in the RAF many, about 40 years, ago.

When I trained on the JP in the mid 80s, students were briefed to eject after an EFATO, only the QFIs were allowed to attempt a turnback and IIRC, the parameters were 160kts and 500ft. The Mk4 seat parameters for ejecting were 0/80 and min height in the descent at 1/10th of your decent rate. So descending at 2000fpm, you needed 200ft minimum.

[wiggy]

Hi Dan..

Yes as I recall it on the Mk 4 the separation handle was an option - still not an easy task to haul yourself out with chute and dingy attached....

We've had the JP turnback discussion before - they may have been banned for a time in the RAF, I don't know, but as you point out they were certainly taught to QFIs on the JP at CFS in the mid/late 80s..

[777Goose]

On the Tudor for ground egress
Oxygen connections one two three lapbelt lanyard QRB
threre is no ditching or forced landing (off field) procedure other then ejection.
in circa 1985 two FIS instructors out of Portage La Praire had a fuel pump failure and did an uneventful forced landing on the Trans Canada Hiway. They were both simultaneously slapped on the hand and patted on the back.

[EXFIN]

Fhttps://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/268x201/834648e9_3716_4bc6_b0de_7b10f3e7330f_4020a4972aac23090cee3e7 2e4c40df90df62273.jpeg
Could the ‘light’ by the stbd intake be a surge or mech failure? The ‘zoom’ climb looked quite an aggressive manoeuvre from such a low altitude.

[medod]

I listened to the video and there is definitely an engine "pop" just after takeoff and that is when the pilot tried to gain altitude.



I’ve played the video back through my hi fi. There is nothing but the normal sounds of two turbojets in two aircraft.

Edit: no pop in the ‘young girl’ video. In the video ‘blancolirio’ plays, yep, a clear pop

[PineappleFrenzy]

I’ve played the video back through my hi fi. There is nothing but the normal sounds of two turbojets in two aircraft.

Edit: no pop in the ‘young girl’ video. In the video ‘blancolirio’ plays, yep, a clear pop

I too heard nothing notable in the video shot from the south. The video with the audible pop was taken from the north side of the runway (left side of runway, from A/C perspective). At the nine second mark, an audible pop or crack is evident. Attached is a screenshot of the waveform. The pop occurs at 09.24 seconds, after which the recording device's automatic gain control (volume limiter) compensates for the noise (the waveform shrinks instantaneously, and gradually grows again for a half second or so). Something loud definitely occurred at around 09.24 seconds. Below the waveform image is a spectrograph of a three second portion of the audio (8.00 to 11.00 seconds). That image shows two anomalies: one, just before the 1 second mark, and another at about the 1.2-1.3 second mark (8.9 and 9.2-3 seconds according to the video timecode). Upon listening, I could detect no audible anomaly before the 9 second mark. So the spectrograph doesn't tell the whole story I'm afraid.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1191x394/snowbird_audio_anomaly_56a6f7aa4f98ec019c99dc2b0d0a29acd6114 1d8.png
Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1092x688/snowbird_spectrum_79731d402d890b3f7838a30ea01c5ad0bfc5b813.p ng
Spectrograph of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash. Covers a three second portion of the video's audio track (8.00 - 11.00 seconds).

[RetiredBA/BY]

Google :

Ejection decision, a second too late.

A USAF training film, exactly relevant to this occurrence.

[mickjoebill]

With this design, would the entire canopy or just the plexiglass be ejected?


Is there evidence of the canopy separating as designed?

mjb

[lsh]

Whatever the speed was at the top of the manoeuvre, I think it highly likely that the angle of bank (60 deg?) selected immediately took the aircraft out of limits.

lsh

[cncpc]

You really think this was a planned barrel roll after take off on a pairs take off proceeding on a ferry flight with Pax onboard?

The wee willy wasnt getting enough attention.

[cncpc]

I too heard nothing notable in the video shot from the south. The video with the audible pop was taken from the north side of the runway (left side of runway, from A/C perspective). At the nine second mark, an audible pop or crack is evident. Attached is a screenshot of the waveform. The pop occurs at 09.24 seconds, after which the recording device's automatic gain control (volume limiter) compensates for the noise (the waveform shrinks instantaneously, and gradually grows again for a half second or so). Something loud definitely occurred at around 09.24 seconds. Below the waveform image is a spectrograph of a three second portion of the audio (8.00 to 11.00 seconds). That image shows two anomalies: one, just before the 1 second mark, and another at about the 1.2-1.3 second mark (8.9 and 9.2-3 seconds according to the video timecode). Upon listening, I could detect no audible anomaly before the 9 second mark. So the spectrograph doesn't tell the whole story I'm afraid.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1191x394/snowbird_audio_anomaly_56a6f7aa4f98ec019c99dc2b0d0a29acd6114 1d8.png
Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1092x688/snowbird_spectrum_79731d402d890b3f7838a30ea01c5ad0bfc5b813.p ng
Spectrograph of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash. Covers a three second portion of the video's audio track (8.00 - 11.00 seconds).

That video came out in the first hour after the crash. I think you can only hear the pop in the Cory Pelton video, the one in which the aircraft pass abeam in the air. I'd seen a bird cross during the takeoff roll and I played it back to listen for a bird strike. When you're looking for the unusual, it does stand out, and is immediately before the zoom starts. To me, it sounded like it might be a vehicle door closing. I asked Cory iif it could have been a car door and he said no. He said everybody was already out of their vehicles and waiting to watch the takeoff at the time. He saw no birds before or after. Thanks for the audio work.

[cncpc]

I don't see it anywhere above, but this is a very good interview of a former team lead for the Snowbirds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl7qOY2-o_Y

[JPJP]

It is not unusual for the majority of the Snowbirds team to be from non-FJ backgrounds. The RCAF is also very short on FJ pilots as it is.

As nice an idea as an RCAF team flying Hornets sounds I think they would really struggle to man it. Especially as a 9-ship.

BV

Hey Bob,

Thanks, and you’re correct. I assumed (yeah, I know), amongst other things, a FJ background for team members. It seems the Snowbirds are more analogous to the Roulettes in that regard.

Cheers.

[cncpc]

I'm surprised that a straight ahead climb followed by an ejection wasn't selected. A turn back from that altitude looks impossible to me. Surely such a calculation is routine for every single engine jet takeoff in a military aircraft?

WWW

Unless he turned right, there was great risk of the aircraft crashing and exploding in a densely populated area. His left turn was towards a populated area, and the aircraft did crash into a front yard, but it is one theory that the left turn was to position the aircraft to come to ground north of that area in empty hills. Delaying eject to better position the aircraft for ground safety depends on maintaining a glide. And to start with sufficient height. Downtown Kamloops is straight ahead, but unlikely it would have made it there, especailly in the nose down attitude it adopted.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Comparison - ejection seats with and without rocket pack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1cnvJO1TF8

State of the art MB F-35 seat features / capabilities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joDImvnGdYc

[gums]

Salute!

What's funny is they eject thru the canopy, more or less, in the F-35. The Harrier folks demanded a very quick system, and it was easier to put primacord all around the bottom several inches of the canopy and blow it at the same time as the seat blows. That was what the maintainer told me when I had one of the close up tours. The primacord or whatever it is is clearly visible and there are warning notes all around the canopy.

In any case, the first ejection was from a Bee (USMC) and worked like a charm.

Gotta tellya that I was very comfortable in the Viper with that ACES seat, and the infamous T-Bird ejection at Mt Home is proof positive. As a matter of fact, my deputy flight commander punched out in a family model when the motor quit pulling off a low altitude drop. Looked like the Snowbird except he didn't turn/stall and he asked the front seat student to initiate the sequence so he would know the student was gonna follow shortly. Didn't even lose the pencils on his shoulder pocket.

Gums sends...

[tartare]

The `squipper on the Hawk at Valley who strapped me in said they close the canopy very, very carefully - to avoid setting off the primacord...!

[Dune]

I instructed on this jet 35 years ago so let me set a few things straight (those things I can remember!). I also want to say there are those of us who have been there/done that and for those who are "armchair quarterbacks" ..... IT IS EASY TO CRITICIZE WHEN YOU ARE SITTING BEHIND A DESK DOING ZERO KNOTS. You have no idea how rapidly situations develop and how quickly you need to make split-second decisions of life and death. Everything below is pure speculation.

seat is a 0/60 seat (ground level but requires minimum 60 kts forward velocity to assist with 1-swing chute inflation). Optimal glide speed is 130 kts.
each ejection seat sequence is independent. First one to the handles is the 1st one out.
canopy shed is part of the process prior to going up the rails. The seat has a ram in case the canopy removal does not trigger so you can go through the canopy if it does not release.
there is no gyro-stabilization; straight rocket vector so a/c angle and trajectory is the most important factor in a successful ejection.

Ejection sequence:

pull the handles/slam your head back into the headrest as the belt tensioner will pull you back into the seat (you do not want your head down when the rocket fires due to neck injury).
canopy release fires; hopefully canopy separates (otherwise you are going though the canopy with the ram leading the way)
rocket seat initiates up the rails
seat drogue fires to provide drag to the seat to help with man/seat separation.
seat/man separator fires . This releases the 5-point harness and a "kicker" pushes the body/seat pack (which contains the survival equipment) out of the seat.
as you exit the seat a lanyard is attached to the harness which initiates chute deployment

I have looked at the video many times. It appears to me there was an engine issue (single engine jet) at low velocity at low altitude (my worst nightmare when I flew this type). Could be bird ingestion, compressor stall or engine failure.

Initial reaction (straight ahead zoom) was perfect but for some reason the pilot elected to commence a left turn. This is sub-optimal as in a single engine jet you want to maximize kinetic energy for potential energy (any turn reduces the amount of kinetic-to-potential energy you have). This jet was in a very low kinetic energy state to begin with so a wings level zoom was optimal.

Looking at the google map data provided by other it appears the left turn actually took the jet towards population whereas straight ahead was nothing but a river. This indicates to me he was not steering from population so what was his plan? I suspect he thought about a 180 degree gliding return back to the airport.

It appears to me as he hit the top of zoom he stalled the a/c initiating a right wing drop. At this point he needed to get the a/c level to best achieve successful ejection so rolled as best he could towards wings level. Unfortunately the vector at this point was well beyond the seat envelope. He is very fortunate to have survived while the passenger (who initiated fractionally later) was not so fortunate.

[RatherBeFlying]

There's much more capable ejection seats available and a number of videos showing low level saves.

It's common for non pilots to ride in the Tutors. A command pilot ejection initiation should eject both.

The Kamloops weather observations seem to have been embargoed. With diminished airspeed and thrust deficiency at the top of the zoom added to local topography, windshear could be behind the apparent loss of control. I have seen how quickly you can end up inverted on a steep downline.

[Airbubba]

I too heard nothing notable in the video shot from the south. The video with the audible pop was taken from the north side of the runway (left side of runway, from A/C perspective). At the nine second mark, an audible pop or crack is evident. Attached is a screenshot of the waveform. The pop occurs at 09.24 seconds, after which the recording device's automatic gain control (volume limiter) compensates for the noise (the waveform shrinks instantaneously, and gradually grows again for a half second or so). Something loud definitely occurred at around 09.24 seconds.

Here's a plot of a brief clip of a couple of seconds of the audio from the Corey Pelton video of the mishap as posted on YouTube. You can see the pop in the middle of the waveform plot at .83 seconds into this short excerpt and then reduced volume possibly from automatic gain control as you say.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1252x703/pop_3_9482554c37af806d1f62bc0779a11f5f2d82fcce.jpg


The audio of this short excerpt is attached as a .zip file which will open on most computers but not most tablets or phones.

[Airbubba]

The Kamloops weather observations seem to have been embargoed.

The takeoff was reported to be at about 11:45 am local, 1845Z on May 17.

METAR CYKA 171800Z 12008KT 30SM FEW010 SCT030 OVC048 14/10 A2970 RMK SF2SC2SC4 SLP062 DENSITY ALT 1500FT=

SPECI CYKA 171854Z 12004KT 40SM FEW010 SCT022 OVC054 14/10 A2970 RMK SF2SC3SC3 SLP064 DENSITY ALT 1500FT=

METAR CYKA 171900Z 13004KT 40SM FEW010 SCT023 BKN058 14/10 A2970 RMK SF1SC2SC3 SLP063 DENSITY ALT 1600FT=

[cncpc]

I instructed on this jet 35 years ago so let me set a few things straight (those things I can remember!). I also want to say there are those of us who have been there/done that and for those who are "armchair quarterbacks" ..... IT IS EASY TO CRITICIZE WHEN YOU ARE SITTING BEHIND A DESK DOING ZERO KNOTS. You have no idea how rapidly situations develop and how quickly you need to make split-second decisions of life and death. Everything below is pure speculation.

seat is a 0/60 seat (ground level but requires minimum 60 kts forward velocity to assist with 1-swing chute inflation). Optimal glide speed is 130 kts.
each ejection seat sequence is independent. First one to the handles is the 1st one out.
canopy shed is part of the process prior to going up the rails. The seat has a ram in case the canopy removal does not trigger so you can go through the canopy if it does not release.
there is no gyro-stabilization; straight rocket vector so a/c angle and trajectory is the most important factor in a successful ejection.

Ejection sequence:

pull the handles/slam your head back into the headrest as the belt tensioner will pull you back into the seat (you do not want your head down when the rocket fires due to neck injury).
canopy release fires; hopefully canopy separates (otherwise you are going though the canopy with the ram leading the way)
rocket seat initiates up the rails
seat drogue fires to provide drag to the seat to help with man/seat separation.
seat/man separator fires . This releases the 5-point harness and a "kicker" pushes the body/seat pack (which contains the survival equipment) out of the seat.
as you exit the seat a lanyard is attached to the harness which initiates chute deployment

I have looked at the video many times. It appears to me there was an engine issue (single engine jet) at low velocity at low altitude (my worst nightmare when I flew this type). Could be bird ingestion, compressor stall or engine failure.

Initial reaction (straight ahead zoom) was perfect but for some reason the pilot elected to commence a left turn. This is sub-optimal as in a single engine jet you want to maximize kinetic energy for potential energy (any turn reduces the amount of kinetic-to-potential energy you have). This jet was in a very low kinetic energy state to begin with so a wings level zoom was optimal.

Looking at the google map data provided by other it appears the left turn actually took the jet towards population whereas straight ahead was nothing but a river. This indicates to me he was not steering from population so what was his plan? I suspect he thought about a 180 degree gliding return back to the airport.

It appears to me as he hit the top of zoom he stalled the a/c initiating a right wing drop. At this point he needed to get the a/c level to best achieve successful ejection so rolled as best he could towards wings level. Unfortunately the vector at this point was well beyond the seat envelope. He is very fortunate to have survived while the passenger (who initiated fractionally later) was not so fortunate.
Respect. Thanks for those valuable insights.

[RetiredBA/BY]

I instructed on this jet 35 years ago so let me set a few things straight (those things I can remember!). I also want to say there are those of us who have been there/done that and for those who are "armchair quarterbacks" ..... IT IS EASY TO CRITICIZE WHEN YOU ARE SITTING BEHIND A DESK DOING ZERO KNOTS. You have no idea how rapidly situations develop and how quickly you need to make split-second decisions of life and death. Everything below is pure speculation.

seat is a 0/60 seat (ground level but requires minimum 60 kts forward velocity to assist with 1-swing chute inflation). Optimal glide speed is 130 kts.
each ejection seat sequence is independent. First one to the handles is the 1st one out.
canopy shed is part of the process prior to going up the rails. The seat has a ram in case the canopy removal does not trigger so you can go through the canopy if it does not release.
there is no gyro-stabilization; straight rocket vector so a/c angle and trajectory is the most important factor in a successful ejection.

Ejection sequence:

pull the handles/slam your head back into the headrest as the belt tensioner will pull you back into the seat (you do not want your head down when the rocket fires due to neck injury).
canopy release fires; hopefully canopy separates (otherwise you are going though the canopy with the ram leading the way)
rocket seat initiates up the rails
seat drogue fires to provide drag to the seat to help with man/seat separation.
seat/man separator fires . This releases the 5-point harness and a "kicker" pushes the body/seat pack (which contains the survival equipment) out of the seat.
as you exit the seat a lanyard is attached to the harness which initiates chute deployment

I have looked at the video many times. It appears to me there was an engine issue (single engine jet) at low velocity at low altitude (my worst nightmare when I flew this type). Could be bird ingestion, compressor stall or engine failure.

Initial reaction (straight ahead zoom) was perfect but for some reason the pilot elected to commence a left turn. This is sub-optimal as in a single engine jet you want to maximize kinetic energy for potential energy (any turn reduces the amount of kinetic-to-potential energy you have). This jet was in a very low kinetic energy state to begin with so a wings level zoom was optimal.

Looking at the google map data provided by other it appears the left turn actually took the jet towards population whereas straight ahead was nothing but a river. This indicates to me he was not steering from population so what was his plan? I suspect he thought about a 180 degree gliding return back to the airport.

It appears to me as he hit the top of zoom he stalled the a/c initiating a right wing drop. At this point he needed to get the a/c level to best achieve successful ejection so rolled as best he could towards wings level. Unfortunately the vector at this point was well beyond the seat envelope. He is very fortunate to have survived while the passenger (who initiated fractionally later) was not so fortunate.

Since you and a former leader have commented perhaps I could add something further based on real life experience on a similar jet albeit over 40 years ago.
Having trained and instructed ( and ejected from) a very similar jet, the Jet Provost 3 and 4 I agree wholeheartedly with your comments.
We do not know if the power loss was total or partial, if partial then the decision to turn back MAY well have been justified, if total, not so sure
That said, what no one has mentioned is the fact that the top of the zoom, if the handling pilot was in the right seat he would probably have his view of the runway, which he would need to asses the situation and his decisions, obstructed by the left seat occupant.
There is a good chance he would be leaning forward to get that vital view of the runway. So, low speed, turning, lots of bank, perhaps a touch of back stick to help the Tighten turn and off it went into a spin, which I would suggest, from experience of a lot of spinning in the JP as a QFI was totally unrecoverable from such low height. Attempting a recovery in that situation is futile and immediate ejection the ONLY option before you get out of the seat’s envelope in the worst situation, ejecting at low level from a descending aircraft, where you need an additional height of at least 10% of your ROD.

I really do deeply sympathise with that crew, I know from experience that the time from pulling the handle to the seat moving, seems an eternity. God knows what it was like at low level in a steep dive.

One of my IOT colleagues was killed at Leeming after a low level power loss, the instructor survived ( Martin Baker Mk 4 seat, 0- 80 Knots) the student did not, he was still in the jet when it hit the ground, so this accident brings back sad memories.

[Just This Once...]

Salute!

What's funny is they eject thru the canopy, more or less, in the F-35. The Harrier folks demanded a very quick system, and it was easier to put primacord all around the bottom several inches of the canopy and blow it at the same time as the seat blows.

Gums sends...

Kind of true Gums, but not driven by the Harrier community alone. Rocket canopies don't work in all scenarios and can be fatal in others - especially for ship operations. An MDC / LDC disrupted canopy is quick for sure but also works above and below the surface, does not provide a collision risk with the ejectee in unfavourable attitudes/airspeeds, does not fall back towards the aircraft when zero/zero with a tailwind, does not plow back towards the deck / parked aircraft / deck personnel when ejecting from a soft cat or bow EFATO etc.

For land ops some of these don't apply or mitigated in a different way. The last MB-equipped aircraft I flew had a rocket canopy and an LDC around the transparency, to add to the variety of yellow & black handles around the cockpit.

[walbut]

I am not going to speculate about the cause of the accident or worse (I think) pontificate about the aircrew's actions. What it brings home to me is a reminder of just how quick a perfectly normal, routine situation can change to one where you have to make an instant life or death decision to eject or not.

I remember attending a flight safety briefing given at Brough about 12 years ago by Pete 'Whizzer' Wilson who had had more than his fair share of this type of incident. The most powerful example he used in the briefing was a reconstruction/replay of the Tornado accident involving a BAe Warton crew at Squires Gate airport in Blackpool. The time between the aircraft starting to roll as they overshot and Paul Hopkins shouting "F***ing hell, get out" was remarkably short but if there has been even the slightest delay the accident would have had fatal consequences for the crew. In the event they both survived and the aircraft ended up on the sand, just past Blackpool pleasure beach.

Walbut

[PineappleFrenzy]

Here's a plot of a brief clip of a couple of seconds of the audio from the Corey Pelton video of the mishap as posted on YouTube. You can see the pop in the middle of the waveform plot at .83 seconds into this short excerpt and then reduced volume possibly from automatic gain control as you say.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1252x703/pop_3_9482554c37af806d1f62bc0779a11f5f2d82fcce.jpg


The audio of this short excerpt is attached as a .zip file which will open on most computers but not most tablets or phones.


The audio in my previous post was from the Corey Pelton video.

[pchapman]

as you exit the seat a lanyard is attached to the harness which initiates chute deployment



I'd like to add a bit to Dune's excellent technical post on the ejection system. I'm no expert on military stuff though, only being a PPL / skydiver / trained aero engineer.

Modern military ejection systems -- for over 40 years -- tend to get the parachute out faster, by using some sort of mortar system to fire a slug to pull out drogue and/or extraction chutes and with the momentum at slow speeds also drag the canopy and lines out to full stretch. Or have the mortar or other pyrotechnic mechanism to throw the whole canopy away from the seat in a container. Designs differ between say ACES II and Martin Baker. Yeah I'm a little hazy on the details but that's roughly how it works. One can see it on various ejection seat videos online.

The "initiates chute deployment" that Dune talks about for the Tutor, that in contrast is old school seat technology: The pilot is wearing the parchute on their back, and initiation just means having the ripcord pulled. After which a spring loaded pilot chute jumps out, hopefully doesn't catch in the burble behind the person for more than a split second, catches air, and drags the main chute out from the apex. Basically like a skydiver from the 1960s. That's going to take longer than any modern system that gets the canopy and lines stretched out by pretty much pyrotechnic means at slower speed.

I haven't tried to analyze the videos frame by frame, but it took a while for the parts of the ejection sequence to happen. Even given the old technology, it seemed to take an awfully long time for any parachute to appear. Wish someone knew the timing of the Tutor's Weber seats, eg, how long from leaving the aircraft to the seat-man separation and parachute deployment initiation.

On one of the videos, I only saw a little bit of canopy start to partially inflate, for one person, just before they went behind the treeline.

NOT an impressive ejection, unlike say Anatoly Kvochur at the 1989 Paris airshow, or the CF-18 at Lethbridge Canada in 2010, with modern seats. Clearly there are many factors in this accident, not just the old seat design but the bad timing of the engine problem, stalling it out on the climb, and the ejection while low and headed steeply downhill.

[cncpc]

The retired RN who tried to revive Captain Casey was quite clear that the seat was beside her, and the chute visible but not open.

[wiggy]

The "initiates chute deployment" that Dune talks about for the Tutor, that in contrast is old school seat technology: The pilot is wearing the parchute on their back, and initiation just means having the ripcord pulled. After which a spring loaded pilot chute jumps out, hopefully doesn't catch in the burble behind the person for more than a split second, catches air, and drags the main chute out from the apex. Basically like a skydiver from the 1960s. That's going to take longer than any modern system that gets the canopy and lines stretched out by pretty much pyrotechnic means at slower speed.


Thanks for the info..

From what I'm reading and to give context IMHO it doesn't seem this Weber seat, as being described, appears to be significantly worse in terms of main chute deployment performance than the similar generation M.B. products - reason being that Dunes says the Weber seat on the Tutor is declared as a 0/60 whereas the M.B. Mk 4, with drogue gun/mortar and subsequent main chute extraction by the drogue, was declared as I recall it as a 0/90 seat, (I've seen 0/80 mentioned so my memory might be failing me..it certainly wasn't a 0/60 or anything like).

I know technology has moved on but I think any potential users of these things have always been aware that at low level it is possible to get outside the seat envelope very quickly.

BTW (?Dunes) was the teaching with the Weber seat on the Tutor to try and "beat the seat" with regard to the D- ring at low level? I understand that was the teaching on some early American seats.

[RetiredBA/BY]

The. Martin Baker Mk 4 seat was declared as 0/80, ie safe to use at ground level WITH ZERO descent rate, but 80 knots MINIMUM IAS, and was EXTREMELY reliable, I am pleased to say, having used it in anger.

That said, MB guidance was that if descending then an additional height of at least 10% of ROD was required.

Applying MB guidance, Consider those Snowbird ejections:

It was descending almost vertically at at least 120 K ias, a conservative estimate but maybe even higher.

That is a descent rate of about 12,000 fpm.

That means a minimum ejection height should be about 1200 Feet.

Looking at that video it would appear that ejection was initiated below that height, ie outside the seats capability.

I dont think the seat performed poorly.

On a recent visit to the MB factory they proudly showed me the F35 seat with its auto eject function.

That seat is state of the art and from initiating the ejection to a full chute is extraordinarily fast, I believe less than 2 seconds. The Weber seat is not in that league.

[Drainpipe]

According to Martin Baker's website where they list all their seats, the Mk 4 was 0/90.

http://martin-baker.com/products/mk4-ejection-seat/

[RetiredBA/BY]

My apologies, yes it WAS 90 knots, must be my age.

The. 80 figure was the gun velocity, fps.

My apologies for that.

[Bob Viking]

I’ve been reading this thread with interest and a few things spring to mind for me.

Firstly, I think worrying about the functioning of the seat is a bit of a red herring. Watching the video would suggest that very few seats could have saved their occupants from the parameters at which ejection was initiated.

Secondly, we are all assuming the jet suffered an engine failure of some sort. That may, of course, prove to not have been the case.

If this was indeed an engine failure I cannot help but think the pilot was a little aggressive with his pitch up. Indeed by rewatching the HUD video of the Moose Jaw Hawk ejection in 2005 the initial zoom and turn seemed equally aggressive and ultimately mistaken. He reached 2.8G which is only going to deplete energy when it is needed most. Maybe Moose Jaw actively teach this method.

I was the Stds O on 419 at CFB Cold Lake a few years back and I would not have expected someone to be quite so aggressive in such a situation. I have also operated out of Kamloops and I personally would have made a straight ahead, more gentle zoom with the side of a hill or the river as my desired aircraft impact point should the need arise. My aircraft would have needed close to 300 IAS to make a successful reciprocal EFATO approach. I cannot say what a Tutor would have needed. I doubt there was ever sufficient energy to get back to the airfield.

Finally I have to question (as I did when I worked there) the logic of a 2014 decision to cease practicing emergencies airborne. In the wake of a Cormorant accident where switches were inadvertently moved during a practice which resulted in a crash, all emergencies training was confined to simulators.

I cannot help but think that Canadian pilots will be more prone to the startle instinct as a result of this decision.

I have other thoughts on the issue but I will keep them to myself.

All fatal aircraft crashes are tragic and this is no exception. They become even more tragic when it appears subsequently that ‘the system’ may have set the individuals up for failure.

I desperately hope I am proven wrong on all counts.

BV

[Drainpipe]

My apologies, yes it WAS 90 knots, must be my age.

The. 80 figure was the gun velocity, fps.

My apologies for that.

Thank you but no apologies necessary. The grey matter fades with time and I’ve forgotten more than most. If you speak with Wiggy, he’ll tell you I didn’t know much in the first place.

JN

[BEagle]

At least with a bang seat there's SOME chance in an EFATO, usually a pretty good one.

Whereas the poor sods who fly the Grob G 120TP 'Prefect' in RAF service would have very little chance in a similar scenario - as the option to fit Martin Baker Mk17 lightweight seats was not specified..... A decision I feel to be bordering on criminal negligence.

[mijbil]

Just under 5 minutes. There is one new clip I hadn't seen and highlights an object approaching #2 aircraft. The speaker is clearly qualified to talk about the Tutor and answers other questions on here about how an ejection works in a Tutor.

Apologies but I have to make 10 posts before I can put in a link. Spam prevention I guess. I'm not going to make 9 garbage posts to get to the magic 10.
Perhaps a moderator or someone else can make the link up (remove the spaces) and re-post. It's worth a look.

Link together h t t p s : // cbc.ca/ player/ play/ 1740577859866

[mijbil]

Finally I have to question (as I did when I worked there) the logic of a 2014 decision to cease practicing emergencies airborne. In the wake of a Cormorant accident where switches were inadvertently moved during a practice which resulted in a crash, all emergencies training was confined to simulators.

I cannot help but think that Canadian pilots will be more prone to the startle instinct as a result of this decision.

BV

Hi Bob, you are bang on about the "wisdom" of sim only training. The generals are in love with it since once installed it saves $$ and supposedly "manages risk". At the ab initio level you need all the hands and feet you can get. Even pattern work builds airmanship and 'actually doing it' where ATC is real not simulated.

Sims are great but they are training devices and since they are limited in number a script is written and chugs along at a set speed at 1 G. There is no hot or cold cockpit or real vibration or Farmer John popping up on the tower freq and blabbing on for 90 seconds while you are short final without a landing clearance and have to GA.

I remember doing my first PFL in CYMJ on a solo. What a confidence builder. We did away with student mut's in CYPG and airborne SE work and and and. It's dumbed down and all in the sims now. It's showing.

WRT this CYKA crash.....is training a factor? I'll wait for the FSR.

[H Peacock]

"Whereas the poor sods who fly the Grob G 120TP 'Prefect' in RAF service would have very little chance in a similar scenario - as the option to fit Martin Baker Mk17 lightweight seats was not specified..... A decision I feel to be bordering on criminal negligence."


So do all other single-engined turboprops have bang seats Beagle? In the 30 plus years we operated the Tucano, how many guys used their seat following an EFATO?

[TEEEJ]

Just under 5 minutes. There is one new clip I hadn't seen and highlights an object approaching #2 aircraft. The speaker is clearly qualified to talk about the Tutor and answers other questions on here about how an ejection works in a Tutor.

Apologies but I have to make 10 posts before I can put in a link. Spam prevention I guess. I'm not going to make 9 garbage posts to get to the magic 10.
Perhaps a moderator or someone else can make the link up (remove the spaces) and re-post. It's worth a look.

Link together h t t p s : // cbc.ca/ player/ play/ 1740577859866

CBC have uploaded it on You Tube.

OGS3dmuPlPo

[cncpc]

I did an analysis of the critical heights in the Corey Pelton video. Altitude at top and altitude at eject. The methodology was to stop the video, take a screen capture. Put it into Photoshop.

The wingspan of the Tutor is 36 feet, and the length 32 feet. At the top, the wing is almost or is vertical. In the eject, the aircraft is almost vertical when the second eject still has smoke coming from the seat. Photoshop can measure in pixels. I measured the wing span in pixels, and calculated the number of pixels that represent a foot in that view. Same with the aircraft length. Less than two pixels, but appropriately different in the two shots. Then measure pixels from aircraft to ground.

The resultant calculation indicates 720 AGL for the almost knife edge part, and 280 for both seats out. I'm a little surprised at the 720, not the 280. Maybe a little more energy at the beginning of the problem? Not full power loss immediately. More speed at the start of the zoom. Ask to the guys that know.

[Sailvi767]

It sure does look like a duffel bag of some sort rather than a seat cover. I just found a higher resolution version of the original picture and put it into the post above. From some of the file names it looks like this picture may have been taken in July 2019.

A friend who flew with the Blue Angels in the early 1990's said they had a mechanical over the North Pacific and diverted into Cold Bay, Alaska. Many of us have used PACD for an ETOPS alternate on the NOPAC routes. I've never been there myself (except in the simulator).

The hospitality was warm and when the team got things patched up and they were ready to leave the pilots were all given huge frozen fish as a traditional native honor. I guess the C-130 was already in ANC so they put the fish in the cockpit and bent them somewhat to fit into the canopy. My friend did express some concern that an ejection with a fish on top might not go as planned.

The F18 has a large baggage area behind the seat. Must of been a huge fish!

[Airbubba]

The F18 has a large baggage area behind the seat. Must of been a huge fish!

Or a huge fish story. ;)

[megan]

Interesting video mijbil, bird or drone? If it's the latter............

[RetiredBA/BY]

I did an analysis of the critical heights in the Corey Pelton video. Altitude at top and altitude at eject. The methodology was to stop the video, take a screen capture. Put it into Photoshop.

The wingspan of the Tutor is 36 feet, and the length 32 feet. At the top, the wing is almost or is vertical. In the eject, the aircraft is almost vertical when the second eject still has smoke coming from the seat. Photoshop can measure in pixels. I measured the wing span in pixels, and calculated the number of pixels that represent a foot in that view. Same with the aircraft length. Less than two pixels, but appropriately different in the two shots. Then measure pixels from aircraft to ground.

The resultant calculation indicates 720 AGL for the almost knife edge part, and 280 for both seats out. I'm a little surprised at the 720, not the 280. Maybe a little more energy at the beginning of the problem? Not full power loss immediately. More speed at the start of the zoom. Ask to the guys that know.

Heres another way of looking at it:

A reasonable estimate of speed is , say, 120 knots based on the Jet Provost, a jet trainer not dissimilar to the Snowbird in terms of weight, thrust and performance.

The Jet was almost vertical at the time of ejections, so the ROD was about 200 FEET. feet per. second.

Ejections were close to 2 seconds before, not more than 3, before impact. I have no stopwatch handy but that seems reasonable watching the video.

Realistically that means ejection occurred at about 600 feet, perhaps lower, with a ROD of about 12000 fpm, Whichever way you look at this it was way outside the seat’s capability using the MB rule of thumb and that is no criticism of the Weber seat.

[ASRAAMTOO]

I did an analysis of the critical heights in the Corey Pelton video. Altitude at top and altitude at eject. The methodology was to stop the video, take a screen capture. Put it into Photoshop.

The wingspan of the Tutor is 36 feet, and the length 32 feet. At the top, the wing is almost or is vertical. In the eject, the aircraft is almost vertical when the second eject still has smoke coming from the seat. Photoshop can measure in pixels. I measured the wing span in pixels, and calculated the number of pixels that represent a foot in that view. Same with the aircraft length. Less than two pixels, but appropriately different in the two shots. Then measure pixels from aircraft to ground.

The resultant calculation indicates 720 AGL for the almost knife edge part, and 280 for both seats out. I'm a little surprised at the 720, not the 280. Maybe a little more energy at the beginning of the problem? Not full power loss immediately. More speed at the start of the zoom. Ask to the guys that know. interesting piece of work. Would you also be able to very accurately determine the elapsed time between your 720 and 280 ft points. This will give an ROD.

Just proves how deceptive videos can be to the naked eye. They looked higher.

[RetiredBA/BY]

That would give an AVERAGE ROD. What matters is the ROD at point of ejection, ie the downwards velocity of the seat at the time it leaves the aircraft.

[Bob Viking]

I won’t go back and edit my previous post but I think I should change my wording slightly.

I have rewatched the Kamloops and MJ videos and I think I was getting my thoughts a little muddled.

I believe the MJ pitch up was too aggressive. The Kamloops one probably shouldn’t be characterised as too aggressive but maybe over enthusiastic given the flight regime and I believe a turning component was introduced too soon.

As I have said previously I am no Tutor expert but my guess is that the aircraft was still sub 200 knots at the departure end of the runway. Even straight ahead flight would not have given long but a level or upwards vector could probably have been achieved after a brief assessment and before ejection.

A take off emergencies brief should cover actions on loss of thrust from any airfield. In this case with a single runway mine would have said something along the lines of ‘below 280 (this speed is aircraft specific but the Hawk will not be drastically different to the Tutor) up and away from the leader, fly straight ahead, try a relight, if it doesn’t look good out we go’.

Bear in mind the terrain can play a huge part in your thinking at Kamloops but if sufficient speed has been achieved to merit a turn back then it stands to reason that sufficient height would be available to clear the hills. That speed almost certainly wasn’t present in this instance.

So in summary I don’t think the pull up looked overly aggressive but I do think the turn was too eager. The turn is what produced the massive loss of upwards travel and ultimately the departure from controlled flight.

This is all just opinion of course, but a relatively informed one I think.

BV

[ASRAAMTOO]

That would give an AVERAGE ROD. What matters is the ROD at point of ejection, ie the downwards velocity of the seat at the time it leaves the aircraft.


Indeed, although I suppose you could then continue the analysis until ground impact to obtain a more accurate figure at ejection.

its certainly no more inaccurate than assuming the aircraft is 120 kts pure vertical!

[RetiredBA/BY]

Absolutely agree but my figures, were approximations over breakfast coffee. It is indeed possible that the IAS and therefore ROD could have been higher, and that in turn would have required yet more height, height they did not have, to ensure a successful ejection.

I still think it incredible that the pilot survived without, it appears, a full chute.

That said, this accident video certainly reinforces the message in the USAF training film I referred to earlier, that in certain ejection circumstances seconds, fractions of seconds , of delay can mean the difference between life and death.

[pontifex]

Is it possible that Capt Casey hesitated to pull the handle when ordered to do so and the Captain delayed his own ejection whilst trying to persuade her to do so. In no way is this meant to criticize the young lady but I can visualizse the situation in the cockpit as I have been in his situation. Fortunately we were at a good height.

[Flying_Scotsman]

I wouldn't consider forced landing or ditching in an aircraft with ejection seats.

[Bob Viking]

Do you mean exactly what you said in your last post?

The ditching part I wholeheartedly agree with. Not an option.

Forced landings are practiced extensively and perfectly possible on prepared surfaces.

I believe in the case of this Tutor there was no suitable prepared surface within gliding range.

If it was an engine failure, ejection was the only option.

BV

[Dominator2]

pontiflex,

I think that your suggestion of what may have happened is totally unfounded and equally unacceptable. Trying to allocate blame with absolutely NO proof is ridiculous.

From my experience, people who are relatively inexperienced but who have been briefed properly, will do exactly as told. If EJECT, EJECT, EJECT is commanded I would not expect the seat to still be there by the 3rd EJECT.

Equally, I would not expect an inexperienced person to recognise when a dangerous situation, as in this accident, was developing. I would not necessarily expect an inexperienced person to initiate ejection with no command from the pilot.

I totally agree with BV that ditching would be out of the question when in a bang seat. SAFE HEIGHT, SAFE SPEED, WINGS LEVEL - EJECT

[medod]

Why a turn was initiated bothers me. Perhaps turning away from the river to avoid landing in it after ejecting?

I imagine that river was pretty cold and I assume the crew weren’t wearing immersion suits. What would have been their chances if they’d parachuted into the river?

[Bob Viking]

I would bet with near certainty they would not have been wearing immersion suits. I did 3.5 years at Cold Lake and was never even issued one. I did make use of cold weather gear though!

I have been to Kamloops in May and I have a picture of me in shorts and t-shirt at a restaurant and clearly remember it being in the mid to high 20’s (Celsius). The Kamloops area has a much warmer climate than many parts of Canada. Indeed, Kelowna just down the road is a wine growing region. The river might be pretty chilly (unlikely to have fresh glacial melt water) but certainly no worse than the temperature of the UK seas that we regularly fly over without immersion suits.

Far from avoiding the river, in the event of an engine failure I would have been aiming for it as my intended ejection site and would have briefed accordingly. Unless I had sufficient speed for a reciprocal EFATO pattern.

Remember, as I keep saying, all of this chat presupposes there was an engine failure in the first place. I have yet to see any evidence that this was the case.

BV

[Odanrot]

pontiflex,

I think that your suggestion of what may have happened is totally unfounded and equally unacceptable. Trying to allocate blame with absolutely NO proof is ridiculous.

From my experience, people who are relatively inexperienced but who have been briefed properly, will do exactly as told. If EJECT, EJECT, EJECT is commanded I would not expect the seat to still be there by the 3rd EJECT.

Equally, I would not expect an inexperienced person to recognise when a dangerous situation, as in this accident, was developing. I would not necessarily expect an inexperienced person to initiate ejection with no command from the pilot.

I totally agree with BV that ditching would be out of the question when in a bang seat. SAFE HEIGHT, SAFE SPEED, WINGS LEVEL - EJECT
From your experience? Do you have experience of tellIng a passenger to eject? Telling someone what to do In a classroom is very different from what they might or might not do in a very frightening situation.
Passengers do “recognise” a dangerous situation - in their opinion - and eject, Ask the Red Arrows when a passenger ejected in Scotland.

The reason behind the decision to pull out of formation is, at present, a mystery, but this tragedy resulted from a late ejection outside seat limits. Why? We don’t know, why the pilot turned left we don’t know, why the turn resulted in a stall spin, we don’t know, except the aerodynamics and inertial forces can lead to a spin following a stall in a turn. There are far more questions than answers and they will only come from the BOI.

As for survival, neither occupant had a full chute, but the pilot hit a roof and the passenger hit a tree. The roof was probably slightly more forgiving.

RIP Captain, and I hope for a full recovery for the Pilot.

[dead_pan]

Is it possible that Capt Casey hesitated to pull the handle when ordered to do so and the Captain delayed his own ejection whilst trying to persuade her to do so. In no way is this meant to criticize the young lady but I can visualizse the situation in the cockpit as I have been in his situation. Fortunately we were at a good height.

Do we know for certain that Capt Casey was first to eject?

[Green Flash]

Would it be possible for the occupant of one seat to pull the firing handle of the other seat? I can imagine it would probably not be advisable.

[dead_pan]

Ejection sequence:

pull the handles/slam your head back into the headrest as the belt tensioner will pull you back into the seat (you do not want your head down when the rocket fires due to neck injury).
canopy release fires; hopefully canopy separates (otherwise you are going though the canopy with the ram leading the way)
rocket seat initiates up the rails
seat drogue fires to provide drag to the seat to help with man/seat separation.
seat/man separator fires . This releases the 5-point harness and a "kicker" pushes the body/seat pack (which contains the survival equipment) out of the seat.
as you exit the seat a lanyard is attached to the harness which initiates chute deployment



Does anyone have approx timings for the 4th and 5th line items (assuming they aren't conditional on the speed/attitude/etc of the seat)? The reason I ask is that, in the footage in the CBC piece posted above, both seats seem to have travelled an awfully long way from the ejection point without anything seeming to happen, as evidenced by this screen-grab (I know both were travelling downhill, but even so):

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/884x698/screenshot_2020_05_22_at_17_01_11_5bac74fef45186d210db2e36b4 3f5a3f9d408dfa.png

I did initially suspect the first seat was trailing the chute just before it disappeared from view, but on reflection I think this is the remnants of rocket efflux.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Would it be possible for the occupant of one seat to pull the firing handle of the other seat? I can imagine it would probably not be advisable.
No. ....and in the RAF when briefing non aircrew for a jet trip, I did a few, the brief was simple. If I say EJECT , EJECT, ,EJECT,, yes, Eject.

If you saY WHAT or repeat after that command you will be talking to yourself and I was NOT kidding.

[cncpc]

interesting piece of work. Would you also be able to very accurately determine the elapsed time between your 720 and 280 ft points. This will give an ROD.


Just proves how deceptive videos can be to the naked eye. They looked higher.

I was actually surprised that it was that high, based on the scenario of total power loss at the point of pitch up.

I use something called Adobe Premiere Pro as a video editor. It's timeline is measured in thousands of a second. I will see if I can capture the exact time of the knife edge at the top and the frame I used to determine the eject height. The poster above, the ex BA and military guy, is right on it being an average speed and that may be useful to at least give an idea that it was greater than that.

I don't know if there is consensus about what was going on aerodynamically to start the descent. I seems to most that it was a stall in the bank and a spin. Stopped after one rotation to wings level and the nose pitched up. Pitched up by how much? And by what force, pilot, or the natural rising of the nose in the incipient portion of a spin before it goes flat. If a Tutor flat spins when fully developed. I'd venture to say Capt. MacDougall did get the spin stopped, but the aircraft was not vertical at that point and seemed to be under some sort of control. You can see that after the eject, the aircraft pitched down and was not spinning. In the period before the eject, and immediately after, the aircraft is very nose down and there is the appearance and likely the reality of a high rate of descent. The ROD may have been less at the moment of eject.

I'm normally on the side that says speculation on the cause of crashes is good because most of us are civilian pilots and any unanswered questions after a crash are often questions we would have on our mind the next day when we go flying in a similar type or situation. That doesn't hold with military accidents. So, I tend to want to hear the ex military guys give their inputs. I've put in this wee analysis of heights to add that small bit. Captain Mac Dougall has thankfully survived, and whatever we might think, he surely knows what happened and in time we will all know.

I'll see if I can come up with that average ROD.

[Alex McKeen]

Hi Dave and those chatting about seat ejection. I'm a journalist looking to speak with pilots about ejection systems, the old versus the new. Could you shoot me an email? I'm at [email protected]

[wiggy]

Ex JP QFI ,here , dare I chip in again ?

For once I am with the benefit of hindsight in violent agreement with BV when he says..

"Far from avoiding the river, in the event of an engine failure I would have been aiming for it as my intended ejection site and would have briefed accordingly. Unless I had sufficient speed for a reciprocal EFATO pattern."

Makes complete sense to me but I think the issue here is the single engined "light jet" my be spring loaded towards a turn back towards the field in the event of an engine failure...

[flighthappens]

Ex JP QFI ,here , dare I chip in again ?

For once I am with the benefit of hindsight in violent agreement with BV when he says..

"Far from avoiding the river, in the event of an engine failure I would have been aiming for it as my intended ejection site and would have briefed accordingly. Unless I had sufficient speed for a reciprocal EFATO pattern."

Makes complete sense to me but I think the issue here is the single engined "light jet" my be spring loaded towards a turn back towards the field in the event of an engine failure...

decent spot to throw a jet but should be considered in an emergency brief, particularly if you’re going to cross behind your lead in the event of an EFATO. High SA for sure....

[cncpc]

I would bet with near certainty they would not have been wearing immersion suits. I did 3.5 years at Cold Lake and was never even issued one. I did make use of cold weather gear though!

I have been to Kamloops in May and I have a picture of me in shorts and t-shirt at a restaurant and clearly remember it being in the mid to high 20’s (Celsius). The Kamloops area has a much warmer climate than many parts of Canada. Indeed, Kelowna just down the road is a wine growing region. The river might be pretty chilly (unlikely to have fresh glacial melt water) but certainly no worse than the temperature of the UK seas that we regularly fly over without immersion suits.

Far from avoiding the river, in the event of an engine failure I would have been aiming for it as my intended ejection site and would have briefed accordingly. Unless I had sufficient speed for a reciprocal EFATO pattern.

Remember, as I keep saying, all of this chat presupposes there was an engine failure in the first place. I have yet to see any evidence that this was the case.

BV

You don't need an immersion suit in the Thompson now. I agree that straight ahead after entering a glide at the top is the second best alternative, if a total engine failure. A normal glide down to 200 feet at 130 would have made it close to McArthur Island. An eject there would likely see the jet go into the river and reduce public risk. The best option if eject was certain was to turn right, point it toward all that empty land, and eject higher. You make a good point about the presumption of total engine failure immediately. With a partial failure, the optimum result is return to field, save the aircraft, and not put both occupants to the risk of an ejection. The left turn may have been made with an assessment that there was sufficient power to either make a circuit, or get back on the reverse of the takeoff runway.

Someone mentioned that they were up to 200 knots in the low level pass by the camera. You can see takeoff flap is still down as they pass. Can you have flap out at 200 knots?

[Bob Viking]

The 200 knots thing came from me a little while back. I said the aircraft were probably sub 200 knots at the departure end of the runway. I have no idea of the flap limiting speeds.

I was implying that there was almost certainly not enough energy to complete a 180 turn let alone get lined up with the runway if there had been a total loss of thrust.

Please bear in mind I have not flown the Tutor so my views cannot be taken as authoritative.

BV

[monkey416]

I don't know about you guys, but im gonna just wait until the initial From the Investigator report comes out from RCAF DFS. Anything else is worthless speculation.

[Mozella]

Most of my military flying was done in M.B. seats. I've never ejected but plenty of my squadron mates have. In one case a gent who's J-57 was shooting craps in the landing pattern, tried both the primary and secondary ejection handles (face curtain and between the knees handle) but was unable to initiate the ejection sequence; the handles simply wouldn't move. So, after running out of ideas, he went back to flying the aircraft and the old P&W engine kept on chugging long enough to get him on the ground without further drama. Turns out the Martin Baker seat wasn't properly maintained and the forces required to pull the handle(s) were way out of spec. Other aviators have reported difficulty with the Martin Baker ejection handles and a common complaint is that the force required was higher than expected.

After looking at the video it appears that the Snowbird pilot made the decision to zoom and eject for whatever reason. It would seem natural to want to maximize the altitude based on the rather limited capability of the Weber seat. A the top of his climb he stopped flying the Tutor and started the ejection sequence. I'm wondering if, for some reason he (like my squadron mate) could have had some difficulty with the ejection. A delay of only a few seconds concentrating on the ejection with nobody flying the airplane could easily result in a stall/spin situation especially after using up every bit of the available kinetic energy in the zoom climb.

By the time he managed to eject, even though the delay was short, it was too late. This is pure speculation of course, but it makes a lot more sense to me than stories about avoiding populated areas, doing low speed barrel rolls to "show off" and some of the other guesses about the timing of the ejection.

I'm not familiar with the Weber seat, so perhaps some Tutor pilot might chime in with any sea-stories about how difficult it might be to pull the handle(s) and/or if anyone has reported unusual effort required to fire the seat or other factors which might cause a two or three second delay in ejecting after the decision to take the nylon let-down has been made.

[sharpend]

I don't know about you guys, but im gonna just wait until the initial From the Investigator report comes out from RCAF DFS. Anything else is worthless speculation.

Totally agree. Whilst this has naturally captured our interest. we know nothing other than they ejected, and one, incredibly sadly, died. RIP Ms Casey

[atakacs]

Don't remember being mentioned: are those aircrafts fitted with any type of flight recorder?

[falcon900]

I keep asking myself whether it is strange that there do seem to be any significant sounds or signs of smoke, flame or debris from the tailpipe. The engine would appear to have gone from take off thrust to very little / none in no more than 10 seconds, and I would have expected there to be some evidence of this, beyond the all too obvious.

[Bob Viking]

That is precisely why I keep banging that particular drum. I don’t believe anybody has overstepped the mark so far by discussing actions in the event of an engine failure at such a stage of flight from runway 09 at Kamloops but we still don’t know if that is what happened here.

Although the video may appear to show a scenario that seems obvious, there is still no evidence to back that up.

I suspect even the initial flight safety report may not clear that up either. It might be a long wait to know precisely why the zooming turn was initiated.

As for an ADR I can’t help you there. I don’t know the Tutor airframe but my gut feeling is that one won’t be fitted. Being a Snowbirds jet it may have a camera fit but that is pure speculation.

BV

[Big Pistons Forever]

No CVR or FDR in the Tutor

[atakacs]

No CVR or FDR in the Tutor
To be expected but thanks for confirming.

[cncpc]

Most of my military flying was done in M.B. seats. I've never ejected but plenty of my squadron mates have. In one case a gent who's J-57 was shooting craps in the landing pattern, tried both the primary and secondary ejection handles (face curtain and between the knees handle) but was unable to initiate the ejection sequence; the handles simply wouldn't move. So, after running out of ideas, he went back to flying the aircraft and the old P&W engine kept on chugging long enough to get him on the ground without further drama. Turns out the Martin Baker seat wasn't properly maintained and the forces required to pull the handle(s) were way out of spec. Other aviators have reported difficulty with the Martin Baker ejection handles and a common complaint is that the force required was higher than expected.

After looking at the video it appears that the Snowbird pilot made the decision to zoom and eject for whatever reason. It would seem natural to want to maximize the altitude based on the rather limited capability of the Weber seat. A the top of his climb he stopped flying the Tutor and started the ejection sequence. I'm wondering if, for some reason he (like my squadron mate) could have had some difficulty with the ejection. A delay of only a few seconds concentrating on the ejection with nobody flying the airplane could easily result in a stall/spin situation especially after using up every bit of the available kinetic energy in the zoom climb.

By the time he managed to eject, even though the delay was short, it was too late. This is pure speculation of course, but it makes a lot more sense to me than stories about avoiding populated areas, doing low speed barrel rolls to "show off" and some of the other guesses about the timing of the ejection.

I'm not familiar with the Weber seat, so perhaps some Tutor pilot might chime in with any sea-stories about how difficult it might be to pull the handle(s) and/or if anyone has reported unusual effort required to fire the seat or other factors which might cause a two or three second delay in ejecting after the decision to take the nylon let-down has been made.

Great post and a plausible scenario.

Re your last sentence, yes. About 6 months ago, a Tutor preparing for an air show in Atlanta lost power and the pilot ejected. He was ok, but he reported "...problems in the ejection sequence".

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/initial-report-released-on-snowbirds-atlanta-crash/

[Airbubba]

No CVR or FDR in the Tutor

A long shot but in the pictures posted above there is a mount that appears to be for a camera or tablet:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1083x1080/17762283_web1_190719_pwn_snowbird_2_3_large__56ef6eb1256c638 9ae447d5ab4b2412dce5111da.jpg

In the takeoff picture it looks like a tablet is attached.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1352x1080/rag3ozf_ec535a7bf65bce83b6c544530fb4bb4a2ec72e4a_2_large__28 2e31837e188ce6209173e076326d4326ae9722.jpg

There might be some recoverable data from the memory. Data has been pulled from these memory chips even in very high energy crashes like the Galloping Ghost at Reno in 2011.

Probably nothing of value but I'm sure it will be looked at if the pieces are recovered.

[RetiredBA/BY]

After looking at the video it appears that the Snowbird pilot made the decision to zoom and eject for whatever reason. It would seem natural to want to maximize the altitude based on the rather limited capability of the Weber

I disagree. If his plan was to zoom climb and then eject he would NOT have rolled towards 80 degrees of bank at the apex of his climb. He would have ejected wings level in a climb. My real world experience as a QFI, clearly tells me he was trying a turnback to the airfield/runway of departure, pulled too hard at low IAS and stalled and spun. Its all very clearly there on the video, or I would not comment or speculate..

If the Weber seat is 0/60 its a very capable seat and an ejection during a zoom climb is clearly within its performance envelope..

A low level ejection with a high ROD was clearly not possible, as is the case with many seats.

Again, from experience, I can tell you when its time to pull the handle you pull it with all your strength, hard !

[monkey416]

I disagree. If his plan was to zoom climb and then eject he would NOT have rolled towards 80 degrees of bank at the apex of his climb. He would have ejected wings level in a climb. My real world experience as a QFI, clearly tells me he was trying a turnback to the airfield/runway of departure, pulled too hard at low IAS and stalled and spun. Its all very clearly there on the video, or I would not comment or speculate..

If the Weber seat is 0/60 its a very capable seat and an ejection during a zoom climb is clearly within its performance envelope..

A low level ejection with a high ROD was clearly not possible, as is the case with many seats.

Again, from experience, I can tell you when its time to pull the handle you pull it with all your strength, hard !
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.

[gums]

Salute!

Thank you, Retired.....

Maybe best post so far, and we don't even know if the pilot pulled up after an engine problem or bird strike or whatever. He just did.

All we know is what we have seen on the various videos - fairly aggresive climb after a nice formation takeoff, then turn, then what looks like stall/roll/spin entry, then roll wings level and punch out very low. RIP.
========================

For all you wannabes and nuggets just entering the game.......

When things go south, you react as you have been trained or practiced in your brain a hundred times.

THIS IS IMPORTANT!! So sitting in the barber shop and even while in the chair you should be rehearsing all the "what if's". When that day/split second comes you have a better chance of survival than the folks that never thought it could happen to them. You will go thru the drill without a millisecond of hesitation. After all, you have done it a hundred times in the barber shop!

All the bad things youi may encounter do not required superhuman reactions and such, and one thing that served me and many of my fellow "light" pilots well, was - If the damned plane is still flying and ain't rolling at 200 degrees per second or flipping end over end, take one more second, maybe two and try to figure out what went wrong and if there's a way to correct for the problem or make the best of a bad situation. The heavy pilots have to do this. We lights do not, and we can ask Weber or Douglas or Martin Baker for help.

Gums sends....

[LOMCEVAK]

With respect to the safe ejection envelope, it is worth
remembering that the minimum height fo a safe ejection is increased by a nose down pitch attitude (and bank angle) as well as rate of descent. The pitch attitude will certainly have been a factor here.

[pchapman]

Does anyone have a link to the original video which gives a "new video angle" seen in the video in post #145, the CBC "Key moments in the Snowbirds crash" video with a former Snowbirds pilot commenting?

The video is a good example of how the angle of view changes the perception of an object's angle -- That is, the ejection was not nearly as vertical as it seemed to many of us from the most commonly seen videos. The new video shows that while there was a considerable dive, which was bad for trying to be in the ejection envelope it wasn't close to a vertical dive with flight speed in knots = descent rate.

I took some caps from the video and cropped each using just the bottom 640*480 part of the video. Since the cloud base and sometimes ground can be seen, one can see that the camera is fairly level.

Video caps are roughly at the time of :
1. Canopy blowing off
2. First ejection rocket seen
3. Second ejection rocket seen
4. Some time later
(And the video cuts before anything hits the ground)

While talking about this video making the angles LESS steep than other videos appear, it is also true that despite the video viewpoint being more "beside the action", by looking upwards somewhat from the horizon that makes the visual angle of descent less than the actual angle. So one can't just put a protractor to the screen and say these shallower angles are the true ones either.

Still, look at those smoke trails ... they were NOT anywhere near a vertical dive. Which to me makes the problem of not getting a full canopy before running out of sky, more frustrating.

As for the issue of "Why turn left (towards the city) instead of heading straight (river area)?", as usual we don't know all the factors involved. But it certainly could have been things like (a) being on the left side of the formation to start with! -- Pull away from the other aircraft, or (b) initially thinking it was only a partial engine failure and instinctively trying to take up around into a circuit.




https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/vlcsnap_00001crop_7b4423457ea682d1ebd7db83c28f5944dc4ee4e6.j pg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/vlcsnap_00002crop_4422845cfb1f4afbfcb7408fbf7cb7a3df07f383.j pg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/vlcsnap_00003crop_fe307ce12e993ac27718158ae8060065f6163786.j pg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/vlcsnap_00004_cropjpg_3c58038688b1465216041345cd43ed158de71a 3a.jpg

[pchapman]

Although the descent angle wasn't nearly as vertical as it seemed to people, based on some of the comments, in this post I'd like to address that the timing of the ejection sequence.
The time from ejection to impact, was fairly short ... but was still between 3.7 and 4.3 seconds between canopy starting to depart and the ejectees disappearing behind the tree line.

I ran the most common original video through the Vegas video editor to zoom and add timestamps.
(The Shannon Forest video from twitter, where at the end the camera pans down, man says "It just crashed", boy says "Oh my god.")

One can't tell when handles were first pulled, so one has to go with the first visible signs of ejection, the canopy starting to depart the aircraft.
That's my zero point. Then:
- First ejection noticed (smoke first seen) 0.67 seconds
- Second ejection noticed (smoke first seen) 1.03 seconds (which is 0.37 sec later)
- First object disappearing behind tree line 3.70 seconds (2.66 sec after their ejection first seen)
(This is the SECOND, lower ejection, with no visible chute at long distance in the video)
- Second object disappearing behind the tree line 4.30 seconds (3.63 sec after their ejection first seen)
(Actually, not the person but the starting-to-inflate canopy behind that FIRST ejectee, which disappears behind the treeline just as it goes out of frame on the video too. Presumably the survivor.)

Of course the visible tree line isn't quite at ground level but close enough for this analysis.

So the first ejectee had the benefit of a bit over a third of a second earlier ejection, thus a bit of extra altitude, plus the aircraft pitched down fairly rapidly between the two ejections. That gave the first ejectee basically one extra second air time, which helped at least give them a partially inflated canopy.

The Tutor doesn't have command ejection?? (pilot pulls, both seats are fired in some predetermined sequence) I guess not but I don't think anyone with experience has clarified that issue.
Assuming not, being the second to pull the handle after the aircraft commander, just about a third of a second later, is actually pretty good performance, but the conditions were unfortunately too marginal for it to work out here.

[dead_pan]

Re the ejection sequence as viewed on this clip (and further to my earlierq regarding sequence timings) seat separation should commence c.1 second after initiation according to the following source:

Weber CL-41 seat with AERO Drogue System (http://www.ejectionsite.com/ct114seat.htm)

[monkey416]

Although the descent angle wasn't nearly as vertical as it seemed to people, based on some of the comments, in this post I'd like to address that the timing of the ejection sequence.
The time from ejection to impact, was fairly short ... but was still between 3.7 and 4.3 seconds between canopy starting to depart and the ejectees disappearing behind the tree line.

I ran the most common original video through the Vegas video editor to zoom and add timestamps.
(The Shannon Forest video from twitter, where at the end the camera pans down, man says "It just crashed", boy says "Oh my god.")

One can't tell when handles were first pulled, so one has to go with the first visible signs of ejection, the canopy starting to depart the aircraft.
That's my zero point. Then:
- First ejection noticed (smoke first seen) 0.67 seconds
- Second ejection noticed (smoke first seen) 1.03 seconds (which is 0.37 sec later)
- First object disappearing behind tree line 3.70 seconds (2.66 sec after their ejection first seen)
(This is the SECOND, lower ejection, with no visible chute at long distance in the video)
- Second object disappearing behind the tree line 4.30 seconds (3.63 sec after their ejection first seen)
(Actually, not the person but the starting-to-inflate canopy behind that FIRST ejectee, which disappears behind the treeline just as it goes out of frame on the video too. Presumably the survivor.)

Of course the visible tree line isn't quite at ground level but close enough for this analysis.

So the first ejectee had the benefit of a bit over a third of a second earlier ejection, thus a bit of extra altitude, plus the aircraft pitched down fairly rapidly between the two ejections. That gave the first ejectee basically one extra second air time, which helped at least give them a partially inflated canopy.

The Tutor doesn't have command ejection?? (pilot pulls, both seats are fired in some predetermined sequence) I guess not but I don't think anyone with experience has clarified that issue.
Assuming not, being the second to pull the handle after the aircraft commander, just about a third of a second later, is actually pretty good performance, but the conditions were unfortunately too marginal for it to work out here.
No command ejection. Completely manual.

[DCThumb]

Just an observation. The initial left turn starts as the aircraft moves up and out of formation - it looks like an instinctive easing wide to avoid the lead once sight of him is lost. The reasoning why that turn was tightened shortly thereafter could be turn back, unintentional following ejection seat issues or trying to point in a safer direction to eject having made the initial turn towards the town.

[Dan Winterland]

A long shot but in the pictures posted above there is a mount that appears to be for a camera or tablet:

That's an aviation approved 'Pivot' mount for a tablet being used for navigation and documentation. I think it's unlikely it was being used for recording.

[Firestreak]

The success or otherwise of an ejection is hugely affected by the upward or downward vector of the aircraft as the seat leaves the airframe. I spent all my flying career on ejection seats, both rocket zero/zero seats and non-rocket seats with height and/or speed limits. Hopefully, I was always aware of those limits, particularly in one early jet aircraft where there was a gap between lift off speed and a safe ejection speed/height.

After hanging up my flying gloves, I became a ground school instructor, part of which was teaching ab-initio students about the seat they were going to use. I used a clip from a USAF training film showing the crew leaving an F4 as the aircraft pitched up uncontrollably after liftoff. One occupant went out as the aircraft still had an upward vector, the second went out higher but the aircraft had stopped climbing, the chute of the first ejectee opened at a greater height, despite ejecting at a lower height.

[monkey416]

Just an observation. The initial left turn starts as the aircraft moves up and out of formation - it looks like an instinctive easing wide to avoid the lead once sight of him is lost. The reasoning why that turn was tightened shortly thereafter could be turn back, unintentional following ejection seat issues or trying to point in a safer direction to eject having made the initial turn towards the town.
yeah there are some things going on there that I just cannot make sense of. i bet it will be a really interesting case once the investigation is done; pilot is out of hospital now so im sure hes had his chance to say his piece to the flight safety guys etc. could be so many factors including the terrain, river etc. Not a great airfield to experience a problem like that. Had it been me I would have had serious concerns about ending up ejecting into the thompson river at this time of year and theres also terrain on both sides of departure end. thinking back about other tutor accidents over the years its almost pointless to speculate as there have been so may freak occurrences over the years. only thing for sure is that this will undoubtedly be an interesting case study as things move forward.

[RetiredBA/BY]

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)

[DaveUnwin]

Hi BA/BY, we ran a feature about practicing turnbacks in GASCo FlightSfety magazine last year, which concluded that - for a variety of reasons - it was generally better to go straight ahead and NOT turn back, and that practicing turn backs was fundamentally flawed if you initiate the sequence due to the absence of the 'startle' factor. Unfortunately I don't get Sport Aviation any more, but would be very interested in that article's conclusion. Would you be so kind as to provide me with a brief précis please?

[RetiredBA/BY]

There are many diagrams in the really excellent article, so I cant really precis it. EXCEPT to say that, in essence, if your aircraft glides at a steeper angle than its climbangle and you try a 180 you are NOT going to make it.

So please pm me your address and I will send you a copy with pleasure.

It should be read by EVERY GA pilot and I will discuss it at White Waltham when we get back, although my take off briefs never consider a turnback unless I am at least 500 feet AND the first 90 degree turn in the circuit is complete.

Perhaps some good will come out of this tragic accident.

[YellowPilot2]

I don't want to refute anyone's theories but I would like to present one of my one which I believe is quite probable.

After the initial engine problem, the natural instinct would be to initiate a slight bank away from Lead while conducting the Red Page actions (ZOOM, IDLE, AIRSTART). Because the pilot was in the right seat and turning away from his direct view out the right side of the the a/c, once he had initiated the zoom and bank his next priority would have been examining the engine instruments which would have been to his left. After a glance there and looking up, he realized that he had over-banked and continued the roll to the left to regain wings level with the horizon. Unfortunately, the pitch-up was excessive and the airspeed bled off during the roll and upon reaching wings level the only alternative remaining was to eject. Sadly, by that time the safe ejection parameters had been exceeded and we all know the result.

As for my background, I am a former RCAF pilot who last flew the Tutor in training over 20 years ago so I apologize for any inaccuracies. RIP Capt Casey and all the best wishes for a successful recovery for the pilot.

[megan]

A copy as well please BA/BY, QFI's here can do turn backs if the numbers are aligned, but students are not permitted.

[djpil]

It should be read by EVERY GA pilot and I will discuss it at White Waltham when we get back, although my take off briefs never consider a turnback unless I am at least 500 feet AND the first 90 degree turn in the circuit is complete.Great article in Sport Aviation, thanks. On that subject one of the best papers on the subject, in my opinion, is The Feasibility of Turnback from a Low Altitude Engine Failure During the Takeoff Climb-out Phase by Brent Jett, United States Naval Academy Aerospace Engineering Department, AIAA-82-0406. You can access it from here Prof Rogers (http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html) It is based on a single engine GA aircraft.

[India Four Two]

I had wondered if the Snowbirds’ aircraft were still in Kamloops. Now I know.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1311x593/63ebad93_0c13_4cf7_a7eb_89c2ba6e05fd_622cff6ba0d5ed3c0603666 83233dcf3abc89408.jpeg


https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/snowbirds-to-remain-at-kamloops-airport-indefinitely-1.24139900?fbclid=IwAR3c8Mt3Xt069mAjMoL8Tf0rATHx7Ob7u43g7Bmt 79waVfV2YVy44vhDItc

[Bksmithca]

According to the Kamloops This Week website the pilot is somewhat active and the article has a picture of him with family getting some fresh air. I'm thinking that the investigators have gotten an initial conversation with him. Happy to see he's on the mend.

https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/with-video-injured-snowbirds-pilot-emerges-to-greet-drumming-circle-at-kamloops-hospital-1.24139584

[Dan Winterland]

After hanging up my flying gloves, I became a ground school instructor, part of which was teaching ab-initio students about the seat they were going to use. I used a clip from a USAF training film showing the crew leaving an F4 as the aircraft pitched up uncontrollably after liftoff. One occupant went out as the aircraft still had an upward vector, the second went out higher but the aircraft had stopped climbing, the chute of the first ejectee opened at a greater height, despite ejecting at a lower height.

I last saw that film in 1985. But I recall the message. "Zoom and boom!"

[rjtjrt]

Retired BA/BY.
PM sent.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Thank yous to the guys who gave references as above.

Some of the stuff went over my head as I am not an ETPS graduate, but reading them over breakfast my conclusions are :

Low level engine failures followed by turnbacks are fraught with danger and are VERY high risk manoeuvres many variables come into play as explained in these. papers and , in general, require very accurate flying and the right conditions, of cross wind, headwind and runway length etc as well as, obviously, aircraft climb and glide performance. I dont think they included what Sully called the “startle factor”

All of the papers refer to GA aircraft, but the military jet trainer has a better way out, Weber or MB, pretty much guaranteed to be succesful if initiated within the seat envelope and that Weber0/60 sounds pretty capable to me.

The Sport Aviation article, although written by a test pilot and Shuttle Commander is much simpler.

Several guys have PM ,d me for a copy. You will all get a reply later today or tomorrow. ( edit: all sent, anyone else just pm your email address)

Glad to hear the SB pilot is recovering.

[H Peacock]

RetiredBA/BY. The Turnback is effectively just a case of energy management. Any aeroplane, just after take-off (any given speed and height, ie energy state) transitions from a point where there is simply not enough energy to do anything other than land/crash ahead, through to the stage where you can force land back at the point of departure - even on the same as opposed to reciprocal runway. Now even Sully could possibly have got his Airbus back to LGA if he'd turned pronto (and I'm not knocking his decision making process or the possible outcome if he'd ended up parking his aircraft in a built-up area.) Arguably, if you happen to turn back towards the departure airfield from say 5000ft upwind, that's a PFL rather than a Turnback. Red 3 at Valley = PFL; not a turn back in this sense.

Take the JP/Tucano/Hawk/(and probably Tutor). They will have a minimum speed/height stipulated where one can commence a Turnback. JP was 160Kts or 600ft, Tucano 130kts and 500ft, Hawk was above 250kts. So if one had an engine failure just above these defined parameters, it meant the pilot could commence a Turnback. So if we assume you are going for the reciprocal of the runway, you have to manoeuvre the aircraft in a tear-drop. Invariably a strong crosswind would help, but the exact procedure differed for type. In the Tucano we would invariably turn with the crosswind (ie downwind to maximise displacement from the Rwy CL), before reversing the turn now the long way round onto the reciprocal Rwy (sounds complex – worked a treat!) Other types probably prefer the turn to be into the crosswind to approximately hold your position near the Rwy CL. No matter how you fly it, you are potentially very near the edge of the performance envelope. You invariably require a modest rate-of turn and a low radius, so low IAS but with enough stall-margin to maintain the turn without stalling. Again Tucano, we would instantly take Mid-flap; little drag penalty, increased stall margin and the stall warning system was activated.

The point of the Turnback was to fly a manoeuvre where you could continually assess your parameters. If all went well, you land on the reciprocal Rwy. If it didn't, you either changed the plan, or more likely level the wings, convert speed for height, and ejected. Of course if you're going to eject, you need to be within seat parameters (IAS, RoD and AoB). As has been proved, any mishandling with turning and reducing IAS invariably results in a very narrow window between looking 'okay' to fatal consequences. And perhaps none of this factors in where the now-pilotless aircraft will arrive once you’ve abandoned it.

If practiced and flown accurately, a Turnback will inevitable provide a window where a successful outcome following an EFATO is achieved. Unfortunately, the recent accidents have occurred where either the aircraft was mishandled (perhaps only marginally) followed by a fractionally late decision to eject. If the way ahead is simply to ban the Turnback as too dangerous, then so be it. But I know as a student on the JP where we were explicitly told to eject after an EFATO, many students would consider starting a turn to see how it goes. I’m sure some students on the Tucano had a similar mind-set.

[RetiredBA/BY]

I agree with all of that, particularly as you say, its all about energy management and accurate flying. Perhaps its my age but I have no recall about 160 knots or 600 feet when a student and at CFS or at SORF when all of our students were already qualified pilots, some vey very highly qualified and competent.


However if, at an FTS, it was sop to eject in the event of an EFATO, and students were had a mindset to try a turnback, my question js WHY ?

That said, I will stick with my 500 feet and first 90 degrees of turn complete at WLAC before I try and return to the grass airfield, should that ever be necessary in the mighty Warrior ! Otherwise I have my fields chosen for a straight ahead landing !

Red 3, I will keep my opinions to myself!

[cncpc]

Replying to H. Peacock's...

It wasn't clear in those EFATO practices how the departure was conducted and if there was a consideration of turning crosswind early to significantly reduce the amount of turn necessary to RTF after a power loss. I know that amount of bank and speed affect safety in such a low level turn, but I'd like to hear opinions on that. I think I saw something there which might have been a practice of turning crosswind, likely at 500, to better position for a failure, then when high enough, turn right to parallel a straight out if the intended direction of flight intended that. Have I correctly read that. It seems like good practice in any single engine.

Somewhat a different scenario, but in the no ejection seat world, and without the height to return to field, straight out is the only option. That often doesn't present favorable outcomes. Complicated by the impression of disaster, which can reduce performance and be self fulfilling. I have a long time friend I worked with who went on to be a very experienced TSB investigator. His view was that if you landed a powerless aircraft wings level, in the landing attitude (flare), at flare speed, and you had 25 feet or more to decelerate, you were very likely to walk away with minimal or no injuries. Obviously that applies to light single engine aircraft and stall speeds of such aircraft. Not a comment directed at you military guys, but more for people likely to be flying singles.

In Peacock's post, he/she mentions students chancing the turn back rather than the immediate eject to see how it goes. Retired BA holds that this is what happened. In this, not a student, but a very accomplished aviator. If so, that may be because the pilot felt it could be safely done and there was no need to eject. Fair enough. But surely every Tutor pilot would have it in their mind that a successful low level eject six months before in Atlanta required the pilot to overcome "...anomalies in the ejection sequence". Might that effect the outcome of almost instantaneous choices of options in these circumstances? Perhaps some of the RCAF people, Cold Lake or elsewhere, can say what those anomalies were, whether they were a once off, or whether there is something that hasn't yet been resolved. Not to say that the Tutors just kept on flying, but not resolved in the minds of pilots when they think of the Atlanta pilot's experience and having that experience themselves.

[DaveUnwin]

"In essence, if your aircraft glides at a steeper angle than its climb angle and you try a 180 you are NOT going to make it."

This is probably the most elegant anti-turnback argument I've ever read, because it is irrefutable.

[Capt Scribble]

A strong headwind on take off or long runway for the type make turnbacks feasible, or at least ejection can be made over the airfield.

[typerated]

"In essence, if your aircraft glides at a steeper angle than its climb angle and you try a 180 you are NOT going to make it."

This is probably the most elegant anti-turnback argument I've ever read, because it is irrefutable.

It very refutable!
- as you are usually trying to make a downwind landing. So your aim point is usually much closer than the point you rotated from.
So it is also a matter of how much energy you have as you pass the downwind end of the runway - and how much you will lose in the turn.
I am sure many people here have also done it many times for real or in practice.

Just to muddy the waters a 270 onto a cross runway can be a very useful option and use less energy depending on position.

[sharpend]

We tried Turnbacks in the Hawk. With plenty of energy and hight, sometimes they worked, but you needed to know what you are doing. But I have tried them in the Bulldog without much success. The problem being that by the time one got to 6-700 feet, off a typical GA runway (just say 1000m), one rolled out at about 300 feet with a mile or so to go. Operate of a long military runway, with a good headwind, one reached 700 feet, still over the upwind end. OK, groundspeed high on the glide back, but doable. That might work in your favour. Interestingly, with little energy in a Bulldog one still needed a 45 deg bank turn to turn back, and that lost oodles of hight and one had to push the nose way down to stop a stall in the turn. God knows what would be the case with a seized engine as apposed to a windmilling

Basically, the advice is 'in a light aircraft, don't bother, land straight ahead. Better to go into a hedge at 10 knots that spin in, trying to stretch the glide.

[RetiredBA/BY]

The NTSB statistics quoted in the EAA article entirely endorses the above.

They state that in the 6 year study only ONE turnback was successful.

Turnbacks had a 29 % fatality rate, straight ahead landings 8 % .

Stalling during the turnback was a huge risk and resulted in a 70 % Fatality rate.

The author of the article was a shuttle commander so knows a thing or three about gliding and energy management !

Whatever you fly, the article is well worth a read.

[H Peacock]

"In essence, if your aircraft glides at a steeper angle than its climb angle and you try a 180 you are NOT going to make it."

This is probably the most elegant anti-turnback argument I've ever read, because it is irrefutable."

Hmm; climb angle, best-rate, best-angle, glide for range, glide for duration. So much more complex than that Dave, and you don't appear to be considering the 'excess energy' at the point of engine failure, i.e. adding speed to height during the start of the glide (i.e. the engine stops)!

Most military hardware is taking-off and accelerating to an airspeed somewhat higher than the best-range glide speed.

[Video Mixdown]

Basically, the advice is 'in a light aircraft, don't bother, land straight ahead. Better to go into a hedge at 10 knots that spin in, trying to stretch the glide.

This situation has been killing pilots for over 100 years, and the advice back then was exactly the same as yours.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/678x466/turnback_6a7c1b7c3c45d5602e525ade87d06071c71853fc.jpg

[DaveUnwin]

We had a pro-turn letter into GASCo FSM after I ran a feature on turnbacks; - this was my response.
The Editor replies “I’m afraid that I’m firmly on Captain Laming’s side regarding turn backs. Firstly, when you practice a turn back, you’re already expecting it. If the engine ever stops for real, you will lose valuable time, height and energy due to the ‘startle’ factor, as you’ll be reluctant to immediately accept that the engine has actually failed. Secondly, if you do manage to complete a swift 180° reversal before reaching the ground your problems are far from over. Not only are you significantly displaced from the runway but you may well have a considerable tailwind. Always remember that the kinetic energy possessed by the aircraft as it crashes is E=1/2mv2, or half the mass multiplied by the speed squared when you hit whatever you hit. Let’s assume your aircraft stalls at 50kt. Straight ahead into a 20kt wind means you will crash at 30kt, which is eminently survivable. Turn downwind in the same scenario and your impact speed has more than doubled. Remember E=1/2mv2? The impact forces have increased exponentially, not linearly, and the probability of survival reduced accordingly.”


Captain Scribble "A strong headwind on take off or long runway" also make a very good case to go straight ahead! Finally, I honestly believe practicing a turnback is very different from a real one. How much residual thrust is a Hawk's engine putting out at idle, for example? There must be a considerable difference between a seized jet and an idling one, no? One must be adding some thrust, the other drag Then there's the startle factor. Its very very different from 3-2-1-here we go! Finally, as a very experienced airman once told me "when practicing turnbacks it doesn't matter how many times you get it right, you'll only get it wrong once."

[sharpend]

We had a pro-turn letter into GASCo FSM after I ran a feature on turnbacks; - this was my response.
The Editor replies “I’m afraid that I’m firmly on Captain Laming’s side regarding turn backs. Firstly, when you practice a turn back, you’re already expecting it. If the engine ever stops for real, you will lose valuable time, height and energy due to the ‘startle’ factor, as you’ll be reluctant to immediately accept that the engine has actually failed. Secondly, if you do manage to complete a swift 180° reversal before reaching the ground your problems are far from over. Not only are you significantly displaced from the runway but you may well have a considerable tailwind. Always remember that the kinetic energy possessed by the aircraft as it crashes is E=1/2mv2, or half the mass multiplied by the speed squared when you hit whatever you hit. Let’s assume your aircraft stalls at 50kt. Straight ahead into a 20kt wind means you will crash at 30kt, which is eminently survivable. Turn downwind in the same scenario and your impact speed has more than doubled. Remember E=1/2mv2? The impact forces have increased exponentially, not linearly, and the probability of survival reduced accordingly.”


Captain Scribble "A strong headwind on take off or long runway" also make a very good case to go straight ahead! Finally, I honestly believe practicing a turnback is very different from a real one. How much residual thrust is a Hawk's engine putting out at idle, for example? There must be a considerable difference between a seized jet and an idling one, no? One must be adding some thrust, the other drag Then there's the startle factor. Its very very different from 3-2-1-here we go! Finally, as a very experienced airman once told me "when practicing turnbacks it doesn't matter how many times you get it right, you'll only get it wrong once."

All agreed. Totally. But when does a turn back become acceptable? A few years ago, after a catastrophic engine failure, I flew one quite successfully, thus saving me, my student & the aeroplane. It is what I had been trained to do. A forced landing would have almost certainly lost the aeroplane. Now, though I totally agree with everything you wrote, there comes a time when a turnback can work. So what makes it viable? My engine failure was at about 2500 feet with a good 10 knots down the active runway. Still insufficient to land back on the active runway, but landing down wind on a 6000 foot runway worked. BTW, I taught turnbacks at Chivenor and most worked. But of course I ensured the parameters were sufficient before I closed the throttle. With a seized engine, I probably would have ended up pulling the yellow & black handle.

Incidently, I agree the 'startle factor' using up precious time & height. My student was flying that day & froze. I think I waited half a milli-second before taking control & turning.

[ASRAAMTOO]

Since this thread has inevitably crept onto the subject of turn backs ( although as BV has mentioned, an engine failure has yet to be confirmed).

Its worth remembering that a reasonable number of vintage jets continue to fly. It’s increasingly difficult to keep the seats live in these aircraft so turn backs are very definitely a skill that those operating such aircraft need in their toolbox.

As has previously been mentioned a successful turn back onto the reciprocal runway could usually be achieved in a JP from 160Kts/600ft agl. It’s also important to remember that this is the “gold plated “ solution and that the ACTUAL aim of the manoeuvre is to put the aircraft anywhere on the airfield, wheels up or down since the airfield is usually more hospitable than the terrain surrounding it.

[Fortissimo]

160 kts or 600 ft in the JP was a hard requirement during my time as an instructor. And the comments about pre-conditioning for deliberate practice are spot on - it makes it much easier. The only time I saw real startle factor was as a student on CFS when the exchange USAF QFI was flying from the left seat and decided to do the take-off as bit of personal handling practice (fair enough). What he wasn't expecting was his student QFI to throw an EFATO at him by closing the throttle once we hit turnback parameters. He just made the runway, but only after a bit of faffing, and he wasn't happy. At all.

We had a short discussion once 'safely' airborne during which he asked me what the hell I thought I was doing. I asked him in return why he thought he would get warning of an engine failure just because he was a waterfront (staff) QFI. He then agreed it had been an interesting experience for him, and I promised not to do it again...

I hope we can hear some facts from the official investigation soon. I also hope some of the excellent advice aired here about the wisdom or otherwise of turnbacks might save a life or two in the future.

[cncpc]

I just got this email from a guy who has investigated hundreds of accidents for a well known government agency. But not military. While it only suggests a remote possibility, it does identify an issue that could stand to be corrected. If this did happen, it had to be starboard inlet, as we can see on the departure photo that the port side is removed. Admittedly, not likely with a marshaller staring right at it, but it is one of things that could have made the "pop" and could have resulted in at least a partial power drop. Anyways, yellow might be a better color. <br>
____________________________________________________________ ___
Yesterday I wondered aloud if perhaps an engine inlet cover was left installed on one side that was subsequently ingested during the takeoff run.

As you can see, the engine inlet cover design is a major failure. Instead of high visual conspicuity to prevent inadvertent omission, they went the opposite route. The covers are essentially invisible, camouflaged by using the identical colour to the surrounding paint work.

Let’s see if we can guess why they did this . . . .so that the aircraft looked good in photos?

History has proven convincingly that humans are not reliable at repetitive tasks. And if something can be screwed up - it will be eventually.

This may have nothing to do with the accident but it is an opportunity to address the latent defect before it does.
https://i.postimg.cc/VLYVxTQ3/snowbird-intakes.jpg (https://postimages.org/)home cooking near me (https://thesawmillgrill.com/)

[Bksmithca]

I just got this email from a guy who has investigated hundreds of accidents for a well known government agency. But not military. While it only suggests a remote possibility, it does identify an issue that could stand to be corrected. If this did happen, it had to be starboard inlet, as we can see on the departure photo that the port side is removed. Admittedly, not likely with a marshaller staring right at it, but it is one of things that could have made the "pop" and could have resulted in at least a partial power drop. Anyways, yellow might be a better color. <br>
____________________________________________________________ ___
Yesterday I wondered aloud if perhaps an engine inlet cover was left installed on one side that was subsequently ingested during the takeoff run.

As you can see, the engine inlet cover design is a major failure. Instead of high visual conspicuity to prevent inadvertent omission, they went the opposite route. The covers are essentially invisible, camouflaged by using the identical colour to the surrounding paint work.

Let’s see if we can guess why they did this . . . .so that the aircraft looked good in photos?

History has proven convincingly that humans are not reliable at repetitive tasks. And if something can be screwed up - it will be eventually.

This may have nothing to do with the accident but it is an opportunity to address the latent defect before it does.
https://i.postimg.cc/VLYVxTQ3/snowbird-intakes.jpg (https://postimages.org/)home cooking near me (https://thesawmillgrill.com/)
And the red flapping flag ??

[Airbubba]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1270x902/jenn_3_3060b0b0a90541a943643104762eac21ba1099b5.jpg

[rigpiggy]

There is a picture on avcanada that shows an object entering the inlet. I only have 8 posts since 2005 so I don't have URL privileges

[Big Pistons Forever]

If an inlet cover was left on the engine would have cooked itself on start up.

The video stills purportedly showing bird being ingested are very suggestive, with the caveat that they have not been verified by a competent authority. If it did eat a bird it would have been at just about the worst possible time and place.....

[DaveJ75]

And the red flapping flag ??

That's cute. Cos no-one ever missed anything with a RBF flag right...

[grizzled]

Stills from video on departure from YKA

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/775x459/snip_bird1_6388be8e6cfa9e88f7a38af08296df71a956ea75.png
Still 1 from video
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1048x578/snip_bird2_221fccae05c39efb0f0dc1ef1d185e69d7a75188.png
Still 2 from video

The next few stills from the video show no object behind (or otherwise near) the aircraft.
Could be bird, could be drone, could be video artifact. Until further analysis or announcement from official sources, I'd say bird seems most likely.

[cncpc]

That's cute. Cos no-one ever missed anything with a RBF flag right...

I'm not championing the covers left on theory. My post was really about a very experienced retired accident investigator noticing that the failure to not paint something that doesn't fly with the aircraft different from things that should be there on start up is a potential start to an accident sequence. To BPF, I don't know enough about how engine temps would be effected by one cover left on. Particularly where there are two intakes. As far as an abstract discussion goes. I do think that there is enough air flow through the other intake to get a start, and that after start, the blocking fabric would at least have come partially into the intake, although it might have been restrained for going all the way by one or more bungee cords in its securing bits. If it was in there, still held back, it would likely be in trail of the intake stream. It is hard to imagine it staying there. The pop sound? Yes, it is just like the sound our vacuum makes when it finally sucks some blockage through into the bag.

There have to be many other holes in the cheese for this one to have happened. Marshaller misses it, pilot, sitting right beside a cover on misses it getting into the plane, covers not counted in the stowing process...lots of things had to go wrong for this to happen. There are photos that are said to be from the taxi out. The accident aircraft, the No. 2, is seen with the left cover showing a hole and no attachments. The second photo shows a hole on the starboard side, but it isn't clear whether that is the accident aircraft. It would seem likely that the No. 2 would be blocked by No. 1, but... I think that in this scenario, even taxi power is going to bring a cover at least partway down the intake tunnel. The straps? If they are gone, it should be back in the compressor and that surely would have made an issue right there.

Not seeing the red strap? Both valid posts. I do remember years ago doing a walkaround on an Aztec on the South ramp at VVR, starting up, getting taxi clearance for a 27 departure, or 26 maybe, and hold at Mike. Go about 50 feet, meet a King Air coming in. Hear him say on Ground "Let that guy in the Aztec know he's dragging a five gallon pail full of concrete". How can you miss a five gallon pail of concrete tied by yellow rope to the tail ring of your airplane, especially as you'd have to walk around it?

The dot in the picture? If it's a video artifact, it is unusual if it would be alone. And that it would survive several frames. There is a large bird that flys by in the opening frames of the Pelton video, coming from the departure area. Drone? I fly a drone, and they get small quick in the sky. And, it does seem to have a bit of DJI drone shape. But, those drones all have GEO zones, no flies, and you would need a custom unlock with paperwork from the airport to fly there. That wouldn't happen, and at least the most common type drone couldn't lift off in that area, or lift off somewhere else and fly there. Other real cheap drones? Don't know.

What is unusual is that nowhere in the sequence, particularly at the pop time, is there any sign of flame at the tailpipe.

[DaveJ75]

I'm not championing the covers left on theory

My comment was aimed at the poster who implied that a remove before flight flag was an adequate attention getter! History shows that to be a sadly ineffective barrier. I'd be surprised at the aircraft achieving an initially successful take-off via one intake but I agree with the rationale of what you say - it's often surprising what causes an accident and the interaction of such things even more so.

[Bksmithca]

My comment was aimed at the poster who implied that a remove before flight flag was an adequate attention getter! History shows that to be a sadly ineffective barrier. I'd be surprised at the aircraft achieving an initially successful take-off via one intake but I agree with the rationale of what you say - it's often surprising what causes an accident and the interaction of such things even more so.
Dave. Reading the post left me with the impression that because the cover was red it wasn't obvious to either the groundcrewman or the pilot especially with a red flapping flag.
BkSmith

[cncpc]

My comment was aimed at the poster who implied that a remove before flight flag was an adequate attention getter! History shows that to be a sadly ineffective barrier. I'd be surprised at the aircraft achieving an initially successful take-off via one intake but I agree with the rationale of what you say - it's often surprising what causes an accident and the interaction of such things even more so.

No worries, Dave. He just asked a question that was a valid observation. I didn't reply, but my reply would have been the same as yours.

The longer the RCAF goes without making any comment, the more likely something unpleasant to admit seems. Not even an acknowledgment that there was a power loss in the climbout?

[grizzled]

My guess: The RCAF is more concerned right now about how they are going to explain another issue with the old Weber ejection seat. Regardless of the aircraft being outside the limits for that seat, there is video that clearly shows that 4 seconds after the canopy leaves there is still no seat separation nor initial chute deployment for at least one crew member.

[standbykid]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbird-crash-report-1.5593259?fbclid=IwAR1uSo9TMo_1Nh6jBbFnn8MOuCAQlnRNHeGQcm1XR 5wLMVwXlBfkIls5noA

Looking at a bird strike.

[alexhara]

The Royal Canadian Air Force says it’s focusing on a bird strike as the reason of Snowbird’s CT-114 Tutor aircraft that crashed in Kamloops on May 17.
A preliminary investigation report posted today says a close look at video footage of the plane just before the crash showed a bird very close to the plane’s right engine intake “during the critical phase of take-off.”

Source: https://aerobaticteams.net/en/news/i318/Snowbirds-fatal-crash-may-have-been-caused-by-bird-strike.html

[India Four Two]

Photo and caption from the CBC report:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/744x493/screen_shot_2020_06_01_at_21_55_54_779e1ceb3514cfb6ef7a708b3 e8e95e47724d719.png

[tdracer]

If an inlet cover was left on the engine would have cooked itself on start up.

Perhaps not at start up, but with half the inlet blocked, the engine would have been very unhappy at anywhere near takeoff power set. The 'half inlet' would choke well short of takeoff power airflow, probably resulting in a surge.

[rigpiggy]

Perhaps not at start up, but with half the inlet blocked, the engine would have been very unhappy at anywhere near takeoff power set. The 'half inlet' would choke well short of takeoff power airflow, probably resulting in a surge.

I think it would overtemp well before a surge

[cncpc]

I think it would overtemp well before a surge

There is a photo somewhere back in this thread of one of the two aircraft on the taxi out. Not sure if it is the accident aircraft, maybe someone has a means of identifying it further, but the right side inlet on that aircraft does not have the cover on, nor are there any stretched bungee cords coming down the outside of the inlet. At that point, you wouldn't expect to see it in place anyway, but for it to become a problem later, there would have to be something holding it back from reaching the engine. I don't know if there are any grabby things down that inlet tunnel, but it is hard to imagine something that large staying hung up some where before the compressor all that time at takeoff power before going into the compressor.

Pretty knowledgeable commentary on the Canadian site from a Canadian military guy. He points out that in that takeoff, the pilot would have been entirely focused on lead's left wing. The only warning he might have had would have been aural, or maybe a light out of the corner of his eye. Or, he saw the bird flash by on the way in.

By now, the RCAF knows what initiated the zoom as the pilot would have told them. They are suggesting bird strike, so I'd doubt Capt. MacDougall told them something different, if his recall is intact. I'd expect Capt. Casey was monitoring the gauges.

Looking at the Pelton video frame by frame, there is some evidence of an object in the sky that would be consistent with striking the aircraft some frames later. It appears for several frames over No. 1's wing, and briefly in front of No. 1.

[Airbubba]

There is a photo somewhere back in this thread of one of the two aircraft on the taxi out. Not sure if it is the accident aircraft, maybe someone has a means of identifying it further, but the right side inlet on that aircraft does not have the cover on, nor are there any stretched bungee cords coming down the outside of the inlet.

This is the accident aircraft with a crewmember (Captain Casey) wearing a gray helmet in the left seat. The lead aircraft had a crewmember with a red helmet in the left seat.

Pictures from the Saspotting Facebook page.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1731x1080/98039051_679296259301860_3244577930742857728_o_large__b9a176 85a3748e6538f31579362594f6dc15f13f.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1733x1080/98039051_679296259301860_3244577930742857728_o_2_large__39c3 9f5ad79d56e38b5a31ad564e999a01bbe0ff.jpg

[Bob Viking]

I’m not questioning the thrust of your post but I feel it is worth pointing out that Capt Casey almost certainly would not have been watching the dials.

Whilst she was undoubtedly an experienced passenger she was non-aircrew. Her job would have been to sit back and enjoy the view.

BV

[cncpc]

I understand that she isn't aircrew, but she was a pilot. Not sure what quiet cockpit rules the RCAF has.

I did get some timings off the Pelton video. They are in editing format. Min;sec;frame number. Shot at 30 frames per second.

Bang - 0;44;00
Initiate zoom: 0;46;26
Turn left has begun - 0;52;27
In 30 deg bank - 1;00;23
Spin starts - 1;14;28
Eject - 1;21;26

It certainly looks like this was following the established procedure for power loss. Went bad on the spin, and the seat didn't work.

[Bob Viking]

Please re read what you wrote. You said “I understand she was not aircrew but she was a pilot”.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

Capt Casey was the PRO. She had no formal flying training and could not have been expected to contribute in any way to the operation of the aircraft.

It’s a tangent I know but don’t make untrue statements or assumptions.

BV

[cncpc]

Please re read what you wrote. You said “I understand she was not aircrew but she was a pilot”.

Those two statements are mutually exclusive.

Capt Casey was the PRO. She had no formal flying training and could not have been expected to contribute in any way to the operation of the aircraft.

It’s a tangent I know but don’t make untrue statements or assumptions.

BV

It has been reported that she was a pilot, I assume in the civilian world. My original comment, which was not intended to end up in this fashion, had to do with Capt. MacDougall being solely engaged with watching lead's left wing. It had to do with the initiating event and the possibility that if that event first registered on engine instruments, he likely wouldn't have seen that. Because he is fixated on the other aircraft. I suggested Capt. Casey might have seen something unusual. It was less than 3 seconds from the bang sound to initiating the zoom, so it is more likely that was the alert that triggered the zoom. I don't know what the RCAF equivalent of silent cockpit rules are, but if they have them, I doubt they preclude another service member in the cockpit from alerting the pilot to an anomoly. If she had noticed smoke coming from a vent, surely she would be expected to notify the pilot.

I don't knowingly make untrue statements or assumptions. If you think passengers don't let you know when they think something is wrong, you've never flown with BC Forest Service folks in the other seat, or anywhere they can see the instruments.

In this case, the pilot would know either from seeing the bird, hearing the bang, or both.

As to the statements being mutually exclusive, they obviously aren't. She wasn't a Snowbird pilot, true. I'm a pilot, and when I fly on Westjet, I'm not aircrew, but I'm still a pilot.

[cncpc]

Grizzled, do you have a link to that video. It seems to be taken by someone positioned at the end of the runway, on the road transiting to south side at Kamloops.

The object near the aircraft video.

[Bob Viking]

I think your definition of aircrew and mine differ somewhat. In the military aircrew are defined as those that are employed in a role undertaken onboard aircraft. You are therefore considered aircrew when you are walking down the street or buying a pint of milk. She was not aircrew. Experienced passenger yes, but not aircrew.

I have over 20 years (and counting) experience flying military jets. I have flown quite a few passengers. Yes, I would expect them to say if they saw anything out of the ordinary. But the chances of any passenger noticing an anomaly on engine gauges before either a warning chime or me hearing something unusual I’d say are zero. Even if I was flying a formation take off.

I can’t keep banging on about it because it’s not really relevant to the conversation but you seem to think you know best when, in fact, you may not.

BV

[Hot 'n' High]

I think your definition of aircrew and mine differ somewhat. In the military aircrew are defined as those that are employed in a role undertaken onboard aircraft. You are therefore considered aircrew when you are walking down the street or buying a pint of milk. She was not aircrew. Experienced passenger yes, but not aircrew.
...........
I can’t keep banging on about it because it’s not really relevant to the conversation but you seem to think you know best when, in fact, you may not.

BV

BV, you and cncpc seem to be in violent agreement! You both say she was not aircrew .... all cncpc says is she could have been a PPL or even a glider pilot. The point cncpc makes is that could have made her a bit more aware of things going on during that fateful departure.

I was exactly the same before I left the Mil to fly commercially. I was a Spanners in the Mob, but also had a PPL and was a glidist. I was never aircrew so, if people asked, I simply said "I'm not a pilot in the Mil but I do have a PPL". That fact also got me lots of stick time when on jollies for which I'm really grateful to all those kind aircrew who invited me to have a go! Flying a Hunter low-level towards a ship? I could not believe my luck - so my thanks to the Hunter jock who I was fortunate to fly with. Clearly he liked my efforts at GH while in the transit a bit earlier.

Whenever I was fortunate enough to bag a trip, and being someone of a curious nature, I was definitely taking a great interest in what went on just for my own education. So while poor Capt Casey may not be expected to be looking at things, if she was anything like me she may well have had a go flying the things quite a few times (assuming std dual-stick config) and, on hearing a bang on climb-out, is quite likely to have been starting, informally, to work out what it was.

I was once sat goofing out a window in a Sea King when I noticed sparks suddenly starting to appear from above and ahead. I got as far as saying "Gents (there being no ladies on board) I think we have a problem....." when there was an almighty BANG! After the boys got established in the single-engined cruise one of the back-seaters laughed and said "Tell you what, I've never seen Spanners move so fast!!!". It was about 1.0005 seconds from me kneeling looking out the window to me being strapped into a seat near a door just in case we'd had to do an Auto into a field if it was more than just a donk giving up on us.

So I was never aircrew but I sure took a keen interest in what was going on, particularly if I thought it affected my health and wellbeing!

Oh, and the views were out of this world!!!

Cheers, H 'n' H

[Bob Viking]

Maybe I’m guilty of not understanding cncpc’s point entirely.

However, as someone who has flown over 3000 fast jet sorties and flown multiple passengers (many of whom have been experienced aviators in their own right), I would be truly gobsmacked if the first the pilot knew of an engine failure was his passenger pointing it out to him. That is not to say a passenger cannot have something to offer in certain circumstances.

I think that is the point I have been trying to make all along. And it is still largely irrelevant to the wider topic, for which I apologise.

BV

[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.

[Fortissimo]

ChrisVJ

With a single-engine jet you do not have much time if the engine fails on take-off. Unless it has taken a bird or surged for some other reason such as ingestion of efflux from another aircraft, engines do not tend to just stop working without a mechanical issue or major interruption to fuel flow, in which case relights/restarts are very unlikely to be successful. You might have one shot at a relight depending on your height and speed at the time, but the presumption is for an ejection. This is true whether you are in the Snowbirds, Red Arrows or Thunderbirds - they will clear the formation first because a collision is the most immediate threat, and all the teams have planned and practiced formation escape routes for just this reason.

The zoom provides height (separation from the ground) and more importantly a positive vector for the seat, the time and airspeed elements are secondary. The critical factor in escape is the overall seat vector. Ejections from the same height, attitude and airspeed but with different vectors will have different outcomes in terms of apex and chute deployment. You are correct that attitude plays a big part at lower levels and there is no need for persuasion - an inverted ejection from 100ft is not likely to succeed whereas an upright wings-level at same height will. In this accident, ejections within a few seconds of the power loss would probably have succeeded, but we will never know for sure.

Some years ago an instructor on the Jet Provost had a birdstrike and engine failure but spent so long trying to re-light and making his MAYDAY call that the combination of height and rate of descent were insufficient when he actually ejected. He hit the ground in his seat and survived, but broke his neck when the seat tumbled across the field and was rendered quadriplegic. That accident was used to reinforce the teaching on 'zoom and boom' unless you had made the gate of 600 ft or 160 kts.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Things certainly appear to have changed since I trained and later instructed on the JP. I certainly have no recollection of being taught, or instructing, to try a relight following a low level flameout just after take off, no time. How long does it take to get a failed or flamed out engine up to idle and then accelerate it to useful, questionably reliable, thrust? Too long, I would suggest, and all the time you are compromising the safety of an ejection. Can one depend on an engine which has just failed, for whatever reason?

Zoom and boom following EFATO at low level as in the Snowbird accident, certainly looks to me, 57 years after my ejection, to offer the most likely safe outcome.

Even now, if the engine failed in my Warrior and I set it up for a forced landing but I can restart the engine, I would probably continue with the forced landing if it was looking good. If the engine WERE to restart but then failed again after throwing the forced landing away. it the may well have compromised a successful forced landing.

A jet with an ejection seat is not dissimilar in that after a failed or partial restart one may be faced with a low level ejection from a descending aircraft. Valuable height wasted, perhaps taking you out of safe ejection parameters. .

[Dominator2]

1974 I was a student on 3 Sqn at No 4FTS Valley flying the Hunter. We had just started the formation phase when I was confronted by a similar incident.

By no means do I claim that what happened was correct but sometimes luck does play a part in the outcome.

We were Number 3 flying in Vic formation in a Hunter T7. As student I was flying in the left hand seat with my QFI in the right. He was demonstrating a formation approach and overshoot (go round in modern terms). As we were on the left of the formation I had to look across my QFI and so the picture was more difficult to assimilate. There was a lot of movement of the flight controls and rapid throttle inputs. All went well until the overshoot. Just after the gear was retracted we started to drop back. I glanced at my QFI and then to the engine gauges. Rpm decreasing (despite my QFI having full throttle selected) and decreasing JPT - Flame Out.

As my QFI lowered the nose I selected the Relight ON (only available to the pilot in the left seat) and watched. We were pointing directly at the 18th at the Rhosniegr Golf Course, 180kts and descending through xxxft. Almost immediately the engine relit and the JPT rose. My QFI mutter something which I cannot recall apart from "Arr, its OK now" as the engine wound up through 7000 rpm.

It was only after the incident the I realised that we had MAYBE pressed on to a position that was outside the seat limits. On reflection we should have ejected at 180kts/200ft.

There is no doubt that the first indication of the flame out was the lack of thrust causing us to drop back. This should have been more obvious to the flying! The second indication was the gauges. Although only a student I had it hammered into me how to recognise flame outs, surges/stalls and mechanical failures and their differences. Indeed, it was not unknown for any of these to occur on both the JP and the Hunter if flown aggressively. I agree that Capt Casey was not trained to be able to assimilate this kind of information. Her brief would have been to do as told by her pilot.