Brazilian Air Force aerobatic crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Brazil
Age: 76
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brazilian Air Force aerobatic crash
carb icing?
spacial disorientation?
Weather would have been similar to where I live, 27°C 70% humidity, dew point 21, except that airpórt is 900 metres asml (I am at almost zero)
temp would have therefore been closer to the dew point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRZRJ...eature=related
spacial disorientation?
Weather would have been similar to where I live, 27°C 70% humidity, dew point 21, except that airpórt is 900 metres asml (I am at almost zero)
temp would have therefore been closer to the dew point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRZRJ...eature=related
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ireland
Age: 38
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like a classic case of the pilot being unaware of either his/her, or the aeroplane's limitations. Coupled with entering the maneuver at such a low altitude = disaster.
This is of course based on the information seen in the video...
This is of course based on the information seen in the video...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And he had an ejection seat, too!
NoD
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the ROD is too excessive, no amount of pulling or airframe strength will save you.
The Thunderbirds team F16 accident showed how even a late ejection can save a pilot
The Thunderbirds team F16 accident showed how even a late ejection can save a pilot
Re the Thunderbirds
He initiated ejection with his left hand at 140ft of altitude, with a descent rate of about 8400 feet per minute. His airspeed was about 225kts which is about 260 miles per hour. Technically this was probably an out of envelope ejection due to the high descent rate and low altitude.
- 225K is pretty slow for an F16, and the available 'g' therefore limited.
- Just watch the in cockpit video, and you will see the swept wing, low IAS, "sinking" aspect that shows the aircraft has not got the "performance" to avoid the ground
- He ejected in essentially a level pitch attiude, so the ejection vector was all in his favour
- I would guess (but do not know) the F16 seat is higher performance than the Tucano one in view of the arcraft type
NoD
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ei-flyer
Clearly this pilot did not intend the outcome and so it is possible he made a mistake (it is also possible there was some kind of ac failing) but your summary is glib beyond belief and horrendously disrespectful to this professional aviator and experienced display pilot.
RIP
Clearly this pilot did not intend the outcome and so it is possible he made a mistake (it is also possible there was some kind of ac failing) but your summary is glib beyond belief and horrendously disrespectful to this professional aviator and experienced display pilot.
RIP
NOD
Correct on the seat issue. F16 has full rocket assisted seat, whereas the Tucano has a true "bang" seat. This results in a more restricted "safe" envelope, for example the UK Tucano has a 0/90 seat (IIRC) - 0 ft, 90 kts, the 90 kts required to inflate the chute for a safe landing due to less height on ejection, as opposed to a rocket seat that gives you a higher height on ejection (static example) so chute has more time to deploy. I seem to remember the 1/10 ROD rule for safe ejection in the Tincan - the solution during PFLs was to arrest the rate of descent to zero just before pulling the handle.
A similiar accident happened in Bratislava in '99 in a Hawk. The problem, IMHO, comes that the pilot has the stick fully back to try to fly it out and to get to the handle you need to let go of the stick to get your hand in. This might seem an unusual action in the circumstances. I stand to be corrected, and I'm not implying that this is the reason for the fatality in Brazil or Bratislava (pilot of Hawk was experienced TP).
The F16 event quoted was as a result of a missed gate height at the top of a manoeuvre. The US fly on QNH so need to factor airfield elevation into their maths. Result was safety man in the tower, pilot calls his top height, safety man does the maths and confirms or denys fit to go! I used to wonder why QFIs used to bang on about gate heights and how important they are.....seems obvious now.
Either way a sad event.
RIP.
Correct on the seat issue. F16 has full rocket assisted seat, whereas the Tucano has a true "bang" seat. This results in a more restricted "safe" envelope, for example the UK Tucano has a 0/90 seat (IIRC) - 0 ft, 90 kts, the 90 kts required to inflate the chute for a safe landing due to less height on ejection, as opposed to a rocket seat that gives you a higher height on ejection (static example) so chute has more time to deploy. I seem to remember the 1/10 ROD rule for safe ejection in the Tincan - the solution during PFLs was to arrest the rate of descent to zero just before pulling the handle.
A similiar accident happened in Bratislava in '99 in a Hawk. The problem, IMHO, comes that the pilot has the stick fully back to try to fly it out and to get to the handle you need to let go of the stick to get your hand in. This might seem an unusual action in the circumstances. I stand to be corrected, and I'm not implying that this is the reason for the fatality in Brazil or Bratislava (pilot of Hawk was experienced TP).
The F16 event quoted was as a result of a missed gate height at the top of a manoeuvre. The US fly on QNH so need to factor airfield elevation into their maths. Result was safety man in the tower, pilot calls his top height, safety man does the maths and confirms or denys fit to go! I used to wonder why QFIs used to bang on about gate heights and how important they are.....seems obvious now.
Either way a sad event.
RIP.
spectators near impact.
This angle shows a few people watching from inside the display line. Two people were very close to the impact.
In the last few seconds of flight the aircraft has a left wing down which seemed to move the impact point away from these spectators.
A very sad day.
Mickjoebill
In the last few seconds of flight the aircraft has a left wing down which seemed to move the impact point away from these spectators.
A very sad day.
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S. J. Campos - Brazil
Age: 65
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 50 sec. video below shows very well the sequence of events:
YouTube - Esquadrilha da Fumaça - Acidente em Lages (SC) 02/04/2010
The plane comes in a shallow dive performing 3 rolls, makes a low pass and climbs with a gentle roll to the right. At the top he is inverted, the smoke stops, then abruptly rolls to the left. Maybe, some kind of mechanical failure has caused this. The pilot appears to be struggling to regain attitude, but doesn't have enough altitude.
The smoke system in these planes uses a small reservoir that injects oil on the engine hot exhaust to create the smoke effect. The fact that the smoke has stopped may indicate engine failure?
YouTube - Esquadrilha da Fumaça - Acidente em Lages (SC) 02/04/2010
The plane comes in a shallow dive performing 3 rolls, makes a low pass and climbs with a gentle roll to the right. At the top he is inverted, the smoke stops, then abruptly rolls to the left. Maybe, some kind of mechanical failure has caused this. The pilot appears to be struggling to regain attitude, but doesn't have enough altitude.
The smoke system in these planes uses a small reservoir that injects oil on the engine hot exhaust to create the smoke effect. The fact that the smoke has stopped may indicate engine failure?
Last edited by ajpreto; 7th Apr 2010 at 12:14. Reason: english as a second language...