Canadian Forces Snowbirds CT-114 down in British Columbia
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...!
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...!
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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/Ka...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.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ka...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 suspect the military way is to try and get it somewhere safe and eject.
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?.
Last edited by wiggy; 19th May 2020 at 07:59.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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..
Last edited by wiggy; 20th May 2020 at 07:43.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by 777Goose; 19th May 2020 at 08:55.
Edit: no pop in the ‘young girl’ video. In the video ‘blancolirio’ plays, yep, a clear pop
Last edited by medod; 19th May 2020 at 09:25. Reason: Listened to second video
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash.
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).
Last edited by PineappleFrenzy; 19th May 2020 at 10:19.
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
lsh
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.
Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash.
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).
Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash.
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).
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.