Canadian Forces Snowbirds CT-114 down in British Columbia
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good clip
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
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
I cannot help but think that Canadian pilots will be more prone to the startle instinct as a result of this decision.
BV
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.
"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?
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?
Originally Posted by 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
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
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 65
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Just proves how deceptive videos can be to the naked eye. They looked higher.
On reflection.
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
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
Originally Posted by 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.
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!
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 85
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 70
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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
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
Why turn?
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?
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?
