|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10786256)
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.
Bloody hell if true - I wonder if there's a Safety Case for it - normalisation of deviance? RIP. |
Originally Posted by ASRAAMTOO
(Post 10785845)
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.
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? |
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 |
Originally Posted by ASRAAMTOO
(Post 10785845)
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. 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... |
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4a2ec72e4a.jpg
Photo of the incident departure. No bags on top of the seats. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10786341)
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. |
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
(Post 10786388)
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4a2ec72e4a.jpg
Photo of the incident departure. No bags on top of the seats. |
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. |
Originally Posted by ASRAAMTOO
(Post 10786401)
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?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....204a4cc619.jpg |
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. |
Opinion and a bit more background on the CT-144 from You Tube user "blancolirio" who is a former USAF pilot:
|
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 |
Originally Posted by RAFEngO74to09
(Post 10786431)
Opinion and a bit more background on the CT-144 from You Tube user "blancolirio" who is a former USAF pilot:
|
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
(Post 10786388)
Photo of the incident departure. No bags on top of the seats.
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....1f803c55dd.jpg |
Pilots seem to fly from both LHS and RHS, perhaps it depends on their position in the formation?
|
Originally Posted by jimjim1
(Post 10786458)
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. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4e8dfcc1e8.jpg Here is a Facebook post by a photographer who goes by the handle of Saspotting: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....42b081af96.jpg https://www.facebook.com/saspotting/ I'd say the pictures are probably legit. |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10785470)
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... 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. |
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.... |
Originally Posted by ozbiggles
(Post 10786484)
I’m pretty sure the red you are seeing on her helmet is a visor cover.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dba7d580d1.jpg
Originally Posted by ozbiggles
(Post 10786484)
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....
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/crash-...-say-1.4944146 https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1960912 |
Originally Posted by dave.rooney
(Post 10786026)
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.
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.jpgis regions open on sunday |
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...! |
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! |
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 |
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
(Post 10785621)
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. I suspect the military way is to try and get it somewhere safe and eject. |
Originally Posted by cncpc
(Post 10786572)
I understand the Tutor has a stall speed of 70 knots. Gear up it should be quite simple to ditch.
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?. |
Originally Posted by 777Goose
(Post 10786559)
Tutor Engine failure
zoom idle airstart Ex Tutor pilot/FSO 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.. |
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. |
Fhttps://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....90df62273.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. |
Originally Posted by Arnie Madsen
(Post 10786357)
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. Edit: no pop in the ‘young girl’ video. In the video ‘blancolirio’ plays, yep, a clear pop |
Originally Posted by medod
(Post 10786649)
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 https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....acd61141d8.png Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d0bfc5b813.png 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). |
Google :
Ejection decision, a second too late. A USAF training film, exactly relevant to this occurrence. |
With this design, would the entire canopy or just the plexiglass be ejected?
Is there evidence of the canopy separating as designed? mjb |
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 |
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
(Post 10785874)
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?
|
Originally Posted by PineappleFrenzy
(Post 10786681)
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....acd61141d8.png Waveform of audible anomaly detected in video of Kamloops CT-114 crash. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d0bfc5b813.png 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). |
I don't see it anywhere above, but this is a very good interview of a former team lead for the Snowbirds.
|
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
(Post 10785681)
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Wee Weasley Welshman
(Post 10786008)
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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.