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

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.

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?.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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....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

The wee willy wasnt getting enough attention.

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.

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

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.

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.