Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by trampbike »

To all the armchair warriors out here thinking ejecting is just part of our orders and mindset, I can show you 100 times more cases of dead military pilots that didn't eject when they should have (or didn't pull the handle early enough) than cases where an unecessary ejection happened. Actually I'm not even sure I can find cases of the latter, except in the rare cases of accidental ejections.

Side note: the controlled ejection in Moose Jaw happened in 2014, not 2013.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Think ahead or fall behind!

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by cncpc »

Kitzbuhel wrote:It always seems people question the decision to say good bye to the plane... I wonder why that is.

If this incident is what I heard it was they wouldn't have had much gliding time before getting on the edge of the "preferred" ejection envelope.

On another note the winds were seemingly gusting to 30 this morning in MJ. Not the best conditions to be landing in a parachute. Maybe riding the plane into the frozen prairie would have been more suitable :rolleyes:
I think the reason is that 98% of the people here fly in aircraft that do not have ejection seats. Hence they wonder what the big deal is if you have to make a forced landing, especially around Moose Jaw. The other thing is I'm not sure, unless I've missed something, what the problem was?

AuxBat and Gannet have been around here a fair while and both are highly respected. I think they overreacted and assumed a very superior position to all those wondering why the ejection. I don't think people are stupid or need to be demeaned if they question how this aircraft came to be lost, in the midst of uncertainty as to what was wrong with it. If not as pilots, as taxpayers.

I think another thing which is overlooked is that while we see our military doing some incredible things in highly specialized aircraft, that the experience level of those pilots in terms of pure flight hours is far below that of many of the posters here. While we, especially high time guys, would likely never abandon a controllable and not on fire aircraft over a prairie landscape, even if we had an ejection seat, these pilots operate in a different environment in which extraordinary training and superb systems substitute for high time qualifications. One of those systems is ejection. Ejection is the preferred option.

I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.

I think that culturally and operationally, there is an enormous difference between military and civilian flying.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by AuxBatOn »

I am sorry but in this context, I think anybody with ejection seat time has a far superior knowledge of how it is to be employed. If the post from WOXOF was more interrogative versus accusatory, I would have taken a different stance. But it wasn't.

Quick scenarios for the non-believers:

1- You have an engine failure, can't make it to pavement. Eject. Minor injuries from the ejection and aircraft is a write off.

2- You have an engine failure, can't make it to the field. Decide to land in a field. Luckily, makes it to a stop upright and no tumbling. Pilot is stuck in cockpit because of bent airframe. Airplane is a write off.

In the end, what is the difference for the aircraft? What about for the crew?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Rookie50 »

cncpc wrote:
Kitzbuhel wrote:It always seems people question the decision to say good bye to the plane... I wonder why that is.

If this incident is what I heard it was they wouldn't have had much gliding time before getting on the edge of the "preferred" ejection envelope.

On another note the winds were seemingly gusting to 30 this morning in MJ. Not the best conditions to be landing in a parachute. Maybe riding the plane into the frozen prairie would have been more suitable :rolleyes:
I think the reason is that 98% of the people here fly in aircraft that do not have ejection seats. Hence they wonder what the big deal is if you have to make a forced landing, especially around Moose Jaw. The other thing is I'm not sure, unless I've missed something, what the problem was?

AuxBat and Gannet have been around here a fair while and both are highly respected. I think they overreacted and assumed a very superior position to all those wondering why the ejection. I don't think people are stupid or need to be demeaned if they question how this aircraft came to be lost, in the midst of uncertainty as to what was wrong with it. If not as pilots, as taxpayers.

I think another thing which is overlooked is that while we see our military doing some incredible things in highly specialized aircraft, that the experience level of those pilots in terms of pure flight hours is far below that of many of the posters here. While we, especially high time guys, would likely never abandon a controllable and not on fire aircraft over a prairie landscape, even if we had an ejection seat, these pilots operate in a different environment in which extraordinary training and superb systems substitute for high time qualifications. One of those systems is ejection. Ejection is the preferred option.

I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.

I think that culturally and operationally, there is an enormous difference between military and civilian flying.
Another uninformed comment I think, as a GA pilot. For one thing I think it's the height of idiocy to ever, especially in a completely uninformed comment, criticize another's best option to save themselves and their crew serious injury. Engine failure? Plane belongs to the insurance company, and my goal is solely to protect myself and my passengers.

Many SE GA pilots, and their passengers, have died trying to stretch a glide to a runway, trying to save the AC, when another, safer option existed that would total the plane but save the human cargo.

And, contrary to your comment, 20 knots higher on a forced approach is a magnified higher amount of energy, which you should know as a pilot. It's a big deal. Plus, a Cessna isn't likely to flip and trap one in a burning aircaft. Totally different situation.

I value the crew far more than replacing their equipment, but that's me. And I'd hit the eject button, in that type of plane. if it's was me 10 times out of ten, rather than risk burning to death. Anyone who didn't like my choice could P@ss off.

I support AuxBat's comment, BTW, 100%, to an asinine poster.

Can't believe this site sometimes. Screw your head on people. Support your military, doing a duty that 95% of us would never, ever do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

B208
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:00 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by B208 »

cncpc wrote: I think the reason is that 98% of the people here fly in aircraft that do not have ejection seats. Hence they wonder what the big deal is if you have to make a forced landing, especially around Moose Jaw.

I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.
The deal is simple. That aircraft is not designed to land on anything other than pavement, regardless of the position of the gear. Its high wing loading, narrow wheel base and large propeller make it very susceptible to cartwheeling if it lands on an unprepared surface. If the a/c winds up upside down, there is no getting out of it. Some very smart guys, with rusty nails wrapped around their little fingers(engineers), ran the calculations and wrote the procedures based on that.

Those same members of the rusty nail club also designed single engine civilian aircraft so that they can withstand an off airport landing. They trade off performance for that.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kitzbuhel
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:09 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Kitzbuhel »

Case and point, the AC post election glided to the ground struck a wing and is now resting upside down mangled. Granted no one was flying it but it doesn't take much imagination to picture the same thing happening with someone at the stick.

The current rumour is that the gearbox failed. (For whomever wanted to know what happened)

Both occupants were released from hospital on the same day of the accident if anyone is interested to know...
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by cncpc »

Rookie50 wrote:
cncpc wrote:
Kitzbuhel wrote:It always seems people question the decision to say good bye to the plane... I wonder why that is.

If this incident is what I heard it was they wouldn't have had much gliding time before getting on the edge of the "preferred" ejection envelope.

On another note the winds were seemingly gusting to 30 this morning in MJ. Not the best conditions to be landing in a parachute. Maybe riding the plane into the frozen prairie would have been more suitable :rolleyes:
I think the reason is that 98% of the people here fly in aircraft that do not have ejection seats. Hence they wonder what the big deal is if you have to make a forced landing, especially around Moose Jaw. The other thing is I'm not sure, unless I've missed something, what the problem was?

AuxBat and Gannet have been around here a fair while and both are highly respected. I think they overreacted and assumed a very superior position to all those wondering why the ejection. I don't think people are stupid or need to be demeaned if they question how this aircraft came to be lost, in the midst of uncertainty as to what was wrong with it. If not as pilots, as taxpayers.

I think another thing which is overlooked is that while we see our military doing some incredible things in highly specialized aircraft, that the experience level of those pilots in terms of pure flight hours is far below that of many of the posters here. While we, especially high time guys, would likely never abandon a controllable and not on fire aircraft over a prairie landscape, even if we had an ejection seat, these pilots operate in a different environment in which extraordinary training and superb systems substitute for high time qualifications. One of those systems is ejection. Ejection is the preferred option.

I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.

I think that culturally and operationally, there is an enormous difference between military and civilian flying.
Another uninformed comment I think, as a GA pilot. For one thing I think it's the height of idiocy to ever, especially in a completely uninformed comment, criticize another's best option to save themselves and their crew serious injury. Engine failure? Plane belongs to the insurance company, and my goal is solely to protect myself and my passengers.

Many SE GA pilots, and their passengers, have died trying to stretch a glide to a runway, trying to save the AC, when another, safer option existed that would total the plane but save the human cargo.

And, contrary to your comment, 20 knots higher on a forced approach is a magnified higher amount of energy, which you should know as a pilot. It's a big deal. Plus, a Cessna isn't likely to flip and trap one in a burning aircaft. Totally different situation.

I value the crew far more than replacing their equipment, but that's me. And I'd hit the eject button, in that type of plane. if it's was me 10 times out of ten, rather than risk burning to death. Anyone who didn't like my choice could P@ss off.

I support AuxBat's comment, BTW, 100%, to an asinine poster.

Can't believe this site sometimes. Screw your head on people. Support your military, doing a duty that 95% of us would never, ever do.
Bugger off.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by trampbike »

cncpc wrote:[

AuxBat and Gannet have been around here a fair while and both are highly respected. I think they overreacted and assumed a very superior position to all those wondering why the ejection. I don't think people are stupid or need to be demeaned if they question how this aircraft came to belost, in the midst of uncertainty as to what was wrong with it. If not as pilots, as taxpayers.
People don't need to be stupid to be completely out of their lane. If you have questions as to WHY some ejections happen, or WHY some procedures are in place the way they are, feel free to ask, and you'll have some very relevant answer from a few posters on this forum. This would be quite different from talking out of your ass pretending (and probably thinking) that you have a clue what you're talking about. As in everything, sometimes you just don't know what you don't know, and aren't able to see that fact. Case in point: you comparing the stall speed of the CT-156 to that of a Malibu, or you comparing civilian flight time with military one.

I'll say it again: in all but the very rare accidental ejections, the aircraft would have been a write-off even if the pilot didn't eject. He would just most likely end up dead or severely injured.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Think ahead or fall behind!

User avatar
Rookie50
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:00 am
Location: Clear of the Active.

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Rookie50 »

trampbike wrote:
cncpc wrote:[

AuxBat and Gannet have been around here a fair while and both are highly respected. I think they overreacted and assumed a very superior position to all those wondering why the ejection. I don't think people are stupid or need to be demeaned if they question how this aircraft came to belost, in the midst of uncertainty as to what was wrong with it. If not as pilots, as taxpayers.
People don't need to be stupid to be completely out of their lane. If you have questions as to WHY some ejections happen, or WHY some procedures are in place the way they are, feel free to ask, and you'll have some very relevant answer from a few posters on this forum. This would be quite different from talking out of your ass pretending (and probably thinking) that you have a clue what you're talking about. As in everything, sometimes you just don't know what you don't know, and aren't able to see that fact. Case in point: you comparing the stall speed of the CT-156 to that of a Malibu, or you comparing civilian flight time with military one.

I'll say it again: in all but the very rare accidental ejections, the aircraft would have been a write-off even if the pilot didn't eject. He would just most likely end up dead or severely injured.
Some clearly are military critics, while understanding nothing of the duty, sacrifice and risks. Neither do I, but I'm not about to criticize carefully thought out procedures designed to keep the pilot alive in an emergency while having no clue what went into those procedures.

It takes no courage to be anonymous here and feeling the right to criticize in the name of being a "taxpayer". I suggest you want to criticize, get in your car, drive to Trenton or Moose Jaw and do it in person.

I'm an unabashed supporter of our military and proud of what they do. Stay safe All.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by GyvAir »

Despite a bit of temper showing here and there, I’ve found this thread (and the one for the other Harvard II in 2014) to be informative and educational. I appreciate those that ask the questions and to those that have patiently and intelligently answered them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gannet167
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Gannet167 »

cncpc wrote:AuxBat and Gannet have been around here a fair while and both are highly respected. I think they overreacted and assumed a very superior position to all those wondering why the ejection. I don't think people are stupid or need to be demeaned if they question how this aircraft came to be lost, in the midst of uncertainty as to what was wrong with it. If not as pilots, as taxpayers.
It's fair to ask questions and for us as pilots to ponder items of interest in aviation. Asking how the aircraft came to be lost is fair. What I found a little odd was a comment criticizing the decision to eject offered from a position of naivety and misinformation about this aircraft and these emergencies. To make a statement that it was a "waste" for the crew to safely eject and walk away from an aircraft destined to crash was a bit crass. It assumes the lives of the crew were not as valuable as trying to save an aircraft - and an aircraft that was going to be a write off regardless. However, I don't believe my tone was ever demeaning. It wasn't meant to be, although I found the statement about ejecting a "waste" to be uninformed and inappropriate. Wasting pilots' lives is truly a waste and, given that they had an ejection seat available, would be avoidable and somewhat inexplicable.
cncpc wrote:I think another thing which is overlooked is that while we see our military doing some incredible things in highly specialized aircraft, that the experience level of those pilots in terms of pure flight hours is far below that of many of the posters here. While we, especially high time guys, would likely never abandon a controllable and not on fire aircraft over a prairie landscape, even if we had an ejection seat, these pilots operate in a different environment in which extraordinary training and superb systems substitute for high time qualifications. One of those systems is ejection. Ejection is the preferred option.
Ejection seats are not put in these aircraft due to the experience level of pilots. They are not meant to compensate for inexperienced guys, who if they had more experience could properly force land in a field. They are there because they save lives. Regardless of experience, the decision not to eject in a scenario like this would be stupid and likely fatal. I think you'd find a lot of "high time guys" hard pressed to come close to what some very "low time" guys, for example a Snowbird solo with very few hours can do stick and rudder wise. Grand total in the log book is part of the story, an important part. Skill set, regardless of hours, is another. Ejection seats are not for new guys. They're for airplanes that aren't very survivable.
cncpc wrote:I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.
at 74 kts you'd have zero authority over the plane, drop a wing and cartwheel. The Harvard is not a 210. Those first 20 kts you'd spend tumbling and flipping. You'd take option A because you don't understand why the ejection seat is there or how it functions. It's 1000% more predictable reliable than force landing. That comment is not unlike saying you'd fly low and slow because it's safer. If you know high and fast is better, you'd choose it.

Why in the world would you ever want to risk a forced landing when the ejection system - designed to remove precious human life from an aircraft about to crash, with very good survivability, is available? The odds of living through the forced landing are nowhere near as good as an ejection - so what possible reason could justify risking the crew's lives?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2116
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by complexintentions »

As someone with several family members in uniform, I'm all in favour of them staying alive.

But man, some of the military guys on here are defensive, all aggro and angry. ("Stay in your lane", "Armchair Warriors", etc). I highly doubt anyone really gives a shit that an airplane was written off as long as the pilots are safe. Given the usual shoddy incomplete reporting, a few questions why, seem reasonable. Not everyone has the luxury of ejecting when an engine fails, y'know. No need for chest-thumping, but it WAS amusing. :mrgreen:

I don't argue with the logic of ejecting from an aircraft that may be deadly in an off-airport landing. It's just kind of interesting that a machine designed to train for combat is apparently more fragile and vulnerable to such than a C172. In Canada. Where there's a tad more area off-airport than on. :oops:
---------- ADS -----------
  
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

fiatfarm
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:37 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by fiatfarm »

I think it's important to address the misconception of the type of terrain found in southern Saskatchewan. It is not quite the "Corner Gas" style prairie fields that many think it is. Especially south of YMJ, where those giant CYRs are located. I think ref below there are many who may want to reconsider that forced landing option when equipped with a bang seat.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
sask.jpg
sask.jpg (48.64 KiB) Viewed 1221 times

User avatar
Jean-Pierre
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Jean-Pierre »

I imagine they wouldn't have bought the aircraft for Canada if ejection wasn't an option since off-strip landing are apparently so dangerous. As someone mentioned above they would have fired from the military if they didn't eject so the point is moot.
---------- ADS -----------
  

gwagen
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:30 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by gwagen »

I'm interested to find out the cause of the failure. I really know very little of turbo-props but from what I've been around and heard,
the PT-6 seems to have a sterling reputation as being an extremely reliable setup.

If it is the gearbox that failed it is most likely that it was a mechanical failure, whether manufacturing defect or wear/improper maintenance.

But I would imagine there are instances where it is possible for pilot error to have caused damage? Over torque? or ???

As I said I'm not familiar with turbo-props but am curious as to what could cause the gear box to fail.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by GyvAir »

I don't know what all the fuss about the risks of landing in a Saskatchewan wheat field in a trainer is. This thing looks even less suited to off-strip landings and it handled the corn just fine, without the benefit of a pilot.

Image

Edited for clarity of intention.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by GyvAir on Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
trampbike
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1013
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:11 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by trampbike »

complexintentions wrote:It's just kind of interesting that a machine designed to train for combat is apparently more fragile and vulnerable to such than a C172.
What's interesting about this? Different roles, different limitations and design requirements.
complexintentions wrote: I highly doubt anyone really gives a shit that an airplane was written off as long as the pilots are safe.Given the usual shoddy incomplete reporting, a few questions why, seem reasonable. Not everyone has the luxury of ejecting when an engine fails, y'know.
Have you been reading the same thread as us? When people ask actual questions, I'm very inclined to take the time to try to answer them as well as I can, and I know that guys like Gannet167 and AuxBatOn do this (much better than I do) on a daily basis. The following quotes aren't exactly what you'd call legitimate questions. They're nothing but ill-informed ranting from people who don't know what they don't know about this specific subject.

W0X0F wrote:Seems very odd and a horrendous waste. Both this accident and the aforementioned 2013 one. If one has four minutes to decide to eject, how can there be a compelling reason to? And in the 2013 accident, eject on account of gear trouble?!

In my mind, reason to eject would come down to catastrophic airframe failure, serious control failure or fire. An engine failure or gear problem would not be cause to eject.

...

It seems that not landing, but rather ejecting is a default setting in the military mind. I think it should only be a very last resort. Especially in a benign environment like here at home.
Jean-Pierre wrote:If you look at the terrain where it crashed it look like they could have found a flat stretch to put it down without injury. But maybe their hands are tied by by military order to eject if engine failed.
cnpc wrote:While we, especially high time guys, would likely never abandon a controllable and not on fire aircraft over a prairie landscape, even if we had an ejection seat, these pilots operate in a different environment in which extraordinary training and superb systems substitute for high time qualifications. One of those systems is ejection. Ejection is the preferred option.

I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.

I think that culturally and operationally, there is an enormous difference between military and civilian flying.
Jean-Pierre wrote:As someone mentioned above they would have fired from the military if they didn't eject so the point is moot.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Think ahead or fall behind!

Gannet167
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Gannet167 »

complexintentions wrote:No need for chest-thumping, but it WAS amusing.
I appreciate what you're saying and many ways agree. Calling an ejection from a doomed plane - where both pilots walk away an "Horrendous Waste" is its own form of chest thumping. It's a bold assertion that ejecting was a poor decision and a strongly worded statement about what the crew ought to have done. It implies that the write knows better. He does not. That chest thumping will generally be met with similarly strong statements, using facts, actual knowledge and experience in this type of flying to explain how crass that comment was. If anyone's son or daughter was in the plane and walked away with scratches, I think their analysis would be a little softer on the decision to use the life saving escape system as it was intended to be used.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CFR
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 778
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: CYAV

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by CFR »

There seems to be a fair bit of comparison happening here between military and GA aircraft so here's some more food for thought. Cirrus SR-22 POH seems to recommend using the CAPS for most emergencies even forced approaches where the terrain is iffy. Pretty much destroys the plane, but crew survive. Maybe this whole issue is simply a matter of if ya got it, use it.

BRS makes retrofit systems for many GA aircraft. If you're over downtown TO in a 172 with a BRS and an engine failure what would you do?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gannet167
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Gannet167 »

GyvAir wrote:I don't know what all the fuss about the risks of landing in a Saskatchewan wheat field in a trainer is. This thing looks even less suited to off-strip landings and it handled the corn just fine, without the benefit of a pilot.
You bring up a very good point. Look at the F106
Image

It's a lawn dart. Swept wings, pointy front, very long profile with short, stubby wings. Of course it can coast along a frozen lake and stay flat and straight. Now, you'd never want to force land an F106 off airport.

By comparison, the T6:
Image

It's shaped like a throwing start. It's almost designed to cartwheel.

Image

vs

Image

They hit the ground differently.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2111
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by AirFrame »

Kitzbuhel wrote:The current rumour is that the gearbox failed. (For whomever wanted to know what happened)
Ah! That answers the only question I really had about this... How does the media report a "landing gear issue" and one of the military guys here say it's an "engine failure"? Seems miles apart. But if someone in the media got the "gearbox" comment I can easily see them thinking "landing gear" not "engine gearbox".

Glad to hear both occupants are on the mend and soon back to active duty.
---------- ADS -----------
  

J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1074
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by J31 »

I see the Harvard II is leased to the RCAF by CAE. So who is responsible pay for the loss? RCAF or CAE or insurance?

Will this airframe be replaced and is there a minimum number that must be supplied to meet the contract?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Kitzbuhel
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:09 pm

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Kitzbuhel »

J31 wrote:I see the Harvard II is leased to the RCAF by CAE. So who is responsible pay for the loss? RCAF or CAE or insurance?

Will this airframe be replaced and is there a minimum number that must be supplied to meet the contract?
The planes are owned by a crown corporation, leased to CAE which then supplies them to NFTC. Not sure who takes the hit but they are most likely insured.
AirFrame wrote:
Kitzbuhel wrote:The current rumour is that the gearbox failed. (For whomever wanted to know what happened)
Ah! That answers the only question I really had about this... How does the media report a "landing gear issue" and one of the military guys here say it's an "engine failure"? Seems miles apart. But if someone in the media got the "gearbox" comment I can easily see them thinking "landing gear" not "engine gearbox".

Glad to hear both occupants are on the mend and soon back to active duty.
The gear issue stems from the last Harvard ejection in 2013 which was caused by an unsafe gear (Interestingly, causing the same kind of discussions about ejecting vs landing) As far as the actual cause, it's all speculation at this time. The engine has a power management unit which prevents mishandling and it would be impossible to cause damage to that engine with throttle inputs. Something like spinning at full power could maybe do something unfortunate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Moose47
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:45 pm
Location: Home of Canada's Air Defence

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by Moose47 »

G'day

Here is the story behind the F-106 prang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiSGeHVfGic

Cheers...Chris
---------- ADS -----------
  

J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1074
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

Post by J31 »

Any updates how the two pilots are doing? Sounds like one was airlifted to hospital.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”