Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

[Rockie]

In the early eighties a dual F-5 had its gear come out and bend back at over 500 knots (accidental hand strike on the gear handle during defensive BFM). As the gear was attached but bent a landing would have been very foolish so a controlled ejection was made after thorough preparation and with helicopter rescue on site.

Ejection is not a military mindset - it is used only reluctantly and usually on extremely short notice to save your life. I know several people who owe their continued existence to Martin Baker.

[xsbank]

I worked for a guy who dead-stocked a Harvard 1 into a field (shows you how long ago that was), he saved the aircraft with no damage but he was court-marshalled because he did not follow procedures and bail out. You follow the sops and you do as you're told. All part of the training.

I'm very glad that these guys were "just" injured and I hope for a speedy recovery. I'm quite happy if my tax money which they will screw out of me in a month or so, goes to a nice shiny new a/c for them.

[Gannet167]

I'm very glad that these guys were "just" injured and I hope for a speedy recovery. I'm quite happy if my tax money which they will screw out of me in a month or so, goes to a nice shiny new a/c for them.

Sadly, after we all get screwed in a month or so, there will not be a new airplane.

[AirFrame]

You're completely uninformed. The reasons to eject are spelled out in the manufacturers checklist. A belly landing is not a recommended procedure and is only attempted if for some reason you cannot eject. In this aircraft, at the speeds it moves, its weight and the shape of the air frame, it's very likely the aircraft would cartwheel and end up upside down, locking in the crew for the post crash fire.

Thanks Gannet. When I heard initial reports of this incident, my first thought was "why can't they belly it onto the snow?" (The news is still reporting that the issue was with the landing gear, not the engine). I would have thought a careful belly landing on a smooth, snowy field would be quite survivable. But given the manufacturer's evaluation above I do understand the ejection instead.

I would have also thought that ejection seats had progressed to the point of being rather safe... Are the injuries mostly due to the ejection process, or due to landing under canopy? I can imagine you'd get some twisted ankles/broken legs due to bad landing areas.

[Gannet167]

No problem. The aircraft was recovered today and all 4 corners of it were severely damaged. It cartwheeled and looks like it ended up upside down.

Injuries happen both from the ejection and the touchdown under the canopy. Each one is unique. It really depends on speed, altitude, attitude, descent rate, the weight and physique of the crew, the equipment they're wearing, body position, posture, how they have their harness tightened, etc. etc. etc.

Ejection seats have come a long way I would hazard to say that generally other than detonation cord burning your arms and neck, most injuries occur when the crew parachutes to the ground. A wind limit of 35 kts is the max for crews to fly in training - for ejection reasons. With the descent rate of a 200 lb person in the canopy, it would be somewhat like free jumping off the roof of a transport truck travelling at about 60 km/h. You'd hope not to be dragged through trees, power lines or fencing.

[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.

[cncpc]

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

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.

[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?

[Rookie50]

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

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.

[B208]

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.

[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...

[cncpc]

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

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.

[trampbike]

[

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.

[Rookie50]

[

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.

[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.

[Gannet167]

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.