Snowbird crash in CYKA

[2R]

The first time I was shown the impossible 180 EFATO turn was at two hundred feet in Cessna by a TC class one instructor who used to run the flight school in Kamloops . He was also a Funeral Director .
I am reluctant to demonstrate it to most pilots , as the average pilot has a better survival rate landing straightish ahead. I would have no qualms demonstrating the 180 to an aerobatic pilot , but I am reluctant to show the “impossible turn “ to low time non aerobatic type pilots . Due to the requirement to unload the wing in the turn by adjusting the attitude which can be counter intuitive to someone without aerobatic experience . Unload the wing too much and you are in negative g mode where planes bend easier . Such exercises are best done in aircraft with a g meter at a very safe altitude .
An aerobatic pilot can make those turns in a Cessna easy enough . With zero time in a Tutor I could not say how easy it is to change direction or how to control the energy and attitude to get the best performance out of a bad situation . Nope I would not know where to start , if I could rent one for a month or two ,I might get a clue .

Ever wondered why training aircraft have so many wrinkles in their skin ?

[Gannet167]

It's not discussed much, but do you agree that if the failure was only partial at the time the left turn was made, return to field was at least as good an option as ejecting?

Partial power may allow you to stay level or shallow the descent. Either way you want to find a runway, if you can’t, then ejecting is your last option. The first choice is always to find a runway, however there are some phases where it’s clearly impossible and the decision to eject isn’t much of a decision, its the only option.

There was the incident at Atlanta where the pilot ejected but reported abnormalities in the ejection sequence. Do you know what those abnormalities were and if there was some rectification made that would have given Capt. MacDougall full confidence in an ejection choice for him and Capt. Casey. I guess I'm asking if there were lingering issues from Atlanta that may have shaded the choice towards the turnback.

Those abnormalities will be part of the report and when it’s released it will be public. I'll let it disclose the little that I know and hopefully much more. I am told the abnormalities were significant, it's quite lucky that things turned out as well as they did. It is no secret that the seat in the Tutor has had problems over the years. I'm sure everyone who flies it is well aware of its characteristics and the details of Atlanta. I don't think it influenced the decision, the attempt at low key isn't anything new, it is what a Harvard or Hawk pilot would do as well, and the seat in those aircraft is quite good. I don't believe anything has been modified on the Tutor seat in several years. A formal risk assessment would likely be done and have to be approved to return to service.

[tbayav8er]

That’s the quote you chose to unhappy about
The truth hurts I guess ..,., yes it is contrary to flight trading taught in schools right now......... don’t take my word for it go check for yourself.
I have already fully admitted I have no military flying background
However , when it comes to basic flying rules , I am more than qualified.
You can sign up for flying lessons anywhere in the world and you will be taught to stay as straight a possible in an engine failure on take off mode .
Out of my depth ? Lol ok ...., I have asked some questions that some obviously feel uncomfortable . Sorry but this is as an Aviation Forum.
While I have not flown jet aircraft , I do have 40 years of flying experience ,so no I’m not ignorant but thank you for the insult
It’s interesting that you have to result to personal attack but hey this is AVCanada , the home to that kind of behaviour so it’s not surprising . I have no fear of the AV Canada Bullies that lurk here
Further, accusing me of arguing is just a cop out for someone that does not agree with you. I’m the first to admit that there are people here more qualified that some of us therefore I simply want to hear all sides regarding the accident

This incident is no special military only scenario , it’s one that has been played out many many times with the same sad result
Having never heard of the military training that teaches people to turn while in a no power incident, I have asked to see the syllabus but nobody seems to be able to provide.
I’ll end this by saying that if you have a problem with my posts, don’t read them ..... you don’t have to resort to insults .... just move along .

Here's the concern. You are an aviation headcase. Yes, one option is not to read them. But for those who know you are a headcase, the fear is that those who don't will read them, with potentially bad outcomes. Gannett knows more than you do. Waaaay more. He's not saying "Hey, over here, look at me".

There was some guy on here LemonMeringuePye or something like that. He had some pulled from his ass theory about flying approaches behind the power curve and he was adamant that he was right, and that all the sane people who told him he was wrong were just people who lacked his innovative approach to doing plainly stupid things. He was an engineer from Oliver, or so he said.

You're like him. He doesn't come around much. You should emulate him.

Ahh yes resorting to insults because you can’t have a mature discussion
So let’s get this straight ;
I’m a nutcase because I ask questions and look at all the scenarios
Please quote one on my comments that a novice would read that would potentially get them killed .
We all know that turning back to an airport without sufficient speed and altitude will in most cases result in a stall
Spin crash
If a novice reads that and lands straight ahead I’m endangering them ? Please, don’t be ridiculous BUT if some military pilot say it can be fine under certain circumstances and the novice reads that because hey after all the guy flies jets, it’s ok?
That would get the novice pilot killed In most cases
Again I’m a nut case ? How ? , are you some aviation psychiatrist ?
Maybe you should stop resorting to insults When you can’t counter a point and also have someone help you with your insecurities.

Ugh. I had three full paragraphs typed out giving this guy $h!t, but decided not to feed the troll anymore. All I can do is shake my head at this fleet guy. Congrats on your "40 years in aviation". A large percentage of us on here are professional pilots, and a number of people on this forum have military jet, formation, and tutor experience. So learn your audience before you spew your Cessna 172 expertise on people with high performance jet experience.

RIP to Captain Casey, and wishing Captain Macdougall a speedy recovery from this terrible accident. I have a couple of close friends on the team this year, and this is really tough for everyone.

[boeingboy]

I am reposting this here from another thread as It has very insightful discussion from someone who actually did this (flying tactical military jets) Perhaps it is explained differently and will help some people here grasp reality...


This response was from an acquaintance on another forum to some who commented on my thread. He is back east in the states....Ex US Navy:

"Originally Posted By: Showboatsix
It appears that the pilot made the most rookie mistake of attempting to turn back to the airport runway when the engine failed, during the turn a stall spin occurred, leaving no room for a ejection to be successful.

At that altitude he had no possible way to return to the runway."

Not necessarily accurate. You’re trying to apply GA airplane logic to a tactical jet.

He likely was attempting to execute a climbing left hand turn to ‘low key’ in order to intercept the emergency landing profile. In a jet fitted with ejection seats, the mindset changes. An off-field forced landing is very likely to be fatal, and is typically only attempted in the case of ejection failure. As such, it makes sense to at least attempt to intercept the ELP and make the runway—if you can’t intercept the profile with an adequate energy state, pull the ejection handle.

We don’t know what the indications in the cockpit were. Was the engine rolling back? Or was it a sudden catastrophic failure? Where were the populated areas surrounding the field? Lots of unknowns.

The only “fault” I see here is the delayed ejection decision. But initiating the climbing turn to assess whether the ELP could be intercepted—that I don’t consider to be bad headwork. I can’t even tell you how many times I practiced that exact maneuver in the T-45. Hang out near an F-16 base and you’ll see it all day long. This should have been one of those “right hand on the stick, left hand on the handle” type of maneuvers. But, once again, I don’t know what was happening inside the jet.

Now, in a light piston single? Unless you’re certain you can make it back, look for a forced landing site in front of you.

posted by Gooneybird
It was what, about 10-12 seconds from when the pitch up started until the seats left the plane. Take away the ejection sequence time & there's not much time left to absorb what's happening, get your hand on the ejection seat handle and pull. I certainly won't Monday night quarterback him.

...and - my buddies answer

Exactly. If I’m in that same position, and I smoke a bird and/or have an engine failure, I’m immediately going for low key. It’s almost muscle memory.

I’ve lost half a dozen buddies to ejections outside the envelope, to include one of my closest friends. At low altitude, you can go from very survivable to zero chance in literal tenths of a second.

[PilotDAR]

I have an honest, rookie question, reminding readers that I have never flown a jet, and claim no experience in that class of aircraft.

Gannet said:

by Gannet167 » Sat May 30, 2020 9:30 pm

............... A 172 glide ratio is about 1:9. A Tutor is closer to 1:12. That means it glides better.

And I take Gannet at his/her word.

And Boeingboy said:

In a jet fitted with ejection seats, the mindset changes. An off-field forced landing is very likely to be fatal, and is typically only attempted in the case of ejection failure.

Honest question:

If the Tutor jet glides better than a 172, wouldn't that make it even more suited to an off field landing? Okay, I get that the approach speed may be faster, or the landing gear less suited to a rough surface, but my GA experience tells me that a better gliding plane is usually easier to force land...

I'm not suggesting that I think the Tutor could have been easily force landed, or that the pilot should have attempted this, but I'm just asking a more basic question.... My flying boat glides like a set of car keys, 80 MPH gliding approach, probably doing 1000 FPM down, higher numbers than a 172 (glides less well). But, I can glide land it. Is the Tutor similar?

[BTD]

This is hyperbole. But extremes may illustrate sometimes.

The space shuttle had a terrible glide ratio for the last few minutes of the flight, but from the time it started reentry until touchdown it flew halfway around the world starting with an altitude of 400 000 feet. Mind you it started at Mach 25. That’s a hell of a glide ratio. But I can’t imagine any point in that profile when an off airport landing would be favoured.

Now onto a real answer from someone else...

[Gannet167]

Honest question:

If the Tutor jet glides better than a 172, wouldn't that make it even more suited to an off field landing? Okay, I get that the approach speed may be faster, or the landing gear less suited to a rough surface, but my GA experience tells me that a better gliding plane is usually easier to force land...

Fair question. I believe the weight, relatively higher landing speed, high pressure narrow tires (assuming you even can get or want the gear down) are factors. Certainly hitting trees etc In a very rigid airframe at typical landing speeds isn't great. A softer surface makes a cartwheel likely. If the aircraft stops upside down, the canopy can't be opened and ejection is no longer an option.

I'm not sure glide ratio is that essential in the actual landing, or perhaps better stated, simply because it glides well may not necessarily make it easier to handle in a landing (although glide and landing characteristics may be coincidental or related) nor make it handle the touchdown on an unprepared surface as well. Glide may help you reach a better landing site, but I would guess the shape and size of the belly (or gear, if used) C of G, speed at touchdown, pitch authority, nature of the surface, wind, etc are probably more vital to how easily the aircraft is controlled and how well it handles touch down and deceleration off field.

Getting out requires a bit of work. This varies by design but typically you need to first put your seat pin in to safe the seat so as to not risk the seat firing and killing you, in some aircraft the inter seat sequencer needs to be selected solo before pinning, then 2x parachute risers, 2x seat pack fittings, leg lines, lap belt, oxygen hose, oxygen mask, emergency o2 hose, comcord etc. Then hope the canopy can be opened and your arm isn't broken.

In an aircraft with an ejection seat, particularly a newer 0/0 seat, it doesn't make much sense to attempt an off field landing. The aircraft is likely a write off anyway and survival is questionable. Better to use the seat which generally gives a high degree of survivability.

[cncpc]

It's not discussed much, but do you agree that if the failure was only partial at the time the left turn was made, return to field was at least as good an option as ejecting?

Partial power may allow you to stay level or shallow the descent. Either way you want to find a runway, if you can’t, then ejecting is your last option. The first choice is always to find a runway, however there are some phases where it’s clearly impossible and the decision to eject isn’t much of a decision, its the only option.

There was the incident at Atlanta where the pilot ejected but reported abnormalities in the ejection sequence. Do you know what those abnormalities were and if there was some rectification made that would have given Capt. MacDougall full confidence in an ejection choice for him and Capt. Casey. I guess I'm asking if there were lingering issues from Atlanta that may have shaded the choice towards the turnback.

Those abnormalities will be part of the report and when it’s released it will be public. I'll let it disclose the little that I know and hopefully much more. I am told the abnormalities were significant, it's quite lucky that things turned out as well as they did. It is no secret that the seat in the Tutor has had problems over the years. I'm sure everyone who flies it is well aware of its characteristics and the details of Atlanta. I don't think it influenced the decision, the attempt at low key isn't anything new, it is what a Harvard or Hawk pilot would do as well, and the seat in those aircraft is quite good. I don't believe anything has been modified on the Tutor seat in several years. A formal risk assessment would likely be done and have to be approved to return to service.

I ask about partial power because it does seem like a turnback was the reason for the left bank. In that scenario, Capt. MacDougall is able to make a sound judgment that he has a good chance of saving the aircraft, and the eject option was always available above 60 knots. It is always my approach in these times to refrain from criticism of the pilot until professionals make their report. Even then, I generally pass no remarks. In this case, we have one character who has a different approach. He tries to elevate himself by a self ascribed and superior competence to question the judgment of a pilot who is surely one of the best trained aerial demonstration pilots in the word. And yourself. But, his whole rant has little relevance in the event of a total failure, and none if this initially developed as a partial failure followed by an inadvertent stall/spin. It may be that the situation worsened to a total power loss in the turn, and the wing just dropped. Your man did a hell of a job getting that spin stopped.

I accept your belief that Atlanta wouldn't have caused hesitation on the eject, but one seat did not work at all, and by accounts from the scene it is considered a miracle that Captain MacDougall did survive.

There is no flame observed out of the tailpipe or anywhere else in this whole sequence. What, if anything, do you make of that? I would think if the compressor "stopped" or slowed down, the fuel air mixture in the power section would go off and you'd see the excess fuel in the form of flame out the tailpipe, or is that not a correct view? Is it possible for fuel to be starved from the power section, some type of failure of supply?

[Cleared4TheOption]

And Boeingboy said:

In a jet fitted with ejection seats, the mindset changes. An off-field forced landing is very likely to be fatal, and is typically only attempted in the case of ejection failure.

Honest question:

If the Tutor jet glides better than a 172, wouldn't that make it even more suited to an off field landing? Okay, I get that the approach speed may be faster, or the landing gear less suited to a rough surface, but my GA experience tells me that a better gliding plane is usually easier to force land...

Glide ratio means absolutely nothing about the survivability of a forced landing. The important part is the speed with which you impact. A 172 has a best glide of about 60kts and a stall speed somewhere around 40kts. I don't know but I would think a Tutor being a high performance aircraft would have a best glide around 120-140kts and probably a full flap stall over 70 kts. That's getting close to 4 times the kinetic energy if it weighed the same, but this is a much heavier aircraft. Things are far more likely to go wrong or run out of space.

[Cliff Jumper]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

[telex]

I don't understand this debate. It seems very basic to me.

1. A turnback following an engine failure at 200 feet is a bad idea.
2. A turnback following an engine failure at 1500 feet is not a bad idea.
3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.
4. See number 2.

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

[Cliff Jumper]

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

Which position/statement is up for debate?

[telex]

Can you state your military aviation credentials and experience to support your position?

Which position/statement is up for debate?

So you have no military aviation experience?

[Cliff Jumper]

So you have no military aviation experience?

Which of my statement would require military expertise?

The only statement which mentions military is #3, but that is easily google-able.

I still don't understand which point you disagree with.

[telex]

So you have no military aviation experience?

Which of my statement would require military expertise?

3. A tutor has enough extra energy at 200 feet to zoom climb to 1500 following a failure.

Please expand. Feel free to be specific.

How much energy would remain after a zoom climb?

What would you recommend happen at the top of zoom climb?

How many times have you completed the maneuver?

[Cliff Jumper]

But I didn't suggest any of those things.

You're suggesting that I rewrite military procedure, I'm just saying a turn-back from 1500 isn't a terrible idea.

[telex]

But I didn't suggest any of those things.

You're suggesting that I rewrite military procedure, I'm just saying a turn-back from 1500 isn't a terrible idea.

So as I previously stated; no military aviation experience.

Opinions are nice though.

['97 Tercel]

classic Avcanada exchange

[Cliff Jumper]

In typical fashion, you're arguing just to argue. I'm stating some details that agree with the gentlemen on here that have military experience, and you're saying I can't say the sky is blue because I'm not a meteorologist.

I never suggested any deep knowledge, weird opinions, or anything that's not on google.

Zoom climbs in military trainers at 200kts average 600-900 feet. At 250kts they average 1100-1600.feet. That's from several manuals on google. For example http://www.t6bdriver.com/uploads/6/4/7/ ... 14_fti.pdf

Granted there are some differences for aircraft type. I have no idea what a tutor would be. It wouldn't be zero though.

I haven't flown a rocket either, but I understand there is a flamey firey thing that blows downward. Makes a lot of noise.

[telex]

In typical fashion, you're arguing just to argue. I'm stating some details that agree with the gentlemen on here that have military experience, and you're saying I can't say the sky is blue because I'm not a meteorologist.

I never suggested any deep knowledge, weird opinions, or anything that's not on google.

Zoom climbs in military trainers at 200kts average 600-900 feet. At 250kts they average 1100-1600.feet. That's from several manuals on google. For example http://www.t6bdriver.com/uploads/6/4/7/ ... 14_fti.pdf

Granted there are some differences for aircraft type. I have no idea what a tutor would be. It wouldn't be zero though.

I haven't flown a rocket either, but I understand there is a flamey firey thing that blows downward. Makes a lot of noise.

Ok I got it now.

You have no military aviation experience and a grand total of zero hours in a Tutor.

Thank you for your important opinion.