Snowbird crash in CYKA

[Gannet167]

I don't know off hand. However, the general concept is speed is life. Ignoring obstacle clearance IMC, the faster the better as it provides more energy - to climb, turn to low key, turn away from things etc using a moderate amount of g. Most jets climb relatively shallow to build speed. Many use AB to get as much energy as possible as fast and early in the takeoff as possible, even though they could likely get airborne with reduced thrust. In formation, a gentle rotation rate with generous airspeed, climbing fast in a shallow climb is much easier to fly than at slow airspeed. In addition, lead can't use 100% thrust or wingman can't maintain position, so a somewhat shallower climb is necessary compared to max thrust. From the video, without any numbers to look at, it appears to be a very standard departure.

[PilotDAR]

Thankfully the tutor didn’t continue straight ahead, resulting in ejecting into the city.

Ahhhh....?

I can see how some amount of "zoom" has merit, following an EFATO, yes, trade reserve energy for altitude, and thinking time. That said, and even more relevant to airplanes which don't store energy so well, initiating a zoom is edging on an aerobatic maneuver (the accelerations not incidental to normal flying part). Zooming up takes one closer to the point where the plane is pitched a little too high up, decelerating faster than expected, and more aerobatics are required to maintain flying speed. If one zoomed too aggressively, the inertia of the maneuver could carry the plane upward into a stall and possible spin entry, unless an opposing pitch down were applied rapidly at just the right moment. An unstable departure, so to speak. I'm no jet pilot, but I've let a few chandelles be a little late initiating the downward recovery element.....

[fleet16b]

I don't know off hand. However, the general concept is speed is life. Ignoring obstacle clearance IMC, the faster the better as it provides more energy - to climb, turn to low key, turn away from things etc using a moderate amount of g. Most jets climb relatively shallow to build speed. Many use AB to get as much energy as possible as fast and early in the takeoff as possible, even though they could likely get airborne with reduced thrust. In formation, a gentle rotation rate with generous airspeed, climbing fast in a shallow climb is much easier to fly than at slow airspeed. In addition, lead can't use 100% thrust or wingman can't maintain position, so a somewhat shallower climb is necessary compared to max thrust. From the video, without any numbers to look at, it appears to be a very standard departure.

Understood ... thank you

[fleet16b]

Thankfully the tutor didn’t continue straight ahead, resulting in ejecting into the city.

Ahhhh....?

I can see how some amount of "zoom" has merit, following an EFATO, yes, trade reserve energy for altitude, and thinking time. That said, and even more relevant to airplanes which don't store energy so well, initiating a zoom is edging on an aerobatic maneuver (the accelerations not incidental to normal flying part). Zooming up takes one closer to the point where the plane is pitched a little too high up, decelerating faster than expected, and more aerobatics are required to maintain flying speed. If one zoomed too aggressively, the inertia of the maneuver could carry the plane upward into a stall and possible spin entry, unless an opposing pitch down were applied rapidly at just the right moment. An unstable departure, so to speak. I'm no jet pilot, but I've let a few chandelles be a little late initiating the downward recovery element.....

Definitely a possible cause for what happened
We will see .....

[Rockie]

What is the standard climb rate for the Tutor on takeoff
In the video and on the close to 100 times I’ve seen the snowbird shows , they appear to always do shallow climb outs
Now I understand doing that in a show to keep thing close for the crowd but this was not a show situation
So IF they did a shallow climb out , why , that would just decrease the safety factor would it not ? Especially in this situation

In formation flight the lead is never at full power even at takeoff. You have to leave some for the wingman so he can use the full range of his power to "catch up" if necessary, and in a turn the aircraft on the outside needs to go faster than the one on the inside to maintain position - inside the turn the aircraft has to go slower. So less power, and in formation the job of lead is to be smooth and non-aggressive to make it less difficult for those on the wing.

Knowing this, it's particularly impressive given the lead is dragging 9 airplanes around doing vertical/rolling aerobatics in a pretty underpowered airplane without even getting to use all his own power. The 5 plane line abreast barrel roll must be very difficult with the outside aircraft at full power and the inside aircraft powered back with speed brakes to maintain position. Really impressive to watch knowing the difficulty.

[rookiepilot]

Thank you Gannet for the detailed posts.

Learning a few things. What a terrible time in the flight profile to lose one's engine, not many good options.

From my know - nothing perspective, its seems shocking how fast energy bleeds off after the zoom climb, into the stall.

[L39Guy]

Some think that SB 11 should have continued straight ahead and punched out over the river or some other benign area.

While flying on someone's wing, you are totally focused on maintaining position and not hitting the other aircraft. There is no opportunity to do any sight-seeing. Thus, once the engine failed and #2 was still in formation, there is simply no time to start looking for a great ejection spot, particularly when the drill is to zoom and trade kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy (altitude). And, as has been pointed out many times by those that have done this type of flying, try to turn back toward the airport and a position abeam the runway threshold (approach end) known as low-key.

Attached is a diagram showing the various key positions and the desired energy state (speed and altitude). In the case of SB 11, there was no way he was going to get to high key so the idea is to at least get to low key with 130 kts/1500 ft agl, either by getting the energy from the zoom or zoom plus any thrust the engine may produce. In this case, the engine was producing no thrust so there was not enough energy available to make it to even low key, hence an ejection.

CT 114 PFL Pattern.PDF

CT114 PFL Pattern

(1.06 MiB) Downloaded 123 times

[fleet16b]

85B4BF7B-61C1-485B-B7B7-A3203A37B31B.jpeg (35.89 KiB) Viewed 1703 times

Here is the Checklist for the Tutor
It confirms the Zoom maneuver but says nothing about low key / turn back to try for the runway

[fleet16b]

There is precedent. 31 May 1976, CT114028 dual fatal, bird strike. Here's a synopsis.. "Shortly after take-off from the Regina airport, the aircraft flew through a flock of birds at approximately 600 to 800 feet above ground level (AGL) and a bird was ingested, causing an engine failure. The crew
turned toward the airdrome for a forced landing. The forced landing was aborted and the crew ejected. The aircraft crashed in a baseball diamond on the west-side of Regina, just outside of Regina Airport property. The ejection was initiated at too low an altitude and the crew were fatally injured. The engine was recovered from the wreckage. An
examination of the engine, by the Quality Engineering Test Establishment (QETE) and by Orenda engines, confirmed that the engine failure was caused by bird ingestion. The investigation found that ejection was initiated well outside the safe ejection envelope and was further compromised by the
nose-down attitude of the aircraft. The investigation further found that the nose-down pitching behaviour of the aircraft during the ejection sequence was similar to that experienced in the crash of Tutor 114127 on March 20th, 1972. Subsequent Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment (AETE) trials proved that the nose-down pitching was not due to canopy jettisoning. The AETE study did reveal, however, that the Tutor aircraft, in the landing configuration, runs out of nose-up trim at approximately 100 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS). An analysis of the evidence from these two accidents, plus the information in the AETE report, shows that at speeds below 110 knots, the aircraft will pitch
down rapidly when the pilot releases the canopy to begin the ejection sequence." Access to the Flight Safety Informations System would probably show quite a few compressor stalls on the Tutor from bird strikes.

[cncpc]

Some think that SB 11 should have continued straight ahead and punched out over the river or some other benign area.

While flying on someone's wing, you are totally focused on maintaining position and not hitting the other aircraft. There is no opportunity to do any sight-seeing. Thus, once the engine failed and #2 was still in formation, there is simply no time to start looking for a great ejection spot, particularly when the drill is to zoom and trade kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy (altitude). And, as has been pointed out many times by those that have done this type of flying, try to turn back toward the airport and a position abeam the runway threshold (approach end) known as low-key.

Attached is a diagram showing the various key positions and the desired energy state (speed and altitude). In the case of SB 11, there was no way he was going to get to high key so the idea is to at least get to low key with 130 kts/1500 ft agl, either by getting the energy from the zoom or zoom plus any thrust the engine may produce. In this case, the engine was producing no thrust so there was not enough energy available to make it to even low key, hence an ejection.

CT 114 PFL Pattern.PDF

Thanks, I've been hoping to see something like that.

[L39Guy]

85B4BF7B-61C1-485B-B7B7-A3203A37B31B.jpeg

Here is the Checklist for the Tutor
It confirms the Zoom maneuver but says nothing about low key / turn back to try for the runway

Attached is the instructions in the How-to-Fly manual describing what to do, Forced-Landing from the Traffic Pattern. Note: this was not an engine failure on take-off as the aircraft was beyond the point of landing on the runway.

Tutor students did lots of simulated engine failures from the traffic pattern, however they were invariably from a downwind position somewhere with circuit speed (240 knots) and altitude (1000 ft AGL). In other words lots of kinetic and potential energy. This accident aircraft did not have a lot of energy to start with however should the engine have relit or produced partial power, the aircraft could have eeked its way to low key. The issue is that one does not know whether there will be any thrust unless it either relights (if it flamed out) or it still turning. And the only way to figure that out is to zoom, get away from lead, and see if the engine responds. If it doesn't, then you won't make it to the runway so jump out.

The ingestion of the bird (or drone perhaps) could not have happened at a worst position - too far on the take-off to land on the runway remaining but past the end of the runway, in the traffic pattern with some usable energy. A confluence of many less than ideal circumstances.

[fleet16b]

85B4BF7B-61C1-485B-B7B7-A3203A37B31B.jpeg

Here is the Checklist for the Tutor
It confirms the Zoom maneuver but says nothing about low key / turn back to try for the runway

Attached is the instructions in the How-to-Fly manual describing what to do, Forced-Landing from the Traffic Pattern. Note: this was not an engine failure on take-off as the aircraft was beyond the point of landing on the runway.

Tutor students did lots of simulated engine failures from the traffic pattern, however they were invariably from a downwind position somewhere with circuit speed (240 knots) and altitude (1000 ft AGL). In other words lots of kinetic and potential energy. This accident aircraft did not have a lot of energy to start with however should the engine have relit or produced partial power, the aircraft could have eeked its way to low key. The issue is that one does not know whether there will be any thrust unless it either relights (if it flamed out) or it still turning. And the only way to figure that out is to zoom, get away from lead, and see if the engine responds. If it doesn't, then you won't make it to the runway so jump out.

The ingestion of the bird (or drone perhaps) could not have happened at a worst position - too far on the take-off to land on the runway remaining but past the end of the runway, in the traffic pattern with some usable energy. A confluence of many less than ideal circumstances.

Ok Thank you great info
So some here are saying it’s standard SOP to establish low key and attempt to return to the runway however the manual and yourself state differently .
I also had discussions with other RCAF Tutor pilots Today that said in this low key situation, returning to the runway was not an option
This makes me feel that he was not intending to turn back to the runway and that it was in all likelihood a left wing drop stall spin maybe due to excessive zoom , but that of is just one of many possible scenarios.

[AuxBatOn]

85B4BF7B-61C1-485B-B7B7-A3203A37B31B.jpeg

Here is the Checklist for the Tutor
It confirms the Zoom maneuver but says nothing about low key / turn back to try for the runway

Attached is the instructions in the How-to-Fly manual describing what to do, Forced-Landing from the Traffic Pattern. Note: this was not an engine failure on take-off as the aircraft was beyond the point of landing on the runway.

Tutor students did lots of simulated engine failures from the traffic pattern, however they were invariably from a downwind position somewhere with circuit speed (240 knots) and altitude (1000 ft AGL). In other words lots of kinetic and potential energy. This accident aircraft did not have a lot of energy to start with however should the engine have relit or produced partial power, the aircraft could have eeked its way to low key. The issue is that one does not know whether there will be any thrust unless it either relights (if it flamed out) or it still turning. And the only way to figure that out is to zoom, get away from lead, and see if the engine responds. If it doesn't, then you won't make it to the runway so jump out.

The ingestion of the bird (or drone perhaps) could not have happened at a worst position - too far on the take-off to land on the runway remaining but past the end of the runway, in the traffic pattern with some usable energy. A confluence of many less than ideal circumstances.

Ok Thank you great info
So some here are saying it’s standard SOP to establish low key and attempt to return to the runway however the manual and yourself state differently .
I also had discussions with other RCAF Tutor pilots Today that said in this low key situation, returning to the runway was not an option
This makes me feel that he was not intending to turn back to the runway and that it was in all likelihood a left wing drop stall spin maybe due to excessive zoom , but that of is just one of many possible scenarios.

The How To Fly says exactly to turn towards a runway. Read paragraph 28...

I have Tutor experiencd and my takeoff brief included a speed at which I know I’ll make it back to a runway with a complete engine failure and what I’d do for engine loss of thrust before that (ZOOM and ASSESS), which included a turn towards a runway until I could confirm I wouldn’t make it. Those numbers and the brief were different for every runway I takeoff from.

I have practiced engine failures after takeoff to know that the turn back or a landing on a cross runway are very feasible.

What you don’t have in your Tutor checklist is the amplifications section 3 of the Aircraft Operating Instructions. There are mentions of ejecting or attempting to force land (at the pilot’s discretion)

[frosti]

Is there anything in the AOIs regarding bailing in water? The tutor has a large wingspan for its size and it may be able to belly land and float for a bit, rather similar to an A320 in the Hudson. Tutors have dry wings and all that buoyancy could help. Having the drag of the smoke tanks could make things interesting but is it even an option? Eject the canopy and try for a water landing if you are below the threshold for a safe ejection. I know it’s easy to look at this now, but are water landings completely ruled out as unsafe?

Would an ejection, at this altitude and angle, be more survivable if they impacted water vs ground?

[flyingnorm]

This talk about what the PF should have or should not have or could or could not have done is getting on my nerves. Nobody gets to be a Snowbird pilot without having proven to be one of the finest among us. That means they not only know how to take off an wobble around a pattern on a Sunday morning in a Cessna, they know what to do in each and every scenario that they might possibly encounter in jet formation flying elaborate demonstration routines. They think and operate in dimensions unlike most GA or Commercial pilots. They can also make mistakes and have proven they know how to be teachable, unlike some of the posters in this forum.

Until the report is made public, could we have a few months of respect for the PF who is reliving this incident every day, while mourning the loss of a teammate. Respect could be shown by less speculation, more support and appreciation of good memories with Canada's finest in the Snowbirds.

Captain MacDougall, you did your best. You always would. Thanks for your service. We stand with you as you recover.

Captain Casey, thanks for your service. We miss you. Sorry you did not make it.

To the rest of the team, keep you chin up. Dont let obnoxious characters get you down. Fly for fun, fly for serious, just fly because you can. Thanks for being the best.

[boeingboy]

Is there anything in the AOIs regarding bailing in water? The tutor has a large wingspan for its size and it may be able to belly land and float for a bit, rather similar to an A320 in the Hudson. Tutors have dry wings and all that buoyancy could help. Having the drag of the smoke tanks could make things interesting but is it even an option? Eject the canopy and try for a water landing if you are below the threshold for a safe ejection. I know it’s easy to look at this now, but are water landings completely ruled out as unsafe?

Would an ejection, at this altitude and angle, be more survivable if they impacted water vs ground?

All your questions have been answered if you would go back a bit and read....

An off-field forced landing is very likely to be fatal, and is typically only attempted in the case of ejection failure.

Water - earth...makes no difference.

If the aircraft stops upside down, the canopy can't be opened and ejection is no longer an option.....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.

Ditching is not an easy thing in any aircraft. Sully was very lucky...ditchings are practically never successful, and we are talking about radically different aircraft.

[boeingboy]

This talk about what the PF should have or should not have or could or could not have done is getting on my nerves. Nobody gets to be a Snowbird pilot without having proven to be one of the finest among us. That means they not only know how to take off an wobble around a pattern on a Sunday morning in a Cessna, they know what to do in each and every scenario that they might possibly encounter in jet formation flying elaborate demonstration routines. They think and operate in dimensions unlike most GA or Commercial pilots. They can also make mistakes and have proven they know how to be teachable, unlike some of the posters in this forum.

Until the report is made public, could we have a few months of respect for the PF who is reliving this incident every day, while mourning the loss of a teammate. Respect could be shown by less speculation, more support and appreciation of good memories with Canada's finest in the Snowbirds.

Captain MacDougall, you did your best. You always would. Thanks for your service. We stand with you as you recover.

Captain Casey, thanks for your service. We miss you. Sorry you did not make it.

To the rest of the team, keep you chin up. Dont let obnoxious characters get you down. Fly for fun, fly for serious, just fly because you can. Thanks for being the best.

Absolutely!

This guy did nothing wrong, GA folks need to just shut their mouths and open their ears and simply learn something from those wise to this subject.

[fleet16b]

This talk about what the PF should have or should not have or could or could not have done is getting on my nerves. Nobody gets to be a Snowbird pilot without having proven to be one of the finest among us. That means they not only know how to take off an wobble around a pattern on a Sunday morning in a Cessna, they know what to do in each and every scenario that they might possibly encounter in jet formation flying elaborate demonstration routines. They think and operate in dimensions unlike most GA or Commercial pilots. They can also make mistakes and have proven they know how to be teachable, unlike some of the posters in this forum.

Until the report is made public, could we have a few months of respect for the PF who is reliving this incident every day, while mourning the loss of a teammate. Respect could be shown by less speculation, more support and appreciation of good memories with Canada's finest in the Snowbirds.

Captain MacDougall, you did your best. You always would. Thanks for your service. We stand with you as you recover.

Captain Casey, thanks for your service. We miss you. Sorry you did not make it.

To the rest of the team, keep you chin up. Dont let obnoxious characters get you down. Fly for fun, fly for serious, just fly because you can. Thanks for being the best.

I agree completely with your statement with regards to the Snowbirds and this particular crew
Respectfully
This thread has been very educational and informative
Nobody blamed anyone or came to any foregone conclusions as to what happened.
I think all the participants agree that the crew did all they could to survive the incident and are respectful of that.
However , if the this or any other accident discussion gets in your nerves , why are you reading and monitoring it?
You know there is a reason AVCanada has this section of the Forum. Read the title of it . Accidents and incidents have been discussed , dissected here for years.
You have every right to scroll on by , just as we have every right to discuss the incident . After all it’s our Team isn’t it ?
Further , GA , Airline , ultralight, Military , it doesn’t matter our backgrounds there is always something for all of us to learn.

[AirFrame]

Yes it was a two ship formation so it’s understandable that avoiding the other aircraft would be a priority however the right side aircraft was well clear by the top of the zone and was in no way a threat.

But as #2 was blind to his leader, he had no way of knowing where his leader was. All he knew was that he pulled up and could no longer see his leader. Lead could be oblivious to #2's departure. The safest thing is to put some separation between #2 and lead when breaking formation, which he did. First a pitch up to zoom, then a gentle rolling turn to the left.

Would it no have been part of the SOP
that the right aircraft clear of the aircraft in trouble and stay well clear? It certainly appears that they did that

Not sure where you're seeing that "they did that". Every video i've seen shows lead continuing downrange and then making a wide turn to the left to monitor his wingman.

Further , at this point it has not been established that the slight turn to the left was even intentional.
It may or may not have been a result of the zoom creating loss of enough airspeed to create a left wing down stall situation

The aircraft wasn't stalled until it was half-way through the turn. For someone with your claimed time in aviation, you can surely see that in the various videos of the incident. I could. It looks like he had lift on the wings right up until the apex of his turn, but there just wasn't enough energy left to bring it over the top and fly back down the backside.

No I am not a military formation pilot but I along with my group are formation pilots that have received training from an Ex RCAF Formation Team Leader but recognize that I am no a formation expert by a long shot.
I’m simply trying to understand as many of the scenarios as I can regarding the accident .

You are to be applauded for expanding your skillset. I encourage you to learn from what others here are telling you as well, and not to blindly stick by training received in a 172 during your PPL. There's a reason the RCAF prefers to train pilots that don't already have pilot's licenses... They spend a lot of time "untraining" things.

[AirFrame]

Nobody blamed anyone or came to any foreigner conclusions as to what happened.

Well, you did:

It’s pretty obvious that he tried to make it back and stall spun instead .
This was a totally avoidable had he have followed the rules .

Further , GA , Airline , ultralight, Military , it doesn’t matter our backgrounds there is always something for all of us to learn.

Something we can both agree on.