Snowbird crash in CYKA

[jakeandelwood]

Can someone please explain to me what "low key" means? I'm guessing its military. I've never heard that term before in my years of flying. please don't ridicule me saying i should know what it means.

[telex]

- the idea with an engine failure in single engine military jets is to exchange airspeed for altitude to get away from the ground, buy some time to sort things out and assess whether one can return to the same runway. The idea in the Tutor is to apex at 130 kts (above the stall speed) and assess if one can get to a downwind position abeam the threshold of the take-off runway at or above 1500 ft agl; this is known as "low-key". If you can't achieve that then the idea is to jump out.

Read the thread and ye shall be rewarded.

[jakeandelwood]

- the idea with an engine failure in single engine military jets is to exchange airspeed for altitude to get away from the ground, buy some time to sort things out and assess whether one can return to the same runway. The idea in the Tutor is to apex at 130 kts (above the stall speed) and assess if one can get to a downwind position abeam the threshold of the take-off runway at or above 1500 ft agl; this is known as "low-key". If you can't achieve that then the idea is to jump out.

Read the thread and ye shall be rewarded.

thank you

[Gannet167]

Can't believe the number of people (on this means and others) who seem to think that an ejection seat with limits of 60 knots (or so) and 150 feet (in level flight) is antiquated. The seat I used when I 'steeped over the side' shortly after take-off and joined the "Caterpillar Club" was rated at 90 knots and 200 feet. Anything lower than that is a bonus!

The seat system in the Tutor is quite adequate for the job; I suppose it would be nice to have a seat capable of "Zero-Zero", but I'm guessing that there either isn't one available, the cost would be prohibitive, or one can't be retrofitted...

Regardless, 60 knots/150 feet is quite a respectable system...

0/0 has been around and quite standard since the 1960s in many airframes. I don’t think there were any seats designed since the late 1960s that weren’t 0/0. Other than legacy systems for Tutors and T-Birds, I don’t even think you could buy such an antiquated seat design after about 1970. The capability is hypothetical and there are different probability of survival in different ejection envelopes. Even in a 0/0 seat, there is a preferred altitude and speed window where survivability increases. The seat in the Tutor is a very crude museum piece. 60/150 is pretty bad by 1970 technology standards. It has a long history of problems from day one and with several mods, its never been very good. Martin Baker’s MK 7 installed in the 104 in the late 1960’s, and now on display in museums, is a more capable seat. Perhaps the Tutor seat is adequate given the risk assessment, cost of upgrading, and nature of the business. Perhaps not. It is not, however, a very good seat and has a bad track record.

[stone69]

It's been a long time since I've flown the Tutor, but I was on the fourth class to train on it in Gimli ( 1965 ) and I'm pretty sure the original seat is not the one under discussion. The current seat with the 60kt capability was retro-fitted just a bit later... 1968-1969 if I recall and it was considered to be a big step up. I later heard that it wasn't that simple as it was apparently later discovered that this capability was only " guaranteed " if the weight of the pilot was less than 210 lbs or something like that....

[Gannet167]

If you look at the satellite view and extend runway centerline, strait ahead is over the river for a considerable distance. Strait ahead would have been into the river, not the city. Dont think they could have reached the city strait ahead. But it's academic, they turned, and most in the know suggest that was the correct action.

I think there is a difference in the scale that we're all thinking in. This isn't a light piston. Without any known numbers, taking a guess, from the videos, the initial zoom started near the shoreline from about 200' AGL and likely 180 to 200 kts.

Imagine an aircraft bearing an incredible resemblance to a Tutor in performance starts a hypothetical zoom at the shoreline at those parameters. Zooming, you'd use about 3000' - 4000' travelling forward (a guess based on practicing this) while gaining approx 700' to 1000' until hitting the apex. Again, this is a rough guess without knowing weights, density altitude, power setting used, rate of climb or airspeed up to point of zoom. For perspective that's about half the length of the 8000' runway, hypothetically placing you at about 1000 AGL, roughly abeam the pulp mill, at best glide speed. 12:1 glide at 1000' yields roughly 12,000' forward, or about 2 nm.

Time permitting, it's a good idea to trim the aircraft nose down prior to ejection. Likely there wasn't much time here, who knows where trim was. The seat pushes the aircraft down somewhat, no canopy adds to drag, C of G changes significantly without seats, add some wind and it's anyone's guess where it will land. It would be impossible to accurately send the plane to one spot unless you ride it to the ground or close enough that you're outside a survivability envelope. In some cases after ejection the plane dives, gains speed, and then climbs several times before hitting ground. Rough estimate, our hypothetical airplane ends up somewhere between the island and downtown, within 30 degrees of extended runway centreline. In the 7 to 9 useful seconds of chaos, emergency memory action airstart procedure, etc etc etc, left sure looks good even if you know you're not going to make low key.

[AirFrame]

This is not correct. The RCAF is quite unconcerned with previous flying experience. The initial recruiters might even give you a few points for holding a license (depending on what the recruiting policy of the day is)

I stand corrected. I was told that a number of years ago by a former RCAF instructor, and took it at face value. Maybe that was just his experience from instructing many years before.

[AirFrame]

People, I originally came here to get information on the crash, how and why it happened, etc.
...
All I'm seeing here is day after day of bickering over procedures. Is there a different thread I should be following?

If your original statement is truly your goal, you would be well served by leaving this thread entirely, and awaiting the results of the official report. You'll find no facts here, you'll only be frustrated by trying to weed out the well-educated guesses from the current/former military pilots and the drivel from the trolls.

[AirFrame]

I don't know why the RCAF doesn't simply say "The pilot reported..." Unless he doesn't recall, which is a possibility.

It's likely the pilot never saw the bird, if that's what it turns out to be... All he could report is a loss of power, which wouldn't tell anyone anything we hadn't already inferred from watching the various videos.

[tsgarp]

This is not correct. The RCAF is quite unconcerned with previous flying experience. The initial recruiters might even give you a few points for holding a license (depending on what the recruiting policy of the day is)

I stand corrected. I was told that a number of years ago by a former RCAF instructor, and took it at face value. Maybe that was just his experience from instructing many years before.

It might very well have been the policy back when your friend was instructing. I can only speak for the period from 2000 to present.

[frosti]

The seat system in the Tutor is quite adequate for the job;

So you are fine with an ejection seat system that wastes precious seconds for a seat-man separation to open a parachute that needs airspeed to open? Lets look at the flight profile the team does the majority of the time - low, slowish aerobatics in close formations. If anything happens during any of the manoeuvres, you'd better hope that the aircraft is wings level with some forward motion, because otherwise you're bug splatter with a parachute still on your back.

This is what modern looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joDImvnGdYc&t=75s

Not saying the tutor must have that, but a parachute on your back, in 2020, is just gross negligence on the governments part. They are happy cutting cheques for random support groups but don't care about the Snowbird Aircrew. Lets not forget the role of the tutor, its for airshows and flypasts, not military combat. Lets see how many pilots are willing to trust their lives on a questionable system that's supposed to save your life, just for loops, rolls and photo ops for social media pages.

[stone69]

I feel I must reply to Frosti.... Schooner69A wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:33 pm
The seat system in the Tutor is quite adequate for the job; then Frosti replied ....
So you are fine with an ejection seat system that wastes precious seconds for a seat-man separation to open a parachute that needs airspeed to open? Lets look at the flight profile the team does the majority of the time - low, slowish aerobatics in close formations. If anything happens during any of the manoeuvres, you'd better hope that the aircraft is wings level with some forward motion, because otherwise you're bug splatter with a parachute still on your back.
...
I don't expect anyone on this forum to know that Schooner 69A knows of what he speaks.... he was forced to eject from his F-86 when he suffered an engine failure at low level after takeoff... much like SB 11 and he was also a member of the Centennaires flying the Tutor in over 100 shows to mark Canada's Centennial in 1967. Respect is due....

[AuxBatOn]

I feel I must reply to Frosti.... Schooner69A wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2020 7:33 pm
The seat system in the Tutor is quite adequate for the job; then Frosti replied ....
So you are fine with an ejection seat system that wastes precious seconds for a seat-man separation to open a parachute that needs airspeed to open? Lets look at the flight profile the team does the majority of the time - low, slowish aerobatics in close formations. If anything happens during any of the manoeuvres, you'd better hope that the aircraft is wings level with some forward motion, because otherwise you're bug splatter with a parachute still on your back.
...
I don't expect anyone on this forum to know that Schooner 69A knows of what he speaks.... he was forced to eject from his F-86 when he suffered an engine failure at low level after takeoff... much like SB 11 and he was also a member of the Centennaires flying the Tutor in over 100 shows to mark Canada's Centennial in 1967. Respect is due....

Respect is due but because it was good in 1960 doesn’t mean it is good in today’s context. It’s like saying we shouldn’t upgrade to GPS-guided bombs because dumb bombs were doing the job in Korea. There are new technologies available. We should always be looking at what’s available and look to improve our systems, especially where survivability is concerned.

[Schooner69A]

Aaaahhhhh... Grasshoppers...

Let's put it this way: is there anybody here who would NOT fly the Tutor in it's present configuration given that it would be at no cost to you: Checkout, maintenance, fuel, everything paid for. All you have to due is get current and fly.

I'd be first in line; formation and LL aerobatics included...

PS Don't forget; a "Zero/Zero" seat also has its limitations. Exceed those and you're a test pilot...

[Flyboy757]

Aaaahhhhh... Grasshoppers...

Let's put it this way: is there anybody here who would NOT fly the Tutor in it's present configuration given that it would be at no cost to you: Checkout, maintenance, fuel, everything paid for. All you have to due is get current and fly.

I'd be first in line; formation and LL aerobatics included...

PS Don't forget; a "Zero/Zero" seat also has its limitations. Exceed those and you're a test pilot...

Only got 210 hrs on the Tutor before going to the CF-5 in 1975. 2nd in line without any hesitation.

[AuxBatOn]

PS Don't forget; a "Zero/Zero" seat also has its limitations. Exceed those and you're a test pilot...

Having flown and still flying in a multitude of ejection seats (eastern, western, new, old), I’ll take the 0/0 any day over the 0/60. I am well aware of the limitations and envelope of different seats. Modern seats have a larger survivable envelope than older seats, such as the Tutor. I don’t understand the insistance on keeping something that puts the crews at an increased risk (as evident with the multitudes of issues leading to fatalities or incident with a large compromise to safety in the last 20 years at least) when there should be alternatives out there, especially that those aircraft will be in service for another 10 years!!!

[AirFrame]

I don’t understand the insistance on keeping something that puts the crews at an increased risk (as evident with the multitudes of issues leading to fatalities or incident with a large compromise to safety in the last 20 years at least) when there should be alternatives out there, especially that those aircraft will be in service for another 10 years!!!

You might be able to answer this better than I, as I admit I have never seen an ejection seat outside an airplane apart from grainy shots in ejection videos...

I imagine that one ejection seat is not like another, in terms of form factor. They aren't just "drop in" replacements, where you could pull the old seats out of the Tutor and slide the latest seat from the F-35 (or whatever is considered the state-of-the-art right now). It has to *fit* the airplane, and I can imagine it wouldn't be trivial as you'll need to move structure within the fuselage (and right near the main spar) to get something different into the space.

That said, i'd expect modern seats to be reducing size in places due to advances in technology, but maybe adding the additional capability makes them bigger in other ways. Still, at the end of the day i'm sure they weren't all designed to fit into the same mounting bolts.

[L39Guy]

PS Don't forget; a "Zero/Zero" seat also has its limitations. Exceed those and you're a test pilot...

Having flown and still flying in a multitude of ejection seats (eastern, western, new, old), I’ll take the 0/0 any day over the 0/60. I am well aware of the limitations and envelope of different seats. Modern seats have a larger survivable envelope than older seats, such as the Tutor. I don’t understand the insistance on keeping something that puts the crews at an increased risk (as evident with the multitudes of issues leading to fatalities or incident with a large compromise to safety in the last 20 years at least) when there should be alternatives out there, especially that those aircraft will be in service for another 10 years!!!

Given the inertial state of SB 11's aircraft (large descent rate, near vertical pitch down attitude (i.e. the seats going out parallel to the ground), probable roll component too), what makes you thing a 0/0 seat would have yielded a better result than a 0/60 seat? I would submit that the outcome would not have been different.

But just for fun, how about you checking into it. Martin-Baker has an online shopping tool for ejection seats and retrofits http://martin-baker.com/products/new-se ... retrofits/. It even has drop-down menus to aid in the selection process. Just like buying stuff from Eddie Bauer!

[Jean-Pierre]

Because we've seen examples of 0/0 seats saving live with large descent rate, near vertical pitch down attitude?

[Zaibatsu]

The CF-18 crash in Lethbridge comes to mind.

Because we've seen examples of 0/0 seats saving live with large descent rate, near vertical pitch down attitude?