Snowbird crash in CYKA

[frosti]

Let's put it this way: is there anybody here who would NOT fly the Tutor....I'd be first in line;

This is the type of arrogance common from many pilots who think they are invincible. Once the tutors are cleared for flight again, you'll see how many decide not to return. I don't see the picture of the pilot who ejected last year, or his wife for that matter, flying with the team...

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.

Nose down. Sideways. Very low airspeed. Also the SU-30MKI crash at the paris airshow. Nose up, no airspeed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh-kuztsE1s TWO successful ejections in systems that aren't from the 50's. In a tutor that would be no where near survivable.

[boeingboy]

Oh good grief!

Not even close to the same and not what he was asking. I argue it was plausible they may have survived in the same situation as Paris...and if lethbridge was the conditions as kamloops the f18 pilot would not have made it either. Or very likely would be in the same shape as Capt macdougal

[Schooner69A]

"Once the tutors are cleared for flight again, you'll see how many decide not to return."

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the guys; there will be some who will not be returning as this was their last year. The rest will happily 'chute up and get on with it.

After my successful ejection in the last century (!) using a seat not as good as the Tutor one, I was back in the air in three weeks. I was keen to get back earlier but had to wait for the results of the Board of Inquiry and medical clearance. I've never heard of one person who did not go back flying after a successful ejection.

PS The reason for my successful ejection in an inferior seat compared to the Tutor seat? I was inside the envelope. As mentioned before, the Sabre seat was good for 200' - 90 knots. My engine calved at 200 ft AGL at something like 180 - 200knots. Best glide was around 185 so I didn't have much to do except hold attitude and trouble shoot. For about 10 seconds. Two fire warming lights and no thrust convinced my that I was going to get cold.

An 'up' vector and excess airspeed resulted in a good 'chute and 30 seconds or so under canopy.

Any ejection system can be thwarted by introducing a vertical vector the newer seats cannot nullify. I don't know what that minimums are for the CF-18; someone current/familiar with the aircraft may know...

[AuxBatOn]

Any ejection system can be thwarted by introducing a vertical vector the newer seats cannot nullify. I don't know what that minimums are for the CF-18; someone current/familiar with the aircraft may know...

Except that not all seats are equal. Some give you a higher apex than others (ie: newer seats) and some will put the seat upright after ejecting with bank.

The Hornet seat is a LOT better than the Tutor’s in pretty much every respect...

[L39Guy]

Except that not all seats are equal. Some give you a higher apex than others (ie: newer seats) and some will put the seat upright after ejecting with bank.

The Hornet seat is a LOT better than the Tutor’s in pretty much every respect...

I would not characterize that as a profound observation; of course the Hornet seat is better - it's a 30 year newer design with gimballed motors, etc.! The question is two-fold - would have a Hornet-like seat made any difference given the inertial platform that existing when they left the aircraft (steep descent, almost vertical pitch attitude, some roll and low altitude) and whether retrofitting such as seat is even possible given the physical constraints of the Tutor?

If you look at the CF18 ejection in Lethbridge video, there is a small, negative vertical vector (unlike the SB accident which had a large one), small nose down attitude (unlike the SB which had a large one), lots of roll (the SB one may have had some but nothing the like the CF18/CYQL one), yet the CF18 guy barely had one swing in the chute before hitting the ground. My point is that even the Hornet seat may not have changed the outcome given the dynamics at play.

As far as those flying the Tutor getting "back-in-the-saddle" again, I have no doubt it will happen. Like everything in life and flying, it's a balance of probabilities and a risk-return question. Everyone that signs up to fly knows there are risks; everyone that signs up to fly the Tutor knows the risks.

In June, 1985 the Tutor had a fatal accident in CYYC; one guy got out and survived (RW) the other got out a fraction of a second later and did not (CS). The next day we were flying a normal flying schedule at CYMJ. Life goes on.

For those that are interested, some individual out there has his own site about ejection seats and an area devoted to the Tutor seat http://www.ejectionsite.com/ct114seat.htm.

[Schooner69A]

"The Hornet seat is a LOT better than the Tutor’s in pretty much every respect..."

That is very true; however, I have no doubt that Sydney Smoothhand would find a way to nullify its advantages!

[BTD]

The question shouldn’t be: “would a better seat have saved the day in kamloops?”

It should be “how many more lives could/would have been and will be saved by a better seat given the type of ejections the tutor has and is likely to have?”

It shouldn’t be asked in isolation to this one incident. But must look backwards and forwards. It may be the case that it wouldn’t have changed anything in the last accident, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.

Having said that, I have no experience with ejections seats, nor do I know if it is feasible to do a retrofit. I don’t know the answers to the question and it may be the case that a newer seat wouldn’t have saved anyone in the past. But to come up with a informative answer, an appropriate question should be asked.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I am type rated out in a Eastern block jet trainer. The ejection seats were deactivated as per the TC limitations. I was personally OK with the risk but I would never carry a passenger.

FWIW, I would be happy to get into a Tutor today and go for a burn. The risk/reward still works for me.

Perhaps that is the reasonable middle ground. Carry on with the existing seats as the Snowbird posting is entirely voluntary but ban any passengers. The support crew can get moved in a transport airplane.

[cncpc]

- 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.

It's a different procedure for a forced approach. It's mostly theoretical for a power loss such as at Kamloops, because it is based on significant height over the field at the beginning. Not to say it can't be made to work by going to the lower keys. In this case, even making final key would have been difficult.

[L39Guy]

There is no doubt that there was not enough energy at the engine failure moment to make it to low-key. However if there was partial power and/or a relight, there likely would have been. During the zoom I am sure SB 11 would be doing the idle, airstart routine trying to get either. Evidently the engine was not coming back so it was time to get out. Had the engine provided partial power or relit it would have been a different story.

Lots going on in that 12 seconds.

[AuxBatOn]

Do you think he would have been able to make final key for 22?

[Schooner69A]

I don't know if he could have made final key or not; based on where he lost the engine, I'd hazard a "no".

It's possible that with the video available, the reconstruction boys/girls may be able to get some altitudes from it.

Given where the engine turned to jello, I do know that had I been at the controls it would not have even been an option...

[cncpc]

Do you think he would have been able to make final key for 22?

Not sure if you're asking me, but that is a very good point. I'd forgotten about that short runway. What can be seen is consistent with that being the objective.

Assuming the calculation of 720 AGL is correct, this would have been the view out the port side at the time control was lost. The pop sound is right at the boundary fence, the yellow line the approximate path of the aircraft in the zoomn and turn. The red line is the path with minimal bank to final key for 22. Assuming the figure of a 1:12 glide ratio is correct, from 700 feet agl he would have gotten 8400 feet of glide. On the red path, the distance is 4900 feet to the button of 22. He would have had good options for the eject if he thought he wouldn't make it.

Well spotted, AuxBat. Do you think that might have been a briefed procedure?

[cncpc]

I don't know if he could have made final key or not; based on where he lost the engine, I'd hazard a "no".

It's possible that with the video available, the reconstruction boys/girls may be able to get some altitudes from it.

Given where the engine turned to jello, I do know that had I been at the controls it would not have even been an option...

I did a calculation using aircraft dimensions and pixels, I got 720 at highest point, and 280 for the eject. AGL. It should be fairly close. The eye elevation is 1840 in the Goodle Earth image. ASL.

[Heliian]

The ejector seat is there as an added safety, a newer one may have fared better but it may have not. I don't think any upgrades are needed, they should just replace the jet if they have a concern flying it.

Thanks for the maps but have you factored wind into those? PDW would be able to get better detail on that. You're going to lose big on downwind.

It's an absolute miracle no one on the ground was killed.

The harsh reality is that when you have an emergency like that, it doesn't always end up good and people die. We will learn from it and all be better pilots because of it.

[cncpc]

The ejector seat is there as an added safety, a newer one may have fared better but it may have not. I don't think any upgrades are needed, they should just replace the jet if they have a concern flying it.

Thanks for the maps but have you factored wind into those? PDW would be able to get better detail on that. You're going to lose big on downwind.

It's an absolute miracle no one on the ground was killed.

The harsh reality is that when you have an emergency like that, it doesn't always end up good and people die. We will learn from it and all be better pilots because of it.

I did get the METARS for that time, but the 11 am and noon ones were "missing". The 10 am was 4 knots pretty well on the nose for the departure runway, so I wouldn't think an effect.

I'm questioning the technique I used to get the altitude. Assume that they were at 200 feet at the pop sound, from there it is only 10 seconds till top of climb and spin start. So 500 in 10 seconds, at best. So a ROC in zoom of 3000 fpm. Doesn't seem possible to me, doesn't match the visual on the video.

PDW? I chuckle.

[cncpc]

A report is out.

https://theprovince.com/news/national/d ... cd09490c8

[W5]

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... e/kae62tqg

The accident involved a CT114 Tutor aircraft from the Canadian Armed Forces Air Demonstration Team (Snowbirds) enroute to Comox, BC to reposition in support of Op INSPIRATION. The aircraft was number two of a formation of two Tutor aircraft.

Following the take-off, a loud, impact-like sound was heard by both occupants and the aircraft then experienced a loss of thrust. The pilot initiated a climb straight ahead and then elected to carry out a left-hand turn back towards the airport. The manoeuvre resulted in an aerodynamic stall halfway through the turn before the pilot gave the order to abandon the aircraft. Both occupants subsequently ejected and the aircraft was destroyed upon impact in a residential area. The passenger was fatally injured and the pilot received serious injuries. Evidence gathered during the investigation revealed that both occupants’ ejection sequences were outside of the ejection envelope.

DNA evidence collected from the engine’s internal components confirmed the ingestion of a bird as witnessed from video evidence; however, the damage it caused was insufficient to cause a catastrophic failure. Rather, it resulted in a compressor stall that was never cleared.

The investigation recommends a directive be published which outlines the aircrew’s priority where an emergency during the take-off or landing phase occurs and has the potential to result in an ejection near or over a populated area.

The investigation also recommends further training on engine-related emergencies be practiced in the takeoff/low-level environment. It is also recommended that the practice of storing items between the ejection seat and the airframe wall cease immediately.

Finally, further research is recommended into the potential options that would stabilize the CT114 ejection seat from any tendency to pitch, roll or yaw immediately following its departure from the ejection seat rails.

[fleet16b]

A totally unfortunate incident with a very sad ending
As it turns out the investigation found that what happened was exactly what some of us said was the most likely scenario.
Of course looking back thru the thread , I see where I as well as some others were flamed by the usual know it all’s here on this page that think they are gods gift to aviation.

The old adage still hold true ; engine failure on take off - proceed straight ahead nose down - then either eject or land straight ahead depending on aircraft type
DO NOT attempt to turn back to the airport
This rule goes all the way back to the beginning of aviation
Any of you yahoo’s that dispute that are going to get someone killed.

[RatherBeFlying]

The report does not address the capabilities of the ejection seat compared to newer aircraft - chain of command and all that.

For a low level power loss in the Tutor with the current seat, I'd put emphasis on remaining within the ejection seat envelope. Wings level at top of whatever climb is left optimises your and your passenger's chances.

And yes, it's worth trying to point it away from built up areas before leaving.

Mission planning would do well to avoid airports and runways where built up areas are unavoidable in the case of engine failure.