Snowbird crash in CYKA

[Skyhunter]

Here is the page from the Tutor manual
Sorry for double picture , I had trouble posting it

As I said you have one manual. Does your manual describe the forced landing pattern. Where high key, low key, and final key are and crossing altitudes. How to deal with excess altitude. How to assess your profile? What speed you should glide at. Threshold crossing speed.

You have the AOI’s (it may be named something different 20 years later). It is says eject or forced land. The book you are looking for is the one that tells you how to forced land. Forced land does not mean don’t turn!

I have let you know this several times.... there is more than one book! And you have neither te information or the experience to be making your conclusions.

You also don’t have the wisdom to not say things in public forum that shouldn’t be.

I pretty sure you know that force land means minimal turning as possible and definitely does not suggest turning 180 deg back to the airfield
Doing shallow turns 45deg to the left or right to make a field is one thing but I doubt a 180 deg turn is what the manual suggests

Actually the full forced landing pattern is a 360 descending turn from overhead the intended touch down point. If you don’t have the altitude to do that you assess whether you can intercept anywhere on that circle at an appropriate altitude. At the top of a zoom it is up to the pilot to assess if he has the altitude to that.

I never once said either to turn back or not turn back. Assess is what I said. If you have the altitude to intercept that circle , then turn as required to do so. If you don’t pick another landing spot that you can make or eject. Turning back is not, not an option.(double negative on purpose) If you have enough altitude.

Notice I did not comment on anything the SB did or didn’t do, and out of respect (something your clearly seem to lack) I will not.

[fleet16b]

As I said you have one manual. Does your manual describe the forced landing pattern. Where high key, low key, and final key are and crossing altitudes. How to deal with excess altitude. How to assess your profile? What speed you should glide at. Threshold crossing speed.

You have the AOI’s (it may be named something different 20 years later). It is says eject or forced land. The book you are looking for is the one that tells you how to forced land. Forced land does not mean don’t turn!

I have let you know this several times.... there is more than one book! And you have neither te information or the experience to be making your conclusions.

You also don’t have the wisdom to not say things in public forum that shouldn’t be.

I pretty sure you know that force land means minimal turning as possible and definitely does not suggest turning 180 deg back to the airfield
Doing shallow turns 45deg to the left or right to make a field is one thing but I doubt a 180 deg turn is what the manual suggests

Actually the full forced landing pattern is a 360 descending turn from overhead the intended touch down point. If you don’t have the altitude to do that you assess whether you can intercept anywhere on that circle at an appropriate altitude. At the top of a zoom it is up to the pilot to assess if he has the altitude to that.

I never once said either to turn back or not turn back. Assess is what I said. If you have the altitude to intercept that circle , then turn as required to do so. If you don’t pick another landing spot that you can make or eject. Turning back is not, not an option.(double negative on purpose) If you have enough altitude.

Notice I did not comment on anything the SB did or didn’t do, and out of respect (something your clearly seem to lack) I will not.

I agree with you assessment of the situation but not with the many people that defended the turnback action in this particular accident Discussing and assessing an accident is in no way disrespecting the SB pilots actions , it’s about learning from things that have happened. I am sure he would be more than happy to share his experience in order to help others
If it was a civilian pilot , everyone would’ve been all over it.

And yes sky hunter we know you are not mentioning the SB but in actually you are , as your are participating /commenting on a thread about him and what happened to him and so has the RCAF.

[tsgarp]

I extend to the pilot my belief that he did the best he could, as he was trained to do, with a bad situation, at the worst possible time.

Presuming that he flew as trained, I have uncertainty about the training, as it would seem to have a pilot attempt a turn back after an EFATO. I don't know RCAF training, nor Tutor jets, maybe it's okay to attempt that in that type. But, for reasons which are apparent to me, it did not work.

The reason it is not trained in the civilian world is that none of the common civilian trainers have enough excess kinetic energy to attempt it, at least not until they are almost to circuit altitude. This is not the case with most single engine military aircraft. The target climb out speed leaves quite a bit of energy for a zoom and a turn back from a surprising low altitude. That target speed is attained very shortly after take off. These altitude and speed gates are well known and reviewed before every take off; “Below xxx knots and xxx feet we will eject, above xxx knots and xxx feet we will zoom and assess”. If you look back through the Flight Safety reports over the Tutor’s life span, you will see that there are a number instances where the manoeuvre worked (hence why it is trained).

[cncpc]

I agree with you assessment of the situation but not with the many people that defended the turnback action in this particular accident.

Have you ever had an engine failure?

[fleet16b]

I extend to the pilot my belief that he did the best he could, as he was trained to do, with a bad situation, at the worst possible time.

Presuming that he flew as trained, I have uncertainty about the training, as it would seem to have a pilot attempt a turn back after an EFATO. I don't know RCAF training, nor Tutor jets, maybe it's okay to attempt that in that type. But, for reasons which are apparent to me, it did not work.

The reason it is not trained in the civilian world is that none of the common civilian trainers have enough excess kinetic energy to attempt it, at least not until they are almost to circuit altitude. This is not the case with most single engine military aircraft. The target climb out speed leaves quite a bit of energy for a zoom and a turn back from a surprising low altitude. That target speed is attained very shortly after take off. These altitude and speed gates are well known and reviewed before every take off; “Below xxx knots and xxx feet we will eject, above xxx knots and xxx feet we will zoom and assess”. If you look back through the Flight Safety reports over the Tutor’s life span, you will see that there are a number instances where the manoeuvre worked (hence why it is trained).

There are also a number of SB instances were it did not work
And still nobody has been able to produce this so-called Manual that has the turnback procedure .

[fleet16b]

I agree with you assessment of the situation but not with the many people that defended the turnback action in this particular accident.

Have you ever had an engine failure?

Yes
In my 35+ years of flying I have had ;
2 engine failures resulting in off field landing
2 off field landings due to mag failures
I in flight cockpit fire resulting in an off field landing
2 blown tires on landing

[cncpc]

I agree with you assessment of the situation but not with the many people that defended the turnback action in this particular accident.

Have you ever had an engine failure?

Yes
In my 35+ years of flying I have had ;
2 engine failures resulting in off field landing
2 off field landings due to mag failures
I in flight cockpit fire resulting in an off field landing
2 blown tires on landing

Did you do any turns in any of this?

[fleet16b]

Have you ever had an engine failure?

Yes
In my 35+ years of flying I have had ;
2 engine failures resulting in off field landing
2 off field landings due to mag failures
I in flight cockpit fire resulting in an off field landing
2 blown tires on landing

Did you do any turns in any of this?

During the two engine failures I picked fields in front of me and as per the training I received years ago and landed safely without incident .
During the rest I still had power or partial power and airspeed so turning was not and issue
The blown tires were on landing so obviously no turns

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

And still nobody has been able to produce this so-called Manual that has the turnback procedure .

I think your fundamental error in logic here is in assuming that the manual spells out exactly how to fly the aircraft, without exception. I don't find it impossible that the Forces teach something different than what you will find in a manual, for myriad reasons that no civil pilot will ever understand. A manual can't cover everything. That's what training is for, and we don't know -yet- what led the pilot to that decision.

That said though, I do agree it's still a fair question to ask that does not sully the memory of the dead nor the capabilities or professionalism of the pilot in question: why did he turn back?

[fleet16b]

And still nobody has been able to produce this so-called Manual that has the turnback procedure .

I think your fundamental error in logic here is in assuming that the manual spells out exactly how to fly the aircraft, without exception. I don't find it impossible that the Forces teach something different than what you will find in a manual, for myriad reasons that no civil pilot will ever understand. A manual can't cover everything. That's what training is for, and we don't know -yet- what led the pilot to that decision.

That said though, I do agree it's still a fair question to ask that does not sully the memory of the dead nor the capabilities or professionalism of the pilot in question: why did he turn back?

Thank you
Yes it is possible that there is some alternative training
The only reason I asked to see the directive in the manual,
Is because some here said it exists ..... so far nobody has come forward with a copy of said manual showing this is part of the Tutor ops to prove it .

[pelmet]

That said though, I do agree it's still a fair question to ask that does not sully the memory of the dead nor the capabilities or professionalism of the pilot in question: why did he turn back?

Probably because he thought he could.

Putting the land straight ahead/try turning back argument aside.......I am wondering if this a case where he was not ever in a position to make it back or was it a case where he had more than enough energy to make it back but accidentally stalled during the maneuver?

[fleet16b]

That said though, I do agree it's still a fair question to ask that does not sully the memory of the dead nor the capabilities or professionalism of the pilot in question: why did he turn back?

Probably because he thought he could.

Putting the land straight ahead/try turning back argument aside.......I am wondering if this a case where he was not ever in a position to make it back or was it a case where he had more than enough energy to make it back but accidentally stalled during the maneuver?

The statement the RCAF release publicly is that the pilot stalled the aircraft when he attempted to turn back to the airfield
Thy would make that statement based on what the pilot stated when the investigation took place

[AirFrame]

I am wondering if this a case where he was not ever in a position to make it back or was it a case where he had more than enough energy to make it back but accidentally stalled during the maneuver?

Sadly I suspect we'll never know the answer to that with any certainty, but that is the only question that matters.

[fleet16b]

Besides the more brief public report , there is also an approx 47 page RCAF report on the accident that would be interesting to read.

[tsgarp]

And still nobody has been able to produce this so-called Manual that has the turnback procedure .

A couple of items for your edification.

Single engine military trainers are much different from single engine civilian trainers. I already pointed out the difference in their energy states on climb out. Another key difference is their pavement floatation characteristics and sink rate at touchdown. Military trainers have 2~4 times the mass of a civilian trainer resting on essentially the same undercarriage footprint. This means that if the surface is soft, the landing gear will dig in and detach. Hence, you don’t land them on a soft surface. It is strongly recommended that you don’t land gear up on a soft surface because of the possibility of catching a wingtip and cartwheeling, or ending up coming to rest inverted and being unable to egress the aircraft. Put simply, you either land on a hard surface or you ejected. This goes to your point about landing straight ahead after an engine failure; that just isn’t an option for a military aircraft unless you have a decent highway or more runway in front of you.

The second point is regarding AOIs and MFTs. Those are controlled goods and controlled documents. They are generally not for public posting or display. You are just going to have to trust those who have read them to relay pertinent aspects of their content.

In summary, military trainers like the Tutor, Harvard, Tweet, T-Bird and Hawk are very different machines from civilian trainers. Their greater weight, power and speed mean that there are significant differences in the way that you fly them. What works in a light civilian trainer may not be the best solution to the same situation in a military aircraft.

[goldeneagle]

That 90 kt zoom (if memory serves correctly, it has been a while) should get me 1200-1500 feet.

130 kts until take gear and flaps. Delay that as long as feasible if your low. After gear and flaps around 95. Again it’s been a few years but should be reasonably close. Until gear and flap it glides better than a Cessna. 14:1 glide ratio so long as the engine isn’t seized.

Lets put to rest some of the questions folks are asking. Calculated numbers for energy in the thread said approximately 1400 feet, but we will take the low end of your estimate, 1200 to assume things were not done perfectly. Glide ratio of 14:1 says there were 16800 feet (3.18 miles) available to glide. From the point of the aerodynamic stall, the aircraft was very close to a vertical trajectory to the ground, so measure from it's point of impact (pilot under parachute was not much farther).

Measure on google maps, the point of airframe impact was 1.27 km (4200 feet) from the button of runway 22 and 1.0km from the button of 27. To glide that distance would use up about 300 feet of altitude.

From the point where the vertical descent began, approximately 300 feet would have been needed to reach a runway threshold gliding, a bit more to account for gear, not sure how long gear extension takes in the tutor, can you leave it till 100 yards on final then float the airplane as the gear comes down ? At the time of the stall, aircraft was partway thru the turn, and MUCH higher than 300 feet.

So to answer some of the questions here, had the aircraft not stalled, yes, it could easily have made it back to a runway, with altitude to spare.

As much as folks want to say otherwise, the turn back in this case was absolutely the correct decision for 'where to go'.

[Outlaw58]

Last 2 posts (tsgarp and goldeneagle) were well informed enough that I feel like adding my own 2 cents as well.

Another issue that really affect the decision-making process that civilian flyers are not used to take in to account is having an ejection seat.

Pulling those handles will always be your very last option after all other avenues have been exhausted. And as long as the aircraft remains within a safe ejection envelope, in most cases a pilot would take a few extra seconds to rule out every landing options (see tsgarp's post for that), while making sure that once the aircraft is jettisoned, it well not end up in a populated area.

Another thing is the stall characteristic of the Tutor. The training syllabus contains a stall sequence that is taught and is also part of the periodical pilot proficiency training. It HAS BEEN a while but from what I can remember, it consists of slowing the aircraft, configure for landing, bring it into slow flight, a landing config stall, recovery and clean up, a clean config stall, recovery and lastly accelerating to about 140kts, entering a turn and perform a high speed stall under "g". It was during this last part of the sequence and in only 1 occasion, of ALL the stall sequences I performed, that the aircraft snap rolled on me (very startling and totally unpredictable). Other than that, even knowing that it could do it, I always considered the Tutor a fairly gentle aircraft with good stall characteristics.

At the top of the zoom, the aircraft was well within the ejection envelope and even though close to stall speed, knowing the handling characteristic, I would have done exactly the same thing: Take a few extra seconds to at best identify a landing option and at worst point the aircraft toward an unpopulated area. Then BOOM, the thing snaps roll. In a fraction of a second, you're now well outside the ejection envelope and your best chance will be when the aircraft returns to wings level.

Take the snap roll out of the equation and you have an entirely different outcome. But to pretend that he or anyone should have seen it coming is extremely presumptuous. Turn back, don't turn back... Totally irrelevant. There has never been a pre-determined course of action applicable to all aircraft in a similar situation on any given day, and there never will. Learn from mistakes, be they others' or your own but understand that locking yourself in a rigid mindset for a specific emergency can be just as detrimental as not being prepared (trained) for it.

58

[fleet16b]

And still nobody has been able to produce this so-called Manual that has the turnback procedure .

A couple of items for your edification.

Single engine military trainers are much different from single engine civilian trainers. I already pointed out the difference in their energy states on climb out. Another key difference is their pavement floatation characteristics and sink rate at touchdown. Military trainers have 2~4 times the mass of a civilian trainer resting on essentially the same undercarriage footprint. This means that if the surface is soft, the landing gear will dig in and detach. Hence, you don’t land them on a soft surface. It is strongly recommended that you don’t land gear up on a soft surface because of the possibility of catching a wingtip and cartwheeling, or ending up coming to rest inverted and being unable to egress the aircraft. Put simply, you either land on a hard surface or you ejected. This goes to your point about landing straight ahead after an engine failure; that just isn’t an option for a military aircraft unless you have a decent highway or more runway in front of you.

The second point is regarding AOIs and MFTs. Those are controlled goods and controlled documents. They are generally not for public posting or display. You are just going to have to trust those who have read them to relay pertinent aspects of their content.

In summary, military trainers like the Tutor, Harvard, Tweet, T-Bird and Hawk are very different machines from civilian trainers. Their greater weight, power and speed mean that there are significant differences in the way that you fly them. What works in a light civilian trainer may not be the best solution to the same situation in a military aircraft.

Yes all good points that I am well aware of having worked with heavy ex military aircraft before.
I have never said that in this particular circumstance he should have bellied the aircraft in.
I said he should have used the age old basic EFTO procedures and tried to maintain a forward heading as much as possible and in this his case stabilize the aircraft in a forward glide , then eject. (Alas hindsight is golden)
The Tutor checklist itself states to land immediately or eject
In this case the pilot apparently had limited amount of Tutor hours. As others have said in this discussion, this would have been a contributing factor to the decision that he thought he had enough height and speed to make the field.
Clearly he did his best to follow the procedures right up to the decision to turn without enough speed .
He also did a great job of catching the spin and righting the aircraft but alas had ran out of altitude
A very sad situation all round.

By the way ; yes controlled documents but there are plenty of them out there in the public domain I’m sure

[Schooner69A]

Speaking as one who HAS lost an engine on take-off inside the confines of the airport, you do not waste precious seconds debating whether or not you can make it back to the airport, where the airplane is going to impact, etc; if the engine has flamed out for reasons that are not pilot induced, the odds of getting a relight are infinitesimal and the odds of attaining life-saving thrust are beyond that.

If the engine is still going but you've lost all thrust, a relight attempt is superfluous; in either case, your decision has been made for you. You and the aircraft are returning to earth separated in time and distance.

[pelmet]

That 90 kt zoom (if memory serves correctly, it has been a while) should get me 1200-1500 feet.

130 kts until take gear and flaps. Delay that as long as feasible if your low. After gear and flaps around 95. Again it’s been a few years but should be reasonably close. Until gear and flap it glides better than a Cessna. 14:1 glide ratio so long as the engine isn’t seized.

Lets put to rest some of the questions folks are asking. Calculated numbers for energy in the thread said approximately 1400 feet, but we will take the low end of your estimate, 1200 to assume things were not done perfectly. Glide ratio of 14:1 says there were 16800 feet (3.18 miles) available to glide. From the point of the aerodynamic stall, the aircraft was very close to a vertical trajectory to the ground, so measure from it's point of impact (pilot under parachute was not much farther).

Measure on google maps, the point of airframe impact was 1.27 km (4200 feet) from the button of runway 22 and 1.0km from the button of 27. To glide that distance would use up about 300 feet of altitude.

From the point where the vertical descent began, approximately 300 feet would have been needed to reach a runway threshold gliding, a bit more to account for gear, not sure how long gear extension takes in the tutor, can you leave it till 100 yards on final then float the airplane as the gear comes down ? At the time of the stall, aircraft was partway thru the turn, and MUCH higher than 300 feet.

So to answer some of the questions here, had the aircraft not stalled, yes, it could easily have made it back to a runway, with altitude to spare.

As much as folks want to say otherwise, the turn back in this case was absolutely the correct decision for 'where to go'.

If so, then there was a general handling issue. Perhaps he was looking somewhere other than the airspeed indicator for a significant period of time.....such as over the shoulder.

Perhaps the full report has further details on how the stall came to be.