Snowbird crash in CYKA

[ohoh]

These last 2 screen captures show pretty clear, and anything following there is no sign of the bird.

[L39Guy]

Or how about a drone?

[Heliian]

That looks like an awefully small object to completely shut a turbine down but it is possible.

[ohoh]

I'm definitely no expert but comparing the jets to the "object" I'd say hawk, falcon or crow size...bigger then a sparrow but smaller then an eagle.
Maybe it was a drone, but it is most certainly gone once the jet passes, immediately followed by "pull up".
The engine in these is small as well,

[ohoh]

Sorry, another post ended up in between my post and the video I'm referring to.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866

[Schooner69A]

"why most military jets seem to adopt a profile of staying low and building up airspeed..."


I don't remember any of the military jets I flew having Vx or Vy speeds. I think because the excess thrust makes such things moot... In addition, I think the excess thrust would produce such a nose-high attitude that it, in itself, would be a safety hazard.

Airliners that adopt a higher-than-normal angle of climb do so for noise abatement requirements, not IAW Vx or Vy…

Even in the light civilian twins in which I flew, we didn't pitch for Vx or Vy after take-off. As I remember, we used to place the flight director in the "Go around" mode. Turns out that pitch angle would damn near give you the SE Vy in the event an engine calved. There was then no need to pitch down at all... Just continue to marry the pitch bars and the little airplane and fly away!

[jakeandelwood]

Or how about a drone?

Oh jeez, if it turns out a drone went thru that engine someone will be shitting bricks, and there will be a headhunt out for him, and so there should be.

[L39Guy]

Bearing in mind that this is all pure speculation, the "object" in the video appeared to be a single object. The J85 can eat a single bird no problem and it can eat many birds without too much difficulty; geese are a different story.

But to have one object take out that engine, it had to be something significant in either in size or strength. Judging by the relative size of the object against the aircraft, that was not a large object whatsoever.

The engine damage will hopefully tell the story; birds leave lots of blood, guts and feather in the compressor stages; a hard object like a small drone would show entirely different damage patterns.

[cncp2]

I spend a fair bit of time looking up at a drone, and they get small quick. If that is a drone, it's one of those Mavic Air handheld little things. A bit bigger than a softball. Not out of the question. Not sure how it would kill an engine though.

cncpc

[2R]

Does the parachute system have a reserve chute ?
I have seen how quick a reserve chute can deploy and it is way quicker than what the video showed the chute opening .
A cheap fix might be to look improving the chute , bigger drouge , spring loaded like a reserve , just speculation on my part as I am not familiar with the tutor chute .
Random brain droppings ,
Also not familiar with chute opening at zero airspeed .
Base jumpers seem to get there chutes open pretty quick from zero airspeed . Maybe the SAR techs that are more familiar with modern chutes should have a look at a redesign of the chute. If required . Might be the best kit .
I had a draftsman friend who redesigned fuel caps for almost a year on one project . No shame in redesigning if improvements can be made .

Comments made with the caveat and understanding i may look stupid and ignorant , but I am willing to grasp at straws and engage in constructive dialogue if it saves someone on our side .

[cncp2]

Does the parachute system have a reserve chute ?
I have seen how quick a reserve chute can deploy and it is way quicker than what the video showed the chute opening .
A cheap fix might be to look improving the chute , bigger drouge , spring loaded like a reserve , just speculation on my part as I am not familiar with the tutor chute .
Random brain droppings ,
Also not familiar with chute opening at zero airspeed .
Base jumpers seem to get there chutes open pretty quick from zero airspeed . Maybe the SAR techs that are more familiar with modern chutes should have a look at a redesign of the chute. If required . Might be the best kit .
I had a draftsman friend who redesigned fuel caps for almost a year on one project . No shame in redesigning if improvements can be made .

Comments made with the caveat and understanding i may look stupid and ignorant , but I am willing to grasp at straws and engage in constructive dialogue if it saves someone on our side .

I used to jump round canopies and had to go to the reserve twice. Yeah, they come out right smart. The mains, though, are sleeved. The pilot chute pulls the sleeve off and that allows air to fill the canopy. Reserves have no sleeve. Ejection chutes have no sleeve. They are a reserve chute. And round canopies. In skydiving, all the chutes, main and reserves, are squares now.

[frosti]

Does the parachute system have a reserve chute ?

No.

[airway]

Does the parachute system have a reserve chute ?
I have seen how quick a reserve chute can deploy and it is way quicker than what the video showed the chute opening .
A cheap fix might be to look improving the chute , bigger drouge , spring loaded like a reserve , just speculation on my part as I am not familiar with the tutor chute .
Random brain droppings ,
Also not familiar with chute opening at zero airspeed .
Base jumpers seem to get there chutes open pretty quick from zero airspeed . Maybe the SAR techs that are more familiar with modern chutes should have a look at a redesign of the chute. If required . Might be the best kit .
I had a draftsman friend who redesigned fuel caps for almost a year on one project . No shame in redesigning if improvements can be made .

Comments made with the caveat and understanding i may look stupid and ignorant , but I am willing to grasp at straws and engage in constructive dialogue if it saves someone on our side .

I used to jump round canopies and had to go to the reserve twice. Yeah, they come out right smart. The mains, though, are sleeved. The pilot chute pulls the sleeve off and that allows air to fill the canopy. Reserves have no sleeve. Ejection chutes have no sleeve. They are a reserve chute. And round canopies. In skydiving, all the chutes, main and reserves, are squares now.

Just out of interest, why did reserve chutes used to be round, and why are they squares now?

[AirFrame]

Just out of interest, why did reserve chutes used to be round, and why are they squares now?

Round chutes aren't directional, and in an emergency where you could be tumbling or not in a predictable orientation at opening it maximizes the chances of success.

For sport parachutes, the main is always square because sport parachutists like to be able to "fly" on the way down. Reserves started to become square as well because people wanted them and were willing to give up a little safety in exchange for a chute that let them have more directional control of the descent after opening.

[cncp2]

Just out of interest, why did reserve chutes used to be round, and why are they squares now?

Reserves started to become square as well because people wanted them and were willing to give up a little safety in exchange for a chute that let them have more directional control of the descent after opening.

I was just happy one of them opened.

[co-joe]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866

Why does this guy look so familiar? Was he in that TV show Jetstream?

[Aux1]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866

Why does this guy look so familiar? Was he in that TV show Jetstream?

Did you ever watch a TV series called Airshow? Albatross guy. Amongst other stuff.

[ohoh]

" In the aftermath, I learned that at rotation, my #2 engine had ingested a bird, causing near catastrophic damage and destroying the fan blades of the small J85 engine. "
https://sofrep.com/fightersweep/bird-hand/

[co-joe]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866

Why does this guy look so familiar? Was he in that TV show Jetstream?

Did you ever watch a TV series called Airshow? Albatross guy. Amongst other stuff.

Loved that show. Totally remember now, thanks. RIP Marcus Paine

[ogopogo]

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1740577859866

Why does this guy look so familiar? Was he in that TV show Jetstream?

http://scratchmitchell.com/aviator/

[TGale]

Localizer wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 12:02 pm
Those things should have been retired years ago .. the Snowbird name can live on in a new jet.

That's not it.

That's not it? ... That's all you got? ... I can except "That's not it" had it been followed with an intelligent reason.

I'm not saying this accident has to do with maintenance or anything related, but the Tutors had their day .. what's wrong with gracing the CT-155 with Snowbird colours and beginning a new chapter?

I hope to God everyone is ok .. it would be nice to see something positive come out of what's evolving into a shitty 2020.

Your response to my response was one I could have supported in the first place.

Trying to see the forest through the trees.

[fleet16b]

With all due respect to the occupants , one of the #1 rules in aviation and one that has been there since the beginning , LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD if you loose the engine in take off.
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 .
The investigation will at some point address this turn back decision

[fleet16b]

How have all these GENIUS's and arm chair flyers missed the most important part of that video. Everyone is saying he was trying to do a 180 to get back, pilot error, planes are old a garbage. First of all, they could have hit a bird. Which has brought down much new jets that's this. Second. Why did it take him so long to punch out? He was trying to point the jet away from town and residential areas. He sacrificed the crew for the bystanders below. He is a god damn hero. He was not trying to get back or save the jet, he was trying to save lives below. He did exact what he intended to do. Enough disrespect

Ahhh nope , he turned left towards civilian residences resulting in wreckage within a housing survey.
To his right or straight there was no population
Most likely , he was right handed which means left turns were more natural. So chose a quick left turn in attempt to make it back to the airfield

[Cleared4TheOption]

With all due respect to the occupants , one of the #1 rules in aviation and one that has been there since the beginning , LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD if you loose the engine in take off.

OK, against my better judgement I am going to weigh in here because it kind of bothers me that people can so easily jump to "he ****ed up this is what he should have done". This all happened very fast and he had seconds to pick a direction.

This accident disturbed me because I couldn't understand how this happened, and so I thought about it quite a bit in the first few days and watched videos of all the angles I could find. This is what I BELIEVE occurred in the accident aircraft:

• Experienced either a loss of power or something to suggest engine failure was imminent and executed a rapid climb to give the most options/time
• Being that he was on the left of the other aircraft he INITIALLY had to either climb straight or left
• As he climbed he likely was looking at his options. To his left was the city and to his right was a wide river. He very likely thought that if he turned to the right, they would not make it over the shore before they would need to eject and likely land in the water. I do not know how dangerous that is, but I assume it is extremely risky.
• He likely thought the aircraft might be able to clear the perimeter of the city and thought that an ejection over the city was a safer option so started his turn to the left
• Nearing the apex of his climb he probably re-assessed that the aircraft would not clear the city, but he saw there was a large clearing between himself and the airfield (maybe his original plan) and wanted to direct the crash there.
• Because of the aggressive climb possibly timed with a complete loss of power (there may have still been some power in the climb), the aircraft slowed well bellow 1G stall speed with the nose high and being at close to 90 degrees of bank had only rudder input available to try and bring the nose down. This coupled with his desire to continue the turn probably meant he had slight aft-stick, and we should all know that a stalled wing with full left rudder will result in a left incipient spin.
• He likely realized what had happened immediately and elected to continue the roll as it would be the quickest way to get the wings level. At this point there was no longer any hope of directing the aircraft prior to impact. All the energy the aircraft had was now being bled by the spin and recovery.
• He promptly recovered the spin with full right rudder (I believe this is the cause of the cut seen on his leg likely from striking the instrument panel during ejection) and ejected with wings level.
• Because of the events since the apex of the climb, he did not have time to trim the aircraft and so immediately after ejection the aircraft pitched nose down.
• At time of ejection it looked like the flight path was approximately 60 degrees down, which resulted in too much decent rate to have time for the chutes to properly deploy.

I do not think he ever even considered returning to the airfield. I'm sure they usually practice such a scenario as a straight ahead ejection without a city or body of water directly ahead of and under the aircraft. I would imagine the rate of decent of such an aircraft at best glide to be between 1500 and 2000 feet per minute. It looks as though he achieved no more than 1000 feet AGL, and had turned only about 45 degrees. The remaining 135 degrees would probably have required almost 1000 feet making a return to the airfield impossible. The empty field I believe he would have aimed for was closer and less of a turn, but I doubt they would have been able to eject before 200 feet. At a gliding rate of decent however that would be 6 seconds to impact plus the boost from the seats and so would likely have been enough to open the chutes.

Without knowing exactly what happened, I cannot find any fault in his decisions (not that it would be my place to). Other than the likely engine failure, the biggest factor that lead to this tragedy was the spin. Had the aircraft not spun this would very likely have been a perfectly safe ejection. There are many possible reasons why the spin occurred. My biggest concern is that I hope the training doesn't teach them to try to relight a failed engine at such low altitude, which may have resulted in distraction leading to a greater loss in airspeed than intended. It's a jet engine, if it has failed it probably will not restart. The #1 focus should be on planning an ejection and if possible direct the aircraft where it will cause the least damage.

My point is he was in an extremely difficult situation without many options, was concerned for the life of his passenger and did the best he could with what little he had. Things didn't play out as planned and what happened, happened.

[Gannet167]

With all due respect to the occupants , one of the #1 rules in aviation and one that has been there since the beginning , LAND STRAIGHT AHEAD if you loose the engine in take off.
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 .
The investigation will at some point address this turn back decision

Zoom and turn to low key is the standard way to handle an engine failure on takeoff. It’s briefed, its trained for over and over, its what you do. Dozens of these have been successfully flown to a landing. It has been that way “since the beginning.” There is no “rule” he didn’t follow. Please show me where in the RCAF orders it is a rule. The CARS don’t apply but even they don’t have a rule.

This is not a 172 or a Fleet, it isn’t flown the same. The turn back may or may not have worked in this case, an ejection may have been required regardless, but the zoom and turn for low key is absolutely the correct response in a jet at those speeds. Low key generally will not work in a GA aircraft, and the dumbbell is also generally a poor choice, the energy and aerodynamics are very different. It’s done all the time in high performance aircraft.