Snowbird crash in CYKA

[Skyhunter]

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...


Just saw this post now. I have a lot of hours in the tutor including teaching FLIT at FIS. I would happily go take it for a spin. When I flew it the seat was even worse with lots of seat man separation issues. I briefed I would force land in a field or road over ejecting.

Lots of single engine aircraft out there without seats.

Would I like to see a better seat given to the boys still flying them, yes, I would. Would I go fly one tomorrow with the current seat. Yes.

I think your comment was way off on this one Frosti.

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.

[Skyhunter]

And in most cases the chances of surviving by landing or at least staying ahead are increased hugely . Hence the reason pilots are taught this. It been a clear and simple rule worldwide from the dawn of aviation.

And because people want to dumb it down, they only teach one rule, land straight ahead regardless, even when a better option might exist. We train for so many possibilities in flying. Why not train for one more that might save you, your passengers, and members of the public, rather than stick your head in the sand? "He landed straight ahead, but wow, that shopping mall burned for a week..."

Any one particular example of an unsuccessful turnback attempt doesn't mean your best choice is always to stay straight. No more than any one example of a successful turnback attempt means turning back is always your best choice. The pilot has to read the situation and make a decision based on the specific circumstances and their level of training.

It's been quite a long time since I got my license, but when I was first taught about engine failures on takeoff and I was told to always land straight ahead, I asked "what if there' a building right in front of you? and fields to either side?" Of course, the answer was to TURN to the field. Okay, what if that field is off your left or right wing? Or just behind the left or right wing? How do you decide whether to hit the buildings or try for the field? Without training for it, how could you?

You were beating around the bush instead of dealing with the problem straight on
The RCAF procedure is to trade airspeed for height in order to assess the situation and try for a relight
Considering airspeed is everything this is not a very good trade
off
As we saw the aircraft no longer had airspeed for flight and when he attempted to make it back as per procedure the aircraft stalled at insufficient altitude recover or even punch out at at
Had the pilot maintained a straight course and as much airspeed as possible, They could’ve punched out safely and both survived
Please know that I am in no way trying to criticize the pilot for his decision he did exactly what he was trying to doExcept for using the proper terminology to it eject but hey the guy was under a lot of stress at the time so I can be forgiven
I am however criticizing the entire operating procedure and will go as far as to say that is flawed in some ways
The RCIF and in particular the snowbirds I’ve seen this procedure fail before and yet they’re still using it to this day

It is a fantastic trade off in high speed aircraft. You trade kinetic energy for potential. You go from a speed where you are just giving energy away in excess drag to a speed where you loss it at the minimum possible rate. That buys you time. Whether it be to eject or to assess the engine or altitude. To just drone level at 200 kts in a high drag regime would be asinine.

Not something you would do in in a low speed aircraft as you are already close to your min drag speed.

[PilotDAR]

Why not train for one more that might save you, your passengers, and members of the public,

I opine that the reason that turnbacks are not trained is that the training would be very dangerous! If the training of spins at altitude is so frequently cited as too dangerous, I hardly expect training the approach to power off slow flight, in a climb, at low altitude would be considered adequately safe.

I don't advocate land straight ahead at any cost, I advocate land in the most suitable area, as straight ahead as practical. I also advocate thinking about what you'll do beforehand, so you're flying to a plan, not making it up as you're doing a cause check. I've had three actual to a full stop EFATO's and never hurt a plane doing it. Each one was the result of following a plan. Only one was truly straight ahead, the others involved turns, but not turnbacks.

I do not teach trading airspeed for altitude. I realize that jets maybe different, but GA piston singles slow down really fast when you point them up, so it takes practice to know when to begin to lower the nose to maintain adequate gliding speed. Indeed, if you're climbing out at Vy, you're pretty close to glide speed anyway, so there is no excess speed to trade for altitude - you already have only enough, and you're about to loose that if you don't get the nose down.

I've never flown a type in which ejection was an option, so my plan has always been to fly it until it's stopped. Departing 09 out of Kamloops, ditching ahead has always been my plan. Though with the option of ejecting, and sending the plane on it's own, I'd consider pointing it north into the hills, where it would do no harm.

Ditching a landplane is never a great option, and yes, it's cold off the end of either runway at YTZ, but it's better than hitting someone else with the plane. Yes, at YTZ, I'd be turning as much as practical to stay nearer to shore, but the lake is my plan until I've turned downwind, at which point the airport infield becomes my plan.

Yes, in my planes, I have practices EFATO turnbacks so I have an idea of what to expect, because of course, there comes an altitude from which a 180 degree gliding turn is no problem. But for both my planes, it's unlikely that you can glide back to the runway you departed, unless it was really long. But the fact that I have experimented and practiced does not mean I'll ever risk teaching it! I cannot justify the moral and financial liability to train a maneuver which is not in any flight manual, nor training material I have ever read.

[lhalliday]

At Kamloops I always plan more-or-less straight ahead until 2000 MSL (about 900 AGL) based on simulated engine failures at altitude. Crummy data is better than no data at all.

Runway 09 departures at YKA don't leave you many options. A built-up residential area to the north, the river right under you, the valley wall to the south. I had always assumed the Snowbird pilot wasn't trying to get back to the airport - way too low - but was just trying to get away from a residential area. He almost pulled it off.

...laura

[fleet16b]

At Kamloops I always plan more-or-less straight ahead until 2000 MSL (about 900 AGL) based on simulated engine failures at altitude. Crummy data is better than no data at all.

Runway 09 departures at YKA don't leave you many options. A built-up residential area to the north, the river right under you, the valley wall to the south. I had always assumed the Snowbird pilot wasn't trying to get back to the airport - way too low - but was just trying to get away from a residential area. He almost pulled it off.

...laura

Laura Everyone assumed he was trying to avoid a built up area but if you read the accident report now it’s clear that he wasn’t doing that.
Clearly they interviewed him in depth and he stated that he was trying to make it back to the airport as per standard ops but unfortunately stalled the wing while attempting this maneuver
From the video it’s pretty easy to see that is exactly what happened

[photofly]

I do not teach trading airspeed for altitude. I realize that jets maybe different, but GA piston singles slow down really fast when you point them up, so it takes practice to know when to begin to lower the nose to maintain adequate gliding speed. Indeed, if you're climbing out at Vy, you're pretty close to glide speed anyway, so there is no excess speed to trade for altitude - you already have only enough, and you're about to loose that if you don't get the nose down.

It's worth remembering the magic number: 9 feet of altitude per knot per 100 knots, or, for large changes of speed, Δh = Δ(v^2)/2g.

Slowing from 80 to 70 in a ballistic climb will get you 9 * 10 * 0.75 = 67 feet. Slowing from 300 knots to 100 knots in a ballistic climb will get you about 4000 feet of extra altitude.

[Schooner69A]

A bit of a thread drift and not a critique of the actions of the Snowbird pilot.

The following was written as a result of the recent surge in support in the USA – short lived, I hope - for the turnback after EFATO. Further, it is written with the average GA pilot in mind; the ones who - through circumstance - don't fly much...



IMPOSSIBLE TURN?

I wish people would stop referring to the “Possible Turn” as the “Impossible turn”.

If you experience engine failure after take-off, there is an altitude/airspeed/weight/pilot combination that will allow you to complete a ‘Safe Turn’ back to the departure runway.

It was always a given that if you had a combination of the requisite items noted above, you could always return – glide back - to your departure runway if you lost your engine.

The trick was to pin down the exact combination of the four items noted above that would allow safe execution of the manoeuvre.

The “land straight ahead or (say) thirty degrees either side of departure path" came about because engine failure in the first few seconds of take-off puts the pilot in an extremely tenuous position: no speed or altitude to trade for turning performance. Any attempt to do so resulted in a broken airplane at best, and broken people at worst.

Hence, the “never turn back” dictum.

I view the present push to train for the “Impossible Turn” with trepidation: unless the pilot

1. Is going to maintain currency (minimum 75-100 hours/year),
2. Ascertain minimum altitude for procedure commencement with dead and wind milling prop (more drag with dead engine),
3. Routinely practice the manoeuvre (which I doubt – most don’t even practice stalls/circuits),

then I don’t hold out much hope for the success of the technique in the event of an actual EFATO.

There’s nothing wrong with telling pilots to find the minimum altitude at which they KNOW they could execute a 210 degree turn back to the runway. Then add a fudge factor up to fifty percent for screw-ups.


Don’t become a test pilot on your first engine failure after take-off; half-way around the turn back is not time to find out you’re out of airspeed, altitude, and ideas…

[fleet16b]

Looking thru the Tutor Ops manual , I can find nowhere that states that in the event of an engine failure you are to attempt to turn back the airport.
Am I missing something ?
If it’s not in the manual , then why is this being done ?

[PilotDAR]

Slowing from 300 knots to 100 knots in a ballistic climb will get you about 4000 feet of extra altitude.

Yeah, well that doesn't help me much, 100 knots is Vne for one of my planes!

Everyone assumed he was trying to avoid a built up area but if you read the accident report now it’s clear that he wasn’t doing that.

When I watched the video, it did not occur to me that the pilot was intending to primarily simply avoid the built up area. Gently turn toward the north, and point the plane at the hills would have avoided the built up area, and provided a better ejection condition. The pilot lost control of the plane while maneuvering aggressively, as one might, if you were trying to yank it around quickly to get back to the airport.

If you experience engine failure after take-off, there is an altitude/airspeed/weight/pilot combination that will allow you to complete a ‘Safe Turn’ back to the departure runway.

I'm not so sure, if the runway was a length just suitable for the type (not excessively long) When I depart my 2100 foot runway in my 150, I'll have between 100 and 400 feet passing the departure end of the runway. From there, I cannot climb at a rate which exceeds the gliding rate of descent, let alone the turns required to get back. I agree that you can certainly get to an altitude after departure, from which the necessary turns can be made to get you back the the runway centerline, but could you make it back to the runway? I'm not so sure.

In any case, you'll never see that in formal training material, nor flight manual. Therefore and pilot doing it will be doing something "unusual" in the plane, and have more than the regular amount of explaining to do should there be an accident, and a huge amount of explaining to do if it's a training accident! There is no way I would train, nor advise this. The fact I admitted that I have practiced it is a stretch, though it is the truth...

[fleet16b]

Slowing from 300 knots to 100 knots in a ballistic climb will get you about 4000 feet of extra altitude.

Yeah, well that doesn't help me much, 100 knots is Vne for one of my planes!

Everyone assumed he was trying to avoid a built up area but if you read the accident report now it’s clear that he wasn’t doing that.

When I watched the video, it did not occur to me that the pilot was intending to primarily simply avoid the built up area. Gently turn toward the north, and point the plane at the hills would have avoided the built up area, and provided a better ejection condition. The pilot lost control of the plane while maneuvering aggressively, as one might, if you were trying to yank it around quickly to get back to the airport.

If you experience engine failure after take-off, there is an altitude/airspeed/weight/pilot combination that will allow you to complete a ‘Safe Turn’ back to the departure runway.

I'm not so sure, if the runway was a length just suitable for the type (not excessively long) When I depart my 2100 foot runway in my 150, I'll have between 100 and 400 feet passing the departure end of the runway. From there, I cannot climb at a rate which exceeds the gliding rate of descent, let alone the turns required to get back. I agree that you can certainly get to an altitude after departure, from which the necessary turns can be made to get you back the the runway centerline, but could you make it back to the runway? I'm not so sure.

In any case, you'll never see that in formal training material, nor flight manual. Therefore and pilot doing it will be doing something "unusual" in the plane, and have more than the regular amount of explaining to do should there be an accident, and a huge amount of explaining to do if it's a training accident! There is no way I would train, nor advise this. The fact I admitted that I have practiced it is a stretch, though it is the truth...

According to the RCAF investigation , the pilot was intending to do a 180 and try for the airfield

[cncpc]

This question...

It seems that where this procedure went wrong is with the stall spin at the top of the zoom. From what I read, it seems that the initiating event was trying the turn at low airspeed.

Looking for an answer from the military guys and women here on this. What if this aircraft had started the turn as soon as power was lost, once it was through 90 without climbing, then zoomed? Or was turning 15 deg bank all through the zoom?

In the actual scenario, the entire zoom gains height at the expense of gaining distance from the safe harbour of the airfield, or even any field in the area before the stub runway. An immediate turn with a safe airspeed margin keeps the aircraft closer to where safety might be, and the result at top of zoom might have offered a better picture than the Captain had just before the wing dropped.

I understand that the low level turn causes drag and loses some lift, and that top of zoom will be lower, but safety is significantly closer. And the turn at the top is not 180, probably less than 60.

Not wedded to the idea, or waiting for the call from Stockholm, but I would like to hear from the military guys. I also understand that this approach may be very airport specific. And, would the existence of that stub have been in that pilot's mind as a result of the EFTO briefing he would have given himself and Capt. Casey?

[PilotDAR]

There's talk of a "zoom" maneuver. Hey, I've even done it in the lowly 150. But to zoom, one must have excess speed to trade for altitude. Would a Tutor jet on a "normal" departure over a city, be carrying excess speed? To be carrying the excess speed implies that the plane was not climbed at Vy, and therefore lower than necessary over the city on departure.

Otherwise, is any meaningful "zoom" possible from Vy in a military jet? I don't expect that it would be in a comparable GA plane.

[AirFrame]

There's talk of a "zoom" maneuver. Hey, I've even done it in the lowly 150. But to zoom, one must have excess speed to trade for altitude. Would a Tutor jet on a "normal" departure over a city, be carrying excess speed? To be carrying the excess speed implies that the plane was not climbed at Vy, and therefore lower than necessary over the city on departure.

You can see in the videos that the jets intentionally stayed low in formation to accelerate over the waiting crowd. They certainly had excess airspeed over Vy, but how much I couldn't say. The Tutor is a relatively underpowered jet I understand.

Otherwise, is any meaningful "zoom" possible from Vy in a military jet? I don't expect that it would be in a comparable GA plane.

I'd guess not without afterburners.

[fleet16b]

There's talk of a "zoom" maneuver. Hey, I've even done it in the lowly 150. But to zoom, one must have excess speed to trade for altitude. Would a Tutor jet on a "normal" departure over a city, be carrying excess speed? To be carrying the excess speed implies that the plane was not climbed at Vy, and therefore lower than necessary over the city on departure.

You can see in the videos that the jets intentionally stayed low in formation to accelerate over the waiting crowd. They certainly had excess airspeed over Vy, but how much I couldn't say. The Tutor is a relatively underpowered jet I understand.

Otherwise, is any meaningful "zoom" possible from Vy in a military jet? I don't expect that it would be in a comparable GA plane.

I'd guess not without afterburners.

And there lies an entirely other issue
On departure , they did not climb as per usual take off procedure but stayed low to give the crowd a show
I understand that the S/Birds are entertainment but the show was long over , no need to take risks showboating

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

no need to take risks showboating

They showboat for a living. That's kinda harsh.

[Bandit_20]

There's talk of a "zoom" maneuver. Hey, I've even done it in the lowly 150. But to zoom, one must have excess speed to trade for altitude. Would a Tutor jet on a "normal" departure over a city, be carrying excess speed? To be carrying the excess speed implies that the plane was not climbed at Vy, and therefore lower than necessary over the city on departure.

You can see in the videos that the jets intentionally stayed low in formation to accelerate over the waiting crowd. They certainly had excess airspeed over Vy, but how much I couldn't say. The Tutor is a relatively underpowered jet I understand.

Otherwise, is any meaningful "zoom" possible from Vy in a military jet? I don't expect that it would be in a comparable GA plane.

I'd guess not without afterburners.

And there lies an entirely other issue
On departure , they did not climb as per usual take off procedure but stayed low to give the crowd a show

May you please kindly provide a reference source for this statement? Preferably from the RCAF/DFS?

[fleet16b]

no need to take risks showboating

They showboat for a living. That's kinda harsh.

Yes , as I stated their job is promotion and entertainment
A job that comes at a risk.
However, this incident did not happen during a show and did not happen to one of the performers.
There was absolutely no need to carry out a shallow take off for the few people that were there.
Had they done a standard by the book take off they would have most likely avoided and low flying birds
Hindsight is golden but it can be used to change the future
Hopefully they address these useless post show maneuvers

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

no need to take risks showboating

They showboat for a living. That's kinda harsh.

There was absolutely no need to carry out a shallow take off for the few people that were there.

That is a matter of opinion (there was no need for Operation Inspiration in the first place), however I am in agreement with everything else you said.

I think everyone here has heard "caution, wildlife in the vicinity" on an ATIS and ignored it. I don't think I can rightfully fault the pilot for underestimatnig the possibility of a bird strike.

[PilotDAR]

During a flight test symposium I attended a number of years back, there was a really interesting presentation on demonstration and airshow flying. I thought to myself, interesting, but what does this have to do with design flight testing? As I sat and listened, it all began to make sense. The very wise presenter explained that for a new type, it was very likely that the original test pilots would be tasked with airshow and demonstration flying of the company's pride and joy. The test pilot would probably be put into this role with less ideal training and experience as an airshow pilot, but similarly, or more so, be expected to show the aircraft to its greatest performance, and certainly prevent anything the least bit discrediting to the company. Yup, been there, had to do that!

Anyone who "performs" with a plane has the extra responsibilities of flying a safe demonstration when everyone is watching - which will be every time the plane flies, and to actively prevent a little bad becoming a big bad. Flying demonstration, you never get to say "time out" while I deal with this, everything you do is being watched and judged. When I knew that I would have to demonstrate a plane, I would practice as much as opportunity allowed, establish comfortable limits for myself, and fly with a couple of extra knots margin on the safer side, all the way around.

... And then the new amphibian owner comes from overseas, for the demo flight in his new baby, and the wind is 15G25, and I have to find a way to make water operations look smooth and simple.... Another story....

I have empathy for the Snowbird pilots, always on stage. But nothing exempts them from an everyday occurrence, and they still are expected to make it turn out well.

[Skyhunter]

There's talk of a "zoom" maneuver. Hey, I've even done it in the lowly 150. But to zoom, one must have excess speed to trade for altitude. Would a Tutor jet on a "normal" departure over a city, be carrying excess speed? To be carrying the excess speed implies that the plane was not climbed at Vy, and therefore lower than necessary over the city on departure.

You can see in the videos that the jets intentionally stayed low in formation to accelerate over the waiting crowd. They certainly had excess airspeed over Vy, but how much I couldn't say. The Tutor is a relatively underpowered jet I understand.

Otherwise, is any meaningful "zoom" possible from Vy in a military jet? I don't expect that it would be in a comparable GA plane.

I'd guess not without afterburners.

And there lies an entirely other issue
On departure , they did not climb as per usual take off procedure but stayed low to give the crowd a show
I understand that the S/Birds are entertainment but the show was long over , no need to take risks showboating

You have a lot to say for someone who isn’t familiar with normal ops of the tutor.

Normal climb is 220. That also equates to best rate at ISA. Best angle was 130 and the nose at that is uncomfortably high with poor visibility for a prolonged period. While down low other than final approach I would never have the jet at less than 220 and after takeoff would stay low and accelerate to at least 220 as quickly as possible.

SO I HAVE AIRSPEED TO ZOOM!!!

I am then at 130 with a much smaller turn radius will turn IF !!! I have the altitude to do so.

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

Staying low to accelerate is not showboating!

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Normal climb is 220. That also equates to best rate at ISA.

Forgive my ignorance - what exactly is ISA?

[PilotDAR]

Normal climb is 220. .....
SO I HAVE AIRSPEED TO ZOOM!!!

I am then at 130 with a much smaller turn radius will turn IF !!! I have the altitude to do so.

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

Honest question, 'cause I don't know the Tutor at all; What's a comfortable power off approach speed, for an intended power off landing in a Tutor?

['97 Tercel]

Normal climb is 220. That also equates to best rate at ISA.

Forgive my ignorance - what exactly is ISA?

standard atmosshere

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Normal climb is 220. That also equates to best rate at ISA.

Forgive my ignorance - what exactly is ISA?

standard atmosshere

Well, don't I feel like quite the idiot now...

[Skyhunter]

Normal climb is 220. .....
SO I HAVE AIRSPEED TO ZOOM!!!

I am then at 130 with a much smaller turn radius will turn IF !!! I have the altitude to do so.

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

Honest question, 'cause I don't know the Tutor at all; What's a comfortable power off approach speed, for an intended power off landing in a Tutor?

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.