Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

[GyvAir]

"A military pilot and student are safe after their training plane crashed south of Moose Jaw Friday morning.
The plane went down around 10:30 a.m., but both pilot and student were able to successfully eject."

http://mjtimes.sk.ca/news/2017/01/27/em ... t-15-wing/

[cdnpilot77]

Come on guys, after Trudeau spends all of our money there won't be any left to replace these, take care of them!!

On a serious note, glad to hear they're both ok, that must be a hell of a ride on an ejection seat. Anyone here have experience?

[GyvAir]

Reading news reporting makes me laugh sometimes.

"Updated Air Force pilots had 4 minutes to eject before crash near Moose Jaw, Sask. Circumstances leading to crash not yet known"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3955391


"Two pilots who safely ejected from a plane before it crashed near Moose Jaw, Sask., Friday morning had four minutes to act after they noticed a problem, according to the Royal Canadian Air Force."

They had four minutes to pull the handle, but they don't know why?

"RCAF Col. Denis O'Reilly said it was an unplanned ejection."

I wonder how many planned ejections they do?

[Gannet167]

Reading news reporting makes me laugh sometimes.

"Updated Air Force pilots had 4 minutes to eject before crash near Moose Jaw, Sask. Circumstances leading to crash not yet known"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3955391


"Two pilots who safely ejected from a plane before it crashed near Moose Jaw, Sask., Friday morning had four minutes to act after they noticed a problem, according to the Royal Canadian Air Force."

They had four minutes to pull the handle, but they don't know why?

"RCAF Col. Denis O'Reilly said it was an unplanned ejection."

I wonder how many planned ejections they do?

Engine failure at a point below glide profile back to base. The "circumstances" are not yet known. The engine could've failed for a variety of reasons and failed in a variety of ways. They won't release details or speculate until the investigation is done.

The 4 minutes were likely between realizing they had a problem and turning toward base / trying to climb or intercept a glide profile, and the point where they realized they were not going to make a runway. Even with a failed engine, you'd try to glide as close to base as possible and/or get yourself near a major road for ground SAR.

Planned ejections are when the crew has options - forced land or eject and time to consider those options. Moose Jaw had one in 2013 - the crew circled for quite some time running checklists, having chase planes form up on them, discussing options with experts on ground etc. Unplanned occurs when the crew realizes they're either pointing their toes, or pulling the magic handle, and generally there is little time to make the decision. 4 minutes is a luxury, sometimes it's seconds. In this case, they had no option, no ability to plan anything else, hence, unplanned.

[W0X0F]

Seems very odd and a horrendous waste. Both this accident and the aforementioned 2013 one. If one has four minutes to decide to eject, how can there be a compelling reason to? And in the 2013 accident, eject on account of gear trouble?!

In my mind, reason to eject would come down to catastrophic airframe failure, serious control failure or fire. An engine failure or gear problem would not be cause to eject. To cite the 2013 accident, how many countless aircraft have been bellied on without further harm to the occupants, especially kerosene burners? So some belly skins get a rash, and prop blades get bent. Far from a total write-off and arguably no more risky to the occupants than an ejection.

And in this case, if the aircraft was controllable (I'm assuming that) for four minutes, than a forced landing onto the bald snow covered prairie again would hardly pose much significant risk to life or limb. In four plus minutes with a controllable airplane, regardless of what other failures may have occurred barring fire, a forced landing onto a country road or wide open field is a small, easily accomplished task.

It seems that not landing, but rather ejecting is a default setting in the military mind. I think it should only be a very last resort. Especially in a benign environment like here at home.

On a last note though, I'm glad everyone gets to go home.

[AuxBatOn]

Seems very odd and a horrendous waste. Both this accident and the aforementioned 2013 one. If one has four minutes to decide to eject, how can there be a compelling reason to? And in the 2013 accident, eject on account of gear trouble?!

What an uninformed, stupid post from someone who likely has never flown a single day in an ejection seat.

The seat is meant to save your life in situations where you are not likely to survive. This doesn't mean in extremis ejections.

I can show you several instances where a landing was performed rather than an ejection, several of which are detailed in reports linked below.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... r/imr9k2y6

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... r/im7anif1

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... e/hlg9li6u

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... t/hlnetkkb

In the last accident (the report is available http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/fli ... t/hsocf82i), the left main landing gear strut was detached and the left main was basically limp. The crew tried to configure the airplane in a symmetrical configuration however they were unable to. The risk of cartwheeling upon touchdown in a unsymmetrical landing gear condition was just too great (and it is detailed in the checklist what situations should lead to ejections and other that shoudln't).

I the case of an engine failure, if you can't make it back to pavement, the recommended manufacturer outcome is an ejection for the risk of flipping over. Ejecting is not taken lightly: it will hurt you. But if the risk of trying to land the aircraft outweight the risk of an ejection, i'll take the seat everyday.

Before you write some more BS, I suggest you stay in your lane next time.

[CpnCrunch]

Vs0 = 74kt, which is pretty damn fast to be doing an off-airport landing.

[GyvAir]

I was commenting on the typically odd choices of what information to release to the media or to what the media chooses to print, i.e. stating that they had 4 minutes from the time they noticed they had a problem, yet still saying the circumstances are unknown.
I presume Gannet has a bit of inside information as to the cause, although loss of engine power does seem like by far the most likely scenario, given the bit of information released.

Thanks for the clarification of the difference between planned and unplanned. Makes sense. I wonder where/how the line is drawn between the two though? 4 minutes is a while to think about it, even if you are gliding. I take it the one a couple years ago when they had one gear stuck down would be classified as planned?

[Gannet167]

Seems very odd and a horrendous waste. Both this accident and the aforementioned 2013 one. If one has four minutes to decide to eject, how can there be a compelling reason to? And in the 2013 accident, eject on account of gear trouble?!

In my mind, reason to eject would come down to catastrophic airframe failure, serious control failure or fire. An engine failure or gear problem would not be cause to eject. To cite the 2013 accident, how many countless aircraft have been bellied on without further harm to the occupants, especially kerosene burners? So some belly skins get a rash, and prop blades get bent. Far from a total write-off and arguably no more risky to the occupants than an ejection.

And in this case, if the aircraft was controllable (I'm assuming that) for four minutes, than a forced landing onto the bald snow covered prairie again would hardly pose much significant risk to life or limb. In four plus minutes with a controllable airplane, regardless of what other failures may have occurred barring fire, a forced landing onto a country road or wide open field is a small, easily accomplished task.

You're completely uninformed. The reasons to eject are spelled out in the manufacturers checklist. A belly landing is not a recommended procedure and is only attempted if for some reason you cannot eject. In this aircraft, at the speeds it moves, its weight and the shape of the air frame, it's very likely the aircraft would cartwheel and end up upside down, locking in the crew for the post crash fire.

Ejecting is not a decision taken lightly, it is very possible to cause severe injury on the ejection and on the landing. It is done as a last resort because the survivability is higher hanging in a parachute than trying to belly land the aircraft. Survivability is key.

Perhaps, with your infinite wisdom flying high performance, bang seat aircraft, you could've crash landed it nicely. Perhaps. And if there was a one in 100 chance that you would dig it in, cartwheel and kill yourself - then you'd be a complete idiot not to take the ejection option.

Many facets of aviation are about mitigating risk. Putting two military members lives at risk because there's a chance that they might be able to safely belly land (in which case the plane is still likely a write off) is simply stupid. Imagine the letter you'd write to their families "your son/daughter died trying to save a clapped out 13,000 hour airplane so that we could save a couple bucks. They could've used the escape system to survive the incident - but their efforts to save the government a couple bucks is noble and courageous." And then we'd spend 5 or more million to train their replacements - never mind the immeasurable cost of human life.

But maybe you, as a citizen, feel that military members are fairly expendable and we should sacrifice their lives in an effort to limp a plane home that has over 20,000 landings on the books. Hey, maybe it's worth it? Maybe we could save a couple bucks?

It seems that not landing, but rather ejecting is a default setting in the military mind. I think it should only be a very last resort. Especially in a benign environment like here at home.

You have no knowledge of flying that, or likely any military air frame. There is a profoundly immense amount of knowledge and rich experience in the ranks of the RCAF, with decades of wisdom and expertise making for some of the most professional aviators anywhere. You have the audacity to think that in your mind you have any knowledge of the decision making elements of emergency handling in a high performance aircraft?

Those planes are owned by Miltair and are insured. Ask the two aircrew members' families what their loved ones are worth. If it was that plane's time to go - great. With two good parachutes over the prairie this afternoon it was, thankfully, not the pilots' time. That would truly have been, as you put it, a waste.

[Gannet167]

I was commenting on the typically odd choices of what information to release to the media or to what the media chooses to print, i.e. stating that they had 4 minutes from the time they noticed they had a problem, yet still saying the circumstances are unknown.
I presume Gannet has a bit of inside information as to the cause, although loss of engine power does seem like by far the most likely scenario, given the bit of information released.

Thanks for the clarification of the difference between planned and unplanned. Makes sense. I wonder where/how the line is drawn between the two though? 4 minutes is a while to think about it, even if you are gliding. I take it the one a couple years ago when they had one gear stuck down would be classified as planned?

No problem. It sounds as if this happened at an altitude sufficient to permit a bit of a glide - the 4 minutes likely were the time the crew had in the glide to get to a better position to eject and be found. You may as well ride the thing in as close to GSAR as possible. Likely they knew they were ejecting from the get go, just got closer.

[Kitzbuhel]

It always seems people question the decision to say good bye to the plane... I wonder why that is.

If this incident is what I heard it was they wouldn't have had much gliding time before getting on the edge of the "preferred" ejection envelope.

On another note the winds were seemingly gusting to 30 this morning in MJ. Not the best conditions to be landing in a parachute. Maybe riding the plane into the frozen prairie would have been more suitable

[Jean-Pierre]

What engine do these have? PT6 right? Why do the Harvard II keep having engine failure but plane like PC-12 you never hear about failure?

[Jean-Pierre]

Both pilot were injured in the ejection. If you look at the terrain where it crashed it look like they could have found a flat stretch to put it down without injury. But maybe their hands are tied by by military order to eject if engine failed.

[Kitzbuhel]

How many engine failiures of the Harvard do you know of? As far as I know this is the first one in Canada...

The pilots were injured from landing a parachute in a 30kt wind. It's like jumping off a two story building that's moving at 60 kph. It's not going to be comfortable. However compared with potentially rolling over at 80kt and exploding I'll take the two story building.

[GyvAir]

They've never struck me as a very off-roady sort of plane with those skinny little tires and narrow looking stance.

[TG]

Plus crash landing while sitting on a "live" ejection seat sounds like a world of hurt to me.

[Gannet167]

If the frame twists, even a little, you're not opening the canopy. Assuming by luck it stayed right side up, at this point, you might congratulate yourself on surviving a forced landing, against the manufacturers operating procedures and the checklist. However, you'd now find yourself trapped inside the aircraft - with a possibility of fire from the fuel directly under you and in the wing beside you. Rethinking the brilliant decision to not use the escape system designed to relatively safely remove you from an aircraft destined to crash, you'd hope that the ejection seat will still work, and that the canopy frame stays in place enough that it doesn't interfere with the ejection seat.

It's very difficult to justify all the extra risk of a forced landing on an unprepared surface, in a plane likely to dig in and cartwheel, when you have a very good method of extracting human life out of the aircraft. Force landing this plane is very likely to hurt you badly. Ejecting also has risks, but they're largely known and accepted as far safer.

[B208]

What engine do these have? PT6 right? Why do the Harvard II keep having engine failure but plane like PC-12 you never hear about failure?

If this was an engine failure, it would be the first one to cause an aircraft loss in the 15 years or so that the aircraft has been with us. You may be thinking of the Hawk; Those engines have had some issues in the past.

[GyvAir]

against the manufacturers operating procedures and the checklist.

What's the approved procedure when an engine failure occurs within safe gliding distance of a suitable runway?

[Kitzbuhel]

against the manufacturers operating procedures and the checklist.

What's the approved procedure when an engine failure occurs within safe gliding distance of a suitable runway?

Fly to a key position, secure the aircraft. Extend the gear and flaps. Land.

[Rockie]

In the early eighties a dual F-5 had its gear come out and bend back at over 500 knots (accidental hand strike on the gear handle during defensive BFM). As the gear was attached but bent a landing would have been very foolish so a controlled ejection was made after thorough preparation and with helicopter rescue on site.

Ejection is not a military mindset - it is used only reluctantly and usually on extremely short notice to save your life. I know several people who owe their continued existence to Martin Baker.

[xsbank]

I worked for a guy who dead-stocked a Harvard 1 into a field (shows you how long ago that was), he saved the aircraft with no damage but he was court-marshalled because he did not follow procedures and bail out. You follow the sops and you do as you're told. All part of the training.

I'm very glad that these guys were "just" injured and I hope for a speedy recovery. I'm quite happy if my tax money which they will screw out of me in a month or so, goes to a nice shiny new a/c for them.

[Gannet167]

I'm very glad that these guys were "just" injured and I hope for a speedy recovery. I'm quite happy if my tax money which they will screw out of me in a month or so, goes to a nice shiny new a/c for them.

Sadly, after we all get screwed in a month or so, there will not be a new airplane.

[AirFrame]

You're completely uninformed. The reasons to eject are spelled out in the manufacturers checklist. A belly landing is not a recommended procedure and is only attempted if for some reason you cannot eject. In this aircraft, at the speeds it moves, its weight and the shape of the air frame, it's very likely the aircraft would cartwheel and end up upside down, locking in the crew for the post crash fire.

Thanks Gannet. When I heard initial reports of this incident, my first thought was "why can't they belly it onto the snow?" (The news is still reporting that the issue was with the landing gear, not the engine). I would have thought a careful belly landing on a smooth, snowy field would be quite survivable. But given the manufacturer's evaluation above I do understand the ejection instead.

I would have also thought that ejection seats had progressed to the point of being rather safe... Are the injuries mostly due to the ejection process, or due to landing under canopy? I can imagine you'd get some twisted ankles/broken legs due to bad landing areas.

[Gannet167]

No problem. The aircraft was recovered today and all 4 corners of it were severely damaged. It cartwheeled and looks like it ended up upside down.

Injuries happen both from the ejection and the touchdown under the canopy. Each one is unique. It really depends on speed, altitude, attitude, descent rate, the weight and physique of the crew, the equipment they're wearing, body position, posture, how they have their harness tightened, etc. etc. etc.

Ejection seats have come a long way I would hazard to say that generally other than detonation cord burning your arms and neck, most injuries occur when the crew parachutes to the ground. A wind limit of 35 kts is the max for crews to fly in training - for ejection reasons. With the descent rate of a 200 lb person in the canopy, it would be somewhat like free jumping off the roof of a transport truck travelling at about 60 km/h. You'd hope not to be dragged through trees, power lines or fencing.