Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

[GyvAir]

I don't know what all the fuss about the risks of landing in a Saskatchewan wheat field in a trainer is. This thing looks even less suited to off-strip landings and it handled the corn just fine, without the benefit of a pilot.



Edited for clarity of intention.

[trampbike]

It's just kind of interesting that a machine designed to train for combat is apparently more fragile and vulnerable to such than a C172.

What's interesting about this? Different roles, different limitations and design requirements.

I highly doubt anyone really gives a shit that an airplane was written off as long as the pilots are safe.Given the usual shoddy incomplete reporting, a few questions why, seem reasonable. Not everyone has the luxury of ejecting when an engine fails, y'know.

Have you been reading the same thread as us? When people ask actual questions, I'm very inclined to take the time to try to answer them as well as I can, and I know that guys like Gannet167 and AuxBatOn do this (much better than I do) on a daily basis. The following quotes aren't exactly what you'd call legitimate questions. They're nothing but ill-informed ranting from people who don't know what they don't know about this specific subject.

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.

...

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.

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.

While we, especially high time guys, would likely never abandon a controllable and not on fire aircraft over a prairie landscape, even if we had an ejection seat, these pilots operate in a different environment in which extraordinary training and superb systems substitute for high time qualifications. One of those systems is ejection. Ejection is the preferred option.

I saw the 74 knots stall speed. What is that, 20 knots over a 210, a Malibu. you lose that 20 knots in the first few seconds of skidding along, assuming you are gear up. I'd always take that 20 knots in any kind of flat land before I'd set off an explosion under my ass and blast into the slipstream dependent on several things happening perfectly in sequence.

I think that culturally and operationally, there is an enormous difference between military and civilian flying.

As someone mentioned above they would have fired from the military if they didn't eject so the point is moot.

[Gannet167]

No need for chest-thumping, but it WAS amusing.

I appreciate what you're saying and many ways agree. Calling an ejection from a doomed plane - where both pilots walk away an "Horrendous Waste" is its own form of chest thumping. It's a bold assertion that ejecting was a poor decision and a strongly worded statement about what the crew ought to have done. It implies that the write knows better. He does not. That chest thumping will generally be met with similarly strong statements, using facts, actual knowledge and experience in this type of flying to explain how crass that comment was. If anyone's son or daughter was in the plane and walked away with scratches, I think their analysis would be a little softer on the decision to use the life saving escape system as it was intended to be used.

[CFR]

There seems to be a fair bit of comparison happening here between military and GA aircraft so here's some more food for thought. Cirrus SR-22 POH seems to recommend using the CAPS for most emergencies even forced approaches where the terrain is iffy. Pretty much destroys the plane, but crew survive. Maybe this whole issue is simply a matter of if ya got it, use it.

BRS makes retrofit systems for many GA aircraft. If you're over downtown TO in a 172 with a BRS and an engine failure what would you do?

[Gannet167]

I don't know what all the fuss about the risks of landing in a Saskatchewan wheat field in a trainer is. This thing looks even less suited to off-strip landings and it handled the corn just fine, without the benefit of a pilot.

You bring up a very good point. Look at the F106


It's a lawn dart. Swept wings, pointy front, very long profile with short, stubby wings. Of course it can coast along a frozen lake and stay flat and straight. Now, you'd never want to force land an F106 off airport.

By comparison, the T6:


It's shaped like a throwing start. It's almost designed to cartwheel.



vs



They hit the ground differently.

[AirFrame]

The current rumour is that the gearbox failed. (For whomever wanted to know what happened)

Ah! That answers the only question I really had about this... How does the media report a "landing gear issue" and one of the military guys here say it's an "engine failure"? Seems miles apart. But if someone in the media got the "gearbox" comment I can easily see them thinking "landing gear" not "engine gearbox".

Glad to hear both occupants are on the mend and soon back to active duty.

[J31]

I see the Harvard II is leased to the RCAF by CAE. So who is responsible pay for the loss? RCAF or CAE or insurance?

Will this airframe be replaced and is there a minimum number that must be supplied to meet the contract?

[Kitzbuhel]

I see the Harvard II is leased to the RCAF by CAE. So who is responsible pay for the loss? RCAF or CAE or insurance?

Will this airframe be replaced and is there a minimum number that must be supplied to meet the contract?

The planes are owned by a crown corporation, leased to CAE which then supplies them to NFTC. Not sure who takes the hit but they are most likely insured.

The current rumour is that the gearbox failed. (For whomever wanted to know what happened)

Ah! That answers the only question I really had about this... How does the media report a "landing gear issue" and one of the military guys here say it's an "engine failure"? Seems miles apart. But if someone in the media got the "gearbox" comment I can easily see them thinking "landing gear" not "engine gearbox".

Glad to hear both occupants are on the mend and soon back to active duty.

The gear issue stems from the last Harvard ejection in 2013 which was caused by an unsafe gear (Interestingly, causing the same kind of discussions about ejecting vs landing) As far as the actual cause, it's all speculation at this time. The engine has a power management unit which prevents mishandling and it would be impossible to cause damage to that engine with throttle inputs. Something like spinning at full power could maybe do something unfortunate.

[Moose47]

G'day

Here is the story behind the F-106 prang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiSGeHVfGic

Cheers...Chris

[J31]

Any updates how the two pilots are doing? Sounds like one was airlifted to hospital.

[Kitzbuhel]

Any updates how the two pilots are doing? Sounds like one was airlifted to hospital.

They were released the same day.

[Rookie50]

No need for chest-thumping, but it WAS amusing.

I appreciate what you're saying and many ways agree. Calling an ejection from a doomed plane - where both pilots walk away an "Horrendous Waste" is its own form of chest thumping. It's a bold assertion that ejecting was a poor decision and a strongly worded statement about what the crew ought to have done. It implies that the write knows better. He does not. That chest thumping will generally be met with similarly strong statements, using facts, actual knowledge and experience in this type of flying to explain how crass that comment was. If anyone's son or daughter was in the plane and walked away with scratches, I think their analysis would be a little softer on the decision to use the life saving escape system as it was intended to be used.

+ 1. What angered me was the not so subtle implication that recovering a less damaged aircraft to save the taxpayers money is more important than the risk to the lives of the crew. How callous.

Your Tax dollars may have bought the aircraft, but you don't own the lives of the crew, that's for sure.

[GyvAir]

They hit the ground differently.

In case there was any doubt, my post about the Cornfield Bomber was fully tongue in cheek. Good analogies on the shapes though!

The smilie menu needs one of these:

[Gannet167]

fully tongue in cheek.

I figured

[cncpc]

I don't know what all the fuss about the risks of landing in a Saskatchewan wheat field in a trainer is. This thing looks even less suited to off-strip landings and it handled the corn just fine, without the benefit of a pilot.





Edited for clarity of intention.

I see their point with the Harvard with gear up. That is a big prop and feathered it would dig in and you would be doing that flip at 80 85 or so. Maybe not gear down, but I also take the point that it's not quarter section any runway you want airfields down there.

[nwopilot]

So this is directly from the beechcraft t-6b texan II flight ops guide (american version).

So basically what this says: If you are not on an ELP by 2000ft, you need to eject. If you happen to still be IMC by 2000ft, its hard to be set up for an ELP. It sounds like they lost the engine in IMC. Not many options when you can't see the ground! Even if you break out at 3000 ft that dosent give you lots of time to decide if a forced landing can be safely executed.

[AuxBatOn]

No. it says if you are not on an emergency landing profile by 2,000 ft AGL, eject. ELP is at any of the "key" positions to a suitable airfield. Nothing to do with IMC; it also applies to VMC.

Also, T-6 Texan II is the American designation... military or otherwise.

[complexintentions]

People don't need to be stupid to be completely out of their lane. If you have questions as to WHY some ejections happen, or WHY some procedures are in place the way they are, feel free to ask, and you'll have some very relevant answer from a few posters on this forum. This would be quite different from talking out of your ass pretending (and probably thinking) that you have a clue what you're talking about. As in everything, sometimes you just don't know what you don't know, and aren't able to see that fact. Case in point: you comparing the stall speed of the CT-156 to that of a Malibu, or you comparing civilian flight time with military one.

Yep, I feel ya brother.

I've decided to start telling people to "stay in their lane" and request they kindly remove their heads from their asses, those stupid "armchair warriors", when GA and military and narrowbody guys dare to query or speculate about heavy longhaul airline ops, since really who do they think they are, anyway, with their experience in their puny little airplanes compared to mine? They don't even know what they don't know! So how can they know that? Those know-it-alls. We should all just stick to what we know. That would be more knowable. Or noble. Or something. Uh, what's that again?!

But, against all odds, I HAVE learned something new from this thread: that it is best to eject from a Harvard II whence it's engine says "bye-bye".

Noted.

Thanks, guys, for explaining that so clearly in such an un-condescending, non-dickish way!

[AuxBatOn]

But, against all odds, I HAVE learned something new from this thread: that it is best to eject from a Harvard II whence it's engine says "bye-bye".

Noted.

You haven't really read then. It's best to eject from a Harvard II (or Texan II for that matter) whence its engine says "bye-bye" and you can't reach a runway...

[AirFrame]

So basically what this says: If you are not on an ELP by 2000ft, you need to eject. If you happen to still be IMC by 2000ft, its hard to be set up for an ELP. It sounds like they lost the engine in IMC. Not many options when you can't see the ground! Even if you break out at 3000 ft that dosent give you lots of time to decide if a forced landing can be safely executed.

So I recognize I may be reading this wrong, but what I see is in step C one of the first things is "raise the gear and flaps" assuming they may be down. Assuming you're going to eject anyway, why does it matter where the gear and flaps are? The only reasons I can think of are to increase your glide distance (maybe?) or to clean up the belly for a forced landing.

Further on, step f. is "Execute Forced Landing or Eject. Eject if at or below 2000' and not on an ELP profile in a safe position to land." ELP = Emergency Landing Profile? At this point your gear and flaps are up so any landing will be a belly landing... So if you've made the field (and it seems like this is a judgement call although we are looking at a limited section of the book), and you're below 2000' anyway, belly landings seem to be indicated.

Note: Trying to understand here, not suggesting anyone made any wrong decisions. They walked away so whatever they did was right, i'm just curious about the procedures.