Bent Harvard II - Moose Jaw

[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.

[AuxBatOn]

There is and "if" statement. Airstart - Attempt if warranted. If conditions do not warrant and airstart, then continue on (FWSH Pull and Eject or Force Land) otherwise, you complete the airstart checklist.

There are further Ejection and Forced landing emergency checklist you would follow depending on what you choose. Force Land has a note saying it should only be attempted on pavement because of the risks identified in this thread. It also talks about lowering the gear and the flaps.

In any case, gear, flaps and speed brake up allows you to glide farther while you are executing the checklist and making a decision.

[Gannet167]

You raise gear and flaps to get the best glide profile you can. This may make it possible to make a runway somewhere – by getting on a glide profile which the American checklist calls “ELP.” There is a simple formula using altitude and DME to figure out if you can make a field. With gear and flaps, obviously, the plane’s glide profile is much worse. For much of the training, the aircraft are between 10,000 and FL200 – which could give you 25 or 30 DME of glide if the winds are favourable. For much of the training the aircraft are at 500’ AGL, which gives you a few seconds after you’ve zoomed to make a decision.

This checklist is for engine failure or suspected severe engine damage with the possibility of immediate failure. It’s not working, or you think it’s going to stop very soon. As long as it’s running, you’ll have hydraulics to raise and lower the gear. If it has failed or does fail a few minutes later, there is a backup emergency system to blow the gear down. This would be done if the engine did fail, you managed to glide back to a useable runway, and were in a positon to land. If the engine is still working and you get on an ELP profile, you’d set idle power and glide to the runway. If it’s working when you get there, you lower gear normally. If it’s failed while on ELP profile, when you get to the runway you use the emergency gear extension system.

Martin Baker says ejection survivability is best at above 2000’ AGL. So if you’re not in a position to force land safely by 2000’, they say it’s time to save your life. Above 2000’ (assuming you’re not on fire) you have time to try to make the glide to a runway work, and/or position yourself in a good place to eject – away from built up areas and near a main road, not over a lake or near power lines etc. While the mark 16 seat can eject at zero feet and zero airspeed (unlike many seats that have min airspeed and min altitude), there are more risks involved. There’s less time for you to decelerate before hitting the ground. Also, it’s ideal to eject with the aircraft on an upward trajectory. If you eject while descending at, for example 6000’/min, you need considerably more altitude to reach a survivable descent rate in parachute. Below 2000’ you have less options and will possibly land near the aircraft’s crash site. If there’s a post crash fire, you don’t want your parachute to drift down into that fire.

A belly landing on a runway isn’t the end of the world in this aircraft, if it’s done right.

[complexintentions]

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...

You need to use smiley or winky emoticons. I can't read if you're serious, or really think I - or anyone - would actually think a Harvard/Texan pilot would just eject if they could glide to a runway lol.

But this IS AvCanada, so I suppose I should have been more thorough in my summary. Apologies.

[cncpc]

It looks like a beautiful airplane. I take it this was a gear up with a feathering?

[GyvAir]

It looks like a beautiful airplane. I take it this was a gear up with a feathering?

CT-156 gear up landing viewtopic.php?t=107602

[AirFrame]

If it has failed or does fail a few minutes later, there is a backup emergency system to blow the gear down. This would be done if the engine did fail, you managed to glide back to a useable runway, and were in a positon to land. If the engine is still working and you get on an ELP profile, you’d set idle power and glide to the runway. If it’s working when you get there, you lower gear normally. If it’s failed while on ELP profile, when you get to the runway you use the emergency gear extension system.

And if all that fails, you get to take a Martin Baker ride. I had forgotten about the emergency gear extension mechanism... I was thinking that because they told you to get the gear up immediately before hydraulics fail, the assumption was that *any* landing after that would be on the belly. Instead, it just gives you both gear options later. You can leave them up or blow them down, and in the meantime you get better glide performance. Makes sense.

If there’s a post crash fire, you don’t want your parachute to drift down into that fire.

That reminds me of something else i've been wondering... Why haven't ejection seat parachutes been switched to controllable, sport-style chutes? Last I heard, they still used round, mostly uncontrollable chutes.

A belly landing on a runway isn’t the end of the world in this aircraft, if it’s done right.

Although I am getting a better understanding of the procedures and recommendations for the Harvard II through this thread, that photo just makes me think the outcome wouldn't have been a lot worse on a smooth farmer's field.

[cncpc]

Although I am getting a better understanding of the procedures and recommendations for the Harvard II through this thread, that photo just makes me think the outcome wouldn't have been a lot worse on a smooth farmer's field.

There is no way you can stop a prop blade, maybe two, from digging in, and as the man said, it would flip, so the aircraft is toast anyway and you may have crew trapped inside, a long way from rescue, fire, I see why they eject.

[AirFrame]

There is no way you can stop a prop blade, maybe two, from digging in, and as the man said, it would flip, so the aircraft is toast anyway and you may have crew trapped inside, a long way from rescue, fire, I see why they eject.

You may be right. I'm biased by personal experience having seen a number of aircraft after they've bellied into a farmer's field (one not very smooth at all) where the props broke or bent back and the airframes remained upright.

[Gannet167]

And these were 6000+ lb low wing, high performance planes landing in fields at 80 to 90 kts?

[goingnowherefast]

This thread has become ridiculous. On one side we have a crew that followed SOPs, are alive, and are being defended by those with time on type. On the other side, we have those with no experience on type, or even a similar type.

Personally, when I am learning a new type, I talk to those with experience in that aircraft.

[Schooner69A]

"While the mark 16 seat can eject at zero feet and zero airspeed (unlike many seats that have min airspeed and min altitude), there are more risks involved."

A little thread drift, but WTH...?

The seat that catapulted me out into cold winter air was guaranteed (?) at 200 feet AGL and 90 knots - no sink rate. It worked as advertised; I had less than a minute under canopy before ground impact. (I use the word deliberately: I hit the ground like used grass from a tall cow!) (;>0)

[AirFrame]

And these were 6000+ lb low wing, high performance planes landing in fields at 80 to 90 kts?

Not at all. Low wing, yes. I was just pointing out where my internal bias was coming from, not suggesting it was valid. I've already said I agree that the choice to eject was the right one in the circumstances.

[cncpc]

There is no way you can stop a prop blade, maybe two, from digging in, and as the man said, it would flip, so the aircraft is toast anyway and you may have crew trapped inside, a long way from rescue, fire, I see why they eject.

You may be right. I'm biased by personal experience having seen a number of aircraft after they've bellied into a farmer's field (one not very smooth at all) where the props broke or bent back and the airframes remained upright.

Ok. The one on the pavement looks to be feathered, which I take it is automatic on power loss in that aircraft. Or manually feathered. Doesn't matter, it is feathered. I do expect at flat pitch it would just bend back, but are they not stronger along the chord line?

[Schooner69A]

Results of a double engine failure, double ejection, and unassisted landing.

[Gannet167]

Certainly not indicative of most unassisted landings. Despite how well this went, this airframe was written off as it was beyond repair.