Snowbird crash in CYKA

[RatherBeFlying]

The video in the previous post displays many, if not all, of the pages in the complete report which discusses authoritatively many of the issues discussed in this forum. There is a possibility pressure may be applied to remove the video; so, don't wait too long before viewing it.

There have been other turnback attempts in Tutors without success - with fatalities.

Protection of civilians is a strong motivation for a turnback, but then you will most likely end up outside the envelope of an outdated ejection seat.

Should Tutors be operating out of airports where residential areas are exposed in the case of an engine failure?

[J31]

Very sad gut retching subject. The report and the video place some "tough love" to the people making decisions to keep flying the Tutor in its current state.

Retire the Tutor and transition to the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II for a Canadian aerobatic team.

Black Falcons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orvd9af9ujs

Red Arrows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0Ur6rP62U

[fleet16b]

As some in the know have stated in this thread , I think there is no doubt that the Tutor could continue on for sometime . Maybe this accident will prompt the RCAF to up
grade some of the safety equipment if they feel it’s needed
Thru out this discussion , some of us have been attacked by the military types on this page.
However , the conclusions by the RCAF as well as the above posted video confirm what some of us here predicted was the case all along.
As stated by the RCAF ( and clearly by the pilot himself) the pilot attempted to return to the airfield without sufficient altitude or airspeed after suffering a cpsr. stall .
An age old aviation no no and a situation that has killed many people as well as other Snowbirds over the years
Hopefully the RCAF gets rid of this procedure and returns to the basic rule .

[tsgarp]

Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.

[linecrew]

Retire the Tutor and transition to the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II for a Canadian aerobatic team.

I'm pretty sure this is not an option because these fleets are in a unique situation whereby the aircraft are owned by the Government of Canada, but leased to and maintained and serviced by CAE for the NATO Flight Training in Canada (NFTC) program. They aren't regular RCAF aircraft like the rest of the fleet.

[fleet16b]

Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.

Corrected ? For what
I among others have been steadfast that the pilot committed an age old aviation no no which resulted in a stall , spin accident
Even the RCAF is admitting that .
When some of us suggested that we were constantly flamed when the military guys here circled their wagons and tried to deflect the obvious

[pelmet]

Retire the Tutor and transition to the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II for a Canadian aerobatic team.

Not affordable these days. If anything, the Snowbirds could be retired. Canadians probably prefer to keep them, so we'll keep them.

Flying has risks and military flying has more risk. That is part of the job that is accepted by military personnel. The Snowbirds are an all-voluntary group. Risks come from having a single engine that could be taken out by a bird or fail in some other manner, midair collisions, flying into the ground, etc. All of these things have happened.

The pilots and crew have an advantage over many other airshow pilots in that they have ejection seats. Unfortunately for those volunteers, the ejection seats don't have an envelope for certain conditions. In addition, pilots who perform certain unapproved maneuvers in an emergency may place themselves into hazardous positions.

[tsgarp]

Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.

Corrected ? For what?

Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.

[karmutzen]

Engine was not disabled, the small bird impact caused a compressor stall that was not mitigated by the pilot.

Compressor stalls on turbines are not uncommon in some of the aircraft I fly. Most damage comes from pilots misinterpreting and mishandling the aircraft after the compressor stall. Usually only requires a small reduction of the power lever, then add power again.

Any Tudor pilot that can address the compressor stall in that specific type of aircraft and outline current SOP to mitigate?

[fleet16b]

Fleet, you weren’t attacked, you were corrected.

Corrected ? For what?

Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.

You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you want
Regardless whether people have sometimes been successful, the history of the maneuver thru out aviation has proved to kill more people than save them
At one time the Military also forbid it. We will see what changes ,if any, are implemented
Further , military training or not , most of these guys are low total time pilots that are flying high performance aircraft
Many have less time than some of us here. Military training or not there are bound to be some RCAF pilots that make simple basic airmanship mistakes. In this case , post Cpsr. stall , that exactly what the pilot did. (Not my opinion - as stated by the RCAF)
Further , you practiced in a SIM? And in an aircraft where you had the luxury of applying power of need be
Have you ever had a real engine failure of take off ? It a lot different than a SIM or practice
Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
Turning back not so much. It’s a much higher risk option.
Outside of preventing an aircraft for impacting a populated area, the turnback serves no real purpose but to try to save the airframe.

[tsgarp]

Corrected ? For what?

Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.

You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you want
Regardless whether people have sometimes been successful, the history of the maneuver thru out aviation has proved to kill more people than save them
At one time the Military also forbid it. We will see what changes ,if any, are implemented
Further , military training or not , most of these guys are low total time pilots that are flying high performance aircraft
Many have less time than some of us here. Military training or not there are bound to be some RCAF pilots that make simple basic airmanship mistakes. In this case , post Cpsr. stall , that exactly what the pilot did. (Not my opinion - as stated by the RCAF)
Further , you practiced in a SIM? And in an aircraft where you had the luxury of applying power of need be
Have you ever had a real engine failure of take off ? It a lot different than a SIM or practice
Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
Turning back not so much. It’s a much higher risk option.
Outside of preventing an aircraft for impacting a populated area, the turnback serves no real purpose but to try to save the airframe.

What I truly wish is that I were in a position to give you some time in the circuit with a Tutor, Hawk or Hvd II. I think you’d be surprised at what can be done in these aircraft.

Like I said before; people can read what you wrote then they can read what the guys qualified on type wrote. After people have read both opinions, I’m happy to let them decide for themselves. If you see that as an attack on you, then I’m sorry; it wasn’t meant to be.

[photofly]

Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

[fleet16b]

Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

To be more clear ;
Slight heading changes while maintaining a positive forward direction with sufficient and safe airspeed.
Making aggressive turns as in 90deg or more as has been seen so many times in aviation is not a good idea

[fleet16b]

Erroneously trying to apply conclusions from this incident into areas with which you are not familiar. The turn back didn’t work this time. However, it has worked quite often in the past for military training aircraft. I’ve talked to guys who’ve done it for real, I’ve done it in the sim and I’ve practiced it in the aircraft.
You are perfectly within your rights to opine that the Air Force should not teach it. I’m just pointing out that your opinion is at odds with the opinions of a large number of people who have actually flown and taught on the these types of aircraft. As I said before; people can read what you wrote, then read what the Tutor/Hawk/HvdII qualified guys wrote and then decide for themselves.

You and others can continue to defend the turnback all you want
Regardless whether people have sometimes been successful, the history of the maneuver thru out aviation has proved to kill more people than save them
At one time the Military also forbid it. We will see what changes ,if any, are implemented
Further , military training or not , most of these guys are low total time pilots that are flying high performance aircraft
Many have less time than some of us here. Military training or not there are bound to be some RCAF pilots that make simple basic airmanship mistakes. In this case , post Cpsr. stall , that exactly what the pilot did. (Not my opinion - as stated by the RCAF)
Further , you practiced in a SIM? And in an aircraft where you had the luxury of applying power of need be
Have you ever had a real engine failure of take off ? It a lot different than a SIM or practice
Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option
Turning back not so much. It’s a much higher risk option.
Outside of preventing an aircraft for impacting a populated area, the turnback serves no real purpose but to try to save the airframe.

What I truly wish is that I were in a position to give you some time in the circuit with a Tutor, Hawk or Hvd II. I think you’d be surprised at what can be done in these aircraft.

Like I said before; people can read what you wrote then they can read what the guys qualified on type wrote. After people have read both opinions, I’m happy to let them decide for themselves. If you see that as an attack on you, then I’m sorry; it wasn’t meant to be.

I would certainly relish the chance .....
Further I was not singling out any one person as an attacker but was meaning the general overall attitude of the majority of the military types commenting
A circling of the wagons attitude for sure

[photofly]

Looking for a landing place ahead or 45deg to each side or ejecting is a proven safe and very very survivable option

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

To be more clear ;
Slight heading changes while maintaining a positive forward direction with sufficient and safe airspeed.
Making aggressive turns as in 90deg or more as has been seen so many times in aviation is not a good idea

But it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? If you can turn up to 90 degrees, why can’t you turn 180? Just do two turns of 90, if you like.

[cncpc]

I would certainly relish the chance .....
Further I was not singling out any one person as an attacker but was meaning the general overall attitude of the majority of the military types commenting
A circling of the wagons attitude for sure

I very much appreciate the comments of the military posters in this thread, and all of them.

[rookiepilot]

I would certainly relish the chance .....
Further I was not singling out any one person as an attacker but was meaning the general overall attitude of the majority of the military types commenting
A circling of the wagons attitude for sure

I very much appreciate the comments of the military posters in this thread, and all of them.

+1 to this, CNPC. Learned a few things.

[digits_]

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

....


But it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? If you can turn up to 90 degrees, why can’t you turn 180? Just do two turns of 90, if you like.

I would hypothesize that a field at +-30 or 40 degrees will be visible in front of you without the need to significantly turn your head. Looking to the side or behind you in a stressful situation could result in inadvertent pulls on the control column while turning to see further behind you.

Other than that the classic arguments such as 'harder to judge your altitude' or 'you'll screw up the turn' still hold some merit to me as well.

[scdriver]

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

....


But it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? If you can turn up to 90 degrees, why can’t you turn 180? Just do two turns of 90, if you like.

I would hypothesize that a field at +-30 or 40 degrees will be visible in front of you without the need to significantly turn your head. Looking to the side or behind you in a stressful situation could result in inadvertent pulls on the control column while turning to see further behind you.

Other than that the classic arguments such as 'harder to judge your altitude' or 'you'll screw up the turn' still hold some merit to me as well.

That's very true, really easy in a scenario like that to not glance at airspeed, apply inadvertent backpressure, and suddenly you're at a very uncomfortable airspeed.

[fleet16b]

I just have a question. Why is turning 45 degrees ok?

To be more clear ;
Slight heading changes while maintaining a positive forward direction with sufficient and safe airspeed.
Making aggressive turns as in 90deg or more as has been seen so many times in aviation is not a good idea

But it’s an interesting question, isn’t it? If you can turn up to 90 degrees, why can’t you turn 180? Just do two turns of 90, if you like.

I don’t think that would be a realistic option.
It increases your workload in the middle of a situation where speed and altitude are trying to be maintained .
It would complicate a situation where keeping things as simple as possible is better
I emphasize again , if you read the bios of some of the people flying for the Team , many are relatively low time ( no disrespect intended ) compared to the teams years ago.
I think this is a significant factor that is being overlooked .

[Outlaw58]

Fleet, read what others are trying to tell you.

When you have an ejection seat, your decision-making process is very different than when you fly an aircraft that don't. Having flown with one makes it much easier to appreciate those differences.

Your options in similar situations are not binary ie 1= continue and land straight ahead (+ or - 45 deg) or 0= turn back to the airport. Having an ejection seat gives you to option to make an attempt if you still have the energy and remain within the ejection enveloppe. If you are going to "see" if you can make it, you're not going to half-ass it or there is no point. Hindsight 20/20 is a benefit he didn't have at the time, and that is why folks like myself find you very narrow-minded in your assessment of the situation. It just isn't that back and white.

That's all I will say on this. My dad use to say, there is none as blind as someone who doesn't want to see.

58

[PilotDAR]

I have never flown a jet, nor an ejection seat equipped airplane, so my view of this whole situation is admittedly incomplete. I have never received training which in any way suggests a return to the departure runway in the case of an EFATO. But, there is lots of training I have never had.

I have had four EFATO's, which put me on the ground, 'never damaged a plane doing it - luck! I have flown out of Kamloops airport many times and know the area well.

Knowing this, I always take off expecting it, and give some thought as to where I'm going. Sure, it may not be straight ahead - no point in flying further off shore at Toronto Island Airport! So my glide path may involve a turn to keep myself nearer somewhere good, or away from somewhere bad. But I'm always thinking about the proverbial school yard. I do not want to put others at risk because of my choice to fly. If it all goes quiet, I'm sure going to point the plane away from people as much as I can manage. Anything I fly, I know I'm riding it to the ground, so less mess will be better if I'm gliding it to a forced landing.

But, I will avoid flight over built up areas as much as practical, and certainly loosing control over a built up area. If I knew that ejecting were a choice for me, I can imagine pointing the plane somewhere relatively harmless, assuring it's going to get there, and then ejecting. But, that's just my single engine GA pilot way of thinking about things....

[fleet16b]

Fleet, read what others are trying to tell you.

When you have an ejection seat, your decision-making process is very different than when you fly an aircraft that don't. Having flown with one makes it much easier to appreciate those differences.

Your options in similar situations are not binary ie 1= continue and land straight ahead (+ or - 45 deg) or 0= turn back to the airport. Having an ejection seat gives you to option to make an attempt if you still have the energy and remain within the ejection enveloppe. If you are going to "see" if you can make it, you're not going to half-ass it or there is no point. Hindsight 20/20 is a benefit he didn't have at the time, and that is why folks like myself find you very narrow-minded in your assessment of the situation. It just isn't that back and white.

That's all I will say on this. My dad use to say, there is none as blind as someone who doesn't want to see.

58

I appreciate that there is a different thought pattern when an ejection seat is an option
However my point is the ejection seat option did not help him at all on this case because his decision to turn back in the first place was done with insufficient speed resulting in a stall
Had he followed the age old rule regarding eFto , things would’ve no doubt been much better than they ended up.
Ejection seat they give you more options but in some cases it’s also compounding the problem by making you attempt a more risky maneuver such is the case here

[RatherBeFlying]

When you have an ejection seat, your decision-making process is very different than when you fly an aircraft that don't.

There's a big difference between an outdated ejection seat with a narrow envelope and one that will still save you close to the ground heading down and not quite wings level.

In the SN, the top of zoom was in the seat envelope, but the subsequent maneuvering (understandable given the desire to avoid vulnerable areas) took them outside. The pilot only survived with serious injuries because the roof he impacted cushioned his fall.

A wider envelope would have permitted the pilot more time to avoid vulnerable areas and eject successfully including the passenger. Newer trainers allow the pilot to eject both seats.

Flying in mountainous terrain, a vortex can yank the rug out from under you in a blink of an eye. A 20 kt margin above stall ain't enough in a 30 kt shear, which can happen with a vortex in a 15 kt wind.

[fleet16b]

The quote below is straight from an RCAF Instructors mouth .
(Like I’ve said all along the “turnback “ at low altitude with engine failure is NOT a good idea .
There are many here that seem to think it’s standard RCAF procedure . )

“ I can’t speak to the source who gave you this info on another forum. All I can reference is what we teach RCAF student pilots, day to day, here at the Big 2.

The straight ahead zoom is the standard response to a suspected engine malfunction, so long as the the aircraft is in a suitable energy state to do so. If in a low energy state, we teach as you suggest - fly the airplane (adopt a straight ahead gliding attitude) then handle the emergency appropriately based on the situation. (If low altitude - a timely ejection is highly encouraged).

We don’t teach students to turn back to the departure runway at low altitude.”