Snowbird accident 😢
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Snowbird accident 😢
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Good news trying to figure out what a hard landing while taking off means. Sounds like a rejected take off or engine failure right after lift off. Glad to hear everyone is fine!marlin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 02, 2022 2:56 pm Pilot ok according to this article:
https://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/fort-s ... sh-5650481
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Takeoff, flameout, 180 to the airport, landed downwind, over-ran the end of the runway. Looked like gear collapsed in the photo I saw but it was from a distance. Remained upright, grass fire extinguished by airport fire truck/trucks.
So a similar circumstance to the crash in Kamloops, but the combination of factors here were just enough to make it back to the airport.
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
The issues with this Team are getting more and more frequent
They have had a great run and have kept these aircraft going much longer than they ever should have
Maybe it’s time to put pride aside and discontinue the Team
The RCAF could set up a Heritage flight consisting of Tutors in the following schemes
Red Knight
Golden Hawk
Centennaire
Snowbird
These aircraft could tour in a scaled down and safer
presentation
They have had a great run and have kept these aircraft going much longer than they ever should have
Maybe it’s time to put pride aside and discontinue the Team
The RCAF could set up a Heritage flight consisting of Tutors in the following schemes
Red Knight
Golden Hawk
Centennaire
Snowbird
These aircraft could tour in a scaled down and safer
presentation
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Looks like that 180 degree turn does work after all, if performed properly. Seem to remember a heated discussion about it with the last Snowbird accident.
Last edited by pelmet on Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- all_ramped_up
- Rank 6
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:32 pm
- Location: Ukraine
- Contact:
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
wtf?
Or just switch to Hawks like the Red Arrows etc? Why discontinue when it's just a matter of newer equipment?
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Not a bad idea however our Governments cheap out on the ideaall_ramped_up wrote: ↑Fri Aug 05, 2022 4:00 pmwtf?
Or just switch to Hawks like the Red Arrows etc? Why discontinue when it's just a matter of newer equipment?
That is why they are still using antiquated equipment.
My idea was an attempt at compromise
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
One swallow doesn’t make a meal.
The 180 still goes against one of the basic rules in aviation not matter how one wants to spin it
Military pilots are not supermen and in most cases are relatively low time pilots in this day and age .
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
I would bet that there are as many successes as failures, if not more. But you almost never hear about the successes.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
No, but, one swallow can, and did, take down a tutor in Kamloops.
Depends entirely on the performance of your aircraft, your training, and the locale of the incident. GA pilots are taught this because the aircraft they learn to fly on do not typically have the performance required to safely execute the turnback. But I can offer a very good example otherwise. Use the example of a high performance sailplane under tow climbing thru approximately 400 feet and tow plane experiences an engine outage. Tow plane is not going to get back to the departure point, but that glider can likely cut loose from the tow and fly a full circuit back to land. It's all about knowing the performance of your airplane.The 180 still goes against one of the basic rules in aviation not matter how one wants to spin it
Military pilots are not supermen and in most cases are relatively low time pilots in this day and age .
Think to what was taught during the engine failure exercise for ppl. First step, establish best glide speed. In your typical trainer on climbout, that requires very little adjustment of the speed, but in a high performance aircraft it often requires a very large speed adjustment that will result in a significant gain in altitude during the process. To successfully execute the turnback requires a specific amount of energy available to the pilot. In your typical GA aircraft it's suggested that this is in the form of altitude, but in reality total energy is the sum of altitude and excess airspeed. Since most GA aircraft dont carry a lot of excess airspeed the equations simplify to just altitude, the excess speed term becomes zero. That is NOT the case with something of higher performance.
Locale also plays a big role in the turnback equation. If you are launching out of Langley with it's short runway, in order to turn back and land one likely has to make it almost all the way back to the point of liftoff. Contrast that with launching out of YVR in that same aircraft. One will not need enough energy to make it back to the point of liftoff, just enough to effect the 180 degree turn.
When I was instructing PPL students (early 80's) I didn't really know any better, and just repeated the mantra taught to me, never turn back for the EFTO. Many years later I was in charge of training for a 703. We had a contract that involved a relatively low time pilot flying a 172 that launched every day at 0600, so for a good chunk of the year it was launching in the dark. I made sure those pilots knew exactly all the options for a problem on takeoff, and it boiled down to a simple set of decision points. They all knew what altitude was required to effect the turnback to each of the runways at our airport, and they practised it. Most started out at this job as 250 hour pilots and I would not sign them off to go until they could demonstate the turnback from 400 feet. They were not supermen, and relatively low time pilots, and they knew exactly when it was safe to turn back, and how to properly execute the maneuver. One thing in our favour for this situation, always launching from the same two runways, so we had a number for set and pre-planned procedures for each of the 4 possible launches, and these were drilled into folks as memory items such that at the first sign of an engine hiccup, one look at the altimeter and the route to a landing was pre-determined.
From what I have seen, typical takeoff for the folks flying the red and white painted tutors, they tend to store a bunch of energy in the form of speed rather than altitude during takeoff. For a GA pilot we would call that 'showboating', but for the red and white painted tutors, showboating is the job description, and they are very good at it. I'll wait for a little more information before forming an opinion on this incident, it's not like the one in Kamloops where we had a fair amount of info from various videos, which ultimately showed the bird strike as the initiating event. For all I know, it was a perfectly executed turnback, but the aircraft ended up going long because the gear wouldn't come down, so the expected drag wasn't there. I've seen no photos, no videos, and have no information other than the aircraft ended up in a field with some news reports hinting at possibly a fire. One thing I can say with some certainty, the pilot believed they could get back to the runway, otherwise we would have been reading about another ejection event.
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
400 feet will not get you back to the airfield every time in a 172. Try doing it on a windless 30 degree day. Your departure angle is shallower than your glide angle. Unless there is a turn in there before you lose your engine.. you could climb to 5,000 feet or higher and still not make it back to the airfield.goldeneagle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:20 amThey all knew what altitude was required to effect the turnback to each of the runways at our airport, and they practised it. Most started out at this job as 250 hour pilots and I would not sign them off to go until they could demonstate the turnback from 400 feet. They were not supermen, and relatively low time pilots, and they knew exactly when it was safe to turn back, and how to properly execute the maneuver. One thing in our favour for this situation, always launching from the same two runways, so we had a number for set and pre-planned procedures for each of the 4 possible launches, and these were drilled into folks as memory items such that at the first sign of an engine hiccup, one look at the altimeter and the route to a landing was pre-determined.
Conversely, a light aircraft in low temps with a large headwind. Now your 400 feet is before the button of the opposite runway. You’re going to overshoot.
The altitude also needs to account for the distance that altitude is achieved, and this combined with the very small margins for error is why it is often best to just land straight ahead. Walk away from the accident, let the insurance company take care of the airplane.
A Tutor is indeed different because of the higher speeds and energy and that they do have an option to bail out of the aircraft unavailable to the light aircraft pilot… though the Cirrus and other BRS-equipped aircraft change this again. You bet I’m pulling the chute if it is within the envelope. I wouldn’t even think twice.
One tenet always applies though. Keep your airplane upright and flying. 172 or Tutor you will survive what method you choose to execute.
This pilot did very well. Kudos!
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Weather for CYXJ Fort St John (North Peace Airport) around the time of the incident. I think it was about 1215 local which should be 1915Z. Relatively light winds at the time. Two runways over 6600 ft in length.
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 022000Z 19007G15KT 140V210 15SM BKN040 BKN080 19/12 A2986 RMK CU5AC2 SLP121 DENSITY ALT 3400FT=
SP 02/08/2022 SPECI CYXJ 021931Z 16005KT 120V180 60SM SCT036 BKN080 17/11 A2987 RMK CU3AC3 SLP125 DENSITY ALT 3200FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021900Z 18008KT 60SM SCT029 BKN200 17/10 A2988 RMK CU4CI1 SLP129 DENSITY ALT 3100FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021800Z 18007KT 130V220 60SM SCT023 BKN080 17/10 A2989 RMK CU4AC1 SLP131 DENSITY ALT 3100FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021700Z 21003KT 170V250 60SM SCT020 BKN080 15/11 A2989 RMK CU4AC2 SLP134 DENSITY ALT 2900FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021600Z 20005KT 15SM BKN011 BKN080 14/13 A2989 RMK CU5AC1 SLP135 DENSITY ALT 2800FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 022000Z 19007G15KT 140V210 15SM BKN040 BKN080 19/12 A2986 RMK CU5AC2 SLP121 DENSITY ALT 3400FT=
SP 02/08/2022 SPECI CYXJ 021931Z 16005KT 120V180 60SM SCT036 BKN080 17/11 A2987 RMK CU3AC3 SLP125 DENSITY ALT 3200FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021900Z 18008KT 60SM SCT029 BKN200 17/10 A2988 RMK CU4CI1 SLP129 DENSITY ALT 3100FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021800Z 18007KT 130V220 60SM SCT023 BKN080 17/10 A2989 RMK CU4AC1 SLP131 DENSITY ALT 3100FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021700Z 21003KT 170V250 60SM SCT020 BKN080 15/11 A2989 RMK CU4AC2 SLP134 DENSITY ALT 2900FT=
SA 02/08/2022 METAR CYXJ 021600Z 20005KT 15SM BKN011 BKN080 14/13 A2989 RMK CU5AC1 SLP135 DENSITY ALT 2800FT=
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
That depends entirely on the length of the runway. Launch from a 2000 foot runway, I would agree with you, and it's a tight squeeze. Launch off of a 7000 foot runway, if you cant turn back in a 172 then you have done something wrong somewhere in the process because you can aim to land a mile short of the point you lifted off and make that runway.
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
I'll highlight this just in case a lower time pilot is reading and the takeaway is "it's easy to establish best glide speed" in a typical trainer... Because it's not. In a typical trainer, you're climbing out relatively close to best glide speed, and by the time you realize what's happening you're likely at or below it and you haven't even moved your hands or fully comprehended what's going on. So the first thing to do isn't so much to establish best glide, but to maintain what speed you have--by getting the nose down. Then, establish best glide.goldeneagle wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 8:20 amThink to what was taught during the engine failure exercise for ppl. First step, establish best glide speed. In your typical trainer on climbout, that requires very little adjustment of the speed, but in a high performance aircraft it often requires a very large speed adjustment that will result in a significant gain in altitude during the process.
In a higher performance airplane you'll likely have a much higher margin above your best glide speed, and in a red-and-white tutor you'll have plenty of extra "smash" to trade for altitude. We saw that in the Kamloops crash video, but unfortunately on that flight it didn't work out. While you're decelerating, you'll have some more brain cycles free while your brain wraps around the situation and you get down to your best glide speed.
TL;dr:
Trainer -> you'll probably have to accelerate to get to your best glide speed.
High performance -> you'll probably have to decelerate to get to your best glide speed.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: in the bush
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Bang on. Pitching up immediately after an EFATO is counter intuitive to most GA pilots. It’s amazing how much “jam” some high performance singles can potentially have in built up in kinetic energy that can then be traded for altitude.
Having time to slow down and work the issue through thoughtfully happens to be a beneficial byproduct.
TPC
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
Well once again the Team has been grounded .
Incidents are getting more and more frequent .
At some point reality needs to kick in here.
The Snowbirds have had a great run but it can’t last forever flying these antiques.
National pride and stubbornness is going to get more people killed .
Incidents are getting more and more frequent .
At some point reality needs to kick in here.
The Snowbirds have had a great run but it can’t last forever flying these antiques.
National pride and stubbornness is going to get more people killed .
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
I don’t care how high performance your propeller driven GA aircraft is. It doesn’t have a lot of airspeed to begin with, and it loses airspeed a lot faster than it will lose altitude.TeePeeCreeper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 6:57 pmBang on. Pitching up immediately after an EFATO is counter intuitive to most GA pilots. It’s amazing how much “jam” some high performance singles can potentially have in built up in kinetic energy that can then be traded for altitude.
Having time to slow down and work the issue through thoughtfully happens to be a beneficial byproduct.
TPC
Best glide, then think. Please don’t pitch up after an engine failure.
Re: Snowbird accident 😢
I wonder if they should get the team flying Hawks.fleet16b wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 5:59 am Well once again the Team has been grounded .
Incidents are getting more and more frequent .
At some point reality needs to kick in here.
The Snowbirds have had a great run but it can’t last forever flying these antiques.
National pride and stubbornness is going to get more people killed .