Snowbird down

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

RCAF lost a relatively new Cyclone in April and look at all the 737MAX crashes. You can’t say this crash is due to age, 60 months or 60 years, aircraft crash.

I'd be willing to bet that age of the ship had a lot to do with the fatality.

They are flying around with friggin turboJETS (not turbofans) so if they took a bird, a turbojet would likely have zero tolerance for this, unlike modern turbofan engines which have a bypass where the ingested object could have an easier time to go into and perhaps not affect the core nearly as much. Partial power is better than zero.

Also the systems on the ship have not been manufactured in decades. Finding support for these items is ridiculous.

Also, the ejection systems are retardedly old. Not 0/0.

[max_boost]

Rip

[ExtraSlow]

RIP.

I was there the day that a member of the Skyhawks had a hard landing at the Stampede. Dude landed within thirty feet of the infield bar where I was drinking that day. Not really related, just another serious incident with an armed forces demonstration team member. RIP to any armed services personnel injured or killed for any reason.

[jutes]

From Nova Scotia too, they’ve been hit hard recently.

[rage2]

Found a better angle.



The pilot that died went full speed into a tree in a backyard. No parachute deployment.

Flight plan was just a normal flight from Kamloops to Comox. Speculation is that it lost an engine, and pilot gained altitude to scrub speed, and stalled it.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Found a better angle.

The pilot that died went full speed into a tree in a backyard. No parachute deployment.

Flight plan was just a normal flight from Kamloops to Comox. Speculation is that it lost an engine, and pilot gained altitude to scrub speed, and stalled it.

Speculation, but looks like a control system malfunction to me. Pitched up and stalled in a low energy state.

Low energy engine out in a 1960 jet (or any other airplane usually) generally means you DONT make any sudden moves in any direction. You try to dead stick it in about a 45 degree angle one way or another (to avoid any populated area) and punch out.

Generally. returning to the field at that energy state is not possible with a dead stick.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Speculation, but looks like a control system malfunction to me. Pitched up and stalled in a low energy state.

Low energy engine out in a 1960 jet (or any other airplane usually) generally means you DONT make any sudden moves in any direction. You try to dead stick it in about a 45 degree angle one way or another (to avoid any populated area) and punch out.

Generally. returning to the field at that energy state is not possible with a dead stick.

Post on another forum from a guy with 1600h in a tutor:

“-although the airframes are getting close to 60 years old, the engines are not. They have a TBO and service life they did when they were first introduced (those figures I am not sure of). These engines are likely still in production as it is the same basic engine (GE J85) that is used by the USAF and their fleet of 500+ T38 Talon fleet. The Tutor is the J85-Can 85 while the T38's is a J85 - 5A version.

- ejection is all about physics and the aircraft vector when ejection is initiated. The seat has the same inertial characteristic as the aircraft hosting it - the velocity vector is downward, so is the seat; if the aircraft is in a steep, nose-down attitude, so this the seat and if the aircraft is banked so is the seat. With a gimballed seat, there is some assistance provided by the rockets as the will aid in changing the ejection path; notice in that CF18 video how he went out of the aircraft in a 90 degree bank and the rockets maneuvered to provide a slight vertical upward component.

- the idea with an engine failure in single engine military jets is to exchange airspeed for altitude to get away from the ground, buy some time to sort things out and assess whether one can return to the same runway. The idea in the Tutor is to apex at 130 kts (above the stall speed) and assess if one can get to a downwind position abeam the threshold of the take-off runway at or above 1500 ft agl; this is known as "low-key". If you can't achieve that then the idea is to jump out.

I do not wish to debate whether the engines are good or bad or whether decisions were right or wrong but simply provide facts on this forum. I will say, however, that the Tutor jet is perfectly safe even at its ripe old age; engine failures with this aircraft, like any military jet aircraft, have occurred from their introduction in the 1960's and throughout their history. This engine failure occurred at the worst possible time, shortly after take-off before the aircraft could achieve lots of energy (potential, i.e. altitude, and kinetic, i.e. airspeed).”

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

. Speculation is that it lost an engine, and pilot gained altitude to scrub speed, and stalled it.

Not to scrub speed, you're trading excess kinetic energy for potential. Buy yourself time, altitude can be traded back into speed, you only get one chance to get the altitude after engine failure...

But then it turns into what looks like a departure stall. Busy chasing a relight, hunting for a safe place to put down? Speed bleeds off too much - or the surging turns into a full shutdown? Not familiar with tutor handling, c172 from the CFC - it was pretty benign, in a cub it got a bit more exciting and you got straight into spin recoveries.

Glad to here ejection worked. The in the wreckage comment had me worried. That is a 1-off seat only used in the tutor. Might remember a few years back the fleet was grounded for a while over issues.

As for the engine - it's a version of the J85, don't think anyone is suggesting all the t37 a37, f5's etc get grounded. Engines not the problem in itself.

[revelations]

The reason Im biased against the engine out theory is that this then turns into a completely botched maneuver by the pilot.

I tend to assume that these specific pilots are high time and extremely competent and have these basic training functions fully ingrained - otherwise this is something a C185 student pilot might do if they panic during a solo (lose airspeed, spin and crash, while attempting a return to the field).

As said before, the 1950s engine (engine design is older than the ship) is not 'bad' - and parts for the J85 are still available (probably one reason why the Tutor is still flying today) - but if they did take bird, a more modern engine could have handled it better. Now you also have an airbrake acting against you as the engine spools down.

Also, had they been flying the BAe HAWK (the laest RCAF trainer aircraft), they would have had the latest 0/0 ejection seats available. No doubt the crew would have much more chances to survive.

Older planes have many limitations - this is one of them.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The reason Im biased against the engine out theory is that this then turns into a completely botched maneuver by the pilot.

I tend to assume that these specific pilots are high time and extremely competent and have these basic training functions fully ingrained - otherwise this is something a C185 student pilot might do if they panic during a solo (lose airspeed, spin and crash, while attempting a return to the field).

As said before, the 1950s engine (engine design is older than the ship) is not 'bad' - and parts for the J85 are still available (probably one reason why the Tutor is still flying today) - but if they did take bird, a more modern engine could have handled it better. Now you also have an airbrake acting against you as the engine spools down.

Also, had they been flying the BAe HAWK (the laest RCAF trainer aircraft), they would have had the latest 0/0 ejection seats available. No doubt the crew would have much more chances to survive.

Older planes have many limitations - this is one of them.

The only limitation the tutor has is the ejection seat, they looked at upgrading to newer models but nothing physically fits due to a number of factors. The seats worked as designed in this crash. It’s like the odds of survival in a car accident go down without airbags.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The reason Im biased against the engine out theory is that this then turns into a completely botched maneuver by the pilot.

I tend to assume that these specific pilots are high time and extremely competent and have these basic training functions fully ingrained - otherwise this is something a C185 student pilot might do if they panic during a solo (lose airspeed, spin and crash, while attempting a return to the field).

I don’t think these were the normal acrobatic pilots. This was moving the planes from one airport to another.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t think these were the normal acrobatic pilots. This was moving the planes from one airport to another.

Thats a whole different story then. But still sad to think these pilots could fall into the same trap as a 100hr C185 pilot

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only limitation the tutor has is the ejection seat, they looked at upgrading to newer models but nothing physically fits due to a number of factors. The seats worked as designed in this crash. It’s like the odds of survival in a car accident go down without airbags.

Again, my position is that had this crew not been in a 1960s vintage ship (but were using the Bae Hawk for air demos), all other things being equal, they would have likely escaped without serious injury. There is no denying age here.

[AndyL]

Don't see age playing a role at all. Engine failure is engine failure... It's the specific vectors that lead to the result. Even in a f35s in that attitude and height - the modern Martin Baker - no guarantees.

My only real question... Why not deviate right and aim for the river?

But it was the left aircraft in a formation takeoff. Probably ingrained to only make course deviations away from formation.

[jutes]

If he would have turned right instead of left into a residential area, they would’ve landed in the river. You can if’s until the cows come home. Also, the hawk isn’t a good replacement anyway as the tutor allows the team to visit smaller airfields and requires less logistical support. I’ve seen how much crap and extra personnel the Red Arrows bring, we couldn’t afford it on our budget.

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If he would have turned right instead of left into a residential area, they would’ve landed in the river. You can if’s until the cows come home. Also, the hawk isn’t a good replacement anyway as the tutor allows the team to visit smaller airfields and requires less logistical support. I’ve seen how much crap and extra personnel the Red Arrows bring, we couldn’t afford it on our budget.

I only ask that in the basic form from flight school decades ago... The CFC instructor was always asking me where my out was if engine died right now. Thompson would have been my choice. (But North Thompson was right ahead coming in from the left too - so, perhaps that was his intention). But as evidenced by the video, there was less than 40 seconds from pop to boom.

[BavarianBeast]

Very sad and tragic. Rest In Peace. I was waiting on my dock yesterday for them to fly over and was following their twitter. The clouds were pretty socked right in and didn’t think they’d be flying due to safety. Gave up around 11:30 and a friend sent me the news. Makes you sick when people die trying to do some good.

[jutes]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I only ask that in the basic form from flight school decades ago... The CFC instructor was always asking me where my out was if engine died right now. Thompson would have been my choice. (But North Thompson was right ahead coming in from the left too - so, perhaps that was his intention). But as evidenced by the video, there was less than 40 seconds from pop to boom.

Sorry, you got your post in first, my reply was to rev. I don’t think the north river was his intention, he was barely into Brock, hell he could’ve either glided straight into the river or maybe make it into McArthur park. I think the left turn was to avoid his lead and turbulence. Had he flown on his right, the outcome might have been different.

[Buster]

I asked my dad about this.

Some rando comments:

- It's common for pilots to pull to the left in general because you are pushing on the stick rather than pulling so that's not entirely surprising
- He didn't want to cross over his lead and lose sight of him
- Climbing was the right thing, but he should have climbed straight up wings level and then ejected once her realized there was a problem. Left the ejection way too late. Or as dad says: "once the engine quits, you don't owe that airplane a thing"
- He may have tried to relight the engine or otherwise didn't realize he had no power causing the stall
- interesting fact: some of the snowbirds are setup with the pilot in the right seat if they are on the left side of the formation

[Rat Fink]

.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sadly from the video it looks like another attempt at "the impossible turn" gone wrong.

Can you elaborate on that comment?