Snowbird down

[Buster]

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

In GA? Definitely. However ballistic chutes are on some smaller A/C.

With regards to the RCAF? - as far as their fighter and training aircraft, most are 0/0.

RCAF has about 400 aircraft, and only the Hawks and F18s are 0 0

[Gman.45]

Most of those 400 aircraft don't have ejection seats at all. None of the helos do, none of the C17s, Hercs, etc etc. None of the Griffon helos have ejection seats either, and next to the Hornets they make up the bulk of the numbers (about one quarter) of RCAF aircraft. The Tutor/Ct114s have their ejection seats, the Hornets, Hawks, and the Harvard IIs as well (Mk 16 Martin Baker). IIRC The Hornets have an earlier MK MB ejection seat, I'm not sure which model Martin/Baker seat the Hawks have, but I think it's a newer model than the Hornets as well. They are all 0-0 except the Tutor. Zero Zero doesn't mean however you can get outside of a safe ejection envelope, ie nose/vector plays an important part of that. Doing a few hundred kts nose down and ejecting at 100 ft will not be a real great scenario for survival as an example. I'm sure more RCAF pilots will chime in, a friend of mine from school just retired from the RCAF, and has 3000+ hours in everything from the Hornet, Grippen, Typhon, F35(training), and 30 other types. He has the standards pilot for the RCAF and did a lot of work with the Tutor/Snowbirds near the end of his career. I sent him an email asking if the same scenario happened with the Hawk, if their ejection seats would have made this incident have a much higher chance of survival for both occupants. Jutes probably knew him, his callsign was "Fudge".

Only the RCAF guys working on these Tutors can likely accurately comment on whether or not newer jets would make engine failures less frequent - it was just a year or two ago we lost a Snowbird at a US airshow due to the J85 engine failing. Still, I do think our guys deserve a newer and better aircraft, the Snowbirds are Canada's ambassadors ffs, and do a fantastic job of it. The US Navy just upgraded the Blue Angels from legacy Hornets to the Super Hornets. It's about time our team has modern equipment, even aside from the ejection seat issue.

Sorry to post so much about this, but I'm currently at CFB Moose Jaw, and this is personal for me as my family worked with the RCAF and the Snowbirds at their home base for many years, I never got to fly with the Snowbirds, I did get a ride in a regular Tutor when I was 18, I was the piper (Bagpipes) for the base and and played at various functions for 4 years before that at the base, including the 50th anniversary of the RCAF in the Battle of Britain. My family owns land East of the runway at CFB Moose Jaw, and part of the runway's landing light systems are located on our land. Again, personal.

A few years ago my pops was seeding some of the family's land (pops was a cop in MJ for years after he left the RCMP, and he farmed on the side there, and still does), and he sees a large duffel bag in front of him on the ground. Opens it up, it's got a wallet, clothes, etc, and some RCAF/Snowbirds materials like pamphlets/etc He took it to the base, and it was one of the Snowbirds bags, the hatch had come open and the bag had fallen out, and he had written everything off a few months back. He was pretty happy to get his wallet and a lot of personal stuff back.

[killramos]

Replacing the snowbirds seems like an extremely low on the list priority for the RCAF all things considered lol.

Maybe we should buy a couple combat planes first.

[revelations]

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

Most of those 400 aircraft don't have ejection seats at all. None of the helos do, none of the C17s, Hercs, etc etc. None of the Griffon helos have ejection seats either, and next to the Hornets they make up the bulk of the numbers (about one quarter) of RCAF aircraft. The Tutor/Ct114s have their ejection seats, the Hornets, Hawks, and the Harvard IIs as well (Mk 16 Martin Baker). IIRC The Hornets have an earlier MK MB ejection seat, I'm not sure which model Martin/Baker seat the Hawks have, but I think it's a newer model than the Hornets as well. They are all 0-0 except the Tutor. Zero Zero doesn't mean however you can get outside of a safe ejection envelope, ie nose/vector plays an important part of that. Doing a few hundred kts nose down and ejecting at 100 ft will not be a real great scenario for survival as an example. I'm sure more RCAF pilots will chime in, a friend of mine from school just retired from the RCAF, and has 3000+ hours in everything from the Hornet, Grippen, Typhon, F35(training), and 30 other types. He has the standards pilot for the RCAF and did a lot of work with the Tutor/Snowbirds near the end of his career. I sent him an email asking if the same scenario happened with the Hawk, if their ejection seats would have made this incident have a much higher chance of survival for both occupants. Jutes probably knew him, his callsign was "Fudge".

Only the RCAF guys working on these Tutors can likely accurately comment on whether or not newer jets would make engine failures less frequent - it was just a year or two ago we lost a Snowbird at a US airshow due to the J85 engine failing. Still, I do think our guys deserve a newer and better aircraft, the Snowbirds are Canada's ambassadors ffs, and do a fantastic job of it. The US Navy just upgraded the Blue Angels from legacy Hornets to the Super Hornets. It's about time our team has modern equipment, even aside from the ejection seat issue.

A great example of how an ejection seat should work was the Lethbridge CF-188 crash a few years back - and like you said, these are not even top tier seats on our Hornets.

[Gman.45]

Yes, exactly, that Hornet ejection is a great example. I remember on this forum somebody posted a video a guy had taken of it, where is girlfriend asks "is this a part of the show" as the plane exploded. Uh, no, it's not. Pretty incredible, almost miraculous looking ejection that one is, and our pilots deserve nothing less. That ejection you can see exactly where the pilot initiates it, almost nose level with some roll, and then when the seat leaves his nose is only about 10 to 20 degrees pointing down, which gave him a much higher chance of survival by giving the seat something to work with. The pilot got "that one good swing" and then some, more like 2 or 3 good swings when you watch it in slow motion.

I do agree, we need to replace the CF18s, but the Snowbirds should be high on that list as well, their equipment, while less complex, is even older than the Hornets - by 2 decades.

[revelations]

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

Yes, exactly, that Hornet ejection is a great example. I remember on this forum somebody posted a video a guy had taken of it, where is girlfriend asks "is this a part of the show" as the plane exploded. Uh, no, it's not. Pretty incredible, almost miraculous looking ejection that one is, and our pilots deserve nothing less. That ejection you can see exactly where the pilot initiates it, almost nose level with some roll, and then when the seat leaves his nose is only about 10 to 20 degrees pointing down, which gave him a much higher chance of survival by giving the seat something to work with. The pilot got "that one good swing" and then some, more like 2 or 3 good swings when you watch it in slow motion.

I do agree, we need to replace the CF18s, but the Snowbirds should be high on that list as well, their equipment, while less complex, is even older than the Hornets - by 2 decades.

What is your opinion on a suitable ship to replace the Snowbirds with? The BAe Hawks (CT-155) are used as air show teams in various countries, but apparently thats not logistically feasible here?

[Buster]

Why do we need to replace the snowbirds? Don't we have better things to do with the budget?

(not to mention our military procurement as a nation is pretty bad).

...and this is coming from a guy with a dad that was a fighter pilot for 35 years.

[AndyL]

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

What is your opinion on a suitable ship to replace the Snowbirds with? The BAe Hawks (CT-155) are used as air show teams in various countries, but apparently thats not logistically feasible here?

RAF and RAAF say 10,000' minimum runway for their hawks...

Kamloops is 8000. That would mean red deer, springbank, Lethbridge wouldn't be able to "host" the team.

That's one of the big reasons we still run tutors, we operate them out of 5000'...

[Gman.45]

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

RAF and RAAF say 10,000' minimum runway for their hawks...

Kamloops is 8000. That would mean red deer, springbank, Lethbridge wouldn't be able to "host" the team.

That's one of the big reasons we still run tutors, we operate them out of 5000'...

Very good point, hadn't considered that. Still, the Hawk has a 2500km range, I wonder if all those AB cities you mentioned would be in range if a Hawk equipped Snowbirds team based out of Calgary, flew to those destinations, performed, and then returned to CYYC. Kamloops isn't far from Kelowna's runway which is over 9000 ft I think. The fighter variant of the Hawk can take off with a full weapons load in less than 7000 ft, not sure why the trainer needs 10k as a minimum. The Hornets operate out of Northern bases with 5900ft runway even though they have an officially higher required runway safety length.

Buster - I agree that there are more important things, like getting the CF18 replaced and especially taking care of our wounded vets, who if wounded past a certain date in the 2000s, get FAR less money and a promise from Trudeau that "medically we'll take care of you". That is currently less than 1400$ a month for many wounded and disabled vets, which is BS. Still, the Snowbirds are Canada's ambassadors, and there is no reason they shouldn't get a newer aircraft because of this. If Trudeau didn't waste so much money on woke causes (I use the 640 million dollar bonus to the CBC as an example), there would be $$$ for all of these things.

[jutes]

edit: post sniped again, this time by Gman.

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

Only the RCAF guys working on these Tutors can likely accurately comment on whether or not newer jets would make engine failures less frequent

In a nut shell, not entirely. Small birds can go through most modern engines without so much as a hiccup. It was common to find feathers and guts on fan blades and the rest of the engine was untouched. Pilot didn't even know he sucked one in until they reviewed the HUD tape (CF-18). Canadian geese however.....well we all know that song. The intakes on the tutor are tiny, thus less likely to ingest flying animals, by it does occur. Rocks and other crap on small, regional airports where the Tutors mostly operate out of are the biggest danger. Then you addon formation takeoffs and landings where FOD can be kicked up by your lead. I really hope this was something FOD related, because it's too similar to the crash in October.

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

Why do we need to replace the snowbirds? Don't we have better things to do with the budget?

IMO I think replacement of the Tutors (not Snowbird team) should be after the CF-18s and AAR Tanker/Troop carrier. The team does serve a purpose and if you've ever been to an airshow, it's worth it, especially in Canada. The Tutor is a perfectly safe aircraft considering how many hours they fly yearly. Think about it, 11 aircraft flying coast to coast summer after summer, not to mention the winter training season, flying 6ft next to each other without any major accidents. The only thing I'd fast track to upgrade would be the ejection seat considering modern systems available today. An aircraft that primarily does low aerobatics needs something more modern to give you that warm fuzzy feeling.

This was at the Sask airshow last summer. Pretty cool display and an option for a replacement.

https://www.blogbeforeflight.net/201...-air-show.html

Attachment 91546

[AndyL]

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

Very good point, hadn't considered that. Still, the Hawk has a 2500km range, I wonder if all those AB cities you mentioned would be in range if a Hawk equipped Snowbirds team based out of Calgary, flew to those destinations, performed, and then returned to CYYC. Kamloops isn't far from Kelowna's runway which is over 9000 ft I think. The fighter variant of the Hawk can take off with a full weapons load in less than 7000 ft, not sure why the trainer needs 10k as a minimum. The Hornets operate out of Northern bases with 5900ft runway even though they have an officially higher required runway safety length.

Yeah but as PR its the on the ground display/recruiting...

My penny bet - probably worst case scenario - land at MTOW no brakes - how much room to operate without overrun.

Think this Kamloops scenario - engine issue on takeoff, let's say you make it around for approach, loose engine. No hydraulic boost no engine - how much room does it take to come to a stop. The t45 variant has used 3600' - but we end up back at the emergency scenario.

[jutes]

The Hawks we have now are leased and are due for replacement anyway.

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

get FAR less money and a promise from Trudeau that "medically we'll take care of you". That is currently less than 1400$ a month for many wounded and disabled vets, which is BS. Still, the Snowbirds are Canada's ambassadors, and there is no reason they shouldn't get a newer aircraft because of this. If Trudeau didn't waste so much money on woke causes (I use the 640 million dollar bonus to the CBC as an example), there would be $$$ for all of these things.

Don't want to side track but just want to address this. While I hate Trudeau's policies the other parties aren't too kind to the CAF either. With regards to vets, I think the compensation they receive is extremely adequate, you can't match the program anywhere civilian side. When Trudeau said "you are asking for more than we can give", I knew it would receive criticism, however I got what he meant. There is some weird pre-conceived notion that being injured in the CF means you should be set for life, this I don't agree with. The medical release system, if used properly, will give you a chance at another career depending on what your injuries are. Problem is, there are a lot of people who just want to sit at home and collect a paycheck, they think the military owes them something. These are the loudest ones. At some point you need to realise that the CF is completely voluntary, if you join the infantry during war-time and lose your legs, how much compensation is adequate? It's all up to the person, you can still be employable while collection a medical pension. Sitting at home sulking over your injuries thinking you deserved more is a waste.

[Buster]

I know some retired CF people who don't mow their own lawns or shovel their own driveways (ever), because they had a "back injury" while in the service.

[Gman.45]

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

Yeah but as PR its the on the ground display/recruiting...

My penny bet - probably worst case scenario - land at MTOW no brakes - how much room to operate without overrun.

Think this Kamloops scenario - engine issue on takeoff, let's say you make it around for approach, loose engine. No hydraulic boost no engine - how much room does it take to come to a stop. The t45 variant has used 3600' - but we end up back at the emergency scenario.

Check, no argument here.

This was at the Sask airshow last summer. Pretty cool display and an option for a replacement.

Were you at that show Jutes? I took my uncle from Manitoba that has been into military civilian aviation for years (used to own an F4U WW2 fighter among other things), and he's good friends with the 2 guys who did the Harvard dual plane demo flight. I met the guy who owns the Spitfire and P40 there, Bruce Eames, who owns a whole pile of WW2 aircraft (and a biz jet as well), and I'm helping him get set up with WW2 PC simulations he wants to get into. I also know a lot of the local retired RCAF guys who got together to put the MJ air show back online. For quite a few years while my folks were stationed at CFB Moose jaw, there was a fantastic airshow yearly, B1Bs, B52s, every fighter in Nato pretty much, it was nuts. They did a great job in 2019, the crowds were so much larger than expected that all services were completely jammed by about noon.

[Gman.45]

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

The Hawks we have now are leased and are due for replacement anyway.




Don't want to side track but just want to address this. While I hate Trudeau's policies the other parties aren't too kind to the CAF either. With regards to vets, I think the compensation they receive is extremely adequate, you can't match the program anywhere civilian side. When Trudeau said "you are asking for more than we can give", I knew it would receive criticism, however I got what he meant. There is some weird pre-conceived notion that being injured in the CF means you should be set for life, this I don't agree with. The medical release system, if used properly, will give you a chance at another career depending on what your injuries are. Problem is, there are a lot of people who just want to sit at home and collect a paycheck, they think the military owes them something. These are the loudest ones. At some point you need to realise that the CF is completely voluntary, if you join the infantry during war-time and lose your legs, how much compensation is adequate? It's all up to the person, you can still be employable while collection a medical pension. Sitting at home sulking over your injuries thinking you deserved more is a waste.

Valid points, I feel there are probably a few exceptions on both ends of this argument though. A good friend I shot service rifle with for years was one of the PPCLI members that was bombed by the US F16. He lost an eye, a lot of use of his leg (along with a lot of the flesh and nerves of his leg). He didn't sit home and cry, even though on top of those stated injuries he had brain injury, back injury, etc etc (being tossed 30 feet in the air by an bomb tends to have such effects). He competed in the Invictus games a few years back. Still, you compare the support he's been given to the support that the guy who asked Trudeau that question that you referenced, he's getting nowhere near the financial support that Lorne (my friend that was bombed in 2002) gets. It's not even close, and he had very similar injuries. I can agree with you that it's a volunteer gig going into the infantry knowing there are deployments happening in a war zone - all I had was insurance that my company provided - with no idea about how solid that support would be if I was seriously wounded, so I understand your point about this. I think the big problem is the "fairness" of more recent support as compared to a few years back, prior to the big "change" regarding financial support for injured CF people. That's what has them pissed off and vocal, knowing that those who came before who got similar injuries were, and still are, receiving payments several times their 1400 bucks a month for an eye, leg, arm, or some of each type of injuries. You are right though, those who think they are "owed" and can just sit around, are only hurting themselves, even if there is some injustice in payment amounts based on the year you were wounded.

You have to admit Trudeau's famous "we don't have the money" answer, then weeks later giving the CBC 600 million + on TOP of their already ridiculously high regular funding(this is just a single example of misuse of funds), is ridiculous.

I absolutely agree that nobody is "owed" anything, however as I said, the fact that soldiers who deployed earlier are still getting $ higher than later deployed wounded soldiers, is a problem that should be solved, some sort of equalizing of $ throughout the armed forces, regardless of when you were wounded. That would get the "loudest" to STFU at least. There will be some changes coming shortly, as there have been some wins in the legal arena regarding this sort of thing. https://globalnews.ca/news/6728075/p...federal-court/

[jutes]

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

I know some retired CF people who don't mow their own lawns or shovel their own driveways (ever), because they had a "back injury" while in the service.

It's worse among anyone who's done time in the Army. They destroy their people, mentally and physically, you will almost never see anyone transfer from AirForce/Navy into Army, always out. They do 8-10 years max in the combat arms and transfer out, their knees and backs are usually mangled. All for the "experience". I would absolutely not recommend to anyone, under any circumstances to join the Army, plus I really question their mental stability if they join up to legally kill people, regardless of situation.

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

Were you at that show Jutes?

I was there both days. Sat was a shit show, can't believe how packed it was, the organisers were really caught off guard with the crowds. I'm glad Sunday everything was fixed and it should be smooth going forward, if airshows are a thing ever again.

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

You have to admit Trudeau's famous "we don't have the money" answer, then weeks later giving the CBC 600 million + on TOP of their already ridiculously high regular funding(this is just a single example of misuse of funds), is ridiculous.

Yeah the priorities and allocation of funds is a Liberal shit show, especially for CBC. I don't know what the answer is to injured vets, in the end money won't solve everything. New incentives like tax-free salary on all international named operations was under the Liberals, so I'll give them that. Before it was random criteria and point system based on Commander assessments of hazard and risk, I'm glad it's streamlined now.

[Gman.45]

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

Yeah the priorities and allocation of funds is a Liberal shit show, especially for CBC. I don't know what the answer is to injured vets, in the end money won't solve everything. New incentives like tax-free salary on all international named operations was under the Liberals, so I'll give them that. Before it was random criteria and point system based on Commander assessments of hazard and risk, I'm glad it's streamlined now.

Well said.

I was there both days. Sat was a shit show, can't believe how packed it was, the organisers were really caught off guard with the crowds. I'm glad Sunday everything was fixed and it should be smooth going forward, if airshows are a thing ever again.

Were you there as a Hornet tech? My cousin (came with my Uncle who I took to both days), talked to a Hornet tech along the wire line by the apron, for about 1/2 an hour, and said he was a great guy and answered so many questions of his and others there. Did a fantastic job of PR at the show when it wasn't even his job. I wish I'd known you were there, my cousin is in charge of all the firearms training at Depot in Regina, and we did a bunch of shooting after the Sunday show. Would have taken you out for dinner/drinks after a pile of shooting. We were lucky and got a reserved spot by the control tower for both days (Dad knows all the MPs there pretty well) for disability/cart parking for my uncle. My uncle had actually flown in two of the static display planes when he was in, one was the yellow Chipmunk there, his friend from Winnipeg ACC air traffic control (one of my instructors when I was ATC there as well in the early/mid 90s), was a pilot in the RCAF in the 70s to the mid 80s, and had flown a pile of the fighters from those years, and was great to have along as well. Planning is well under way for the next show in 2021, I had hoped for it to be yearly again, and it's going to be, especially after the lessons learned (as you mentioned re the Saturday fiasco), and time needed to book more acts. I know Bruce Eames is on board already with an additional 4 WW2 warbirds, and Todd Lemieux of Vintage Wings is brining a bunch too. I really hope the USN and USAF send their F22 or F35 demo team, their Viper team did a fantastic job IMO, but it'd be nice to see the newer fighters in flight.

It's worse among anyone who's done time in the Army. They destroy their people, mentally and physically, you will almost never see anyone transfer from AirForce/Navy into Army, always out. They do 8-10 years max in the combat arms and transfer out, their knees and backs are usually mangled. All for the "experience". I would absolutely not recommend to anyone, under any circumstances to join the Army, plus I really question their mental stability if they join up to legally kill people, regardless of situation.

Agreed, our infantry guys are worked hard. Remember the first big NATO operation in Afghanistan, that fight on the Whale mountain, where my friend/co worker Aaron Perry had the record for the longest sniper shot in history, until 4 minutes later the other sniper team broke that record? Canadians got Bronze Stars and a US Unit Citation medal for the PPCLI. The reason was that the 10th Mountain/US guys, had a 30 percent casualty rate due to guys crapping out on climbing up the mountain, where as the PPCLI had zero. Plus the PPCLI had to carry their water up, while the 10th guys had their helos carry their water and most of their ammunition up to the insertion point at the top of the hills. That's how hard our guys are worked in comparison, and how much they can perform. I hear exactly what you're saying, many of my coworkers were xCF infantry or JTF, and you describe things pretty accurately from what I've seen. Also, the "joining to get to shoot at people" thing you mention is even worse in the private contracting sector. So again, I understand exactly what you're saying.

[jutes]

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

Were you there as a Hornet tech? My cousin (came with my Uncle who I took to both days), talked to a Hornet tech along the wire line by the apron, for about 1/2 an hour, and said he was a great guy and answered so many questions of his and others there. Did a fantastic job of PR at the show when it wasn't even his job.

I was not, but I do know all the guys on the team, this years group was.....interesting lol. I was asked multiple times to be part of the demo team, but giving up my entire summer to driving around in a crew cab truck with three other dudes didn’t sound like fun. I’d rather relax in the Okanagan during summer after the long winters. The airshow life isn’t for everyone, constant travel, same performers, same functions, dinners, events. Gets old.

[revelations]

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

I was not, but I do know all the guys on the team, this years group was.....interesting lol. I was asked multiple times to be part of the demo team, but giving up my entire summer to driving around in a crew cab truck with three other dudes didn’t sound like fun. I’d rather relax in the Okanagan during summer after the long winters. The airshow life isn’t for everyone, constant travel, same performers, same functions, dinners, events. Gets old.

was the pay even that good?

[jutes]

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

was the pay even that good?

You don’t get anything extra. Pay is dependent on rank, not responsibility or position.