So there is no incentive for out of town (base/road) pay or anything like that - sounds like you made the right choice.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
So there is no incentive for out of town (base/road) pay or anything like that - sounds like you made the right choice.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Birdstrike likely. Blurry pic though. Makes me wonder if it could have been a drone.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sno...port-1.5593259
Last edited by Tik-Tok; 06-01-2020 at 10:39 AM.
Bird or drone, still doesn't explain why a split second ejection difference meant survival of the pilot and death of the passenger.
In my opinion, if the Tutor had a similar modern system to the CF-18, seeing how the pilot ejected under worse/similar circumstances in the Lethbridge crash, both occupants would have at least survived in this situation. That's three ejections, including the one in October, that have reported anomalies with the ejection system. Something needs to give.
The reason is that ejection system needs 2000ft. It never made it that far. Pilot lucky to survive. You can’t fit any other ejection systems because it won’t fit.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name
There was a proposal to fit the MB... It's like a Basler dc3 conversion - result is a whole new aircraft. Cost was more than an 80s BAE hawk.
As soon as the spin started - envelope was gone.
I hope the discussion starts rolling around to noise abatement rules. That's why they were low and slow, .96 thrust to weight ratio - they could have been climbing near vertical. There's a need to be good neighbours, and not break windows, but here is the result...
The seat in the tutor is designed for zero altitude - 60 knot ejections. If everything works as it should.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Tutors will never break windows as they can't hit supersonic, not anywhere close. A show team will never avoid crowds on the off chance a bird strike might occur. Low and fast take-off is a common practice among military jets, not just the Snowbirds. People living around airports will have to deal with it, they chose to live there.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Are you sure? Every ex snowbird pilot that’s chimed in talked about the 2000 AGL requirement. I’m not an expert tho.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name
You've been near a j85 at full power. You know damn well the vibrations shake windows. Some of those windows won't be installed right. Many years ago I watched a Learjet doing a post overhaul run-up do it. It's not just about supersonic.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Those jets could have been 2-3000' before the end of the runway - not <200kts and under 100'.
Not sure what snowbird pilots you were talking to, but that 2000ft number is incorrect. If it was 2000ft there wouldn’t be a point of ejecting, you’d have time to pop the canopy and jump out with a parachute.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
A J85 won’t break windows at mil power, nor will a F404 for that matter. I’ve had a Chinook fly over the house at 1000ftish and that shook the dishes and glasses in the kitchen, all the various jets flying over didn’t do any of that.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Sad, but thats exactly what happened here. A completely botched maneuver by a professional RCAF military pilot.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
DNA evidence collected from the engine’s internal components confirmed the ingestion of a bird as witnessed from video evidence; however, the damage it caused was insufficient to cause a catastrophic failure. Rather, it resulted in a compressor stall that was never cleared.
The investigation recommends a directive be published which outlines the aircrew’s priority where an emergency during the take-off or landing phase occurs and has the potential to result in an ejection near or over a populated area.
The investigation also recommends further training on engine-related emergencies be practiced in the takeoff/low-level environment. It is also recommended that the practice of storing items between the ejection seat and the airframe wall cease immediately.
Basic C185 student pilot scenario of what not to do - dead mans turn.
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ct114161-tutor-epilogue%2Fkae62tqg&fbclid=IwAR2IoYJN-PoovN8yB0a8NzC06mmp1Dm43muWKH37yJ4zX8FchIt75avThjU
This is why drones win. If a three pound bird made of mostly water and brittle bones can down nearly any aircraft, then imagine what a drone can do. Even some tungsten ribbon filaments draped over an area like jellyfish legs could probably down a modern jet.
They call it the impossible turn for a reason.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Anyone seen the actual text of the final report? I can't seem to find it.
I don't think the final report is published yet.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Here's where it's at for now:
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/...logue/kae62tqg
There was some talk in one of them about clarifying the eject command in the cockpit, which leaves me with some questions...this one talks about outlining the aircrew priority, and ceasing the practice of storing things between the ejection seat and the airframe.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
Between, on top, anywhere there is space.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
CW Lemoine got the AIB report...
He's pretty critical of the fact that the snowbirds are still even operating the type at the end of it...but very good review of the stated facts without opinion other than that.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.
He's not wrong... Of course he's used to the US system. Doesn't realize the snowbirds operate mostly off the runways / airshows that the large jets can't.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The airframe might be the only option to continue in the current style... But - really we do have options, if a modern ejection seat isn't possible - I mean BRS supplies the CAPS system for the Cirrus SF50 jet (yes the cirrus is half the weight, more referring to the speed range). Yes 800' deployment is likely below the safe window - but as has been demonstrated, even a partial deployment - any removal of speed from the equation exponentially increases survivability
That sucks. Sounds like the pilot only had two bad options available when the bird hit.
I like Mover's channel.
Yea mover gives the bold truth - the chain of events for this debacle is long and not just the pilot.
As he mentioned, the zoom climb was done and then abandoned - but had they continued straight, or turned right into the uninhabited areas, they would have injured no one on the ground, and in a wings level scenario, possibly have enough alt to deploy the chutes properly. .
The left turn over population with a engine at low RPM was the worst possible decision to make there - and a turn back has been done before in this situation with the tutor, with similar outcomes. They knew not to do it.
It's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking to assume that. Had it been a less aggressively banked turn I think the chances of making it back to the area of the airport with the altitude available could have been theoretically possible. He was making a split second decision between two very shitty options. Looking at a satellite shot of the airport he could have been trying to make it back to Runway 22, which theoretically had a higher probability of success than making it back to land on 27. That's honestly the only reason I can think that a left turn made more sense than a right...This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
But once again, it was a split second decision with no really good options, and I am nowhere near qualified to say if it was the right one or not...to me it appears that a wings level climb and ejection would have had the jet end up in the river...but there's a lot of unknowns, and not a lot of room for error.
Originally posted by HeavyD
you know you are making the right decision if Toma opposes it.