RCAF Snowbird crash in residential area in BC

[goates 576]

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

I agree Mark, it certainly looks like the ejection seat malfunctioned.  Looked like he was still within ejection limits.

As far as the aircraft pitching up and out, difficult to say without being very familiar with the aircraft, but I'd bet his main priority was to separate from the other aircraft if there was a degraded ability to control the aircraft.  It looked like he was still within ejection parameters when whatever problem happened, well before the pitch and what must have been a departure.

These are old aircraft and first flew in 1960. There was a proposal to replace the ejection seats with more a modern zero-zero model, but this has not been done yet. I'm not sure the ejection from low altitude while headed almost straight into the ground would be within parameters for these seats.

For reference, the Tutors were grounded ten years ago due to issues with their ejection seats. Along with the Tutors, the RCAF's T-133 and F-86 were also grounded with the same issue.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/problem-discovered-on-canadian-air-force-ejection-seats/

And here is one proposal for upgrading the aircraft, though it appears to have been replaced.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-990.page

[Bob Scott 7,716]

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

I agree Mark, it certainly looks like the ejection seat malfunctioned.  Looked like he was still within ejection limits.

I don't think so.  From watching that second video, the jet looked like it was already ~30 deg nose low with a pretty significant downward vector established when the first seat went out, and even further nose-low when the second seat went.  Angle out of the vertical and high negative vertical velocity both work against you in an ejection.  You can see the gyro-stabilized rocket motor in the seat hook briefly towards the vertical just after the seat goes out, but it wasn't enough to even momentarily overcome the already high rate of descent.  Both seats had similar trajectories in a rapid descent, which makes me doubt a malfunction of the ejection system--both would had to have malfunctioned the same way.  The seat-man separator was the subsystem in the seat that was replaced with an improved version ~10 yrs ago--the video isn't of high enough resolution to see if the separation occurred as it should have. 

It looked like one chute was just opening right at the treeline, although they may have gone in behind a ridge in the foreground.  I'd guess that the lucky crewmember didn't even get one swing in his chute.

The Weber CL-41 seat in the CT-114 is the same design as the ejection seat in NASA's Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (LLTV)--there is video of Neil Armstrong successfully ejecting from an LLTV in one of those seats a little over a year before he became the first man to walk on the moon.

 

[goates 576]

For reference, the Kamloops airport is in the bottom of a valley with pretty high hills and cliffs around it. There weren't many options off the end of runway 09 for the pilot. Pretty much river, residential and commercial areas. The Thompson river itself is a good sized river, and while I'm not too familiar with it where it flows through Kamloops, it wouldn't be a place I would want to land.

https://goo.gl/maps/kBmtw4j3Tt1C2S127

[SAS443 1,716]

You always trade excess kinetic energy to potential energy when dealing with enginge malfunctions (if that is what happened) and you have runway behind you. Then maintain best glide and search for suitable field -it may be just on your six o clock... (this is part of emergency flows even us private pilots must know by heart, and our stick and rudder skills are inferior to these professionals).

RIP and thanks for your service.

Edited May 18, 2020 by SAS443

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

 I am in the fence with this one as a dual citizen of Canada and New Zealand. New Zealand also has a demonstration team that wanted to do this exact same thing for New Zealand but the Government here said NO. New Zealand didn't want any high risk activity at all from anyone including the Air Force all the way down to surfers, New Zealand was in full lockdown for EVERYONE together regardless of who you are.

All I can say is both my kids went back to school this morning and Canada won't be in that situation for at least September, or even longer. Canada's lockdown has been so soft and long by comparison and this was an activity that represents that Canadian Approach.

I LOVE THE SNOWBIRDS but they shouldn't have been flying in the first place to lead by example to STAY HOME like everyone else, and no high risk activity, a family that was supposed to be in lockdown now has one of those jets crashed into their house. sucks for them.

RIP Capt. Jenn Casey, you died doing what you loved and your intentions were good, thank-you for that 
 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Matthew Kane

[stans 702]

Very sad news.

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

8 hours ago, w6kd said:

I don't think so.  From watching that second video, the jet looked like it was already ~30 deg nose low with a pretty significant downward vector established when the first seat went out, and even further nose-low when the second seat went.  Angle out of the vertical and high negative vertical velocity both work against you in an ejection.  You can see the gyro-stabilized rocket motor in the seat hook briefly towards the vertical just after the seat goes out, but it wasn't enough to even momentarily overcome the already high rate of descent.  Both seats had similar trajectories in a rapid descent, which makes me doubt a malfunction of the ejection system--both would had to have malfunctioned the same way.  The seat-man separator was the subsystem in the seat that was replaced with an improved version ~10 yrs ago--the video isn't of high enough resolution to see if the separation occurred as it should have. 

It looked like one chute was just opening right at the treeline, although they may have gone in behind a ridge in the foreground.  I'd guess that the lucky crewmember didn't even get one swing in his chute.

The Weber CL-41 seat in the CT-114 is the same design as the ejection seat in NASA's Lunar Lander Training Vehicle (LLTV)--there is video of Neil Armstrong successfully ejecting from an LLTV in one of those seats a little over a year before he became the first man to walk on the moon.

 

I guess it depends on the type of seat in use and it was enlightening to read about the problems these aircraft had with their seats.  My ejection seat training was back in the 1980's and it was for a Martin Baker.  I now know it wasn't a MB seat, so I have no idea what the ejection envelope is for that seat.  If it was a MB, from what I saw he was still within the envelope though I'm far from an expert.

 

 

 

[HighBypass 2,339]

Also, in the video, it appears that the stricken plane had gone through one rotation - either it had begun to spin and was corrected, or perhaps it was a deliberate roll to level the plane on a course to get back to the airfield, but by then, even though the wings appeared level, it was pointing at the ground.

All pure conjecture of course. Very few of us on here, certainly not me, have had the training and the skills to be in a Snowbird Tutor. We discuss the incident because that is what we do whenever we as a group see or hear about these things.

[Bob Scott 7,716]

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

I guess it depends on the type of seat in use and it was enlightening to read about the problems these aircraft had with their seats.  My ejection seat training was back in the 1980's and it was for a Martin Baker.  I now know it wasn't a MB seat, so I have no idea what the ejection envelope is for that seat.  If it was a MB, from what I saw he was still within the envelope though I'm far from an expert.

I think the seat is comparable to the Northrup rocket seat we had in the T-38A made in the same era.  The T-38 seat was "0-50"--meaning you could survive an ejection from zero feet altitude with 50 knots of forward speed (they were replaced 7-8 years ago with zero-zero Martin Baker seats).  But that envelope assumes a level attitude and flight path vector.  When the acft is out of the vertical at the time of ejection, some of the seat's initial impulse is expended with a vector out of the vertical, as the seat's gyro stabilization can't kick in until there's been enough time to clear the jet.  And even from an ideal attitude, just a few thousand fpm of descent was enough to negate the seat's upward vector.  The newer seats, like the ACES II, are a lot more powerful.

I worked with a guy at the Pentagon that ejected from an F-16 while doing an airshow in Idaho...he punched out at something like 150 ft AGL just as the jet was rounding out the bottom of a Cuban Eight.  If he'd waited a half second longer, he'd have gone in with the airplane.  And had he hit the silk a second or more earlier, his descent rate would have put the seat into the dirt.  A USAF combat camera photographer got a spectacular series of pictures of him going out:  http://www.ejectionsite.com/thunderbird6.htm

[HighBypass 2,339]

Juan Brown video. The pinned comment from a Snowbird pilot:

 

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2020 at 9:58 AM, HighBypass said:

Juan Brown video. The pinned comment from a Snowbird pilot:

That was a good video and he came to a good conclusion regarding the pop and likely engine failure.

Edited May 19, 2020 by n4gix
Trimmed excessive quoting!

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

8 hours ago, w6kd said:

I worked with a guy at the Pentagon that ejected from an F-16 while doing an airshow in Idaho...he punched out at something like 150 ft AGL just as the jet was rounding out the bottom of a Cuban Eight.  If he'd waited a half second longer, he'd have gone in with the airplane.  And had he hit the silk a second or more earlier, his descent rate would have put the seat into the dirt.  A USAF combat camera photographer got a spectacular series of pictures of him going out:  http://www.ejectionsite.com/thunderbird6.htm

I’ve seen that video before, assuming it’s the same one posted all over YouTube where the cause was improperly set altimeter leading to a 1000’ or so variation which caused the maneuver to be executed too low. Can’t believe you worked with him. I always wondered what happened to that guy after that incident. Did he finish the rest of his flying duties with the T-Birds after that?

[goates 576]

There looks to be some initial steps towards upgrading the Tutors, including zero/zero ejection seats, at least at one point.

Older proposal: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-990.page

Latest version: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1438

Edited May 19, 2020 by goates

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

28 minutes ago, goates said:

There looks to be some initial steps towards upgrading the Tutors, including zero/zero ejection seats, at least at one point.

I wonder why their demo team doesn’t just fly the CF-18’s they have? 

[goates 576]

23 minutes ago, cmpbellsjc said:

I wonder why their demo team doesn’t just fly the CF-18’s they have? 

A major reason is cost and resources. We don't have enough Hornets and Hornet pilots to spare. Snowbird pilots come from all squadrons in the RCAF, including transports and other aircraft. Training them up on Hornets just for this use would be expensive. This is on top of Hornets being more expensive to operate compared to the Tutors. Also, the Tutors have a bit of a sentimental value as they were designed and built here. People here like the types of displays the Snowbirds put on too, I'm not sure they could quite do the same ones with Hornets.