Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snowbird jet crash in Kamloops, B.C., Canada

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Perhaps he didn't want to keep flying 'straight' if that was over houses, so was trying a 'stall turn' (hammerhead???) in order to make it back to the field??

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      Exactly what was a risky maneuver?
      I was assuming that the climb was part of the show and that the engine issue occurred during that climb, but now I understand that this was an escape manuever following an engine issue during takeoff, perhaps a compressor stall. The initial bank seems like an intentional turnback, which, at such low airspeed, would be risky. Then it appears to me that a left wing stall occurs, the pilots regains enough control to roll it back to the blue, at which point there is nothing left to do but eject. So, yes, the error might be the initial turn back in that climb attitude so close to stall.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Why did he also turned left increasingly tight? I don't know.
        It's plausible that he was distracted with the problem and the plane lost speed "much faster than he ever imagined" since folks almost never deal with truly zero thrust.

        It's plausible that there was a control problem ALONG WITH the suggested engine problem.

        A deliberate stall as a method to address the problem/quickly return to the airport...very unplausible...to me, at least.

        Edit: I do not think we have ruled out a meteor strike either.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Evan View Post

          I was assuming that the climb was part of the show and that the engine issue occurred during that climb, but now I understand that this was an escape manuever following an engine issue during takeoff, perhaps a compressor stall. The initial bank seems like an intentional turnback, which, at such low airspeed, would be risky. Then it appears to me that a left wing stall occurs, the pilots regains enough control to roll it back to the blue, at which point there is nothing left to do but eject. So, yes, the error might be the initial turn back in that climb attitude so close to stall.
          OK, let's straighten out several things first:

          Kamloops is not a very populated city. It is tiny at 100K population. Second, this was not a show. The two planes were transiting to their next destination in the northern US presumably for a show. The deceased was a public affairs officer who was transiting with the group. The pilot survived with serious, but non life-threatening injuries.

          There will be no complaints about shows over the city because of this. The neighbourhood was directly on the left side at the end of the runway and it wasn't a show.

          At first, my assumption was the pilot aimed the aircraft into a particular crash spot, but looking at the location of the airport, the river on the right side would have been a much better place to ditch if that was the intent.

          I now tend to agree with Gabriel, that the pilot was attempting to maneuver -- possibly a left turn to return to the airport right behind them -- and stalled. The aircraft is a side-by-side two seater, and you can see the ejections were not simultaneous. I don't know how ejection works in those side by side planes if it is staggered automatically or if they each have to trigger their own ejection. Either way, I suspect the pilot ejected first and thus survived landing in the yard. I believe one person ended on a roof and the other in a yard. Given the short distance involved the roof could also have shortened the time for the chute to open.










          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            It was not an "engine failure" accident, it was a stall-spin accident (yes, the engine had an issue and perhaps fully fail, but that doesn't cause the airplane to stall and spin).

            In that regards, it is similar to the Pilatus accident of the other thread.

            It doesn't stop to surprise me haw pilots of all experience levels still fall in this trap. These were pilots of the aerobatic demonstration team of a major western air force, not rookies.
            Yes, elite pilots from the air force. In an easy to fly aircraft designed for training. I have no explanation other than poor split second decision when there was no room for error.

            Comment


            • #21
              https://www.military.com/daily-news/...be-begins.html

              The Snowbird jet crashed into a residential neighborhood in Kamloops. Nobody on the ground was injured.

              “Certainly it’s an engine loss,” said retired chief of the defense staff Tom Lawson, who spent most of his military career flying fighter jets.

              “You trade off your speed — whatever little bit you were able to build up — for altitude. It’s not so you can think of what to do next. It’s so you can eject at a safe altitude. It’s called zoom and boom.”

              Retired air force commander Andre Deschamps echoed that assessment, saying videos of the incident suggest the Tutor experienced an engine compressor stall. Such stalls are the result of airflow into an plane’s engine being disrupted, causing dramatic power loss.

              Comment


              • #22


                This is approximately where it crashed based on street name from video. Click image for larger version

Name:	SnowbirdCrashLocation.PNG
Views:	94
Size:	95.8 KB
ID:	1089961

                Comment


                • #23
                  If I remember this aircraft was first manufacture by Cessna may years ago as a trainer, I could be wrong. But I remember there were many older jets like that where you had a minimum altitude for a successful ejection. I could be wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
                    If I remember this aircraft was first manufacture by Cessna may years ago as a trainer, I could be wrong. But I remember there were many older jets like that where you had a minimum altitude for a successful ejection. I could be wrong.
                    These ones are supposedly 0/60, which means 0 altitude and at least 60kts airspeed. Doesn't help if they are pointed sideways though.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
                      If I remember this aircraft was first manufacture by Cessna may years ago as a trainer.
                      I think you are confusing this Canadair CT-114 Tutor plane with the Cessna T-37 Tweet. They look similar and have a similar role as military jet trainers, but are 2 independent designs and quite different starting with the fact (relevant for this accident) that the T-37 is a tween-engine and the Tutor is a single-engine.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CT-114_Tutor
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T-37_Tweet

                      (Not that this has anything to do with the ejection seats observation, though)

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGS3dmuPlPo

                        Why would he roll upright by rolling 270 degrees to the left and not 90 degrees to the right? Why did he bank so much to the left during the climb to begin with?

                        Couple of hypothesis:
                        - Control problems, the plane would tend to roll left and right aileron was barely enough to stop or reduce the left roll, so when he found himself 90 degrees to the left his only option to level the wings was to complete the full left roll.
                        - He was trying an impossible turn, stalled left wing first and the first part of the "aileron roll" was in fact induced by the stall, finding the plane already inverted and rolling to the left he decided to complete the roll.

                        One thing that make me think that he was pulling back quite hard is how the plane pitches violently nose down starting at the moment of ejection (when he obviously had to let go on the stick). But it also occurred to me that perhaps it is an effect of the blast of the ejection rockets pushing down.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGS3dmuPlPo

                          Why would he roll upright by rolling 270 degrees to the left and not 90 degrees to the right?
                          Maybe because there was an airplane to his right?

                          Pretend I gave you a ban-worthy, expletive-laden flame for sitting on your rear at 0 ft AGL and zero knots and second guessing a pilot who was facing a situation that WE know very little about.

                          Edit- Perhaps you are referring to him being BANKED steeply and rolling back to level...but I will still razz you for a bit too much arm-chair analysis.

                          The one thing I will give you (stated earlier) is: Speed decay much more rapid than he was used to + distraction due to the problem = inadvertent spin...

                          Perhaps he was quite a way into the spin + reaction time left him in a situation to recover where he did after a "full rotation"...
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Edit- Perhaps you are referring to him being BANKED steeply and rolling back to level.
                            Yes, perhaps.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                              Maybe because there was an airplane to his right?

                              Pretend I gave you a ban-worthy, expletive-laden flame for sitting on your rear at 0 ft AGL and zero knots and second guessing a pilot who was facing a situation that WE know very little about.

                              Edit- Perhaps you are referring to him being BANKED steeply and rolling back to level...but I will still razz you for a bit too much arm-chair analysis.

                              The one thing I will give you (stated earlier) is: Speed decay much more rapid than he was used to + distraction due to the problem = inadvertent spin...

                              Perhaps he was quite a way into the spin + reaction time left him in a situation to recover where he did after a "full rotation"...
                              Did you watch the video? There was no plane to the right. He climbed well above his partner and that airspace is deserted right now. I am inclined to think he stalled it trying to make an impossible turn back to the airfield or somewhere off to the left where he thought he could land.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	SnowbirdAerialView.PNG
Views:	41
Size:	261.0 KB
ID:	1090260

                                Doesn't look like anywhere flat to land straight ahead. River in the middle, houses on the left, and pulp and paper factory on the right.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X