- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 865
The reporter clearly doesn’t know anything about flying airplanes. The RCAF is whitewashing gross pilot error with the “bird strike” explanation.
The bird strike caused the engine failure.
Poor pilot management of the engine failure caused the crash. When you lose an engine, you have to stay below stall AOA (or above stall airspeed). Turning too steeply, too sharply, back towards the field is a rookie mistake. That’s what this crew did. Sorry, fancy flight suits and cool paint jobs on your jets don’t allow you an excuse to screw up the fundamentals of flying. Abruptly turning back towards the field was a poor decision.
Any single engine Cessna pilot knows that, or should know that. Stall/spin is fatal. Forced landing straight ahead is a far better bet. Maintaining control, then deciding to eject, would have saved this crew.
Ejecting outside the envelope, a subsequent poor decision, caused their deaths. They ejected after they stalled the plane. The PAO ejected second, and there was confusion in the call to eject.
This is what an engine failure looks like when properly managed. They didn’t panic, stall, or lose control. They stayed calm. Managed thrust, yaw, airspeed, and AOA while maneuvering for a safe landing. Granted, they had a second engine.
Then again, they, and their passengers, didn’t have ejection seats.
Yes. I decided to let you say it.The reporter clearly doesn’t know anything about flying airplanes. The RCAF is whitewashing gross pilot error with the “bird strike” explanation.
The bird strike caused the engine failure.
Poor pilot management of the engine failure caused the crash. When you lose an engine, you have to stay below stall AOA (or above stall airspeed). Turning too steeply, too sharply, back towards the field is a rookie mistake. That’s what this crew did. Sorry, fancy flight suits and cool paint jobs on your jets don’t allow you an excuse to screw up the fundamentals of flying. Abruptly turning back towards the field was a poor decision.
Any single engine Cessna pilot knows that, or should know that. Stall/spin is fatal. Forced landing straight ahead is a far better bet. Maintaining control, then deciding to eject, would have saved this crew.
Ejecting outside the envelope, a subsequent poor decision, caused their deaths.
This is what an engine failure looks like when properly managed. They didn’t panic, stall, or lose control. They stayed calm. Managed thrust, yaw, airspeed, and AOA while maneuvering for a safe landing. Granted, they had a second engine.
Then again, they, and their passengers, didn’t have ejection seats.
It wasn't clear until the end of the CBC report, but that plane is single engine. There are two air intakes to the one engine in the center. The choices upon engine failure seem to be:
Eject
Try to restart the engine
Forced landing
Basically. This report didn’t say it, but previous ones did; he pulled up to gain altitude as the engine wound down.The engine didn't stall until he tried to climb. I think Astro is saying that the problem with the engine could have been managed with less severe inputs.
the pilot in command lived. one fatality. Reminds me of the female naval aviator in San Diego years (decades?) ago.
F-14 compressor stall on take off. She was pilot in command. Her weapons officer ejected early enough. She was late. Struck the ocean I believe.
It was during landing. VF-213 doing carrier quals on the USS LINCOLN.the pilot in command lived. one fatality. Reminds me of the female naval aviator in San Diego years (decades?) ago.
F-14 compressor stall on take off. She was pilot in command. Her weapons officer ejected early enough. She was late. Struck the ocean I believe.
Right, right. The PAO passenger died in the Snowbirds crash.The person who died wasn't the pilot. However, it was noted that they were way too low for a safe ejection and the death was likely a matter of the parachute not fully deploying. There was also video of her ejection showing that she seemed to go backwards for some reason. They're saying that they shouldn't have objected wedged around the seat, as that might have caused the weird functioning.
Basically. This report didn’t say it, but previous ones did; he pulled up to gain altitude as the engine wound down.
Then he stalled it trying to turn back.
Flying straight ahead, at the appropriate airspeed, and trying the relight on the single engine, would’ve kept him and his passenger in the envelope.
No relight - eject while you still can. While the airplane is in control. While you’re still in the envelope.
The article hinted that the Snowbirds needed additional training in managing engine failures. Yeah, they sure do. Sorry to be so harsh, but this is a fundamental blunder. The kind of thing that CFIs see in beginner Cessna pilots.
Engine failure in a single engine airplane is something I learned about, even practiced a bit, on my very first flight as a student naval aviator.
Should have pointed the plane on a manageable down-alt trajectory and find the nearest open field to put it down into (or maybe they could have made it to the field). Article reads like the pilot made a brash, instant move to turn. You're supposed to assess and calm yourself.
I believe their C-130s perform refuel missions. So, yeah, he was giving gas to F/A-18s. We don’t let tanker guys fly in the Blue Angels...wondering if the Snowbirds need to re-evaluate their pilot selection process...
Canada does not spend a lot of money on their Air Force ( or military ) and it’s a shame. They would never spend the amount of money it would take to fly CF18‘s vs the Tutors.The article also says that his stint after the C-130 was as a flight instructor on the CT-156 Harvard II, which I guess is just the Canadian version of the Beechcraft T-6 Texan II. Somehow that was how he came to be asked to try out for the Snowbirds.
Not sure why they're still using the Tutor other than they're not really needed for anything else. I looked up that they only have 17 BAE Hawks, and I doubt they would be willing to put up any CF-18s for a demonstration team. I know the Blue Angels were still using the F/A-18A through D models until moving to the Super Hornet, so they had plenty of aircraft to choose from. Just wondering if you know - I see that the Blue Angels are numbered 1-8 and it seems that the pilot always gets the plane with their number and name on it. I thought that high performance military aircraft are temperamental beasts and maintenance needs can mean working on a plane for days to get it ready for flight. How do they manage that with back to back performances and even daily practices if a plane has to be taken out of service? I've seen them in San Francisco for over 40 years, and they've always had maybe three practice days so how much maintenance is that going to require? I heard something about maybe substituting one of the two seaters if needed, but I've never seen it.
I have heard of the Blue Angels commander doing a carrier landing just keep up proficiency.
This seems like a lot more people than they really need for a catapult launch.
The F/A-18 is actually a pretty reliable jet, at least, it was when I flew it. Blue Angels maintenance is superb. Even so, Fat Albert brings spare parts and technicians to each show. Not uncommon to see work being done at the field on the night before a show.
Blues 1-6 are the show jets and each one is flown by the same pilot each time.
Blues 7 and 8 are the spares. Two seaters. They also handle all the press rides with that second seat.
I’ve seen the Blues start up. Sit running. Not taxi. And then one pilot hustle over to the spare and fire that one up so that the show can commence with all six. It’s not common, but they have spare jets for a reason.