Bird strike blamed : Canadian Snowbirds fatal crash.

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.
 

Attachments

  • 05D0A124-62F0-4EC9-B96A-D3D935CF574D.jpeg
    05D0A124-62F0-4EC9-B96A-D3D935CF574D.jpeg
    59.1 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
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.

Isn't managing on one known good engine different than one iffy engine? In any case the report summary issued (have no idea where to get the full report) does suggest that the pilot made a mistake.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fatal-snowbir...strike-engine-stall-in-kamloops-b-c-1.5366543"The damage it caused was insufficient to cause a catastrophic failure. Rather, it resulted in a compressor stall that was never cleared."​
According to the report, the pilot started to climb, then turned left, back toward the airport.​
"The manoeuvre resulted in an aerodynamic stall halfway through the turn before the pilot gave the order to abandon the aircraft."​
Both the pilot, Capt. Richard MacDougall, and public affairs officer Capt. Jennifer Casey, ejected themselves from the plane.​
 
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.
Yes. I decided to let you say it.

It’s like AF 447....lots of talk ( experts ) about how automation complacency contributed to the crash ( they confuse automation complacency with autopilot dependency as far as I am concerned ) but that cannot explain why someone would hold the joystick full back all the way down with the stall warning going off intermittently. That’s an another issue that has zero to do with “automation complacency“ IMO. Not trying to be critical, just being honest.
 
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
 
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

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

The person who died wasn't the pilot. However, it was noted that they weren't in a position 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 objects wedged around the seat, as that might have caused the weird functioning.
 
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 was LT Kara Hultgreen, the RIO, LT Matt Klemish. He had been a student of mine earlier. The CAG LSO is a good friend of mine. His named wasn’t published, so it will remain anonymous but he waved that jet off a full 20 seconds prior to the crash. He could see it coming.

The pilot failed to fly the airplane, allowing the speed to decay, and AOA to increase, until it became uncontrollable. “Klem” ejected them when the airplane rolled left. The RIO seat leaves the airplane 0.3 seconds before the pilot. Given the low altitude, low speed, and rapid roll rate, that 0.3 seconds made the difference between living and dying.

I’ve written about it before on BITOG, I think.
 
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.
Right, right. The PAO passenger died in the Snowbirds crash.

Pilot error.

The pilot died in the VF-213 crash.

Pilot error.
 
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.
 
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.

I'm pretty sure this aircraft has been retired except for the Snowbirds and some experimental purposes. Why are they still using it? Wasn't it basically retired before this pilot had even entered flight school? This article says that he got his start flying with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets program, but didn't graduate college and enter military flight training until 2009. I'm kind of confused as to what they're saying about him, as it says he was a C-130 pilot although there's something about CF-18 refueling.

 
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...
 
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.

Around Kamloops Airport? I'm pretty sure he was already over a residential part of Kamloops where there's no empty spots to land. To the west they seem to have farmland. Either that or hills.

 
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...

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.

ct-156-harvardii-fact-sheet-image.png


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.

main-qimg-2830685555d25a263f3e53e5709ba90f


This seems like a lot more people than they really need for a catapult launch.

main-qimg-755f5bdcbf8db204fa7e79a1bc687584
 
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.
 
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.

ct-156-harvardii-fact-sheet-image.png


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.

main-qimg-2830685555d25a263f3e53e5709ba90f


This seems like a lot more people than they really need for a catapult launch.

main-qimg-755f5bdcbf8db204fa7e79a1bc687584
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.

I do not even know how many CF18s they have today.

I am not knocking them, just pointing out.

As a young boy, I still remember a Snowbird crashing at an air show with my dad at Trenton air base. Very disturbing to see it. Pilot killed.

One of the Thunderbirds ( and RAF Nimrod ) crashed at at the Toronto air show at different time.....into the lake. Pilots killed.
 
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.

First of all - sorry everyone about the thread hijack......

I've never seen the Blue Angels on the ground. Saw them at the 1997 California International Airshow at Salinas Airport where they said the runways (at the time) were short of their 6000 ft requirements for a public airshow, so they flew out of Monterey Airport. They did have the announcer on site though. At San Francisco Fleet Week I think they would traditionally fly out of NAS Alameda until BRAC got it. I guess they fly out of SFO now, which seems crazy that they would use such a [correction] busy airport.

I've been to other airshows where I got to see the ground maneuvers. Including the USAF Thunderbirds having their G-suits placed on. And each crew member standing in what looked like an uncomfortable position with their hands crossed behind their backs.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I shouldn’t comment on this crash because I am out of my element in terms Ejection Seats ( I do not know it’s envelope ) and higher wing loading single engine training jets but I just know that I would not try and turn back if I had an engine failure after take off in The climb out In any S.E plane BUT maybe the emergency landing area ahead was too built up. I never flew fighters or even high performance S.E planes but I used to teach ( no, not at top gun, at a flying club ) students for fun YEARS ago and the cardinal rule was NEVER try and turn back for the runway if you lose an engine after take off ( you will most likely stall and lose control ).

The non standard ejection terminology was surprising to learn about.

I like to read about incidents and accidents in order to learn and being honest is the only way I feel we can learn from others accidents/incidents.

I enjoy the discussion nonetheless
 
Back
Top