# 24 Jan 2014:  Controlled Ejection @ 15 Wing Moose Jaw



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2014)

From the RCAF FB Page:

January 24, 2014

 CONTROLLED EJECTION AT 15 WING MOOSE JAW 

 15 WING, MOOSE JAW, SASK. – Two Canadian Armed Forces personnel made a controlled ejection from a CT-156 Harvard aircraft near 15 Wing Moose Jaw today at approximately 1:50 p.m. The controlled ejection was initiated when the pilot determined it would not be safe to attempt a controlled landing. 

 Rescue crews and vehicles were on the scene shortly after the incident. Both personnel walked away after touching down and are being evaluated by medical staff at this time. Under the provisions of the Privacy Act, the names are not being released at this time. 

 The aircraft impacted in a field approximately 10 nautical miles (18.5 Km) south of the airfield. Emergency responders have cordoned the area and we ask members of the public to remain clear of the area until it is secured. 

 The Directorate of Flight Safety has dispatched an accident investigation team. We are unable to speculate on the cause of the accident until all the information is gathered and analyzed. Flight training at 15 Wing has been paused pending further review. 

 -30-

 Note to editors/news directors: For more information contact Captain Thomas Edelson, Public Affairs Officer, at  (306) 694-2247 .

CT-156 Harvard II


----------



## Occam (24 Jan 2014)

Aren't they all supposed to be "controlled ejections"?


----------



## kev994 (24 Jan 2014)

Occam said:
			
		

> Aren't they all supposed to be "controlled ejections"?



No. A controlled ejection means they went through the checklist, ensuring everything in the aircraft is stowed, trim the aircraft full nose down so it crashes roughly where you left it, etc, etc. It takes a few minutes. If you need to you can just pull the handle and you are gone, which would be the opposite of a controlled ejection.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Jan 2014)

Small update from the RCAF FB page:

Correction to the News Release regarding controlled ejection at 15 Wing Moose Jaw:

The CT-156 Harvard aircraft crashed at approximately 3 nautical miles (5.5 km) from the airfield (vice 10 nautical miles).


----------



## Towards_the_gap (24 Jan 2014)

So when do they get their ties?


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jan 2014)

Think of all the pips and crowns we could buy with the money this is going to cost at the body and fender shop.


----------



## armyvern (24 Jan 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Think of all the pips and crowns we could buy with the money this is going to cost at the body and fender shop.



 ;D  +300.

Glad they're OK.


----------



## Occam (24 Jan 2014)

kev994 said:
			
		

> No. A controlled ejection means they went through the checklist, ensuring everything in the aircraft is stowed, trim the aircraft full nose down so it crashes roughly where you left it, etc, etc. It takes a few minutes. If you need to you can just pull the handle and you are gone, which would be the opposite of a controlled ejection.



Ah, thanks...that makes much more sense.  In retrospect, I think the image I had rolling around in my head would be more accurately described as an "uncommanded ejection".  It's been a long week.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 May 2016)

Report is out.  I am glad they highlighted that the do more with less at all cost attitude contributed...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatchewan/push-for-more-military-pilots-factor-in-2014-moose-jaw-crash-1.3581168


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (13 May 2016)

Very good report. I too I'm glad they highlighted the fact we do more with less. Sadly most aircrew trades are heading down the same path. We AES Op just cut 50% of our flying on our TP.


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 May 2016)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Very good report. I too I'm glad they highlighted the fact we do more with less. Sadly most aircrew trades are heading down the same path. We AES Op just cut 50% of our flying on our TP.



In all fairness there really is no need for AES Ops to fly until they get to their OTU.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (13 May 2016)

Actually I used to say that also; until I started teaching ab initio courses. It really opened my eyes on many things, mostly the complete difference between simulation and flying. Big difference! For example, I've seen top students not so great during flights, and that's not counting air sickness etc.


----------



## Downhiller229 (14 May 2016)

Apparently an early version of the report had linked "systemic substance abuse" to part of the flight safety problem in Moose Jaw. Glad that didn't make it to the final version.


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 May 2016)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Actually I used to say that also; until I started teaching ab initio courses. It really opened my eyes on many things, mostly the complete difference between simulation and flying. Big difference! For example, I've seen top students not so great during flights, and that's not counting air sickness etc.



I can see that point.  Flying in Winnipeg is still nothing compared what they will experience on OTU.  The new MH and Block III can and will overwhelm most students.

I think if flying was eliminated from the AES Op curriculum we wouldn't notice much of a difference in the kids that show up at 406/404.   Although if more emphasis was placed on PCT (which sounds like the way of the future) sims we could actually see an increase in performance.  



			
				Downhiller229 said:
			
		

> Apparently an early version of the report had linked "systemic substance abuse" to part of the flight safety problem in Moose Jaw. Glad that didn't make it to the final version.



That would have defiantly made for an interesting news piece.  Hopefully that is just Rumint.


----------

