# Snowbird Jet Crashes Into House in Kamloops- May 17 2020



## RocketRichard (17 May 2020)

Reports of Snowbird crash in Kamloops. MTF. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2020)

I hope everyone is okay.  Mods - maybe 'tweak' the thread title some?

Article Link

Snowbird jet crashes into house in Kamloops

There is smoke rising from the crash site as emergency vehicles descend on the area. There are reports the plane hit a house and that the pilot managed to eject before the jet crashed.

Two jets took off from Kamloops Airport at about 11:30 a.m., bound for Comox, when one rose, then circled and crashed in an area near Glenview Avenue. There are reports the plane hit a house on that street and that the pilot managed to eject before the jet crashed.

There is smoke rising from the crash site as emergency vehicles descend on the area. The house is on fire. 

The pilot landed on the roof of a house on nearby Schreiner Street.

Gurjit Sidhu witnessed the crash and told KTW a pilot was seen on the roof of a house, reportedly with back and/or neck injuries.  

"I just saw, in the sky, something falling. I saw a pilot ejected, then I heard a big noise, like a bomb,” Sidhu said.

Another witness, a Kamloops man who did not wish to have his name published, said he was at the airport for an hour before the crash to watch the Snowbirds squadron take off as they were to continue their cross-Canada tour by heading to Vancouver lsland.

He said two jets took off together and all looked normal as they rose above the airport.

“All of a sudden, one of the planes suddenly went up, straight up, quite high, then it started dropping and doing a barrel roll,” he said. “It did a few spirals and I saw the ejector seat pop out. Then I saw a big fireball, an explosion.”

He said those watching the planes take off initially did not realize anything was wrong as the one Snowbird began climbing vertically, then descended with barrel rolls.

“We thought it was going to do some kind of cool trick,” he said. “It was incredible. I can’t believe I saw it.

Kamloops resident Rob McCaskill was at the Brock Shopping Centre when he spotted two of the jets taking off from the Kamloops Airport. He said he saw the two jets part in different directions not long after leaving the ground. He looked  away and then shortly afterwards, heard a 'pop' sound.

There is a short video at this The Free Press article;  it does look like 2 objects separating from the canopy area during a brief 'wings level' period.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2020)

Links to video's of the take-off and crash are coming out really quickly.  Language in second one is not for your kids learning new words.

Video 1

Video 2


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2020)

https://twitter.com/CFSnowbirds/status/1262120495266304000?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Hoping for news that all involved are safe and uninjured.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2020)

Really low on the ejection, what's the minimum altitude for ejection seats to have the chute fully open?


----------



## brihard (17 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Really low on the ejection, what's the minimum altitude for ejection seats to have the chute fully open?



Someone I know who worked on the tech side told me 60’ at 60 knots, but that would presumably be level flight. It looks like both seats fired downwards.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 May 2020)

They have him off the roof, he is alive.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> They have him off the roof, he is alive.



CTV is reporting the pilot is in hospital but no word on condition. Hopefully no one was in the home at the time.


----------



## brihard (17 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> CTV is reporting the pilot is in hospital but no word on condition. Hopefully no one was in the home at the time.



Eyewitnesses have it hitting a detached garage. House damaged, couple inside exited safely.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Eyewitnesses have it hitting a detached garage. House damaged, couple inside exited safely.



Saw pictures that I will not repost out of respect to the pilot, but the pilot landed on the roof of a house, multiple paramedics attending. Pictures looked fairly calm and methodical, but I will not speculate on the pilots condition, though I hope for the best.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> It looks like both seats fired downwards.



I think the aircraft was in very steep dive/pitch, but it looks to me like the canopy was facing "up" (the tail in the attached pic).


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2020)

Aircraft seats two, and there are two separations in the video.  We have nothing to be able to state that that individual was the pilot at this time.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 May 2020)

Gentle reminder regarding avoidance of speculation. 

Discussion of factual (publicly available), non-sensitive information is fair, but be mindful of respecting official reports from DND/RCAF.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 May 2020)

2020 just keeps on getting better and better.


----------



## AbdullahD (17 May 2020)

I hope the pilot and all those involved are healthy and no worse for wear.

I'll second the thought that 2020 just does not stop swinging, even though we are down 

Abdullah


----------



## TSM A (17 May 2020)

Not confirmed, but nurse on site reports female occupant has died. male occupant landed on roof nearby.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2020)

Would both seats fire if there was only 1 pilot, or is the 2nd seat deactivated if there is no occupant?


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

Anyone have accurate numbers of how many Tutors we have left? I have read 22 with more in storage but I don't know how accurate that is.


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2020)

EDIT: This (below) is incorrect.  Look for SupersonicMx's comment further down for correct information.

I think in two seat a/c either occupant triggering the eject sequence is supposed to automatically fire both seats out.


----------



## kev994 (17 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think in two seat a/c either occupant triggering the eject sequence is supposed to automatically fire both seats out.


I’m not familiar with the tutor but the Harvard 2 has a toggle switch for firing 1 or both. It’s been a while, but I’m pretty sure we kept it in Solo on the ground and switched to Dual just before taking the runway.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2020)

No.  In the Tutor, each occupant is responsible to eject him(her)self.  In more modern aircraft, you can set the seat in many settings (if front seat goes, both seat go, if any seat goes, both seat go or individually).


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

Plenty of video now starting to circulate from the Kamloops Airport. You can see the ejection, plane rolled, corrected out, ejection occurs, two seats launch clear. However no chute deployment before it disappears from view of the cameras. A lot of hills in that area.


----------



## Occam (17 May 2020)

I can't tell from the video, nor do I know enough about the aircraft.

Was it two ejections, or the canopy blowing clear and one ejection?  How evident would the canopy charges be?


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

Occam said:
			
		

> I can't tell from the video, nor do I know enough about the aircraft.
> 
> Was it two ejections, or the canopy blowing clear and one ejection?  How evident would the canopy charges be?



The video i saw was from the perspective of the right side of the airfield. From that perspective I saw one long object going to the right of the video frame and two other objects going left.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Plenty of video now starting to circulate from the Kamloops Airport. You can see the ejection, plane rolled, corrected out, ejection occurs, two seats launch clear. However no chute deployment before it disappears from view of the cameras. A lot of hills in that area.



Looks like they ejected horizontally.  That can’t be good at that altitude.


----------



## AbdullahD (17 May 2020)

Brother is an aircraft mechanic, working in Kamloops right now.

Pilot and a Mechanic were on board, one fatality, one injured  
This is as per him, so for me it is verified legitimate information.. I will understand if others feel otherwise.

Dark days for sure.


----------



## RubberTree (17 May 2020)

TSM A said:
			
		

> Not confirmed, but nurse on site reports female occupant has died. male occupant landed on roof nearby.



If true, I sincerely hope that there was time to notify the NOK before Global choose to print this.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 May 2020)

All lets refrain from hearsay until information comes through official channels.

MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Brother is an aircraft mechanic, working in Kamloops right now.
> 
> Pilot and a Mechanic were on board, one fatality, one injured
> This is as per him, so for me it is verified legitimate information.. I will understand if others feel otherwise.
> ...



Not doubting you Adullah but lets wait for official confirmation through proper channels.


----------



## brihard (17 May 2020)

Global News is now reporting one dead. This is consistent with earlier eyewitness reports on the ground a retired nurse who reported trying unsuccessfully to help one occupant deceased in the wreckage of the aircraft.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 May 2020)

RCAF have announced a fatality.

"It is with heavy hearts that we announce that one member of the CF Snowbirds team has died and one has sustained serious injuries. We can confirm that we have contacted all primary family members of those involved. More information will be communicated in the near future."


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 May 2020)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Brother is an aircraft mechanic, working in Kamloops right now.
> 
> Pilot and a Mechanic were on board, one fatality, one injured
> This is as per him, so for me it is verified legitimate information.. I will understand if others feel otherwise.
> ...



And now you can see how that information can be wrong...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 May 2020)

https://twitter.com/RCAF_ARC/status/1262178849330167813

Update: Our previous statement indicated that the surviving member of the crash suffered serious injuries, we can confirm that their injuries are not considered life threatening.

9:31 PM · May 17, 2020


----------



## BeyondTheNow (17 May 2020)

As with the actions DS took with the splitting of the thread discussing the recent Cyclone incident, a post has been moved to Thoughts and Prayers as a starting point for all who wish to extend condolences, and/or to continue sharing more thoughts for those affected.

 https://army.ca/forums/threads/132428/post-1611606/topicseen.html?PHPSESSID=e785g8bc6jjp69aofetln0o42g#new

Please continue using this thread for any future discussion regarding specs, mechanical matters, and so forth related to this incident.

Thank you,

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## observor 69 (18 May 2020)

An interesting comment made on this morning's CBC news. If on takeoff you have a problem with the aircraft you climb for altitude to enable a safe ejection. That would appear, to me, to be what the pilot was trying to accomplish.

"Retired lieutenant-general André Deschamps, who was commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force from 2009 to 2012, said footage of the crash shows that two Snowbirds got off the ground without a problem, and the jets’ landing gear was retracted in preparation for acceleration.

But as the aircraft reached the end of the runway, the pilot of the trailing plane pulled up rapidly in what’s known as a “zoom maneuver,” which pilots typically perform to buy themselves time in the air after their plane experiences a serious malfunction.

“The pilot wouldn’t do a zoom for any reason other than serious issues inside the airplane,” Deschamps said.

The pilot didn’t get to a high altitude, forcing an ejection close to the ground. It appeared to Deschamps that two people ejected, but footage he’d seen didn’t show their parachutes deploying. “It was a very low-level ejection, so those are very high risk,” he said."
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/05/17/canadian-forces-snowbird-plane-crashes-in-kamloops.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 May 2020)

News article comments usually make my blood boil, more so recently it seems (I'm getting older?).  I saw one comment that the pilot "shouldn't have been _goofing around_ that low".  

Where's the Throat-punch icon located again?


----------



## Drallib (18 May 2020)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> An interesting comment made on this morning's CBC news. If on takeoff you have a problem with the aircraft you climb for altitude to enable a safe ejection. That would appear, to me, to be what the pilot was trying to accomplish.



Very possible. I saw a video of the crash, and the aircraft was at 45' downward angle when the two ejected and it looked like a decent enough altitude. Obviously there are a lot of factors like location of landing, having adequate training on landing safely after an ejection, and whether or not an individual is conscious after experiencing the G force of an ejection to prepare for a landing.

On another note, I can't help but think of how old these planes are when something like this happens. I know that these planes aren't flown rigorously and they're taken good care of and the technicians who work on these Tutors are highly professional, well trained, and selected to work on them for a reason... but for the safety of our brothers and sisters who fly these aircraft, I would like to see our government look for a replacement aircraft to actually boost moral and to encourage young Canadians to join one day, like it did for me (profile picture).

Lately, it sadly seems to be doing the exact opposite. I'm not usually someone who says or posts difficult things like this, and it hurts to say it, but it's the truth. I hope and pray our government considers looking at a replacement, and soon.

God, bless the men and women who are on the Snowbird team. Please keep them safe and may Your hand of comfort be on them all.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 May 2020)

Speaking of there age, are spare parts still being made for these planes? Or are we using what we have in storage?


----------



## Drallib (18 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Speaking of there age, are spare parts still being made for these planes? Or are we using what we have in storage?



Here's an article on that... from 11 years ago.

Spare parts could keep Snowbirds aloft until 2020

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/06/14/spare_parts_could_keep_snowbirds_aloft_until_2020.html


----------



## Drallib (18 May 2020)

And here's a 2016 article.

Military studies extending life of Snowbird aircraft 20 years past retirement

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbirds-tutor-jets-replacement-1.3689876

_"The aerobatic show team thrills spectators by swirling the skies in precise formations, demonstrating the superior skills of pilots commanding the planes. But there have also been serious safety incidents in the past, ranging from seatbelt malfunctions to fiery fatal crashes."_


----------



## MilEME09 (18 May 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> Here's an article on that... from 11 years ago.
> 
> Spare parts could keep Snowbirds aloft until 2020
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/06/14/spare_parts_could_keep_snowbirds_aloft_until_2020.html



Just going off the article it sounds like we are macgyvering to keep them flying. I was just reading a brief article stating the government cancelled a program to replace the Tutor in 2018, opting to upgrade and keep it going until 2030.

Considering we first flew these in the late 60s, is it fair to say this is the fixed wing equivalent to the Seaking?


----------



## Zoomie (18 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Considering we first flew these in the late 60s, is it fair to say this is the fixed wing equivalent to the Seaking?


CC115 Buffalo - 1967


----------



## Quirky (18 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Considering we first flew these in the late 60s, is it fair to say this is the fixed wing equivalent to the Seaking?



No. Considering there are 11 of them flying around during a normal airshow year, season after season, without any significant issues is a testament how reliable the entire fleet is. What happened in the last two crashes (this one looks to be a pop-stall from one of the videos) seems like the worst case scenario, power-loss at low altitude. If it happened during a transit and the plane lands it doesn’t make the news. But now, there are people coming out of the woodwork saying the fleet should be retired etc etc. These last two crashes happened to be at the worst time, only a few months apart.


----------



## dimsum (18 May 2020)

There is a flypast scheduled in the BC Lower Mainland area tonight.  They are flying the route the Snowbirds would have done.

Route is in the link. 

https://www.bcaviation.ca/bcga-news/operation-backup-inspiration-snowbirds-memorial?fbclid=IwAR0HZ3Zyv6Kr1E3piOEfe0iA3kpVNTu-875Cl4QBJB4FyJZtOafsA5T-CZU


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 May 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> No. Considering there are 11 of them flying around during a normal airshow year, season after season, without any significant issues is a testament how reliable the entire fleet is. What happened in the last two crashes (this one looks to be a pop-stall from one of the videos) seems like the worst case scenario, power-loss at low altitude. If it happened during a transit and the plane lands it doesn’t make the news. But now, there are people coming out of the woodwork saying the fleet should be retired etc etc. These last two crashes happened to be at the worst time, only a few months apart.



All good points, but I do believe there is a plan to have the aircraft replaced at some point last year or this year.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> All good points, but I do believe there is a plan to have the aircraft replaced at some point last year or this year.


Yeah, they started a project in 2012 to have them replaced in 2020. It was cancelled in favour of life extension into the 2030s.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 May 2020)

CloudCover said:
			
		

> All good points, but I do believe there is a plan to have the aircraft replaced at some point last year or this year.



Why not just buy more Hawks? BEA still makes them and we already use them as a jet trainer


----------



## kev994 (18 May 2020)

There is a press conference in 4 mins


----------



## OceanBonfire (18 May 2020)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> ..
> 
> It appeared to Deschamps that two people ejected, but footage he%u2019d seen didn't show their parachutes deploying. 'It was a very low-level ejection, so those are very high risk,' he said."
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/05/17/canadian-forces-snowbird-plane-crashes-in-kamloops.html



This witness:



> *Kamloops Snowbird crash witness claims Capt. Jennifer Casey%u2019s parachute was undeployed*
> 
> A Kamloops father who lives in the neighbourhood where Capt. Jennifer Casey landed after ejecting from the Snowbird CT-114 Tutor that crashed on Sunday suggests she fell to her death without a parachute.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, they started a project in 2012 to have them replaced in 2020. It was cancelled in favour of life extension into the 2030s.



I was wondering about that - I read that our Dear Leader had cancelled the order for the new aircraft. 

Was it him or was it a DND decision?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 May 2020)

Must have been our dear leader: Replacing a Tutor with a Hawk sounds way too much ... well, hawkish!  :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2020)

Folks, check rhe authors of the articles ypu post please.


----------



## dapaterson (18 May 2020)

There is ongoing work to revamp the end to end training to OFP for pilots.  If we intend to use the same training aircraft for 431 Sqn as we use for training, one would hope that the training requirements would be primary in the requirements.  Thus, the timeline for any CT-114 replacement will likely be dependent on the next generation training system for RCAF pilots.

Any other approach would either (a) risk putting stunt flying requirements above training requirements or (b) create another bespoke, niche fleet.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 May 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There is ongoing work to revamp the end to end training to OFP for pilots.  If we intend to use the same training aircraft for 431 Sqn as we use for training, one would hope that the training requirements would be primary in the requirements.  Thus, the timeline for any CT-114 replacement will likely be dependent on the next generation training system for RCAF pilots.
> 
> Any other approach would either (a) risk putting stunt flying requirements above training requirements or (b) create another bespoke, niche fleet.



Agreed which is why I suggested the Hawk since it is already used as a Jet trainer, that said could we not replace the Hawk, Tutor and Harvard II all in one go with a newer aircraft?


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 May 2020)

It’d be very hard to replace the Hawk with the same aircraft that will replace the Tutor/Harvard II.  The Hawk is a transition to a fighter.  You need those systems and the speed in order to ease the transition between a small jet/turbo prop aircraft and a supersonic fighter.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 May 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It’d be very hard to replace the Hawk with the same aircraft that will replace the Tutor/Harvard II.  The Hawk is a transition to a fighter.  You need those systems and the speed in order to ease the transition between a small jet/turbo prop aircraft and a supersonic fighter.



Fair, so drop the Harvard 2 from my suggestion, a tutor/Hawk replacement all in one, would that work?


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 May 2020)

Sure or a Harvard II/Tutor replacement depending on what the team’s niche would be.


----------



## Drallib (19 May 2020)

How about Boeing's T-X.

The US is using it to replace their again T-38's, so if Canada had it as well then it would be the same aircraft for the pilots who train in the US and Canada in the NFTC Program.

It wouldn't be an exact copy as the British Red Arrows.

Any fighter pilots would have already trained on the T-X, so they would be familiar with it.


----------



## observor 69 (19 May 2020)

Reading this thread with my morning coffee. Ah! a comment by Supersonic Max.
Always spoken from experience and knowledge. Your input is always appreciated, Sir.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> How about Boeing's T-X.
> 
> The US is using it to replace their again T-38's, so if Canada had it as well then it would be the same aircraft for the pilots who train in the US and Canada in the NFTC Program.
> 
> ...



How about the RCAF focus its limited resources on delivering operational effects, rather than airshows?

I get that we (The CAF) need to be seen by the Canadian Public, but, honestly this discussion about an air display team jet replacement is a bit like discussing what type of horse the RCMP needs for the musical ride.

The real question should be: can the RCAF actually afford to try and keep up with the “big boys” (USN, USAF, RAF) with an air display team before we attend to our core mission of defending Canada?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 May 2020)

See where FAcT goes, then assess. 

That will likely happen before FFCP and FLIT are decided.  It will depend on whether Government of the day will be supportive of a ‘Tier 1’ jet-based display team, or consider/select transition to a ‘Tier 2’ turboprop display team. 

In the mean time, DND is developing a project to extend the CT-114 to 2030.  Ref: CT-114 Life Extension Beyond 2020



> *Objective*
> To meet current and future regulatory requirements and life extend the CT-114 to 2030.
> 
> *Requirements*
> This project will implement key upgrades to the aircraft in order to extend the estimated life of the Tutor beyond 2020. The project will assess future supportability issues of the CT114 fleet with respect to avionics, communications, and navigation systems and aircrew life support equipment.


----------



## Drallib (19 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How about the RCAF focus its limited resources on delivering operational effects, rather than airshows?
> 
> I get that we (The CAF) need to be seen by the Canadian Public, but, honestly this discussion about an air display team jet replacement is a bit like discussing what type of horse the RCMP needs for the musical ride.
> 
> The real question should be: can the RCAF actually afford to try and keep up with the “big boys” (USN, USAF, RAF) with an air display team before we attend to our core mission of defending Canada?



Maybe if the RCMP had more horse musical rides, maybe their recruitment would be higher. Joking.

Is this high on the priority list? No.

After looking at previous incidents with the Snowbirds, before the last year, it looks like there haven't been any in almost a decade. I think with the last 2 being so close, and one soul lost, the emotion of it all makes people jump (myself included) to having a replacement jet. At the same time, I don't want them to wait for more planes or lives lost before they say, "Hey, maybe we should find a replacement."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2020)

Don’t get me wrong: I admire the skill level involved in what the Snowbirds do everyday. It is just that it comes with a very large opportunity cost and I fear that we (the CAF) will be forced into some very difficult choices in the very near future, due to the financial implications of COVID-19.

I think everything will shortly go on to the table for examination.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 May 2020)

I'm just terribly sad that we lost one, injured another seriously, and wrecked a residential area in a town I know fairly well with (thankfully) no additional loss of life.

My thoughts are with the aircrew and families impacted, and the commendable effort by the rescuers (many of them apparently civilians) to help our fallen in their time of need despite incurring some considerable danger to themselves. 

Per Ardua Ad Astra everyone!  :cdnsalute:


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> After looking at previous incidents with the Snowbirds, before the last year, it looks like there haven't been any in almost a decade. I think with the last 2 being so close, and one soul lost, the emotion of it all makes people jump (myself included) to having a replacement jet. At the same time, I don't want them to wait for more planes or lives lost before they say, "Hey, maybe we should find a replacement."



There's 3 listed on the DFS internet website: 

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ct1140071-tutor-from-the-investigator/k37g8df1
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ct114009-tutor-epilogue/jydwt4nq
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ct114058-tutor-epilogue/ig9v1a9l

The most recent was October 2019 (first link) with investigation focusing on engine mechanical issue and ejection sequence issues and was a total loss of the A/C. Even to the untrained eye, this recent accident has some obvious questions about ejection sequence (reports of Jenn's chute not being deployed) and issues with power/thrust. I have a feeling the current investigation on A/C 071 will probably help steer this current investigation to try to quickly find out if there's a common problem that needs to be addressed. If they can rule out a common problem, then perhaps the pitchforks go away on the "Replace the Snowbirds" crowd.

Thankfully the crash site was secured quickly, and due to the residential area and large push for Canadians to record/share video of the Snowbirds flying there's quite a bit of footage for the investigators to see. Rich is also expected to recover fully so he can help outline exactly what he was feeling/seeing which is unfortunately not the case in a lot of crashes.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The most recent was October 2019 (first link) with investigation focusing on engine mechanical issue and ejection sequence issues and was a total loss of the A/C. Even to the untrained eye, this recent accident has some obvious questions about ejection sequence (reports of Jenn's chute not being deployed) and issues with power/thrust. I have a feeling the current investigation on A/C 071 will probably help steer this current investigation to try to quickly find out if there's a common problem that needs to be addressed. If they can rule out a common problem, then perhaps the pitchforks go away on the "Replace the Snowbirds" crowd.
> 
> Thankfully the crash site was secured quickly, and due to the residential area and large push for Canadians to record/share video of the Snowbirds flying there's quite a bit of footage for the investigators to see. Rich is also expected to recover fully so he can help outline exactly what he was feeling/seeing which is unfortunately not the case in a lot of crashes.



They will either go away, or they will light the torches too. Thankfully they can interview the pilot once he recovers enough, hopefully his memory of the events leading upto the crash are good. He could also confirm what some people have been saying that he might of deliberately banked left towards a less populated part of Kamloops, The town is more densely populated directly parallel to the runway compared to the direction the plane went.


----------



## observor 69 (19 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Don’t get me wrong: I admire the skill level involved in what the Snowbirds do everyday. It is just that it comes with a very large opportunity cost and I fear that we (the CAF) will be forced into some very difficult choices in the very near future, due to the financial implications of COVID-19.
> 
> I think everything will shortly go on to the table for examination.



How about we settle for this: https://www.facebook.com/CF18Demo/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 May 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Don’t get me wrong: I admire the skill level involved in what the Snowbirds do everyday. It is just that it comes with a very large opportunity cost and I fear that we (the CAF) will be forced into some very difficult choices in the very near future, due to the financial implications of COVID-19.
> 
> I think everything will shortly go on to the table for examination.



I agree;  however while the CAF may say "we can shut down the Snowbirds", I think the GoC will say "No".  They'll want them out there for 'whatever reason the GoC feel it is important to Canadians".


----------



## Quirky (19 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> He could also confirm what some people have been saying that he might of deliberately banked left towards a less populated part of Kamloops, The town is more densely populated directly parallel to the runway compared to the direction the plane went.



I’m not questioning his decision to turn left, but straight down the runway is a river, with a large island park further up, and to the right is pretty much nothing. Also, had they taken off west there is literally nothing out there but farmer fields.


----------



## Remius (19 May 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m not questioning his decision to turn left, but straight down the runway is a river, with a large island park further up, and to the right is pretty much nothing. Also, had they taken off west there is literally nothing out there but farmer fields.



Maybe it wasn’t his decision to turn left.


----------



## Quirky (19 May 2020)

Remius said:
			
		

> Maybe it wasn’t his decision to turn left.



Whatever the case.


----------



## kev994 (19 May 2020)

Deleted due to speculation


----------



## Good2Golf (19 May 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Gentle reminder regarding avoidance of speculation.
> 
> Discussion of factual (publicly available), non-sensitive information is fair, but be mindful of respecting official reports from DND/RCAF.
> 
> *Milnet.ca Staff*



Reminder2

Thanks all.


*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## NavyShooter (19 May 2020)

An analysis by a former Snowbird pilot:

https://youtu.be/Xl7qOY2-o_Y


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 May 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I agree;  however while the CAF may say "we can shut down the Snowbirds", I think the GoC will say "No".  They'll want them out there for 'whatever reason the GoC feel it is important to Canadians".



Given that HMCS Oriole survived when we were killing the funding for 280s, this seems likely.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I’m not questioning his decision to turn left, but straight down the runway is a river, with a large island park further up, and to the right is pretty much nothing. Also, had they taken off west there is literally nothing out there but farmer fields.



It sure seems like you are...


----------



## Drallib (20 May 2020)

The video that NavyShooter shared of Vincent Aiello from the Fighter Pilot Podcast talking to former CO/Lead of the Snowbirds Robert Mitchell was great.

He shared an experience he personally had when the team was practicing. He had a bird strike and left the formation by gaining altitude immediately. As his engine failed, he was doing the emergency procedure to try and get it going again, at the same time checking his ejection system and also the surrounding area for a runway that was way off in the distance. But, he had altitude and energy (300 knots) on his side and was able to get the engine running just enough to make it to the distant runway.

What Capt Richard MacDougall did in that extremely short amount of time was remarkable in my opinion. Like most of you, I'll be eager to hear exactly what happened in those moments. It goes without saying we'll need patience as he recovers and will have to process what happened.


----------



## Quirky (20 May 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It sure seems like you are...



The ego's on this forum are great representation of what's wrong in the military. They would rather make a snarky comment instead of moving along..


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 May 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> The ego's on this forum are great representation of what's wrong in the military. They would rather make a snarky comment instead of moving along..



I'd label my comment more an 'observation' that was aimed to help you see the contradiction in your post;  "nothing said before _but_ really matters" as the saying goes...

But, judging by your reaction, I'd say my comment was "on top".


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2020)

Take it to the PMs gentlemen.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 May 2020)

CBC asked a former Snowbirds Team Lead to analyze the video. He seemed very careful not to speculate on any causes, but the video angle does show a black speck in the sky moving towards the A/C just before Rich pitched up. You can also see when they slow the video down (this isn't mentioned) that whoever the first ejection was had their parachute at least partially deploying in fairly rapid order. The 2nd ejection is out of focus so you cannot see if there is a parachute opening sequence as quickly as the first.

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


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 May 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CBC asked a former Snowbirds Team Lead to analyze the video. He seemed very careful not to speculate on any causes, but the video angle does show a black speck in the sky moving towards the A/C just before Rich pitched up. You can also see when they slow the video down (this isn't mentioned) that whoever the first ejection was had their parachute at least partially deploying in fairly rapid order. The 2nd ejection is out of focus so you cannot see if there is a parachute opening sequence as quickly as the first.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGS3dmuPlPo



Bird strike.... mentioned in this article as a possibility: 

“However, again, the investigation will prove whether it was a bird strike or an engine failure or some sort of other emergency,” Stephenson said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6954775/cf-snowbird-crashes-near-kamloops-during-b-c-stop-of-cross-canada-tour/


----------



## CF_Pilot (22 May 2020)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> An analysis by a former Snowbird pilot:
> 
> https://youtu.be/Xl7qOY2-o_Y


Much better analysis here, where he points out the stall/spin not seen by former Snowbirds:

https://youtu.be/10Og_7sqU7s


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Privateer (22 May 2020)

Mods, perhaps this goes to Thoughts and Prayers?

Captain Richard MacDougall: Injured pilot makes first public appearance

per: CFJC today: https://cfjctoday.com/2020/05/22/injured-pilot-makes-first-public-appearance/?fbclid=IwAR3qDCpsf1Tj7zGIcqDMk6KsghqydPwiz1khej5XGooymvMAfPUMuhm3Umw



> KAMLOOPS — Injured pilot Captain Richard MacDougall came out in public last night for the first time since the tragic Snowbirds’ accident Sunday.
> 
> Members of the local indigenous community performed a drum circle at the roundabout in front of the admitting entrance to the hospital last night. MacDougall, surrounded by family members, well-blanketed and in his wheelchair, came out of the entrance to watch the circle and thank the members of the First Nations community for their support and prayers.
> 
> There has been little released about MacDougall’s injuries or the long-term prognosis for his recovery, but last night he appeared in good spirits for his visit outside.



Photos at link.


----------



## MilEME09 (31 May 2020)

https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2020/05/29/snowbirds-were-waiting-for-new-ejection-seats-before-deadly-crash-now-dnd-wont-say-if-gear-was-replaced.html

While there is a bit of speculation in the article, the department seems tight lipped on the issue of the ejection seat, and its replacement.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 May 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> While there is a bit of speculation in the article, the department seems tight lipped on the issue of the ejection seat, and its replacement.



I'm still a little surprised the media has picked up that Strong, Secure, Engaged cancelled the Snowbird replacement project in favour of a life extension. Both projects weren't going to deliver by the proposed retirement date of 2020, but at least we'd be getting new airframes in 2026 instead of bandaids completed in 2025. Either DND determined we could keep flying them, or politically someone didn't want to spend $1.5B CAD when they could appear to be doing something with a paltry $100M CAD.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/aerospace-systems-347.page Snowbird Aircraft Replacement
http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1438 Snowbird Beyond 2020 LE


----------



## Quirky (1 Jun 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2020/05/29/snowbirds-were-waiting-for-new-ejection-seats-before-deadly-crash-now-dnd-wont-say-if-gear-was-replaced.html
> 
> While there is a bit of speculation in the article, the department seems tight lipped on the issue of the ejection seat, and its replacement.



Or lack thereof. Isn’t hard to compare stock photos of the Weber CL-41 to recent pics, look to be identical. If the engineering is too complex to fit a modern zero-zero seat, that’s one thing. If it’s simply a cost saving tactic not to spend the money, considering the low-level aerobatic performances of the team, it just goes to you how much they value the lives of the aircrew. Still wearing a parachute on your back and waiting for the canopy to open wastes precious seconds, time you don’t have if you punch out low and slow. Let’s hope this incident fast tracks either an upgrade to the ejection seat or airframe itself if the Snowbirds are to continue performing.

Prelim report is out:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/flight-safety/article-template-flight-safety.page?doc=ct114161-tutor-from-the-investigator/kae62tqg



> On 17 May 2020 the Snowbirds air demonstration team was scheduled to depart Kamloops, BC to reposition to Comox, BC as part of Operation INSPIRATION, an operation undertaken by 431 (AD) Sqn to travel around multiple sites across Canada to support COVID-19 front line workers. Aircraft CT114161 was #2 of a formation of two CT114 Tutor aircraft. Two occupants were on board the aircraft, the pilot and the team’s public affairs officer.
> 
> After take-off aircraft CT114161 was observed gaining altitude and departing the formation. Shortly thereafter, the aircraft initiated a left turn, followed shortly by an abrupt steep nose low attitude. Both occupants subsequently ejected from the aircraft.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drallib (1 Jun 2020)

> Bird strike on Snowbird engine likely caused fatal crash: report
> 
> 
> Canadian air force crash investigators are looking at a bird strike as the probable cause of the crash of a Snowbird demonstration jet in Kamloops, British Columbia last month.
> ...



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbird-crash-report-1.5593259


----------



## Drallib (2 Jun 2020)

> Directorate of Flight Safety Releases Initial Report on CF Snowbirds Accident
> 
> The Department of National Defence’s Airworthiness Investigative Authority has issued a preliminary From the Investigator (FTI) report in relation to the Snowbirds accident in Kamloops on May 17, 2020. That accident claimed the life of the team’s Public Affairs Officer, Captain Jennifer Casey.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drallib (25 Aug 2020)

> RCAF’s CT-114 Tutors back in the air
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) fleet of CT-114 Tutors is back in the air, following a “thorough technical and operational risk analysis” in the wake of two serious accidents within an eight-month period.
> 
> ...



https://www.skiesmag.com/news/rcaf-ct-114-tutor-back-air/?utm_source=skies-daily-news-top-story&utm_campaign=skies-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=top-story&utm_content=V1


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Mar 2021)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbird-crash-bird-1.5968000
		


And the investigation is complete l, bird strike caused engine failure, altitude to low for chutes to properly deploy.


----------



## 3green (29 Mar 2021)

"investigation"


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2021)

3green said:


> "investigation"


Not sure what you exactly mean by this.


----------



## suffolkowner (29 Mar 2021)

What is the path forward?

Elimination of the Snowbirds?
Accelerated new aircraft for the Snowbirds? Like any of the T-X candidates?
Modernization of the Tutors? New ejections seats? 
Transition to another platform currently in use by the RCAF like the CT-155 Hawk or CT-156 Harvard II

This is not a new problem. People shouldn't have to die to push a procurement file forward


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Mar 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> What is the path forward?
> 
> Elimination of the Snowbirds?
> Accelerated new aircraft for the Snowbirds? Like any of the T-X candidates?
> ...



Install 'Zero-Zero' seats, like this Russian Backfire Bomber didn't have last week?









						An Ejection Seat Incident Killed Three Russian Bomber Crew Members
					

The altitude was too low for their parachutes to work.




					www.popularmechanics.com


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Install 'Zero-Zero' seats, like this Russian Backfire Bomber didn't have last week?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


0/0 seats are great but there are still areas where survival is not guaranteed.  0/0 implies wings level and no sink rate.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Mar 2021)

Here's the actual epilogue from DFS: Report | CT114161 Tutor - Epilogue


----------



## Quirky (29 Mar 2021)

suffolkowner said:


> What is the path forward?
> 
> Elimination of the Snowbirds?
> Accelerated new aircraft for the Snowbirds? Like any of the T-X candidates?
> ...



I'd imagine snowbird replacement will happen after the new Fighter jet is picked. They'll likely just buy an extra dozen or so T-X trainers and paint them snowbird colours. 

Snowbirds are completely voluntary positions, no one is being ordered to fly them.


----------



## 3green (29 Mar 2021)

New fighter has nothing to do with the Ph2/3/FLIT training programs, which are different aircraft types and will be contracted out, likely to CAE or Babcock. The contractor decides on airframe to meet CF requirements. It's a totally separate project from next fighter. The new trainer contract will likely be setup much like the original NFTC contract - aircraft are bought by wholly gov't owned "company" funded with gov't bonds, in order to get around ITARS export requirements. The "company" ("Mil-Tair" in the case of current NFTC) then 'leases' them to the contractor who operates, maintains, repairs, fuels, hangars, upgrades etc. and in turn 'leases' them to the RCAF. The point is, because of the contract they're not considered CF owned assets. They have a military certificate of airworthiness, but are treated like a contractor owned asset. The current NFTC contract has been extended to 2027, with likely extension to 2028 or beyond.

It's unlikely they will just add on a few extra tails for a different Sqn for a different mission. To buy extra airframes would be a whole separate capital expenditure and given the nature of the mission, likely would have to be a CF owned and self-insured asset. A dozen wouldn't be nearly enough to run the shows, manage unserviceability, attrition, training etc. If it was a contractor supplied asset like the Hawk/Harvard currently are under NFTC, it would mean the contractor also provides all maintenance and servicing (like the contractor currently does on these airframes) - including on the road throughout the show season - which would have huge costs and have to be included in a separate contract. This is setting aside the fact that the Hawk/TX would be immensely more expensive to operate and the fierce argument that they are not well suited to fly the type of show 431 puts on. The public would scoff at the price tag, whatever it is.


----------



## 3green (29 Mar 2021)

> Snowbirds are completely voluntary positions, no one is being ordered to fly them.



While I agree with you, it's a voluntary military in general. Regardless, it does not absolve the folks in charge of ensuring troops have the right equipment.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Mar 2021)

3green said:


> It's unlikely they will just add on a few extra tails for a different Sqn for a different mission. To buy extra airframes would be a whole separate capital expenditure and given the nature of the mission, likely would have to be a CF owned and self-insured asset. A dozen wouldn't be nearly enough to run the shows, manage unserviceability, attrition, training etc.


You're assuming the sustainment of a 9 plane team; move to five or six aircraft and the math is more appealing.


----------



## 3green (30 Mar 2021)

dapaterson said:


> You're assuming the sustainment of a 9 plane team; move to five or six aircraft and the math is more appealing.


Valid.


----------



## Quirky (30 Mar 2021)

> The public would scoff at the price tag, whatever it is.



Fiscal restraint isn’t in the Canadian vocabulary.


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Not sure what you exactly mean by this.


I, too, would appreciate some clarity.


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Install 'Zero-Zero' seats, like this Russian Backfire Bomber didn't have last week?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt that any reasonably-drop-in solution is available, ie significant airframe and other modifications would be required and the cost would be considerable/prohibitive (and could add weight to the machine and change the centre-of-gravity, thus affecting performance). Even then, there will never be a guarantee of successful ejections at extremely-low altitudes and nose-down attitudes, while rolling and descending at a high rate.

The Tutor seat was designed to give a reasonable chance of a safe ejection at zero feet altitude with a minimum forward airspeed of 60 knots  (111 km/hr), no descent, and wings level. It has a pretty good record when used within its design envelope. Ejections are rare as it is, and ejections under the circumstances of this crash are even rarer.

We were all briefed about the seat at the beginning of the Ground School phase of our Tutor course. We all understood, and nobody - neither Instructors, nor students - ever expressed any dissatisfaction with any aspect of the machine. Risk was minimal, if we even ever thought about it, compared to the joy of flying that aircraft.

A Pilot/passenger maximum weight limitation was imposed in 1982 or 1983 after a fatal ejection following loss of thrust while on short final at Calgary Airport during an Instructor Mutual cross-country training mission, shortly after I finished my Tutor course. One Pilot (whom I did not know) survived. The other, whom I knew, did not. He was taller and heavier.

The Tutor was, and is a good, solid, simple, reliable, and fun-to-fly machine. I would happily fly it again, with no reservations. There is no reason to retire it until spare parts run out.

And, when that happens, there will be wealthy people around the world who will buy the remaining aircraft and whatever spares are left and continue to fly them at airshows for another century.

I have yet to fly a "perfect" aircraft. Every single one has strengths and weaknesses. Yes, even my beloved Kiowa - the absolute bestest flying machine ever to see service in the Canadian Armed Forces - had a few shortcomings. One has to understand one's aircraft thoroughly and know how to exploit its strengths and compensate for its inadequacies.

Age, alone, has no bearing on airworthiness. Design and maintenance are king and queen.

(Edit to add speed conversion for those limited to soulless Euro units of measure)


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Here's the actual epilogue from DFS: Report | CT114161 Tutor - Epilogue


“Following the take-off, a loud, impact-like sound was heard by both occupants and the aircraft then experienced a loss of thrust.”

Other common symptoms of a compressor stall: rumbling noise and rise in Exhaust Gas Temperature. "Impact-like sound" must be engineerese for what we called a "bang".

“The pilot initiated a climb straight ahead”

Standard emergency response drill was “Zoom” (trading airspeed for altitude, as was done) - “Idle” (move the throttle in the left hand fully aft) - “Air Start” (starter button on the throttle). One should be gently turning towards a safe ejection area, if possible.

No mention was made in the Epilogue that a relight was attempted.

I have heard that, for a reason that I cannot remember, the “Idle” movement was removed from the checklist some time ago.

“and then elected to carry out a left-hand turn back towards the airport.”

This is what really baffled me, right from the beginning. It’s never a good idea, at low altitude and low airspeed. It was stressed to us that we should always make the decision to eject prior to even getting into the aircraft. Ejecting is a last-ditch measure, and nobody wants to leave the comfort of one’s cockpit (especially mid-Saskatchewan-winter prior to the climate returning to normal as we have been experiencing of late), and there may be no time (like in this case) to think things through. There are no medals given for saving a crippled aircraft.

One’s decision-making skills plummet in such stressful times, though, and, for whatever reason, he thought that he could make it back for a safe landing and, while he made a wrong decision, I cannot, in all fairness, fault him for what he tried to do given the max-crappy hand that he was dealt.

“The manoeuvre resulted in an aerodynamic stall halfway through the turn before the pilot gave the order to abandon the aircraft. Both occupants subsequently ejected”

I was impressed that Jenn ejected almost simultaneously. She’d obviously paid attention to her training, and likely was expecting, or had been warned to expect, an ejection order. Such a loss.

A second or two earlier, a couple of degrees less bank, and…

“and the aircraft was destroyed upon impact in a residential area.

A simple turn to avoid the built-up area would have been better for all. There was lots of wilderness/grazing land available.

“Evidence gathered during the investigation revealed that both occupants’ ejection sequences were outside of the ejection envelope.”

Which was obvious from the initial video postings.

“DNA evidence collected from the engine’s internal components confirmed the ingestion”

NOT “sucked in” as the press keeps saying.

“of a bird as witnessed from video evidence; however, the damage it caused was insufficient to cause a catastrophic failure.”

There was/is a history of occasional compressor stalls with the Tutor, generally with no known cause and easily cleared, but I cannot remember the details thirty-nine years after I last flew it. It wouldn’t necessarily take much to disturb the airflow to the compressor.

“Rather, it resulted in a compressor stall that was never cleared.”

I would have preferred a little clarity regarding “never cleared” - no attempt made, or a unsuccessful attempt(s) made?

“The investigation recommends a directive be published which outlines the aircrew’s priority where an emergency during the take-off or landing phase occurs and has the potential to result in an ejection near or over a populated area.

“The investigation also recommends further training on engine-related emergencies be practiced in the takeoff/low-level environment.”

This, also, baffles me, as it should have been hammered home during previous training and also during his conversion to the Tutor. Perhaps there were unreasonable expectations made, as the Snowbirds are all experienced Pilots. Training shortcoming? Maybe. In the good, old pre-computer days, and in the absence of all of the CYA DLN courses etcetera, we would all sit around the aircrew lounge and read Flight Safety magazines and discuss the incidents and accidents therein, and sometimes our own, between flights or until the Mess bar opened on the bad-weather days.

There was also more general awareness of hazards back then, as we had many more aircraft, flew many more hours, and operated in more risky environments so accidents were a little more common. We lost eighteen guys in various crashes in 1982 (the worst year in my time in), seemingly every other couple of weeks.

“It is also recommended that the practice of storing items between the ejection seat and the airframe wall cease immediately.”

There are only two, tiny, external baggage compartments on the Tutor. People would put their empty bags in, then stuff all of their items in on top to gain every possible cubic fraction-of-an-inch (the doors would occasionally not get latched properly, leaving trails of underwear and toothbrushes across Saskatchewan and elsewhere), but there is NO NO NO excuse for jamming stuff around one’s final means of survival.

Or cases of beer in the nose gun bay of a CF5 (beer strike in Alberta, quick trip to Moose Jaw, no consideration of air pressure reduction while climbing to cruise altitude, “pop-pop-pop-pop”, very unhappy ground crew and “customers”).

“Finally, further research is recommended into the potential options that would stabilize the CT114 ejection seat from any tendency to pitch, roll or yaw immediately following its departure from the ejection seat rails.”

 I was under the impression that a drogue parachute had been added since I flew the Tutor. No mention of considering a seat replacement, though.


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2021)

3green said:


> Regardless, it does not absolve the folks in charge of ensuring troops have the right equipment.


Who, in uniform, over several millennia, has ever had "the right equipment"?

Everything could be a little bit better than it is, and everything gets old and technologically-surpassed eventually, and even more rapidly in this age, no matter how good it once was.

Plus, even brand-new, state-of-the art, leading-edge aircraft break, are flown beyond design limits, are flown less-than-perfectly, or get smacked by something.

There are no guarantees, and certainly no technological guarantees, in certain lines of work.

Some of us walk away from things that should have killed us, some of us are taken out by starlings or geese or crucial rotating parts found to be three-ten-thousandths of an inch out-of-round when the allowable tolerance is two-ten-thousandths of an inch out-of-round, some of us never realize just how close we came, and two took a machine that I last flew and were fished out of a sixty-foot-deep lake a week later (see "three-ten-thousandths of an inch out-of-round").


----------



## Quirky (30 Mar 2021)

Loachman said:


> but there is NO NO NO excuse for jamming stuff around one’s final means of survival.



Before the 2019 crash it was common practice to place small bags on top of the seat...


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Mar 2021)

Loachman said:


> there is NO NO NO excuse for jamming stuff around one’s final means of survival.


Up until just a couple of years ago, when we were authorized to use EFBs, we had (as in it was a formal SOP) to store our publications (for all of Canada and part of the US) on the right console panel and our NVG brackets on the left console panel in our alert aircraft.  The fit between the seat and the canopy ledge was incredibly tight (you had to jam the massive pubs bag there).  I am not sure what else we could have done to be honest.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Mar 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Up until just a couple of years ago, when we were authorized to use EFBs, we had (as in it was a formal SOP) to store our publications (for all of Canada and part of the US) on the right console panel and our NVG brackets on the left console panel in our alert aircraft.  The fit between the seat and the canopy ledge was incredibly tight (you had to jam the massive pubs bag there).  I am not sure what else we could have done to be honest.



Instead of paper, use an electronic copy on your iPad, or equivalent? 

(Full disclosure: I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about....)


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Instead of paper, use an electronic copy on your iPad, or equivalent?
> 
> (Full disclosure: I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about....)


Don’t worry, Army dude...that’s what an EFB* is. 

Great idea...other than not using a cool TLA**

👍🏼 


* Electronic Flight Book - ie. IPad or G-Tac pr
Other tablet
** Three Letter Acronym


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2021)

Quirky said:


> Before the 2019 crash it was common practice to place small bags on top of the seat...


So what more do they *have* to carry now than before? What's in these "small bags"? Essentials, or luxuries? DFS seems to think that this practice can and should end.


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Up until just a couple of years ago, when we were authorized to use EFBs, we had (as in it was a formal SOP) to store our publications (for all of Canada and part of the US) on the right console panel and our NVG brackets on the left console panel in our alert aircraft.  The fit between the seat and the canopy ledge was incredibly tight (you had to jam the massive pubs bag there).  I am not sure what else we could have done to be honest.


My only F18 ride was in Germany, just before being posted back. I knew quite a few guys flying them, and could have gone for rides at almost any time. I wasn't all that terribly interested, though, until the opportunity was almost no longer available and figured that it would be borderline criminal to waste it.

We did a "scenic" tour up the Rhine Valley. Most of what I saw was just blue left, above, and right. I couldn't see anything ahead or down. I was tempted to take Sonny for a _real_ scenic tour - 250 feet AGL, front doors off, wave at tourists in castles as we orbitted, then drop down for a few turns around a tour barge full of semi-drunks, then back up to a castle on the other side, land at Mendig for fuel then get driven down into Koblenz for a Gasthaus patio lunch, then head back home the same way - but didn't want to make him mad with envy.

Anyway, sidetrack aside, airspace was dense and complex, but I didn't see masses of pubs in his cockpit. Did your predecessors always have to carry as much as you describe, or is that, too, more recent - and, if so, why? I've seen the thickness of pubs grow with all of the GPS approaches, to the point that they will not fit in the clipboards on either side of the Griffon cockpit. You, apparently, have to be able to cover much more geography than they did.

It was tight in the Kiowa as well. I used my GPH 205 for a lumbar support when not being used for its primary purpose. Any maps and such that I had to have readily accessible were under my left or right thigh, and my Observer or passenger had the main map(s) (which could be quite bulky).


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Instead of paper, use an electronic copy on your iPad, or equivalent?
> 
> (Full disclosure: I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about....)


As G2G mentionned, that's what EFB means.  Appologies for not spelling out the accronyms.  

EFBs came late however.  There were a bunch of technical reasons (is it electro-magnetically compatible with the aircraft, is it compatible in the cockpit, in all lighting conditions, is the battery good enough, what happens when you eject with it strapped to your leg, etc).  In my professional opinion, some of those concerns were overcautious (whether it is a 1 lb iPad or a 2 lb stack of paper hitting you in the head, I don't think it makes much of a difference), some were easily mitigable (bring 2 iPads if we are worried about battery life) and I think the risk that some brought could have been accepted and compared to the risk of having a 20 lb bag of compact stacks of paper next to the ejection seat.  

And there there were the security reasons (how do you bring an unclassified tablet with WiFi and potentially LTE into a classified spaces (office or the aircraft itself).  Eventually, after much frustration and some work to prove the concerns we in fact not concerns, it was approved.  But we digress from the original subject.

For the Tutor, there is legitimately not enough space to bring anything.  You can bring a larger backpack in the luggage compartment and that's it. It is not pressurized nor heated so you have to be careful what you bring in there. There is definitely no space for a laptop.  I am not sure where a laptop could be stowed (they need their laptops on the road, especially the coordinators/PA).  They also need to pack to a week or more (yes, they can do laundry but you still need a minimum, including gym clothes, civilian dress clothes and regular clothes.  It's hard to bring all that in a backpack.  And you somehow have to stow the aircraft binder as all.  I would normally put my laptop and aircraft binder beside the ejection seats.  I could have put them on the glareshield but it does obstruct view a lot, which is less than ideal during the takeoff phase.


----------



## YZT580 (30 Mar 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Instead of paper, use an electronic copy on your iPad, or equivalent?
> 
> (Full disclosure: I admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about....)


electronic books didn't exist and his computer was handheld, circular, and required no batteries


----------



## Haggis (31 Mar 2021)

YZT580 said:


> electronic books didn't exist and his computer was handheld, circular, and required no batteries


The batteries never go dead in your dead reckoning computer.


----------



## 3green (31 Mar 2021)

Dead reckoning computer does not have the required IFR publications for transiting around North America. On a typical trip, a pilot would require pubs/flips that would easily fill a box roughly the size of a 12 pack of beer, I've done trips across NA with enough pubs to fill a 24 bottle box of beer. The pubs have to be jammed everywhere and anywhere in the cockpit. There is literally no space to bring them. They are literally absolutely required.  EFB is not just tactically functional, it's a flight safety issue - for example when a Hawk blew a $600k canopy because one of the many pubs bags they had jammed on circuit breaker panels, etc, got snagged on the canopy fracture handle and detonated the canopy at altitude. No one uses a dead reckoning computer anymore. It's an obsolete relic and serves basically no purpose airborne for this type of flying. I haven't had one in the cockpit since I did civy Cessna training 20 years ago.

As for personal kit - again there is literally no room. Crews are rolling up t-shirts and stuffing them between avionics boxes in the maintenance compartment the nose, jamming their shoes and socks against the firewall between electrical busses etc. There is no other way to transit with anything more than the flightsuit you're wearing. Until recently, it was common practice to put a bag above the seat. So it has been for the last 30+ years. Right or wrong, this is how crews got the job done for over a generation. There is just no room. As mentioned the PA/Coord has to carry a laptop. Other display teams have a staff of up to 100 people to do various functions that the team all does on their own.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Mar 2021)

3green said:


> Dead reckoning computer does not have the required IFR publications for transiting around North America. On a typical trip, a pilot would require pubs/flips that would easily fill a box roughly the size of a 12 pack of beer, I've done trips across NA with enough pubs to fill a 24 bottle box of beer. The pubs have to be jammed everywhere and anywhere in the cockpit. There is literally no space to bring them. They are literally absolutely required.  EFB is not just tactically functional, it's a flight safety issue - for example when a Hawk blew a $600k canopy because one of the many pubs bags they had jammed on circuit breaker panels, etc, got snagged on the canopy fracture handle and detonated the canopy at altitude. No one uses a dead reckoning computer anymore. It's an obsolete relic and serves basically no purpose airborne for this type of flying. I haven't had one in the cockpit since I did civy Cessna training 20 years ago.
> 
> As for personal kit - again there is literally no room. Crews are rolling up t-shirts and stuffing them between avionics boxes in the maintenance compartment the nose, jamming their shoes and socks against the firewall between electrical busses etc. There is no other way to transit with anything more than the flightsuit you're wearing. Until recently, it was common practice to put a bag above the seat. So it has been for the last 30+ years. Right or wrong, this is how crews got the job done for over a generation. There is just no room. As mentioned the PA/Coord has to carry a laptop. Other display teams have a staff of up to 100 people to do various functions that the team all does on their own.



Finally, something that the Air Force and the infantry have in common: being forced to carry a bunch of useless stuff because someone else says so


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Apr 2021)

3green said:


> Dead reckoning computer does not have the required IFR publications for transiting around North America. On a typical trip, a pilot would require pubs/flips that would easily fill a box roughly the size of a 12 pack of beer, I've done trips across NA with enough pubs to fill a 24 bottle box of beer. The pubs have to be jammed everywhere and anywhere in the cockpit. There is literally no space to bring them. They are literally absolutely required.  EFB is not just tactically functional, it's a flight safety issue - for example when a Hawk blew a $600k canopy because one of the many pubs bags they had jammed on circuit breaker panels, etc, got snagged on the canopy fracture handle and detonated the canopy at altitude. No one uses a dead reckoning computer anymore. It's an obsolete relic and serves basically no purpose airborne for this type of flying. I haven't had one in the cockpit since I did civy Cessna training 20 years ago.
> 
> As for personal kit - again there is literally no room. Crews are rolling up t-shirts and stuffing them between avionics boxes in the maintenance compartment the nose, jamming their shoes and socks against the firewall between electrical busses etc. There is no other way to transit with anything more than the flightsuit you're wearing. Until recently, it was common practice to put a bag above the seat. So it has been for the last 30+ years. Right or wrong, this is how crews got the job done for over a generation. There is just no room. As mentioned the PA/Coord has to carry a laptop. Other display teams have a staff of up to 100 people to do various functions that the team all does on their own.


Maybe it is just time to admit the obvious: the Snowbirds, as a concept, have run their course. Running a nine plane display squadron on a 60 year old airframe in an air force our size is ludicrous. 431 Sqn is now one of the larger Sqns in the RCAF. To do, what wartime function, exactly?


----------



## Quirky (1 Apr 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> To do, what wartime function, exactly?



431 isn't going anywhere, the public loves the snowbirds. I do agree that new aircraft are needed badly, including trimming down the 9 ship, well 11 total if you count the coordinators, into 5 or 7. This year will be a wash for airshows unless most of the performances are down in the US which is where its headed seeing how Canada can't sort this Covid mess out. Then you bring up the issue for recruiting and what purpose does an American tour give.


----------



## armrdsoul77 (25 Jun 2022)

Snowbirds grounded.






						Technical issue will temporarily prevent the Snowbirds from flying in upcoming performances - Canada.ca
					

The Canadian Forces Snowbirds will be unable to fly in planned airshows and fly pasts, until a technical issue is resolved that relates to a device that sets the timing for the deployment of the parachute during the ejection sequence.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Spencer100 (11 Aug 2022)

More 









						Entire Snowbirds fleet grounded pending risk analysis after aircraft damaged in B.C.  | Globalnews.ca
					

The Royal Canadian Air Force says a "deliberate, detailed and broad risk analysis" will be conducted on all 20 CT-114 Tutor aircraft flown by the Snowbirds.




					globalnews.ca


----------

