Jump to content

      



























Photo

RCAF Snowbirds events on Vancouver Island


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#101 AllseeingEye

AllseeingEye

    AllSeeingEye

  • Member
  • 6,543 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 09:57 PM

Age in years doesn’t mean all that much when it comes to aircraft. Consider the B-52H, which is scheduled to remain in active service with the US military until sometime around 2050. (The H is the newest version, which entered service in 1961.) And NASA once declared the airframe of the Martin Mars to be practically “as-new”, thanks in part to having fewer flying hours than your average 10-year-old airliner.

Since my taxes help pay for the Snowbirds, I’m quite okay with using the Tutors for as long as it’s reasonably feasible. If it ain’t broke, don’t replace it with something stupidly expensive. And when the time comes, why not use Hawks or Alphas for the demo team, like others do?

Well why not use the Hawks or Alphas as possible replacements indeed; the BAE Hawk is a fine and nimble plane, well suited to an aerobatic role. Who exactly suggested otherwise? And who suggested anything "stupidly expensive" as a possible replacement for the Tutors? Certainly not me. Re: the F-18 i merely re-stated one possible and oft-suggested option...

 

Without checking with my air force pal I'm pretty confident in stating the Tutor airframes have a lot more flying hours on them than a 10 year airliner. Remember for their first decade of their life they were front line RCAF training aircraft, flying plenty of "regular" hours training Canadian and Allied/NATO aircrews, on top of the 45+ years now of extreme air demonstration flights.

 

And unlike a Tutor a B-52 doesn't pull off the same extreme manoeuvres, moreover unlike Canada the US has virtually unlimited funds for aircraft support and maintenance; if they wanted to I've no doubt they could trot out a fleet of model A cars with wings and make them fly successfully. The B-52 is a robust plane maintained by the best funded military establishment on the planet; which additionally has had far fewer demands put upon it in the last thirty years since the introduction of the B-1 and B-2 bombers starting in the 1980's.

 

The USAF spends more on maintaining and servicing their bomber fleet alone than we spend on our entire armed forces annually therefore I would expect all of the aircraft in their inventory to be in top condition. And besides as any good accountant will tell you the costs of maintaining depreciating assets, older aircraft in this case, skyrocket exponentially as the aircraft ages.


  • Mike K. and Wayne like this

#102 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 08:49 AM

...
The USAF spends more on maintaining and servicing their bomber fleet alone than we spend on our entire armed forces annually therefore I would expect all of the aircraft in their inventory to be in top condition...


I get that you’re not pleased with Canada’s small military budget. Despite it, the Tutors are in fine condition no matter what their age and usage, and I give full marks to the people who look after them. I’ll bet they’re just as good at their job as the B-52 mechanics. :-)

#103 Benezet

Benezet
  • Member
  • 1,218 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:01 PM

I’m not much of an aviation buff, but I found an interesting doc that indicates flight hours on Tutors. There are three former Snowbirds at the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum, and they retired at 6853.1 hours, 9297.5 hours, and 7257.4 hours.

https://documents.te...rCL-41Tutor.pdf

And a quick bit of googling tells me some commercial airliners can fly as much as as 3000 hours or more per year.
  • Dr. Barillas and Victoria Watcher like this

#104 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:20 PM

And a quick bit of googling tells me some commercial airliners can fly as much as as 3000 hours or more per year.

 

yes.  believe it or not a jet engine is - in relative terms - not a complex machine.   it just took until the 40's and then beyond to develop the space-age materials and very exact machined tolerances required for it to be built.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 August 2019 - 01:20 PM.


#105 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:20 PM

That does not sound like a lot of air time.

I looked at an ATV for sale today with over 2,700 hours running time. It was a 2007 model.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#106 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,776 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:31 PM

Apparently the average lifespan of a modern, western-built fighter jet is 4,000-6,000 hours of flight time. Also keep in mind that these days a US Air Force pilot averages only 150 hours flight time per year. via https://www.quora.co...expectancy-ends



#107 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 01:41 PM

Apparently the average lifespan of a modern, western-built fighter jet is 4,000-6,000 hours of flight time. Also keep in mind that these days a US Air Force pilot averages only 150 hours flight time per year. 

 

the other 1930 hours a year on duty they spend in the classroom learning how much trouble they will get in if they crash a plane.   :wave:


  • Mike K. likes this

#108 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 29 March 2021 - 11:53 AM

lots of pilot error lead to the death.  looks like he ejected prior to the dead co-pilot/passenger.

 

 

 

 

Investigators also mentioned concerns about MacDougall’s order to his passenger, Capt. Jennifer Casey, to eject from the aircraft. While pilots are trained to yell "Eject" three times in quick succession, the report says he instead said: "Pull the handle."

 

"The format of this command is designed so that the passenger initiates ejection upon hearing the first ‘EJECT’ of the command followed by the pilot on the third ‘EJECT,’ who initiates their own ejection," the report reads.

 

"This difference in wording may have contributed to the overall confusion/uncertainty of the situation which resulted in the passenger ejecting second."

 

 

https://www.timescol...ions-1.24300562


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 29 March 2021 - 11:54 AM.


#109 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Banned
  • 2,461 posts

Posted 30 March 2021 - 05:56 AM

"Pilot error" doesn't mean what you (apparently) think it means.

 

(You also might want to look up "lots" in the dictionary).


Edited by Spy Black, 30 March 2021 - 05:58 AM.


#110 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 30 March 2021 - 06:36 AM

A pilot is only as good as their training. But as the investigations into previous crashes show, there's a little cowboy showing off that is factored in to several incidents.

 

But I don't understand why they weren't adequately trained for that bail out maneuver. What the hell else do they do with their day?



#111 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 30 March 2021 - 06:54 AM

"Pilot error" doesn't mean what you (apparently) think it means.

(You also might want to look up "lots" in the dictionary).

a bird caused the stall. that we know.

then we also know the pilot did at least two things wrong.

between the bird strike / stall and the eject the pilot did two things wrong. in a matter of seconds. I would say that is “lots”. it cost the passenger their life.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 30 March 2021 - 07:00 AM.

  • Rob Randall likes this

#112 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 12,701 posts

Posted 30 March 2021 - 07:48 PM

Snowbirds have been asking for improved ejection seats on their aircraft for quite awhile, they are going to get them now.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#113 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Banned
  • 2,461 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 07:08 AM

a bird caused the stall. that we know.

then we also know the pilot did at least two things wrong.

between the bird strike / stall and the eject the pilot did two things wrong. in a matter of seconds. I would say that is “lots”. it cost the passenger their life.

If it was pilot error, the investigators would have used the words "pilot error".

They didn't use those words, because the accident wasn't caused by pilot error ... it was caused by a bird strike.

 

That you have personally chosen to re-brand the investigators report as a case of "pilot error" would seem to require expertise or knowledge beyond that of the investigators ... and I'm guessing (just guessing of course) that you actually don't possess the expertise or knowledge required to support such a re-branding?


Edited by Spy Black, 31 March 2021 - 07:08 AM.


#114 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 07:22 AM

The article states the pilot gave the wrong command to the passenger, which was his error:

Investigators also mentioned concerns about MacDougall’s order to his passenger, Capt. Jennifer Casey, to eject from the aircraft. While pilots are trained to yell "Eject" three times in quick succession, the report says he instead said: "Pull the handle."

Deadly error on his part. He broke protocol and confused the passenger.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#115 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 07:26 AM

he also tried to return the aircraft to the airport instead of trying to get some altitude for a safer eject.

I know this is very difficult. because this pilot survived relatively uninjured and the passenger is dead.

so blame is going to land on a real live human.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 31 March 2021 - 07:29 AM.


#116 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 07:29 AM

I think we’ve learned over the past year that experts and media coverage can often lead to complete BS and masking of pertinent details. We have to read between the lines now, because experts are routinely wrong, and the media unsophisticated enough to judge them on their veracity.

The pilot here screwed up. And because the article doesn’t convey that as poignantly as it should Joe Public is admonished for thinking for himself.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#117 Spy Black

Spy Black
  • Banned
  • 2,461 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 06:30 PM

Nowhere in the actual report are the words "pilot error" used.

You guys are talking through your hats.

 

http://www.rcaf-arc....ilogue/kae62tqg

 

Critical thinking is quite different from just making **** up ... and "Joe Public" has zero qualifications when it comes to adding their own thoughts to an official RCAF accident investigation.



#118 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 06:43 PM

After his aircraft lost power, the pilot, Capt. Richard MacDougall, tried to turn back toward the airport. During that manoeuvre, "the aircraft entered an aerodynamic stall and the pilot gave the order to abandon the aircraft," the military said in a statement.

 

"Snowbird 11's power loss could not have come at a worse time – low altitude, low airspeed, proximity to another aircraft, and in the vicinity of a built-up area," said Col. John Alexander, the Air Force's director of flight safety.

 

The aircraft turned and went into a steep nose dive before hitting the ground in a residential neighbourhood. It was completely destroyed.

 

The final report said MacDougall and Casey, originally from Nova Scotia, ejected from the aircraft "at low altitude and in conditions that were outside safe ejection seat operation parameters."

 

The pilot ordered the aircraft abandoned by saying "pull the handle." The flight safety report said the commonly used word "eject" is supposed to be called out in rapid succession "in a clear and loud voice."

 

Investigators found that Casey fired her ejection seat point-four seconds after the pilot.

 

 

 

 

https://www.cbc.ca/n...-bird-1.5968000


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 31 March 2021 - 06:43 PM.


#119 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 06:45 PM

You're splitting hairs. The pilot made an error. I would therefore call that a pilot error. The only question is whether that error was due to insufficient or faulty training or if the pilot forgot or disregarded his training. 

 

It's pretty clear the procedure when you have an engine failure is not to go around and try to land--it will never work. You're supposed to use what remaining energy you have to get enough altitude to safely eject, and then when it comes to that point say the words "eject, eject, eject". 



#120 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher

    Old White Man On A Canadian Island

  • Member
  • 52,293 posts

Posted 31 March 2021 - 06:49 PM

You're splitting hairs. The pilot made an error. I would therefore call that a pilot error. The only question is whether that error was due to insufficient or faulty training or if the pilot forgot or disregarded his training. 

 

It's pretty clear the procedure when you have an engine failure is not to go around and try to land--it will never work. You're supposed to use what remaining energy you have to get enough altitude to safely eject, and then when it comes to that point say the words "eject, eject, eject". 

 

that's correct.

 

and that 4 seconds that elapsed before his passenger ejected likely lead to her death.  but if he had done the correct procedure in the first place they might have both ejected at a much higher altitude.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 31 March 2021 - 06:49 PM.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users