Canadian CF-18 low altitude bailout (pics & video)

[Beerlight 0]

C'mon now, it was clearly failure of the Flux Capacitor that led to this crash!

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Pretty canopy!

It looks a lot like the one on my first jump. It was pretty too.

Yeah! That's the way I meant it!

[quade 4]

Quote

What do you know that perhaps that trained pilot was not aware of at the time he decided to save his ass?

I don't know . . . something called Vmc?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I was glad to see him land short of the fireball. I bet he could feel the heat.

There have been a number of pilots killed after a successful ejection, by landing in the fireball of their crashed jet, or having the fireball vaporize their parachute nylon, plunging them to their death.

Can't find Vmc in my copy of the FA18 NATOPS manual, but minimum takeoff speed is 100 knots, in ideal conditions. Variables include nose trim, weight of fuel and external stores, etc. That's for the F404-GE-400 engines.

Likewise, minimum controllable speed also depends upon many variables, like angle of attack. The FA-18 can depart at quite high speeds, given the wrong configuration.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Right, 'cos low alt, low speed and high AOA would be of the easiest times to deal with an engine failure...

Oh, clearly a challenge, but there's no reason he wouldn't have been operating within the specs of the aircraft. Airshows are a demonstration, not test piloting.

But it looks like he was operating within the specs.... until he lost an engine. Then he found himself outside the "new" performance envelope and in a bad situation and punched out. I don't know if you could call that "test piloting". For example, the T-birds also do a slow, low altitude high alpha pass, but with a single engine.....which, I'm sure, would also be unrecoverable if an engine quit. What I'm getting at is that the show demonstration depended on everything working as advertised. If something goes wrong the pilot is trained in EPs where the outcome depended on other things working properly .....and, obviously, they did.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

I was glad to see him land short of the fireball. I bet he could feel the heat.

There have been a number of pilots killed after a successful ejection, by landing in the fireball of their crashed jet, or having the fireball vaporize their parachute nylon, plunging them to their death.

Can't find Vmc in my copy of the FA18 NATOPS manual, but minimum takeoff speed is 100 knots, in ideal conditions. Variables include nose trim, weight of fuel and external stores, etc. That's for the F404-GE-400 engines.

Likewise, minimum controllable speed also depends upon many variables, like angle of attack. The FA-18 can depart at quite high speeds, given the wrong configuration.

Yeah, he landed quite close (optical illusion?). I wondered, as I watched the video, if the rising heat of the fireball could have produced a wind that could have drawn the canopy (and pilot) into the fire after he landed?

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, 'cos low alt, low speed and high AOA would be of the easiest times to deal with an engine failure...

Oh, clearly a challenge, but there's no reason he wouldn't have been operating within the specs of the aircraft. Airshows are a demonstration, not test piloting.

But it looks like he was operating within the specs.... until he lost an engine.

Nope. Not to me it doesn't. To me it looks as if he was below Vmc (the speed at which you should be able to still control the aircraft with one engine operating). Below Vmc and especially at low altitude . . . that's not a good place to be.

Any time you exceed the published limits of an aircraft, you're in "test pilot" territory.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, 'cos low alt, low speed and high AOA would be of the easiest times to deal with an engine failure...

Oh, clearly a challenge, but there's no reason he wouldn't have been operating within the specs of the aircraft. Airshows are a demonstration, not test piloting.

But it looks like he was operating within the specs.... until he lost an engine.

Nope. Not to me it doesn't. To me it looks as if he was below Vmc (the speed at which you should be able to still control the aircraft with one engine operating). Below Vmc and especially at low altitude . . . that's not a good place to be.

Any time you exceed the published limits of an aircraft, you're in "test pilot" territory.

The a/c was intended to operate with both engines running and that condition was required for this demonstration. Lose an engine in this situation......get out! Same with the F-16.

[quade 4]

/sigh

Really? You're telling me that somebody at the airshow held a gun to the guy's head and said, "Look, we know this goes against all principles of aviation, but we want you to exceed the design limits of your airplane for this. It's imperative. Fuck it if the exact same demonstration could be made a bit faster. We want you to go below the airspeed you'll be able to recover from if anything goes wrong. No! We don't just want you to; WE REQUIRE IT!"

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, 'cos low alt, low speed and high AOA would be of the easiest times to deal with an engine failure...

Oh, clearly a challenge, but there's no reason he wouldn't have been operating within the specs of the aircraft. Airshows are a demonstration, not test piloting.

But it looks like he was operating within the specs.... until he lost an engine.

Nope. Not to me it doesn't. To me it looks as if he was below Vmc (the speed at which you should be able to still control the aircraft with one engine operating). Below Vmc and especially at low altitude . . . that's not a good place to be.

Any time you exceed the published limits of an aircraft, you're in "test pilot" territory.

The a/c was intended to operate with both engines running and that condition was required for this demonstration. Lose an engine in this situation......get out! Same with the F-16.

Yup I am thinking that losing an engine in the F-16 might be a good excuse to use that 4 color parachute

[quade 4]

Quote

Yup I am thinking that losing an engine in the F-16 might be a good excuse to use that 4 color parachute

There's more than one?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Yup I am thinking that losing an engine in the F-16 might be a good excuse to use that 4 color parachute

There's more than one?

Correct Use of A and An

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yup I am thinking that losing an engine in the F-16 might be a good excuse to use that 4 color parachute

There's more than one?

Correct Use of A and An

Maybe you've heard of the definite article "the"? That's the point I was trying to make. "A" or "an" implies there are others.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yup I am thinking that losing an engine in the F-16 might be a good excuse to use that 4 color parachute

There's more than one?

Correct Use of A and An

Maybe you've heard of the definite article "the"? That's the point I was trying to make. "A" or "an" implies there are others.

Maybe reading the CONTEXT????

I was responding to this.

Quote

The a/c was intended to operate with both engines running and that condition was required for this demonstration. Lose an engine in this situation......get out! Same with the F-16.

[quade 4]

Absolutely. Just me having a bit of fun with ya.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Absolutely. Just me having a bit of fun with ya.

Of course

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

To me it looks as if he was below Vmc (the speed at which you should be able to still control the aircraft with one engine operating). Below Vmc and especially at low altitude... that's not a good place to be. Any time you exceed the published limits of an aircraft, you're in "test pilot" territory.

So you advocate that no dual-engine aircraft air show maneuver ever be done unless the maneuver can be accomplished with just a single engine?

Gosh, that's sure going to be boring...

Just because you do a maneuver with two engines that can't be accomplished with only one, does not mean that you are "exceeding published limits", or acting as a "test pilot".

[quade 4]

Quote

So you advocate that no dual-engine aircraft air show maneuver ever be done unless the maneuver can be accomplished with just a single engine?

Nope. Never said that. I am, however, a strong advocate of not flying a multi-engine aircraft below Vmc in close proximity to the ground.

See the difference? Do you even understand the difference?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

So you advocate that no dual-engine aircraft air show maneuver ever be done unless the maneuver can be accomplished with just a single engine?

Nope. Never said that. I am, however, a strong advocate of not flying an multi-engine aircraft below Vmc in close proximity to the ground.

See the difference?

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE

[quade 4]

Quote

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE

Just for you babe.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[booyah 0]

Quote

Quote

So you advocate that no dual-engine aircraft air show maneuver ever be done unless the maneuver can be accomplished with just a single engine?

Nope. Never said that. I am, however, a strong advocate of not flying a multi-engine aircraft below Vmc in close proximity to the ground.

See the difference? Do you even understand the difference?

You really need to give it a break. How do you know he was below Vmc?

Why dont you let us know how much experience you have flying CF-18's, or how much training you have with CF-18's.

What are you basing your know-it-all knowlegde on?

You are coming across like a fool that thinks he knows everything you know that?

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

To me it looks as if he was below Vmc (the speed at which you should be able to still control the aircraft with one engine operating). Below Vmc and especially at low altitude... that's not a good place to be. Any time you exceed the published limits of an aircraft, you're in "test pilot" territory.

So you advocate that no dual-engine aircraft air show maneuver ever be done unless the maneuver can be accomplished with just a single engine?

Gosh, that's sure going to be boring...

Just because you do a maneuver with two engines that can't be accomplished with only one, does not mean that you are "exceeding published limits", or acting as a "test pilot".

That's what I was trying to say but you used less words.

[quade 4]

Quote

You really need to give it a break. How do you know he was below Vmc?

How else did he lose control of the aircraft? An engine out isn't supposed to equal a crash.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

You really need to give it a break. How do you know he was below Vmc?

How else did he lose control of the aircraft? An engine out isn't supposed to equal a crash.

He was at a speed where any loss of power would have resulted in loss of control. I'm not entirely sure he had a true "loss of directional control" from the engine out, or simply stalled the plane when he lost power. The nose was dropping toward the ground as the plane yawed to the right. In either case, the result was the plane going down.

He had put himself in a spot where there was no margin for error or malfunction. That doesn't make him a "test" pilot. More of a "stunt" pilot.
This manuver is a very popular one at airshows. The reliablilty of the turbine engines means the risk is low. The fact that there have only been 2 notable airshow crashes during this particular manuver in the last 20 years testify to that.

I'm not sure that even that low of a risk is worth impressing spectators, not when the crash destroys a multi-million dollar plane.
But I'm not in charge of those decisions.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yup I am thinking that losing an engine in the F-16 might be a good excuse to use that 4 color parachute

There's more than one?

Correct Use of A and An

Maybe you've heard of the definite article "the"? That's the point I was trying to make. "A" or "an" implies there are others.

Maybe reading the CONTEXT????

I was responding to this.

Quote

The a/c was intended to operate with both engines running and that condition was required for this demonstration. Lose an engine in this situation......get out! Same with the F-16.

I meant to say "an" because it makes my point that losing an engine in either case will likely produce the same results for the maneuver. Otherwise, the F-18 should only be allowed to fly above "Vmc" for single engine condition......just in case he loses an engine. The F-16 doesn't have that luxury so he can fly as slow as he wants (while still maintaining control)... and if he loses an engine he gets out. By required I meant that unless he can fly real slow and point the nose up, then he isn't performing the same maneuver. Losing "the" engine in the F-16 would be equivalent to the F-18 losing "both" engines. More simply put... if the F-16 has only one engine, then it should not be allowed to perform that demonstration at an airshow at all if the pilot needed to consider that losing an engine meant he would not be able to maintain "Vmc".