CF-18 jet crash kills pilot in Alberta

[CD]

CF-18 jet crash kills pilot in Alberta
Last Updated Mon, 26 May 2003 19:56:23
CFB COLD LAKE, ALBERTA - A pilot based at CFB Cold Lake was killed when his CF-18 jet crashed in northern Alberta on Monday.







The plane went down just before 2:30 p.m. about 50 kilometres north of the base in the Primrose Air Weapons Range.
Base spokeswoman Captain Leah Gillespie says the pilot was found dead in his parachute.
Weather was poor at the time but investigators don''t know if it was a factor in the crash.
The pilot''s name was not released.
Gillespie says the aircraft was taking part in an annual training exercise called Maple Flag, involving aircraft from a number of countries.
She says about 60 aircraft were in the air at the time.
Cold Lake is about 230 kilometres northeast of Edmonton.

[url="http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2003/05/26/pilot_crash030526"]http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2003/05/26/pilot_crash030526[/URL]

 

[Ironman2909]

Let''s not forget the family of the pilot.


All my sympathy.........

 

[RotorPilot]

Pilot ejected too low, CF-18 crash probe finds

Thursday, June 12, 2003 - Page A6

Full story
[url="http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030612/UNATSM-3//?query=CF+18+crash"]http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/Articl...ery=CF+18+crash[/URL]

 

[407 Driver]

.....when he ejected at about a kilometre above ground......"

???? What kind of drivel is this reporter writing???? So, you can''t eject from an F-18 under 1 Km Alttitude, 1,000 meters?, 3280 Feet?

Jiggler, can you correct this obviously "false" news report?

 

[Bullet Remington]

407 Driver:


The CF 18 has a Martin Baker 0/0 seat in it. That is to say, 0 forward velocity and 0 altitude. The pilot should be able to eject from a stationary position (on the ground) with the brakes on, and the seat will give him enough altitude to have the chute open and the butt-kicker move him away from the seat.

While stationed at AETE, when the first two arrivd (single seater = 701, dually = 902) I watched the CO of 410 Squadron run one off the end of the runway at zero altitude. He had no problem getting out.

Now, if ya blow the canopy and seat at 100'' AGL, inverted, then that''s a different story.

My question is, With Bitchin Betty screamin in his ear. Altitude, Attitude, ad nausea, what the fechin was goin on in the cockpit? Especially when ya throw in that wonky horn!!

Too bad, though. I''ve lost too many friends to those G.D''ed Go-Fast machines!

 

[Winnie]

Even if he did eject at altitude, he may have been outside the ''envelope''. If you got a nasty descend rate and is inverted as well, then the rocket is going to accelerate you into the ground! But then again from what I understood, the pilot had a partial chute ("Streamer") and was found near or in the seat, which could mean possible malfunction, but apparently the seats made by Martin Baker, rarely fails, so that may or may not be it.
Well those are my thoughts anyways...

 

[Bullet Remington]

Winnie:

I stand to be corrected on this, since I was not an "egress specialist or Safety Systems Tech as the Military refers to them, I'm not an "expert" on those seats.

I do know for a fact that AETE had, a probably still do, have a T-33 designed solely for seat testing. The tail number when I was there was 505. At that time (1983) the airframe had 516 hours on it. They have another T-33 under going modification as of a month ago, at a civilian MRO, to continue the seat testing.

Shortly before I got to AETE, a senior test engineer, from Martin Baker, strapped himself into the back seat and voluntarily ejected himself from the aircraft. His purpose, I assume, was to prove the safety and efficiency of the design.

As for the pilot being outside the enevelope, I am having trouble accepting that thought. That seat will kick you out at pretty well any altitude and faster thatn ya can say snake snot sliding down a slippery slope sideways on Sunday!

The only other ocassion I've seen a "partial" chute deployment was wih reference to a T-33 tumble, over the Primrose range. The pilot stalled the aircraft while trying to shoot a photo of a DC-3, a Twin Huey and another T-33 in flight. During the tumble the pilot, (a friend of mine) commenced the ejection procedure. The aircraft was inverted when the back seater ejected. (Back seat goes first) The pilot ejected with the aircraft vertical, with reference to the ground. The pilot was fine. We found the Photo Tech (a very good friend of mine)2 days later, 10 feet on the wrong side of the surface of the lake. He was in his harness and the chute was partially deployed.

I was the last person to strap him into the T-33 and I was the last person to strap him into a Twin Otter to transport him over to Sask. for the autopsy. I still have his pen. I keep it because it reminds me of what can happen in this business.

Again. I'm not a Safety Systems expert. However, based on my experience with those seats and the CF-18, I would have to say that there is more than a strong possibility that the pilot ejected inverted and too low to the ground.

Was it his fault? Probably Not. He was trained to carry out an eject under certain conditions. At this juncture I would have to say that he did what he was trained to do. Was it an inherent design flaw? Probably not. I strongly doubt that anybody will find a better egress method nor seat design.

The pilot did what he was trained to do. The unfortunate result was that we have another fatality.

Lessons to be learned? Only time will tell. And the results of the Accident investigation team is made known.

I still hate those G.D Go-Fast machines!

Oh, do me a favour would ya? Next time you run into that Old cantakerous SOB, B. Briggs, say hello to him fer me would ya! I've known him for a long as I can remember! And at this stage of my life, I can remember how long that actually is!

 

[Winnie]

UNfortunately not a seat specialist either, but worked on Martin Baker seats for an aviation museum, restoring them, and had a lengthy chat with a representative from Martin Baker (some years ago). I agree that the seat probably did not malfunction, and he told me a story from England. Basically somebocy placed a disarmed MB Mk. 5 in a Jet Provost, and put the leg restraints under the seat, unfortunately the seat did not ''seat'' itself properly down on the Gun, and in a roll the seat left the aircraft, with some unfortunate feller in it! However, even if the seat had been deactivated, the barostatic release worked, and the seat separated and poor buddy got a good chute! The only injuries he had was some bruises around the throat from the seat belt box, since he forgor to put the leg straps on! Well well, no real comparison, but speaks a little of MB. I know we should not speculate, and let the ''board'' get their findings, but fast jets are dangerous!

Another little rant wasn''t it?

 

[graunch1]

For what it''s worth regarding zero zero ejections.

Any of the seats will put the pilot out with sufficent altitude to recover if the a/c is level or climbing.
I witnessed a sucessful CF 104 ejection in Lahr many moons ago when the pilot punched out on the runway - the seat was rated for 0 feet 70kts at the time. the next one I saw was Dix Kenny up at the Lake when he didn''t ( get his CF 18 airborne that is) same thing, he jumped out when the a/c missed the arrestor wire and walked away. I also watched Anatoly Kovachur eject from the Mig 29 at Paris. He was way outside the envelope for the seat and a/c attitude and altitude. The a/c however was going very slow at the time.

The problem with any of these seats is that if the sink rate is greater then the ejection speed then the pilot is hooped at low level.This is probably the situation in this recent crash -all speculation mine ---. I was up for Maple FLag 2000 when the Lawn Dart pilot hit the Pelican in a descending turn when barely sub-sonic and at 1,500 ft. He made it although somewhat battered and bruised.

Century series fighters were notorius for implanting the pilot in hte ground a feww hundred meters in front of the a/c impact site. Zero Zero does not mean safe in any situation. Obviously the newer birds are no different.Too bad as he was probably trying to recover or save the a/c at the time

 

[Bullet Remington]

Graunch 1:


I do believe the incident re: Dix was the same incident I was refering to. That would be somewhere around 82 or 84??? Somewhere in that time frame.


If I recall correctly, he was just taking off, with a wingman, and the rudders were trimmed out, rather than in???

I was working on a throttle box on a T Bird when that happened. I noticed it due to the wingman. Wingman lifted off first and pulled nose high pitch. When he did that I knew that it had to be a CO or higher in the Lead aircraft.

I believe that was supposed to be the original lift to base those GF machines in Germany????

Correct me if I''m wrong on this. This all happened the first time I was drunk! That period was from 1968 to 1994!!LOL

 

[graunch1]

Actually what happened was that there was a snag during start-up and a box was changed after he was running. When he set the elevator trim he set it to 12 deg nose DOWN not up (possibly due to the interuption). Even though the a/c is fly-by-wire it uses pitch trim until airborne. If you are familiar with the CF-18 trim display it was very hard to tell the difference between trim up and trim down indications on the EFIS.
There was no way that that a/c was going to get airborne.

It was the first deploymewnt of 409 Sqn to Baden Germany and they were carrying live sidewinders. One broke off the wing on impact and the second was aimed at Grand Centre. A gun plumber I know tied a rope to it and dragged it off the wing and then blew it up. Interesting day at the Lake.

I will have to look at my picture file and figure out the date but I think it was 85-86, definately later than 83 as I was at the 104 retirement bash in 83 and had my first look in hte brand new -18s at AETE

 

[STICKJIGGLER]

The news report is certainly flawed in one sense. The ejection happened much lower than the altitude reported.
without going into too much detail I will share some facts as witnessed by myself and one other Helicopter Pilot in the area. The aircraft involved was number three in a flight of four aircraft. The speed of the group was approx just under 500kts. The flight formation appeared to be transiting back to base."Something" happened to captain Naismith''s aircraft and that, affected the control of the aircraft.(flight attitude was realatively benign, certainly nothing out from the ordinary). The aircraft slowed and immeadiately started a negative G barrel roll.(Investigators suspect -3 to -5 G''s). This roll continued until the aircraft entered the trees. At those type of G forces it is nothing short of Heroic effort that enabled captain Naismith to reach the ejection handles at all.
Lets keep in mind how difficult a time this is for his Family and his Brothers in arms. Canada lost one of our best, please allow the investigation team time to determine the cause.

 

[STICKJIGGLER]

The news report is certainly flawed in one sense. The ejection happened much lower than the altitude reported.
without going into too much detail I will share some facts as witnessed by myself and one other Helicopter Pilot in the area. The aircraft involved was number three in a flight of four aircraft. The speed of the group was approx just under 500kts. The flight formation appeared to be transiting back to base."Something" happened to captain Naismith''s aircraft and that, affected the control of the aircraft.(flight attitude was realatively benign, certainly nothing out from the ordinary). The aircraft slowed and immeadiately started a negative G barrel roll.(Investigators suspect -3 to -5 G''s). This roll continued until the aircraft entered the trees. At those type of G forces it is nothing short of Heroic effort that enabled captain Naismith to reach the ejection handles at all.
Lets keep in mind how difficult a time this is for his Family and his Brothers in arms. Canada lost one of our best, please allow the investigation team time to determine the cause.

 

[downwash]

Thanks, ''Jiggler, for the capsule info and the perspective. Too bad the Forces Information people can''t get something straightforward out in good time.

 

[downwash]

Thanks, ''Jiggler, for the capsule info and the perspective. Too bad the Forces Information people can''t get something straightforward out in good time.