Snowbird crashed today

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Jul 2020, 14:05

RAN/RAAF Macchi MB326H had Mk.4 Martin-Baker Ejection seats (these jet trainers replaced the Vampire in RAN in 1970). So with the limits on these seats takeoffs anticipating a potential engine failure were also practiced as per this RAAFie.

Macchi MB326H RAAF Low Take Off R/W 03 NAS Nowra 1980s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vACCIMg-jhE

huggy · by **huggy** » 15 Jul 2020, 00:48

Yes, I'm fairly educated on ejection seat capabilities, as well as understand what risk mitigation WRT flying high performance jet aircraft. And yes, I am a pilot.

I'm also aware of the realities of budget limitations. However, I doubt I'll change your mind with any facts that come your way, so it is unlikely to be productive to try.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 16 Jul 2020, 02:30

Your info is good to know. My issues are obvious I hope. Budget restraints don't mean people have to die. At least the SNOWBIRDS and any others flying those ancient jets deserve better performing ejection seats & NOT fixer uppers of old.

IF you don't want to discuss anything then why start with your provocative claim? No need to reply. IT IS OBVIOUS trolling.

'huggy' said over page near BTM: "You ['Corsair1963'] and Spazsinbad are both talking about issues you really know nothing about. And of which you have very little grasp of reality."

huggy · by **huggy** » 19 Jul 2020, 05:41

Your dramatic terms of "ancient jet" and "fixer upper" ejection seats belies your appearance of impartial, factual information.

The jets are over 50 years old. For me, that in and of itself should not damn them as "ancient". Instead it's a function of how they are maintained (as well as other factors).

Do the pilots consider them "unsafe"? Have you asked any former Snowbirds?

Specific to this accident, I'm sure you watched the video. Based on the the parameters of when they ejected, it would have been on the edge of the envelope for a lot of seats. Would a modern Martin-Baker seat do better? I would guess that although it should, it was still an exceedingly edge-of-the-envelope ejection for any seat.

The USAF T-38A still flies a seat from the 1960's. And while it is not as capable as more modern seats, it is still a very good seat. A very SAFE seat. Is the USAF cutting corners on pilot safety for the pilots flying the T-38A?

I'm sure all aviation fanatics would like to see the Canadian gov't change over to a 9-ship of Hornets. However, the reality of things means that is unlikely to happen. But if it did, faster jets, with more thrust and sustained G capability also induce more risk to the pilots... and you KNOW that demo profile would be modified to take advantage of what the Hornet can do that the Tutor cannot.

So I don't know wha you mean by me being an "obvious troll". I simply read your post and felt you were grandstanding without having a whole lot of facts and knowledge, and were simply jumping on the "It's old!" bandwagon, which gets tiring to read. If I am wrong about your knowledge on the subject, then so be it. Either way, I apologize for my less than tactful tone. But irrespective of your knowledge level, I do not agree with your opinion. Although I haven't flown the Tutor, I've got enough time around old jets and ejection seats that I would happily jump in a Snowbird jet tomorrow for an orientation sortie, and wouldn't be concerned in the least about the seat I was attached to.

One final thing: can you explain to me the connection between the video you posted and your thoughts on ejection seat parameters? Is your point that they left it on the deck as they accelerate?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 19 Jul 2020, 09:38

It seems neither of us will be flying a TUTOR any time soon so making claims about flying it feeling comfortable are?

There is more to the TUTOR than the latest accident. The TUTOR accident before last is mentioned in a post subsequently where the ejection seat was found lacking.

Yes the video of a RAAF Macchi MB326H taking off on Runway 03 at NAS Nowra NSW Australia was made some time after FIXED WING FOLDED in the Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm. The pilots trained with the RAAF usually initially with this aircraft, also used at Nowra for continuation training and Fleet Support work, along with initial armament training. I left the RAN FAA before being able to fly the Macchi with a gyro gunsight with a centreline gun pod and practice bombs on the wing. However I also flew the Vampire trainer (RAAF then RAN FAA) along with the SEA VENOM but not carrier stuff because the Venom like the Vampire was on the way out in 1969-70. However both had old MB seats with the Venom seat more or less the same as the Macchi seat. However I was trained by the RAAF at East Sale before the 1st Macchi got to us late 1970. As mentioned elsewhere I have only had one (A4G) sortie with a gyro gunsight. Otherwise flew all the jets mentioned but only the A4G embarked. A4G had a zero/zero seat which worked very well in the RAN FAA several times.

Staying low (probably the video shows a more than usual LOW) during take off was standard practice. An RAN Macchi had an eagle go down the engine shortly after takeoff on RW 21 with the pilot & pax able to land on runway reciprocal 03 I'm told (after my time) with brakes managing to stop it on the runway. However I do not know the details otherwise. The RAAF had a few engine failures after takeoff - usually at RAAF Pearce WA - main advanced training jet base (used also previously with the Vampire).

Anyway both training jets practiced these turnbacks under various conditions, at least when I was in the RAN FAA up until mid 1974. We would wave off (go around) without touching down. We would inform ATC before takeoff so they could say yay/nay if circuit too busy. In my days this was regularly the case at Point Cook (Winjeel Prop Basic Training) & Pearce (often with Macchis & Vampires in the same circuit 1968) with NAS Nowra having all types including helos buzzing about.

The WINJEEL (radial engine with single prop) did not have an ejection seat however we did practice all kinds of engine failures both dual and solo (when solo only certain types allowed with wave off at 200 feet IIRC). Distinctly I recall one Winjeel sortie with instructor 'failing' the engine some twenty odd times during the sortie to really stress me out but after awhile it was easy as pie (always look for a place to land was the message). For engine failure after take off (depending upon circumstances it was land straight ahead). Often that meant ditching in Port Phillip Bay off RW 18.

huggy · by **huggy** » 19 Jul 2020, 21:14

So you received your military pilot wings from the Royal Australian Navy?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 19 Jul 2020, 23:23

DUH. Let us hear about your qualifications to call me unqualified to comment. My story has been told quite a few times now upon this forum. I guess you are a real NUBE at everything here, including no quals whatsoever nor talking to a SNOWBIRD.

RAN FAA pilots in those years received 'provisional wings' from the RAAF upon graduation from advanced flight training (jets at that time). Mine was Dec 1968 with the Vampire (2nd last RAAF Vampire course before it was replaced by the Macchi). However all the RAAF pilots received their wings as per usual practice for the RAAF.

By naval tradition my wings were only confirmed once I had completed an arrest and catapult. Due to the newness of the A4G and modification of MELBOURNE for the A4G usually all the SEA VENOM operational pilots were converted to the A4G first - this took some time due to the aforementioned. In my case I was in the 3rd A4G OFS commencing beginning of 1970 but did not go to the carrier during this time as it was not available - we had only ONE aircraft carrier. So when posted to VF-805 April 1971 I confirmed my naval aviation wings by arrest/catapult later that year. NOW WHAT ABOUT YOUR QUALIFICATIONS!?

huggy · by **huggy** » 20 Jul 2020, 01:16

"Unqualified to comment" is not the intent of what my post stated. Originally, I stated you were talking "about issues which you know nothing about". As a former Naval Aviator, you probably should know more than most, and I apologize for my over-generalization, based on the assumption you're a Naval Aviator. However, even though you apparently have the aviation/pilot background you claim, your conclusions are way, way off. And frankly, reading what you post, I'm pretty amazed a military pilot would make the comments you do.

How about if we take this conversation offline. It might be best overall. I'm not trying to get in to a measuring contest. And yes, I guess I"m "a NUBE" as you would say. Of the 24000+ posts you made on here, I haven't paid much attention to your personal qualifications.

Maybe through the private message portion of this website? Maybe we can exchange resumes? Maybe a photocopy of your military pilot training graduation certificate?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Jul 2020, 01:26

Why should we do that? You have made your comments public so justify them in public - thanks. I'm pretty amazed that any self respecting Canadian allows this old Snowbird / old ejection seat situation to continue - proof of lack of interest?

huggy · by **huggy** » 20 Jul 2020, 01:29

Well... good point. I suppose I would say the same: you've made some claims also... over the course of 24000 posts... and maybe people here would like to see some sort of evidence of your background?

Me, I'm a "NUBE". Just looking to figure out who exactly you are, since you've sort of called me out.

(BTW, I'm not Canadian... though I'm proud to have many great Canadian friends. I'm American.)

huggy · by **huggy** » 20 Jul 2020, 02:04

I suppose what ultimately bugs me about you was this post:

"WARbird Heaven: The ROYAL & Ancient Canuckian Air FARCE."

I really have a hard time imagining a fellow aviator writing something like this.

(p.s... did you go through training with Clive? If so, very cool. Looks like he was quite a great person.)

huggy · by **huggy** » 20 Jul 2020, 02:27

And since we're on the subject of "old jets and ejection seats", what are your thoughts on the T-38A that I mentioned previously?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Jul 2020, 03:34

OMG 'some evidence'. CRIKEY! I've posted many times different versions but basically the same emphasising different aspects of my training long ago now. Many times a 4.4Gb PDF about the RAN FAA & Naval Aviation along with the F-35 has been referred to here, usually posted in the F-35 section but also latest version(s) here:

25apr2020A4GskyhawkRANFAAp16851.pdf (4.4Gb) ASLO (yes I know) on Microsoft OneDrive same:

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53537&p=439592&hilit=GoogleDrive#p439592

Clive who? Inferring you are good at inferring.... ASLO tell me why I need to be concerned about the T-38A?

huggy · by **huggy** » 20 Jul 2020, 04:46

Now now... there's no sense in being overly condescending to the newbie. Like I said, I don't read many of your posts. I just came across what I thought was a fairly insulting and uninformed set of comments... and they inspired me to reply, albeit rather rudely, for which I apologize.

As for the T-38A seat, based on your fairly vocal opinions on the Tutor and its seat, I believed that you might want to comment on the A model Talon and its old seat, since they are both from the same vintage. If you don't want to comment, that's fine.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 20 Jul 2020, 04:51

Why do I have to provide all the information? What seat does a T-38A have. Is the T-38A still flying? I thought it was now an upgraded T-38? Yes the ejection seats were upgraded. This is what was needed for TUTOR - an ejection seat Upgrade.

https://www.sheppard.af.mil/News/Articl ... ion-seats/