Kip Powick Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 THE CANADIAN PRESS MOOSE JAW, Sask.–A faulty seatbelt left unrepaired for several years and the failure of the pilot to ensure that he was strapped in properly led to the fatal crash of a Snowbird jet two years ago, says the final report on the May 2007 crash. But the pilot's father is raising questions about whether the air force should have done more about the seatbelt problem that contributed to his son's death. Capt. Shawn McCaughey's lap belt came undone while he was flying upside down during a practice flight prior to an air show in Montana, said the report released Monday. McCaughey fell out of his seat and lost control of the plane, which plummeted to the ground. The report says the seatbelt problem had been an issue for several years, but was never properly addressed. The ground crew was not aware of a key part of the functional check used to ensure that the seatbelt was properly secured, said the report. This measure had been introduced after two incidents in 2002. In one case, a seatbelt came unlatched during a training flight and the pilot was thrown from the seat, striking his helmet on the canopy. In this case, the pilot was able to roll the aircraft upright and recovered safely. An investigation concluded that a long-term solution would be to redesign the key assembly of the seatbelt, but no modifications were ever made. In an interview Monday, McCaughey's father, Ken, said he didn't believe his son was to blame for the fatal crash. He said his son had long voiced concerns about the seatbelt issue and followed the procedure he was shown to strap in properly. "They should have fixed the problem prior to the crash so Shawn would have been alive again today," McCaughey told The Canadian Press from his home in Candiac, Que. "That's the very, very unfortunate part of it." "They knew about the problem way back from 2002 and it took them five years and indecision from the part of the National Defence to fix the problem properly once and for all," he said. "When the crash happened the problem was not solved. This is unbelievable and unacceptable." Senior air force staff tried to explain at a news conference Monday why the seatbelt problem had never been fixed as prescribed. "The problem as it was known and understood at the time was perceived as being under control with mitigating measures that were implemented," said Major-General Yvan Blondin. "There's nobody at that time that perceived the seriousness of the problem as much as we did afterwards." Col. Gary Doiron, the director of flight safety, told the news conference the delay resulted in a gradual erosion of the sense of urgency to ensure this modification was put in place. "This was seen as just a technical change that will enhance safety of the lap belt, so the seriousness of the issue was lost." Modifications were made after McCaughey's crash. The report noted that McCaughey had problems with the seatbelt latch at least three times in the weeks before the crash, but each time the ground crew got the latch to close properly before he took off. But these "false-locks" were never reported, according to 45-page report. "During the many months spent training for the show season, (McCaughey's) assigned ground crewman reportedly reminded him several times to do his lap belt up carefully and to check for the click noise," said report. The report said (McCaughey) would perform the check as requested, but then over time he would revert to "just doing the belt up quickly." "The pilot did not complete the prescribed functional checks to ensure that the belt was locked properly prior to flight," said Doiron. "A combination of complacency and inadequate training played a role." "Over time, a complacent attitude had been developed towards completion of the proper checks and there was an apparent knowledge gap among at least some of the aircrew regarding what the correct functional checks entailed," said Doiron. The report also said McCaughey was under "significant stress" at the time and may not have been mentally prepared for the flight. The report cites the source of this stress was a combination of personal issues and his concern over the possibility of being grounded after being unable to complete a required manoeuvre in his jet. However, the report also says that Snowbird team members indicated that McCaughey was able to fulfil his demanding flying role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Mitigation of the condemnation of the seatbelt repair/redesign history: "The report also said McCaughey was under "significant stress" at the time and may not have been mentally prepared for the flight." Blame the pilot. Other than that, a damning report of fixing a known problem. Much like the C-130 LAPES tow-plate fiasco which killed many fine Canadian servicemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 Much like the C-130 LAPES tow-plate fiasco which killed many fine Canadian servicemen To a degree....the LAPES accident was not the malfunction of equipment. It was more of combination of the LM knowledge and technique and the "knowledge" was partially ascertained by a hit and miss gamble plus experience. Sadly in this accident the knowlege/gamble went against the crew. The PILT, (Positive Indication of Load Transfer) flag solved the problem and the human factor was taken out...no incidents/accidents since then. One of the toughest assignments I ever had ....escorting/officiating officer for the Captain's (PF) immediate NOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 The PILT, (Positive Indication of Load Transfer) flag solved the problem and the human factor was taken out...no incidents/accidents since then. One of the toughest assignments I ever had ....escorting/officiating officer for the Captain's (PF) immediate NOK I understand that fix Kip. But I was onboard a Herc in Namao in early 1978 when it happened to us. Yes, the crew botched the go-around procedure (LM installed load locks prior to cutting drogue) but the load did not deploy. Our film crew (civvy with NFB) spent two full days assisting the DND photo guys (who were assisting our crew) document the incident. The problem didn't get fixed for years. I was unaware of the PILT you mentioned but regardless, it was moot as the CAF stopped LAPES after the accident in Namao, to the best of my recollection. Hence no more accidents. I think even the Yanks have stopped the procedure, effective as it was when carried out successfully. You probably have a better idea of that timeline. Got your boat in the Rideau yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share Posted July 7, 2009 But I was onboard a Herc in Namao in early 1978 when it happened to us Ooooh '78 you are really old Yes, the whole deadly incident in Namao was a tragedy. As far as LAPSE after that...I think we still did it as I was in the Arctic on OPs Ceasar and although I didn't do it, I thought we did LAPSE bulldozer onto the ice when they built that runway for us just a few miles south of the North Pole. If you do some Googling you will see a couple of filmed incidents of successful LAPSE deployments by the USAF but they destroyed the aircraft when the crew flew too close to the terra firma !!! I really can't say when we quit in the CF as I was more TAL and HALO orientated. No Rideau this year, only do it on even numbered years. In 1000 Islands since 01 June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadji Ramjet Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 LAPES was abandoned after the 1993 crash at Wainwright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Do you guys speak English as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Do you guys speak English as well? Mitch, if we told you, we'd have to, er... You know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Ooooh '78 you are really old Yes, the whole deadly incident in Namao was a tragedy. As far as LAPSE after that...I think we still did it as I was in the Arctic on OPs Ceasar and although I didn't do it, I thought we did LAPSE bulldozer onto the ice when they built that runway for us just a few miles south of the North Pole. If you do some Googling you will see a couple of filmed incidents of successful LAPSE deployments by the USAF but they destroyed the aircraft when the crew flew too close to the terra firma !!! I really can't say when we quit in the CF as I was more TAL and HALO orientated. No Rideau this year, only do it on even numbered years. In 1000 Islands since 01 June. I remember doing a LAPES drop at an air show in Moose Jaw when the toe plate fouled up, and as a result the cargo chutes didn't deploy. We trundled across the infield, jettisoned the drogue chute and got the bird airborne again. That would have been in in 1970 or 71 when the procedure was in it's infancy. (At least in Canada.) Some of the earlier attempts were interesting. I remember witnessing a few drops where the multiple pallets all cart-wheeled over each other. The early days in TAL were a lot of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Do you guys speak English as well? I am sure you have found the answers but incase you didn't LAPES = Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System...done with the C-130 just skimming the deck and parachutes are deployed which pull loaded pallets out the aircraft. Done where the aircraft is unable to land due to terrain. TAL = Tactical Air Lift......done with C130s day or night ...single ship or formations,,,,argh.....nite formation in a C130 is not for the faint of heart..... A method of inserting troops, supplies etc by flying a very low level route and then dropping all the supplies or a slight pop-up to drop the troops via parachute...I believe the min para altitude for the troops was 800feet HALO. =High Altitude Low Opening...done with C130s...Fly to a high Altitude, between 31000 and 25000, depressurize, open the back ramp and "crazy" Special Forces fellows exit the aircraft and free-fall to about 2500-1500 feet and then open their chutes...stealth way to insert the "point" guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 ....LAPES = Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System...done with the C-130 just skimming the deck and parachutes are deployed which pull loaded pallets out the aircraft. Done where the aircraft is unable to land due to terrain. .... I saw a program on the Discovery Channel today that showed a C-17 doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Thanks Kip. (I hadn't found out yet, but would have if someone hadn't excplained)... This stuff eh? http://micom.net/oops/Air-drops.wmv [edited to add] Oops! "this site does not support hot links" ...so check the one called "air-drops". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 It's quite the rush sitting just inches away from a D5 Caterpillar on a pallet then watching it zoom away out the back ~130 knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I am sure you have found the answers but incase you didn't LAPES = Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System...done with the C-130 just skimming the deck and parachutes are deployed which pull loaded pallets out the aircraft. Done where the aircraft is unable to land due to terrain. TAL = Tactical Air Lift......done with C130s day or night ...single ship or formations,,,,argh.....nite formation in a C130 is not for the faint of heart..... A method of inserting troops, supplies etc by flying a very low level route and then dropping all the supplies or a slight pop-up to drop the troops via parachute...I believe the min para altitude for the troops was 800feet HALO. =High Altitude Low Opening...done with C130s...Fly to a high Altitude, between 31000 and 25000, depressurize, open the back ramp and "crazy" Special Forces fellows exit the aircraft and free-fall to about 2500-1500 feet and then open their chutes...stealth way to insert the "point" guys. Did they really do it up to FL 310 where pressure breathing is required? I would think the CF cap would be FL250! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Did they really do it up to FL 310 where pressure breathing is required? I would think the CF cap would be FL250! I think the first, or maybe it's the second thing that goes ..... is the memory. I was doing that flying 20-25 years ago......we could have been aviating anywhere between terra firma and the gates of Heaven..... whatever you think is fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.