Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:33 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:53 am 
Offline
Lance Corporal

Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 1:44 pm
Posts: 39
I did find it odd that they did not add any kind of safety cage inside the cockpit. Cant say i'd want to travel at high speed on the ground in a tin can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:05 am 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 824
Location: Caribou, Maine
p51buff wrote

Quote:
Adding a roll/crash cage capable of handing a zero altitude 500+ mph mishap might have been possible, but is purely speculation best left to better engineering minds. It was a risk taken by the NAE team, and one that I'm sure will haunt them the rest of their lives.


From what I understand, such a roll cage would not have protected Combs. An extra-heavy fire suit probably would not have protected her either. These things also add weight that can detract from the speed-mission of the vehicle. And an F-104 does not have all the room of a NASCAR Chevy. The NAE driver and team knew the risks; in my opinion there is nothing here to "haunt them."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:49 am 
Offline
Flight Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:43 pm
Posts: 92
Location: SE Pa
p51buff wrote:
Those advocating for a ground level, high speed ejection seat really don't understand the complexities of them. It's not a magic carpet ride to the ground, it's a last ditch, dangerous, violent event with a high probability of failure and even under the best of circumstances with a seat designed for the aircraft/ejection envelope often leaves the occupant injured. The F-104 used by the NAE team, 60763/SN 56-6672, appeared to have the Lockheed C-2 ejection seat still installed. This was a 120 kt/zero altitude seat, but with it's age would have been extremely difficult-if not impossible-to maintain, the rocket motors usually have a designated life span, probably would have been impossible to find, and most likely extremely unreliable. I'm sure these were the reasons NAE elected not to make the seat "hot".

Could a 0-0 seat been fitted to NAE? Way beyond my engineering limits, but remember, NAE was always cash-limited and retrofitting a MB Mk Q7(A) seat to the older airframe was probably beyond their financial capabilities, IF they could have even acquired one. Then there was modifying the older airframe for the newer seat, etc...

Adding a roll/crash cage capable of handing a zero altitude 500+ mph mishap might have been possible, but is purely speculation best left to better engineering minds. It was a risk taken by the NAE team, and one that I'm sure will haunt them the rest of their lives.

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wu763.htm

http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm


Legitimate record or not, a person died, violently, in the NAE mishap. Godspeed.


I think this is probably an accurate assessment of the situation. May be fair to say that a seat would have been a nice option, but from both a practical standpoint and a statistical success probability very likely wouldn't have helped.

I'm sure Jesse and NAE did their honest best within their budget parameters and went in "eyes open". My condolemces involved to all and a sincere RIP to Jesse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:04 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Meriden,Ct.
https://www.powernationtv.com/post/land ... o-guinness

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:27 am 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 657
Location: Belgium
exhaustgases wrote:
Yeah so dying in a crash was the best option? Smart

The way you argument is sorry to have to say that ... weird. All the explanation and facts demonstrate that having an ejection seat would have not reduced the global risk for the driver.

Finding solution to mitigate all the risks involving by a specific situation is done by
- Finding all the predicable risks,
- Evaluating for each of them the probability to see it occuring.
- Finding a set of solution to reduce the impact of the risk
- Prioritaries the actions / solution to be implemented based on the probabilies, technical possibilities and finance / ressources available.
After that you run again all the process, to insure that the solutions selected to be implemented is not increasing others risks in a way seeing the global risk increasing.

It's of course very easy to come after the accident, witch a specific situation having occured and saying that all the security decision would have done for reduce this risk without consideration for the others risks.

If this poor girl would have been killed in this car at zero speed by a cartridge explosion in a fire or killed in an ejection attempt where the crash would have be survivable staying inside the car, I guess you will have a different argumentation now.

After an accident, the way the investiguation is conducted is mainly checking that with the availables information BEFORE the accident, an other way of management and decision could have make a better outcome. Including the way the pilot, driver, etc was trained.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:37 am 
Offline
Flight Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:43 pm
Posts: 92
Location: SE Pa
Iclo wrote:
exhaustgases wrote:
Yeah so dying in a crash was the best option? Smart

The way you argument is sorry to have to say that ... weird. All the explanation and facts demonstrate that having an ejection seat would have not reduced the global risk for the driver.

Finding solution to mitigate all the risks involving by a specific situation is done by
- Finding all the predicable risks,
- Evaluating for each of them the probability to see it occuring.
- Finding a set of solution to reduce the impact of the risk
- Prioritaries the actions / solution to be implemented based on the probabilies, technical possibilities and finance / ressources available.
After that you run again all the process, to insure that the solutions selected to be implemented is not increasing others risks in a way seeing the global risk increasing.

It's of course very easy to come after the accident, witch a specific situation having occured and saying that all the security decision would have done for reduce this risk without consideration for the others risks.

If this poor girl would have been killed in this car at zero speed by a cartridge explosion in a fire or killed in an ejection attempt where the crash would have be survivable staying inside the car, I guess you will have a different argumentation now.

After an accident, the way the investiguation is conducted is mainly checking that with the availables information BEFORE the accident, an other way of management and decision could have make a better outcome. Including the way the pilot, driver, etc was trained.


Well said. And do not apologose for your English - I daresay it is FAR better than any attempt I would make at any foreign language :drink3:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10421
Iclo wrote:
The way you argument is sorry to have to say that ... weird. All the explanation and facts demonstrate that having an ejection seat would have not reduced the global risk for the driver.

Finding solution to mitigate all the risks involving by a specific situation is done by
- Finding all the predicable risks,
- Evaluating for each of them the probability to see it occuring.
- Finding a set of solution to reduce the impact of the risk
- Prioritaries the actions / solution to be implemented based on the probabilies, technical possibilities and finance / ressources available.
After that you run again all the process, to insure that the solutions selected to be implemented is not increasing others risks in a way seeing the global risk increasing.

It's of course very easy to come after the accident, witch a specific situation having occured and saying that all the security decision would have done for reduce this risk without consideration for the others risks.

If this poor girl would have been killed in this car at zero speed by a cartridge explosion in a fire or killed in an ejection attempt where the crash would have be survivable staying inside the car, I guess you will have a different argumentation now.

After an accident, the way the investiguation is conducted is mainly checking that with the availables information BEFORE the accident, an other way of management and decision could have make a better outcome. Including the way the pilot, driver, etc was trained.


Very good points Iclo.

This is the way the US Military deals with safety risks:

https://www.system-safety.org/Documents ... D-882E.pdf

It is an entire profession! What risks had the team identified and what mitigation strategies were put into place? Look at Table III on page 12 of the MIL-STD. Could a roll cage have reduced a "High" risk to a "Medium" risk? Were the affects of likely failures considered? Did they mitigate risks to prevent future occurrences of the failures they had previously experienced?

People in the hobbies often just "go for it" and hope they will be "lucky" and not crash, so they fail to mitigate many risks. That is the advantage of sanctioning bodies, they maintain a minimum safety standard irrespective of participant cost and the rules are usually written in blood. The minimum may still not be enough though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:14 am 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:20 am
Posts: 657
Location: Belgium
bdk wrote:
This is the way the US Military deals with safety risks:

Thanks for the link, an interesting reading (yes, I didn't read the whole document) : lots of similarities, at least in the general process, with my field of work: computer sciences and project management. Risk, probabilities, impacts, solution, etc.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:52 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10421
Iclo wrote:
bdk wrote:
This is the way the US Military deals with safety risks:

Thanks for the link, an interesting reading (yes, I didn't read the whole document) : lots of similarities, at least in the general process, with my field of work: computer sciences and project management. Risk, probabilities, impacts, solution, etc.
It is a lot of information to absorb!

There are a few aspects to this:

1. Identifying the risks and their severity
2. Determining what corrective actions can be done to reduce those risks
3. Prioritizing the risks (which ones are mandatory and affordable)
4. Implementing corrective actions

Of course the team might have done all this. There are always unidentified risks or scenarios which are considered of low likelihood but still happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:58 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 3955
Location: Eastern Washington
Let's not over analyse this.
Setting land or water speed records has always been dangerous.
Remember Frank Lockhart and Donald Campbell?

I assume Jessi, her team and family knew the history of the attempts and the risks.

Seems like a high price for a line in record books.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:52 am 
Offline
Been here a long time
Been here a long time

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am
Posts: 10421
JohnB wrote:
Let's not over analyse this.
This is the internet, right? :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:36 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2139
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Skipping the cliche’s of “ She died doing what she loved” and she made the ultimate sacrifice for the sport” , or “ she died with a smile on her face” or “ the benefits outweigh the risks.” Really?

I have flown a lot of high net worth , famous, and important people. When they reach a certain value they aren’t allowed to ride in a plane single pilot. Their insurance requires a second approved pilot. One guy o fly used to race Indy cars. His insurance company and his record label company won’t allow him to get on the track anymore.
This to say I’m surprised Jesse’s boyfriend, family, manager, t.v. Producer, publicist , agent, etc. approved of their star risking and losing her life. You notice Dale Earnhardt Jr. , Danica Patrick, etc. don’t risk their lives anymore.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:51 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 1600
Location: Pacific Northwest USA, via North Florida
An ejection seat, even if a 0/0 seat could have gotten her out of the crash before it rolled past the seat's ability to correct for the spin, wouldn't have done anything for her if the crash happened faster than her speed in grabbing the handles and tugging on them. Going that fast, things go bad even faster and it's likely she didn't even have time to do anything but have her brain start to consider that something bad was going to happen, then a split second later - gone. :(
It's just silly to think that any kind of ejection seat could have saved her. There's a reason why airplanes have them because in more than a few cases, you have the potential of realizing, "Oh, this bird is going down, gotta hit the silk" and then tugging the handles. Zipping along the ground at hundreds of miles an hour, you're already in the crash before your mind can grasp that it's happening. Ask anyone who's been in a normal car crash, if they saw it coming at all, they didn't have time to grasp what was happening to do anything about it. Think it's any easier at 300+ MPH faster?
marine air wrote:
Skipping the cliche’s of “ She died doing what she loved” and she made the ultimate sacrifice for the sport” , or “ she died with a smile on her face” or “ the benefits outweigh the risks.” Really?
That's just what the survivors say to make themselves feel better about the loss. I've been with people who died doing what they love as it happened on a couple of occasions. I can promise you all, none went out with a smile on their face or their last words were anything like, "It was worth it..."

_________________
Image
Life member, 91st BG Memorial Association
1944 Willys MB #366014, MVPA
REMF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 7:18 pm
Posts: 1422
Location: Meriden,Ct.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/cau ... ocid=ientp

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:06 am 
Offline
Flight Sergeant

Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:43 pm
Posts: 92
Location: SE Pa
Which pretty much precludes the chances of an ejection seat being of any help.

Still an unfortunate loss.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group