Ejection seat or not?

[famvburg]

That's the guy & that's the video I was thinking of. However, I recall his injuries being reported as from his ejection. I never heard the other report(s) that he beat himself in the face.

I don't recall the pilot's name, but in the early days of Desert Storm, he was either an A-7 or A-10 pilot, IIRC, ejected. When his pic was plastered all over the news, most folks were upset at how the Iraqis had beat the guy up. No, he had been treated quite well by his captors & his facial injuries were the result of ejecting. Granted, he was probably healthier for ejecting than 'riding it down', but from stuff I've read & heard, he got off light.

The person you were thinking of was USN LT Jeffrey Zaun. He was the Naval A-6 pilot who was put on Iraqi t.v. with the beat up face. In reality, he punched himself in the face many times, because he knew he was going to be used as a propaganda tool. By making himself look beat-up and coerced, he knew he could diminish the effectiveness of the Iraqi propaganda. His injuries were all self-sustained and had nothing to do with his ejection. If you remember, he is the one who's video on CNN in early '91 caused such an uproar across the nation.

[mustanglover]

Our T-33 had maintained ejection seats and tip tanks.

In the right case they would have been used if needed.

If conditions were correct and you could get out, why die?

[warbirdcrew]

Those airplanes may be stressed for that, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would be safer for operation here in the U.S. Russia is a HUGE country with not nearly the population density as the United States. The L-29/39 may have been designed with off-airport landings in mind, but the vast majority of the land in Russia is grassy steppes and flat land. There are exceptions of course, but aren't a lot of Russian Air Force bases in some pretty obscure, desolate locations, away from civilization and population centers? Would an L-29/39 landing in a population center or out in the rock deserts of the Southwest necessarily come away unscathed? I think that "toughness" that they built in would not come in nearly as useful as you think. All the more reason to operate it with a hot seat.

Wouldn't the threat of a landing in a dense population center dictate a need to stay with the airplane in order to try and guide it away from the people on the ground? The moment that one ejects, all control over the trajectory and landing place is forfeited. As harsh as it might sound, in the end the life of the pilot should not be put above the lives of the innocent bystanders on the ground.

[Randy Haskin]

in the end the life of the pilot should not be put above the lives of the innocent bystanders on the ground.

Okay, you're going to have to define this one a little better than that.

As someone who rides an ejection seat every day, I have put plenty of thought into when I'll pull the handles and when I won't.

When I am ejecting, it is a life and death situation. I very likely *am* going to die if I don't bail out.

There is a *chance* that the airplane might hit something on the ground. A *chance* that another person might be maimed or killed.

This, however, is the important part...depending on what the problem is that is causing me to get out of the airplane, I may or may not have a choice where the airplane impacts anyway. For example, if there has been a midair and the wing has departed the aircraft, the airplane will go where it's going to go, regardless of if I'm with it or not. If the airplane is on fire, and I don't punch, but die in the fire...I have no control where the airplane lands. If the airplane is on fire, and later explodes...I have no control over where the wreckage lands. If the airplane is out of control and not responding to my inputs...I have no control where the airplane lands.

Bottom line, I can only think of a very few situations where, by staying with the aircraft and "sacrificing his life", the pilot of a mortally wounded aircraft with an ejection seat can influence where the airplane lands, thus avoiding "civilian" casualties on the ground.

So, what situations is the pilot's certain mortality outweighed by the potential for someone to get hurt on the ground?

[RickH]

I'm with Randy on this one. I've already stated that some of catastrophic failures have the bold faced procedure to EJECT. On the F-4 one of these items of no recourse is stabilator failure. You have lost all pitch control of the aircraft and have no way of influencing the aircraft in that particular axis, it is coming down and you aren't going to influence the point of impact. It's going where it's going. If I have the means to get out, why should I be the first person at the scene of the accident?

Ejecting from an aircraft is something not to be taken lightly, I have seen some folks speculate that a pilot will eject supposedly at the first sign of trouble. The FAA has been known to labor under this very mentality. I have spent a small bit of time working the seats and riding the seat. Randy uses one everyday in his office, he, by far, should be the recognized authority on this topic but from my perspective their are many brave individuals who are no longer with us who's only sin was in trying for to long to save the aircraft. By the time they recognized that they couldn't save the aircraft they were out of the seat envelope.

The seat in and of itself is not the be all to end all. It is a tool, and when used correctly, can and has saved lives from situations that would have otherwise been fatal. Certain types of aircraft are particularly unforgiving either through systems design or aerodynamically, if a seat is available one would be foolish to not have it active. Other types that have been mentioned are generally capable of being slowed down to what folks have been deemed a potentially survivable bailout or off runway landing. They are taking a calculated risk, but generally those early jets are dealing with early seats that possibly didn't have that great a survival rate anyway.

Randy is riding the ACES II seat, arguably one of the most successful seats ever built. If he needs it his prospects are pretty good.

The F-4 carries the Martin Baker MK H-7. That seat has the most successful survival rate of any seat ever built. To date the Martin Baker seats have saved over 7000 lives. I feel pretty good about riding that seat.

All in all, what it boils down to is an individuals choice that is determined by aircraft performance and design, and the maintainability of the seat. Doesn't do you any good if it doesn't go bang when you need it most.

Last edited by RickH on Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Randy Haskin]

some of catastrophic failures have the bold faced procedure to EJECT. On the F-4 one of these items of no recourse is stabilator failure. You have lost all pitch control of the aircraft and have no way of influencing the aircraft in that particular axis, it is coming down and you aren't going to influence the point of impact. It's going where it's going.

I'm guessing that the F-4 is the same as the T-38 and F-15: Dual AMAD failure?

EDIT: They call it an "airframe mounted gearbox" in the T-38, but same idea.

Here's a hasty scan job of the F-15 checklist for dual AMAD:



And for discussion's sake, here is a page of notes, cautions, and warnings from the T-38 checklist about ejection. Note the comment about "dangerous flameout landing" in the 1st warning.

[RickH]

In the F-4, Randy, it's actually a dual action hyd actuator. PC1 & 2 go to it but they are seperated internally. The whole thing is actuated by a small electrical servo swicth which is actuated by cables from the front. You move the stick, which moves the cables, that moves the switch, which actuates this dual action, dual system hyd ram, and the stab goes up and down ! If it gooes away then you pull the handle that starts another whole series of Rube Goldberg actions !

[Randy Haskin]

The issue with the F-15 AMAD (Airframe Mounted Accessory Drive) and the T-38 Airframe-Mounted Gearbox is that those are the sole sources for hydraulic power (for the PC1, PC2, and Utility stytems).

If both AMADs/AMGs fail, then there is physically no way to move the flight controls, as they are hydraulically actuated.

[airnutz]

in the end the life of the pilot should not be put above the lives of the innocent bystanders on the ground.

Okay, you're going to have to define this one a little better than that.

As someone who rides an ejection seat every day, I have put plenty of thought into when I'll pull the handles and when I won't.

When I am ejecting, it is a life and death situation. I very likely *am* going to die if I don't bail out.

There is a *chance* that the airplane might hit something on the ground. A *chance* that another person might be maimed or killed.

Yous guys just get too techno/serious sometimes.
If I come around a corner on the ol' XS750..loose it on marbles or a slick patch, and I'm on my ass
skidding toward a school X-ing of kids, I'd do everything I could to put myself between them and the machine...
it's just the right thing to do.

However...If I jumped a cliff with a trajectory aimed at a schoolhouse there would little I do other than
"exit with all expediency" and scream really loud hoping they would hear my alarm..

[Randy Haskin]

Perhaps, but I thought it was necessary to really explore the topic more than just a drive-by comment.

The statement was made which implied that a "selfish" pilot would pull the handles, but a "heroic" pilot would stay with the jet and keep it from landing in the school/church/orphanage/nunnery/whatever.

I think some people have the impression that a guy who is flying a seat-equipped aircraft is going to pull the handles at the first sign of trouble, and whatever happens to the airplane will happen. My point was to show that this is not the truth. There is actually a lot of thought given to this, and the factors are no different than those considered by anyone who flies an aircraft wearing a parachute (of which there are many outside the warbird community).

I think there is also a huge misconception that the pilot of a sick or dying (or dead) aircraft has some kind of choice about where the aircraft lands. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. On most mishaps of fighter (or trainer) jets that I know of which resulted in ejection, the pilot would have had little or no ability to affect where the burning wreckage ended up. Again, the basic premise of the statement is simply not true.

I don't really have an opinion either way on the hot-vs-inert seat in civilian warbird issue. I understand and recognize all of the factors that go into making that decision -- financial, practical, safety, etc -- and agree that there is not one answer that's correct for everyone, every aircraft, and every situation.

[airnutz]

I think some people have the impression that a guy who is flying a seat-equipped aircraft is going to pull the handles at the first sign of trouble, and whatever happens to the airplane will happen.

Maybe so Randy, but I think you'd agree most Wixers understand the difference....

[RickH]

I have seen some folks speculate that a pilot will eject supposedly at the first sign of trouble. The FAA has been known to labor under this very mentality.

[PinecastleAAF]

I still wonder if the F7U Cutlass had an ejection seat? Nobody seems to know or want to fess up.

After reading up on the Cutlass they seem to have lost a lot of them when the gear was down due to the poor handling qualities at low speed (some might say at any speed) and lack of power.

The man that flys a Cutlass these days would truly need cojones the size of the Mt. Rushmore heads.

.

Last edited by PinecastleAAF on Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[davidbray]

I still wonder if the F7U Cutlass had an ejection seat? Nobody seems to know or want to fess up.

After reading up on the Cutlass they seem to have lost a lot of them when the gear was down due to the poor handling qualities at low speed (some might say at any speed) and lack of power.

The man that flies a Cutlass these days would truly need cojones the size of the Mt. Rushmore heads.

.

It does have an ejection seat. According to an article that I read a while back (can't remember what magazine) that was the only thing that actually worked correctly in the aircraft.

Yeah, I think they loved that plane. By the way very interesting discussion.

[airnutz]

I have seen some folks speculate that a pilot will eject supposedly at the first sign of trouble. The FAA has been known to labor under this very mentality.

Yeah...I saw that Rick, but I thought it was just his usual carping about the FAA. I wouldn't doubt there
is some truth to the statement, tho I'd be hesitant to paint all of their people with such a broad brush.