Mig-23 Down, Thunder Over Michigan, both pilots O.K.

[Mark Sampson]

Warning: ignorant civilian ground-pounder opinion follows.
1) seconds count when you're that fast and low (even I know that) and
2) if an airplane described by experienced pilots as "always trying to kill you" is trying to kill you, don't let it.

[Dave Hadfield]

"People like to parrot this after accidents, but when an aircraft is headed to an impact with the ground, either the pilot has control of the aircraft and is doing everything they can to save their own pink butt, or they don't have control of the aircraft and they're simply along for the ride until impact. There is no "oh well, I'm going to die, but I may as well try and steer away from people on the ground" resignation."

Yep.

[lucky52]

I believe if the pilot has any control of the aircraft he should stay with it, even to the point of staying with it to the very end, to do his best to protect innocents on the ground.

[p51]

I believe if the pilot has any control of the aircraft he should stay with it, even to the point of staying with it to the very end, to do his best to protect innocents on the ground.

I looked at where it down, and they were likely to take some bystander(s) out no matter where it impacted. It's not like there was a school or hospital directly ahead and a giant open field off to one side so as to steer toward (and going down with the plane).
I'm reminded of that scene in the BBC series, "Piec of Cake" where one pilot (Moggy) bails out and the Spitfire later lands on a house, killing some civilians.
The whole, "ride it down to avoid the women and kids" shtick is romantic nonsense.

[lucky52]

I would disagree with that.

[marine air]

I was just talking about ejection seats and procedures earlier this summer while flying with another pilot that put twenty years in the Air Force ; half flying the F-15 and the other half instructing in T-37s, T-38s and T-6 Texan II's. I wish I could explain it as well as he explained it to me. Ejection seats have performance envelopes just like aircraft. Depending on the make and model of aircraft and seat there are corners of the aircraft performance envelope where the seat may not save your life. You have to have certain airspeeds, altitudes, and if the sink rate is too high, nose and bank angle wrong, and you're too low, you can eject and still hit the ground. Another scenario is you eject and have a similar trajectory of the falling, burning, possibly exploding aircraft.
I've never flown an aircraft with an ejection seat. My only experience is being a plane captain on A-4E's and TA-4J's with hot seats. It's possible if the mig-23 crew had waited one second longer they wouldn't have made it.

[Xray]

Having seen the accident in real time, I noticed a sudden and obvious loss of speed, heard them declare an emergency on the scanner, saw a very noticeable slight left bank and nose down angle, it was then that I looked away, not wanting to see it crash. I did not see the ejections though, so tough to correlate any of my observations with the info known now. Did they punch out before the down angle ? Probably, not sure. Only thing I am sure of if they were still in the aircraft when it visibly slowed, as they [he] declared an emergency at that moment.
Seconds later airboss/tower asked "what type of emergency" no reply, said again "mig 23 are you declaring an emergency ?" They had indeed punched out almost immediately after declaring an emergency, tower wasn't aware of that just yet [Am pretty sure it crashed out of view of the tower, behind the large garbage hill which blocked their view] They certainly saw the pillar of smoke though, which the nearby F-35's also reported.

[Randy Haskin]

I believe if the pilot has any control of the aircraft he should stay with it, even to the point of staying with it to the very end, to do his best to protect innocents on the ground.

I'm curious what your experience in aviation is -- not to criticize, but to just understand where you're coming from. I don't know of any corner of aviation (especially one that involves parachutes or ejection seats), either professional or recreational, that advocates or trains to the course of action you're advocating.

If you consider that a moral failing, I think you're going to find quite a large number of people who don't live up to that standard. Moreover, I think an objective analysis of circumstances in which you believe pilots did live up to that moral standard did not actually involve the choice you think it did.

I have known numerous aircrew who both crashed and survived and ejected and survived, and none of them have ever expressed that in the seconds and fractions of seconds in which decisions were made and actions were taken prior to impact/ejection, that they had the situational awareness to predict where the aircraft was going to impact, were able to evaluate if there could possibly be people in that impact area, and have that information factor into the actions they took.

To a person, all of them stated a variation of Bob Hoover's famous, "fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible" as their plan of action. Nearly all of them stated that their motivation behind their actions and decisions was to save themselves to as to see their family and loved ones again.

[Noha307]

The most common root cause of death/injury in accidents in ejection seat equipped aircraft is a delayed decision to eject.

A rather informative video on the subject for those interested:


Ironically, it seems that what sometimes results in an airplane "leaving the scene of the accident" is something that happens post ejection - because it was either trimmed to aid in said ejection or was set on some type of autopilot. Consider both the Cornfield Bomber and the 1989 Belgium MiG-23 crash.

[Xray]

I believe if the pilot has any control of the aircraft he should stay with it, even to the point of staying with it to the very end, to do his best to protect innocents on the ground.

I looked at where it down, and they were likely to take some bystander(s) out no matter where it impacted. It's not like there was a school or hospital directly ahead and a giant open field off to one side so as to steer toward (and going down with the plane).
I'm reminded of that scene in the BBC series, "Piec of Cake" where one pilot (Moggy) bails out and the Spitfire later lands on a house, killing some civilians.
The whole, "ride it down to avoid the women and kids" shtick is romantic nonsense.

Um, did you look on google maps ?
A majority of the area is forested lands and lakes, he managed to plow into one of the few developed locations in the show box on the south side of the freeway.

In any case, I agree it is ludicrous to suggest that pilots should ride the aircraft in to avoid casualties, or presume to even know if they have control of the aircraft to do so even if they wanted to.
I think most pilots or at least many in a situation like this would try to do what they could, if anything, before punching out ,, They themselves landed in a lake, there were lakes and forests ahead of them and lakes to the right, so they can be excused if they calculated the aircraft would go in the water or trees as well.

That said, there are examples of pilots riding planes in to avoid casualties on the ground, Ed Dyess for example, perished in his stricken P-38 guiding it over a heavily populated area in Glendale into a parking lot, could have easily bailed out earlier if his only consideration was saving his life.
Was subsequently immortalized by having an air force base named after him - Not only for his heroic actions on the last day of his life but for his actions in the Philippines early in the war, and escaping Japanese captivity under almost impossible conditions.

[ZRX61]

It's all a bit academic at this point as the guy who decided they were leaving wasn't the guy who was flying it...

[p51]

It's all a bit academic at this point as the guy who decided they were leaving wasn't the guy who was flying it...

That's the best point made here so far.

[RyanShort1]

I don't always like this channel, but this "reaction" video seems pretty fair to me.

https://youtu.be/-XkDRlpLeY4?si=0svuDyqHTtLkarbG

[rwdfresno]

I don't always like this channel, but this "reaction" video seems pretty fair to me.

https://youtu.be/-XkDRlpLeY4?si=0svuDyqHTtLkarbG

He highlights exactly my thought, ejecting without regard for the pilot seems a bit dangerous for the front seater. This probably explains the report that the pilot sustained serious injuries while the back seater sustained minor injuries. Seems like serious hand, arm or neck injuries could incur if you’re ejected without warning. On the other hand, perhaps the pilot would be dead without being forced to eject. I guess it’s all just speculation at this point.

[lucky52]

Randy, my lackluster aviation experience, not that it matters really, is 4400 hours (1200 hrs. combat) in Army R/W aircraft, part 135, and part 121 in MD80 and 737 aircraft. Good or bad, that is where I am from.