Check he

http://showcase.netins.net/web/herke...n/escapac.html
www.ejectionsite.com/escapacfr.htm

In the S-3 community (I was a "backseater") we were always trained
that ejection is the best option. In the portion of NATOPS that
discusses ditching at sea, the recommendation from Lockheed was
"Don't". As for the choice between ejecting and piling into a plowed
field somewhere, I wouldn't relish the thought of sliding a 43,000 lb.
aircraft across soft dirt/grass/etc. at speeds in excess of 110 mph,
which would be the absolute minimum that you could touch down at.

Now - that changes just a little bit if you're talking about a
contolled, deadstick, flat, level approach to a 14,000 ft runway
that's been foamed. But with an ejection seat that works, I'd rather
take my chances on a controlled ejection.

On a final note, VRC-50 landed a C-1A on the runway at Da Nang - gear
up (intentionally). The aircraft eventually was flown to NARF in
Atsugi a few weeks later after 2 engine changes and some minor "body
work" on the belly.

Oh yea - and they repaired the shrink-link strut that failed on the
main gear during the original flight. It broke just as the gear was
retracted into the wheel well, and the Main mount extended inside the
wheel well, resulting in "2 down and locked".
Regards,

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:41:14 +1200, "Cockpit Colin"
wrote:

I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
benefits out weigh the considerable risks.

In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which in
my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.

I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?

My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built but
capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) - and
the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
course committed to landing at a higher speed.

In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
first choice always be ejection?

Thanks for your thoughts.

CC