Ejection -v- Forced Landing

I'm ex-USAF Life Support tech and Aircrew Survival Instructor.
Occasionally,
flight crew would ask me a similar question - my answer was always the
same: "We
can build a new aircraft in six months. It takes 20-25 years to build a
new you.
Bail."

I take your point completely. Perhaps what I should have asked was "which is
safer". I'm not a whizz on ejection seats (all I can lay claim to fame with
them is sitting in a live one on a couple of occasions) - from what I've
read they certainly have saved a lot of lives - but also many cases of
pilots being killed by them. I'm quite curious to know what the chances of
survival (and without major injuries) would be for a pilot ejecting from a
modern aircraft under "ideal" conditions (eg 200 - 300 knots, not Mach 1.8)
etc.

Have they got to the point where a "pilot in need" flying with one things
thinks "thank god I've got an ejection seat" or is it a case of "do I feel
lucky today" - if you get what I mean.

Off memory I think the survival rate from Escapac seats from our Air Force
was only something like 50%

CC

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...

I take your point completely. Perhaps what I should have asked was "which
is
safer". I'm not a whizz on ejection seats (all I can lay claim to fame
with
them is sitting in a live one on a couple of occasions) - from what I've
read they certainly have saved a lot of lives - but also many cases of
pilots being killed by them. I'm quite curious to know what the chances of
survival (and without major injuries) would be for a pilot ejecting from a
modern aircraft under "ideal" conditions (eg 200 - 300 knots, not Mach
1.8)
etc.

Have they got to the point where a "pilot in need" flying with one things
thinks "thank god I've got an ejection seat" or is it a case of "do I feel
lucky today" - if you get what I mean.

Off memory I think the survival rate from Escapac seats from our Air Force
was only something like 50%

CC



Check out this site... http://www.martin-baker.com/ .

Tex

At that point I just don't care a da**n about the aircraft. If I have to
bail out, or crash land it, my main concern is getting the irreplacable
piece of gear intact on the ground... me.

"Cockpit Colin" escribió en el mensaje
...
Yes they do. The fine print tells you about not being able to use the
airplane again. A gentle landing, it is not.

It's been pointed out that at that precise moment, you usually only own
about $1000 of the aircraft - the insurance company owns the rest!

On 3/30/05 10:44 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


I take your point completely. Perhaps what I should have asked was "which is
safer". I'm not a whizz on ejection seats (all I can lay claim to fame with
them is sitting in a live one on a couple of occasions) - from what I've
read they certainly have saved a lot of lives - but also many cases of
pilots being killed by them. I'm quite curious to know what the chances of
survival (and without major injuries) would be for a pilot ejecting from a
modern aircraft under "ideal" conditions (eg 200 - 300 knots, not Mach 1.8)
etc.

Have they got to the point where a "pilot in need" flying with one things
thinks "thank god I've got an ejection seat" or is it a case of "do I feel
lucky today" - if you get what I mean.


I don't know a single pilot in the Hornet community who thinks that an
ejection seat is the "Get Out of Jail Free" card for risky behavior--if that
was your question.

The seat is strictly a save your life mechanism, and in the Hornet, you WILL
get hurt. If the G's and wind don't mangle you on the way up, then the
chute will pummel you on the way down--17 foot conical parachute. The rate
of descent is akin to jumping off the roof of a two-story home.

--Woody

wrote:
Used to discuss GA forced landings in a class I taught. Like the
previous message, if you get to use the airplane again you're twice
lucky.

Obviously a *completely* different thing from plunking down a jet into a
cow pasture, but I've "landed out" a number of times in gliders now
(slow land speed, excellent glidepath control), and there's lots of
gamesmanship in picking your field with regards to winds, smoothness,
etc. We had one of our pilots land out in what looked to be a reasonable
spot, but ended up doing "strike damage" to the plane from small
boulders in the field. Pilot OK.

I used to end all of my OCF flights (in Beeville) with a simulated
engine out from whatever altitude we entered the last spin. A long glide
from SPIN 1 (20-30 miles away?) into high key and down. Got to the point
where if I could take an early initial, I could skip high key and carry
knots into the break and fly a regular pattern. With the right runway
and the right parking spot, I could coast into the chocks from 20K'
without touching the power. Amazing the games bored pilots play to make
things harder.

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



I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

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

I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway that
looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may have
happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just punching
out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside. It just
doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

Agreed. Interestingly we had a fairly recent incident where the crew rode a
flamed out T-45A into a farmer's field. Walked away and the jet had "C"
damage. The tale of how they got there is long and privileged.

I've never flown a jet whose performance made a flame out approach a viable
option ... well, maybe the A-4. But the T-45 glides so well and has such a
nice precautionary approach profile, doing it flamed out (to a runway of
course) is no big deal. I've done a couple dozen in the simulator and do a
talk-through demo for the IUT's. Piece of cake.

Of course, this violates OpNav instructions and you're certainly going to
lose your wings if you attempt one given the opportunity. So the choice
(unless the seat doesn't work) is to join the pedestrians and thumb a ride
home.

R / John

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:30:13 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

Generally concur. But the famous "dead stick" sequence in the
"Bridges at Toko Ri" is something to see. Of course, the old F-9
"Lead Sled" might one of the few jets, ever, where such an event was
even reasonable to consider.

I guess we should also consider the "And Then There Was One" saga of
the Reserve F-9s. At least one in that group did a highway landing.

In the S-2/P-3 community the ditch vs. bailout question was often
considered. I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two
successful P-3 ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian
Gulf). I don't know of any bailouts in either type (but that just
means I don't know about them).

Bailout from the Stoof (particularly the G model) was probematical if
the cockpit crew were wearing wet suit, SV2, and parachute harness.
One day we set up some mattresses out side an aircraft and decided to
hold some drills. Each crew had to man up in full survival gear and
the, at the command, follow the NATOPS proceedure. To our surprise,
everybody was able to do it in the time alloted (if just barely). The
major difficulty was that the entry from the cockpit to cabin was kind
of narrow and the SV2 over the wet suit made even the slimmest crewman
"wide."

The consensus, even after the drills, remained that ditching was
probably a better option than bailout. One major consideration was
that the crew would stay together and would have access to the 4-man
raft. It was generally agreed that each crewman would take his
parachute out with him because the seat pack contained the individual
survival kits and at least one canopy could be fashioned into a sun
shade.

As I remember, the P-3 world also favored ditch over bailout, and for
the same reasons (greater availability of survival gear AND keeping
the crew together).

I don't recall the P-3 ditching speed (and I don't have a NATOPS
handy). The S-2 went in full flaps at 90 kts. day and 1/3 flaps and
105 kts. night/IMC.

From the Quonset crew we learned that the NATOPS proceedure worked "as
advertised" and a wings-level attitude to stop was MANDATORY. Impact
was firm, but not severe; a couple of bounces and it was over. The
nose settled rapidly but not precipitously. There was ample time to
exit. They were able to clear the overhead hatches even with the SV2
vests on (another concern). They were in the water less than 5
minutes before they were picked up by a fishing boat.

Bill Kambic

Bill,

I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two successful P-3
ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian Gulf).

ISTR - in the course of the discussion re the EP-3 forced landing in China -
some comment to the effect that there has never been a P-3 airframe ditching
that did not involve at least some loss of life. Does a "successful" P-3
airframe ditching mean that at least one soul survived?

Another comment I encountered was that the EP-3 community did not carry
parachutes for some years, reason being that all them antennae protruding
from the fuselage would pretty much shred the first soul out the hatch. I
think this changed some time before the VQ-1 crew painted that Chinese F-8
silhouette on their replacement bird.

Others with better-quality info please comment.

---
Mike Kanze

"All men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for
example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is a vegetable. We have no idea
what mauve is."

- Rules From Guys


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:30:13 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:

I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

Generally concur. But the famous "dead stick" sequence in the
"Bridges at Toko Ri" is something to see. Of course, the old F-9
"Lead Sled" might one of the few jets, ever, where such an event was
even reasonable to consider.

I guess we should also consider the "And Then There Was One" saga of
the Reserve F-9s. At least one in that group did a highway landing.

In the S-2/P-3 community the ditch vs. bailout question was often
considered. I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two
successful P-3 ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian
Gulf). I don't know of any bailouts in either type (but that just
means I don't know about them).

Bailout from the Stoof (particularly the G model) was probematical if
the cockpit crew were wearing wet suit, SV2, and parachute harness.
One day we set up some mattresses out side an aircraft and decided to
hold some drills. Each crew had to man up in full survival gear and
the, at the command, follow the NATOPS proceedure. To our surprise,
everybody was able to do it in the time alloted (if just barely). The
major difficulty was that the entry from the cockpit to cabin was kind
of narrow and the SV2 over the wet suit made even the slimmest crewman
"wide."

The consensus, even after the drills, remained that ditching was
probably a better option than bailout. One major consideration was
that the crew would stay together and would have access to the 4-man
raft. It was generally agreed that each crewman would take his
parachute out with him because the seat pack contained the individual
survival kits and at least one canopy could be fashioned into a sun
shade.

As I remember, the P-3 world also favored ditch over bailout, and for
the same reasons (greater availability of survival gear AND keeping
the crew together).

I don't recall the P-3 ditching speed (and I don't have a NATOPS
handy). The S-2 went in full flaps at 90 kts. day and 1/3 flaps and
105 kts. night/IMC.

From the Quonset crew we learned that the NATOPS proceedure worked "as
advertised" and a wings-level attitude to stop was MANDATORY. Impact
was firm, but not severe; a couple of bounces and it was over. The
nose settled rapidly but not precipitously. There was ample time to
exit. They were able to clear the overhead hatches even with the SV2
vests on (another concern). They were in the water less than 5
minutes before they were picked up by a fishing boat.

Bill Kambic