ex-mil jet down? Crew reported safe

[kernowbird]

Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue are reporting the crash of an ex-military aircraft in East Devon. Crew reported to have ejected safely.

[EGTE]

Three Strikemasters were operating from Exeter today.

[robin]

I saw 3 go off from Exeter at around 15.00

There is nothing on BBC Devon......Any source for this?

[Newforest2]

Confirmation here.

DEVON & SOMERSET FIRE & RESCUE SERVICE NEWSDESK (http://www.dsfire.gov.uk/Newsdesk/ViewIncident.asp?IncidentID=9135&today=true&yesterday=true&2days=true&3days=false&4days=false&5days=false&6days=false)

[fradu]

Pilots did not eject.

Local News web-site (http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/news/Aircraft-crashes-near-Witheridge/article-937575-detail/article.html)

[Redbird72]

From "This is Devon"...

The former ex-military aircraft now in private ownership

:confused:

[vanHorck]

It s not often you hear of a military jet crash landing in a field and both occupants getting out unharmed!

I hope either one is a PPRUNE member and will tell us about their amazing escape!

Well done!

[MichaelJP59]

I guess a JP/Strikemaster has a reasonably low stall speed giving them a good chance of a successful forced landing?

Also I understand ejecting from these early jets is not to be taken lightly with the rocket bang seats often causing back injuries, not to mention the consequences of the uncontrolled crash of the pilotless jet.

Well done to the crew and hope to hear more on the story...

[FantomZorbin]

No rockets on the chair I sat on in the JP! (the seats still caused a 'loss of stature' ... about 0.75"!) We were told NOT to stay with the steed in the case of a crash landing wheels up/ditching as the nose-wheel door would give way and the ensuing damage would crush our legs!

Glad that everyone got out OK :D

[NigelOnDraft]

As a current JP Instructor, both with/without bang seats, my views...

Without Bang Seats you are commited to a forced landing, or a high level, awkward manual bailout, leaving the Jet to go where??? It is tough as old boots, and as this shows, good chance to walk away.

With Bang Seats you can eject at a lower level, so less problem where the aircraft goes, and covered better immediately after takeoff. However, I would not force land one, since the slightest fuselage disruption on landing could see the seat go off out of limits and kill you.

Essentially, need to be treated as 2 different aircraft in this area ;)

NoD

[yakhunter]

Hello Nigelondraft,

I have to disagree with your comment.
I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection.

Ejection was an option, but look at where the jet was put down and you will see numourous villages and dwellings in the close vicinity.

Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhat. (yes we know it's a zero-90)

The pilot made a call to protect those on the ground and was skillfull and current enough to do a great job.

Hats off!

[Runaway Gun]

I know I'd rather eject if the seats were live.

But regardless, it's great to see they guys came out okay. :ok:

[NigelOnDraft]

yakhunter I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection.I beg to differ ;) From an AAIB report:Also, paragraph 5.2 of Chapter 7 of CAP 632, Operation of 'Permit-to-Fly' ex-military aircraft on the UK Register, issued by the CAA, states:
'Forced landings should only be carried out in jet aircraft as a last resort, unless they can be made onto a suitable airfield. If ejection or abandonment is inevitable, every effort must be made to ensure that the aircraft falls into an unpopulated area. ……..' and In this event, a successful off-airfield forced landing was carried out at relatively high speed into a partially ploughed field, and the crew exited the aircraft uninjured. Welcome as that was, the prevailing advice indicates that ejecting would have been the preferred option and, in the circumstances, the crew were fortunate to avoid a much more serious outcome.Of course, you may choose to disagree with the clear CAA and AAIB regulations / advice ;) On the day, I might also not comply with the above, but as an instructor, I must teach what is written down, and in fact, intend to comply with the above.

I do disagree with your Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhatI will follow the advice / teaching from my training, and if the engine quits at 120K / 200' after takeoff, I am "out of there" :ooh: I am unaware of any unsuccessful, but in limits, Mk4 ejections where 500' would have made the difference, nor any factor why 500' has any applicability?

Of course, in no way am I criticising the crew of this aircraft. They did what they had to do, it worked, and I have no idea of the factors that applied on the day.

NoD

[yakhunter]

Well, it's all good in the book,

But,

Being there and doing the right thing with the right outcome is what is important.

Thankfully, it all worked out!

[anotherthing]

I don't think they would have had a choice - I'm sure it is CAA policy that ejection seats are disabled when military jets are sold to civilians.

[flyingman-of-kent]

Although it was a few years ago, the JP I was lucky enough to have a go in had live seats, and we were fully briefed on the use of them with the exception of the decision to eject was made by the commander of the aircraft (not me!) and then I just had to "follow through".

Great plane, I had a great day - it is sad that one should be lost yesterday but good that the crew survived.

[forget]

anotherthing. Read the thread.

Also, paragraph 5.2 of Chapter 7 of CAP 632, Operation of 'Permit-to-Fly' ex-military aircraft on the UK Register, issued by the CAA, states:
'Forced landings should only be carried out in jet aircraft as a last resort, unless they can be made onto a suitable airfield. If ejection or abandonment is inevitable, every effort must be made to ensure that the aircraft falls into an unpopulated area. ……..

[fradu]

I'm sure that I was told ejection seats HAVE to be made live in the Strikemaster and JP Mk.5 in private ownership. The Mk.4 (and possibly the Mk.3) were optional, but that may have changed.

[John Farley]

NigelOnDraft

While I do not disagree with the basic thrust of your argument about following regulations - especially in teaching - I don't see flying as a totally black and white exercise. The JP will fly very slowly and ejection is not without risks so to rule out an off airfield forced landing in that type by rote is I feel a little dodgy.

Don't you feel pilot experience, currency and field size could affect the price of fish?

JF

[NigelOnDraft]

JF.... I don't see flying as a totally black and white exercise.I'd agree, but my input was from the comment I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection - all I was replying is that there is pretty strong advice from both the CAA and AAIB ;) I did add On the day, I might also not comply with the above.... ;)

The hardest thing to do in teaching civil/PPL converts to the JP is when to use the seat. It cannot be considered optional IMHO - if you've got the things, they are there for a purpose, and it can require a very quick decision to use them. In the RAF the teaching went to the bottom handle alone for partly this reason.

I'm sure that I was told ejection seats HAVE to be made live in the Strikemaster and JP Mk.5 in private ownership. The Mk.4 (and possibly the Mk.3) were optional, but that may have changedDon't know about the Strikey... but JP3/4/5 the "standard" fit is live seats. It is an acceptable (formal) modifcation to disable them... CAP632 expands.

NoD

[Hen Ddraig]

Rules are rules but in an emergency they become guidelines at best and the pilots is the ultimate arbiter in what happens.
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor

Time to spare, go by air

Hen Ddraig

[jimgriff]

One of the great debates in the in the civilian ex military jet market is what exactly is the legislation regarding use and operation of ejection seats. It would seem that there are no hard and fast rules, and once the aircraft has a certificate announcing its airworthiness the owner can make modifications to the seats to render them non functioning.

One of the biggest fears of not having functioning seats is thet in a jet aircraft you have a ton or so of heavy metal behind you anfd if you stop v suddenly in a forced landing the engine could keep going and punch through the bulkhead!:ooh:

Ejection seats kept live are a must in my humble opinion.

Further reading-
Civil legislation (http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/rules.html)
ok (http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/seat-regs.html)

[Spanish Waltzer]

The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor


who, according to my second hand info, is now being treated in a specialist spinal unit....:uhoh:

Lets hope its just a precaution

SW

[airborne_artist]

who, according to my second hand info, is now being treated in a specialist spinal unit....

Then again, that's not unheard of after pulling the black and yellow. Hope all concerned are back to 100% fitness asap.

[Spanish Waltzer]

come on A-A its unlike you not to read a thread before posting....:ouch:

Who said anything about pulling the black & yellow.....

[forget]

Errr, I posted a similar 'observation' - then deleted it. AA ain't saying that. :) Read his post again.

[airborne_artist]

SW - they force-landed the a/c, and now one is in a spinal unit, which I hope is precautionary. However, it's pretty common for those who have ejected to end up in a spinal unit, and some ejectees have spinal problems for life, though clearly that is far better than the alternatives.

[NigelOnDraft]

One of the great debates in the in the civilian ex military jet market is what exactly is the legislation regarding use and operation of ejection seats. It would seem that there are no hard and fast rules, and once the aircraft has a certificate announcing its airworthiness the owner can make modifications to the seats to render them non functioning.Somewhat mystified by these statements :eek: There is no "debate" with those who actually fly and operate the aircraft, nor need it be for anyone who does not - just read CAP 632 ;)

Ejection seats kept live are a must in my humble opinionA valid opinion, but not one I agree with. There are risks to both sides of the argument - if you cannot accept risks, don't fly! In some areas the Live seats make things easier, in others areas harder and v-v etc.

The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) Another curious post :ooh: Nobody "ejects" as and when the engine fails except in critical periods of flight - generally immediately after takeoff / prior landing. Inverted @ 2000' seems to me plenty of energy to fly the aircraft (roll upright, glide speed, IAs), diagnose the emergency, and look after yourself. It is, IMHO, not the time to always determine whether to eject or force land - that decision should have been made "in principle" before takeoff, and in many ways when the decision was made to fit live or disabled seats.

Just my 2ps worth...

NoD

[Genghis the Engineer]

Rules are rules but in an emergency they become guidelines at best and the pilots is the ultimate arbiter in what happens.
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor

Time to spare, go by air

Hen Ddraig

My recollection from ejection seat training in a former life was that the big issue was total upwards velocity vector after ejection. This meant that whilst erect/level was much better than inverted/level, inverted/climbing could be better than either with a good RoC immediately before ejection.

G

[SFCC]

It never fails to amaze how fast these 'news' threads turn into arguments between folk.
These two chaps did well. They lived.
Can we move on now please?

[englishal]

Just my 2ps worth...
I think that you are up to about £1 by now... :)

[Dan Winterland]

Quote: "Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhat".

The Mk4 seat in the JP/Strikemaster is a zero/90 seat. In other words the seat has been designed to work at ground level at a minimum forward speed of 90 knots. This is in level flight. For descending flight, one tenth of the rate of descent is the minimum ejection altitude. A 2000fpm descent makes the minimum altitude 200'.

The above statement is true of you are descending at 5000fpm.

[Legalapproach]

It would seem that there are no hard and fast rules, and once the aircraft has a certificate announcing its airworthiness the owner can make modifications to the seats to render them non functioning.

But cannot fly the aircraft without CAA approval. Modifications to an ejection seat rendering it non functioning are considered a major modification and will render the permit or C of A invalid without CAA approval.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

if you disable the seat on a Gnat or Hunter, you won't get CAA approval.
re the seats in JPs, they are more "relaxed" - as much as the CAA can be relaxed when matters concern ex-mil jets in civi hands.
not sure about other types like vampires........

one thing to bear in mind re ejection seats - stats show that military pilots have a far better rate of successful ejection than civi pilots. To the extent I believe that if you are a civi pilot, the seat is equally likely to kill you as save your life.

when i was flying a JP5 - with live seats - it would have had to be a situation which pretty much guaranteed death or serious injury before i would have used the seat. so serious structural failure? fire coming from the engine into the cockpit? loss of control from a spin and less than 5000 ft on the altimeter? ok - pull the handle.

but say you have an engine failure and you can recover to an airfield but wont land squarely on the runway? and the surface looks otherwise smooth?

the "not black and white"....and the price of fish question becomes real when you can't recover to an airfield. but you can see the mother of all open fields .....and it is mid summer...no rain for a few weeks...and the ground is hard. we know what the CAA advise....we know what the instructors advise (and in these days of litigation...they are not going to go against the advice of the CAA unless they want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.....), but if you fly these things, it comes down to pilot choice at the end of the day.

[Bahn-Jeaux]

Some emotive comments from the public as usual.

These planes should be banned. What is the point of flying them. Waste of fuel and not very green. either. They fly around making annoying noise all day long, just so some rich-kid can have a jolly taking pics of his house. Waste of time, they serve no purpose other than to annoy everyone on a pleasant summer day out.

There could have been a family in that field having a picnic or a nice walk could have been ruined by this plane. Any plane over ten years old are death traps and shouldn't be allowed to fly. Time and time again we read of 'engine failure' it's never pilot error is it, no, a plane runs out of fuel on it's own, the driver should look to see if there is fuel in it before going out and annoying everyone and putting lives at risk everytime they fly their old Cessnas or Pipers.

Ban them all. No point in taking off from an airport, flying around for an hour then returning (if your lucky) for what purpose? A waste of valuable resourses, EG fuel that we need to preserve for the future.

Looks like the majority of us are flying death traps then.

And this from one Jeremy Prune.....hmmm :) someone we know maybe


The following has been issued by the AIB to ensure the newspaper reporting of this crash is up to the usual standard: The pilot was on a routine flight when he felt a loss of power. He observed that the propeller was barely turning. Whilst he selected a suitable landing site he opened the canopy and got his passenger to handswing the propeller to attempt a restart. Unfortunately the passenger was not tall enough. Therefore the pilot landed the aircraft in the first available field after the hospital, school and retirement home.

[NigelOnDraft]

one thing to bear in mind re ejection seats - stats show that military pilots have a far better rate of successful ejection than civi pilots. To the extent I believe that if you are a civi pilot, the seat is equally likely to kill you as save your lifeI have heard this quoted before, but cannot see any basis for it?

I am unaware of any 'unsuccessful' ejection by 'civi pilots' in the CAP632 type arena that should have been successful i.e. made in seat limits. I am aware of fatalities, but either outside seat limits (which tended to kill military pilots as well), but the quoter of the above phrase also seemed to include inadequate flying clothing e.g. no LSJ/immersion suit into water in December and drowning / hypothermia, and called that a "failed ejection". In fact, in one fatal accident, 1 occupant survived despite ejecting outside limits, the other di not survive but was even further outside the limits, IIRC.

when i was flying a JP5 - with live seats - it would have had to be a situation which pretty much guaranteed death or serious injury before i would have used the seat. so serious structural failure? fire coming from the engine into the cockpit? loss of control from a spin and less than 5000 ft on the altimeter? ok - pull the handle.Glad you listened to what I told you, even if you then intended to ignore it :ok:

but if you fly these things, it comes down to pilot choice at the end of the dayI can only agree. My main point is that this "choice" should largely be determined by consideration and debate prior flying - not ignored and then considered only after the engine stops. Remember it is not just the instructor who might "follow the party line due litigation" - the idea is that the instructor trains these pilots to take passengers, and these passengers do not usually have the ability to make an informed choice. So going against the CAA / AAIB / OCM advice with a Pax carries quite a responsibility ;)

NoD

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

Nigel

I guess Jimgriff could probably come up with the stats.

In terms of survivability, I agree with you the seats become "less lethal" if used within limits, and also if you are dressed properly to survive an ejection and its aftermath if we are also putting such deaths down to the incorrect use of the ejection seat. The difference between the average military and the average civi pilot, is that the military pilot will be less likely (due to aptitude, discipline and training) to operate a seat outside limits. Consider the L39 ejection at Duxford for example.

But back to the "do I bang out or not?" question. If you add a Pax to the equation, then this adds to the price of fish equation. I was speaking for myself in situations where I would have been solo, or where I was alongside another member of the syndicate - and you either decide for yourself when solo, or you look at / talk with the other shareholder, and you both agree to carry out a landing if the circumstances warrant it. if you can't communicate, and you want to stay with it, then the other syndicate member can leave by himself. Agree 100% with you that these things are better thought through on the ground rather than in the air.

The position you don't want to be in, as you see the bottom of his seat disappearing over your head, is to be thinking "I wonder what he meant by that....."

[yakhunter]

The pilot has been released from the spinal unit and gone home. He is "sore"

The fact he chose to ride it in, was mostly because areas of population were in the immediate vicinity. One field was available. He took it.

A personal choice that was taken by a very experienced current fast jet driver. And, they are around to tell the tale.

It's all very simple to argue "the book says", but when it's you there, it's your call.

Similar to the Gnat forced landing near North Weald a few years back.
Conurbation was also a big factor there.