James Horner missing presumed dead in his Ex RAF Tucano
I think I'm right in saying the the JPs etc which used to be operated by Delta Jets at Kemble either had their ejector seats replaced or deactivated because of certification difficulties for aircraft on the civil register.
Dont know if this would also apply in the US but I think it fairly likely.
Dont know if this would also apply in the US but I think it fairly likely.
I think it is mostly the other way round - applications have to be made to disarm them. There are certainly plenty of ex military aircraft around with live seats. This wording is from a googled application although it may well be out of date legislation:
For the CAA to consider accepting that such systems be disarmed, the aircraft must first be shown to have a landing speed low enough (and with benign handling) that it is reasonable to expect the pilot to be able to make a forced landing in a field.....
...... Disablement of ejection seats on individual aircraft may be accepted provided that it remains possible for the pilot to abandon the aircraft, including the deployment of the parachute.
As for rules in the US I have no idea but there are plenty of pictures around of those Tuacnos, with modified canopies, being flown by pilots in T shirts and lightweight headsets, so I presume they are inert seats....... Disablement of ejection seats on individual aircraft may be accepted provided that it remains possible for the pilot to abandon the aircraft, including the deployment of the parachute.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
That's not what that says. It mentions how they can be disarmed.
Bear in mind it is also dated Sep 2000. Edited to add, that page refers to UK only.
Bear in mind it is also dated Sep 2000. Edited to add, that page refers to UK only.
Last edited by Background Noise; 25th Jun 2015 at 10:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Yes but in general I think most are, it came about after I think a JP spun in if memory serves me correctly.
If you want the current blurb, see
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20...20Aircraft.pdf
Ejection seats
5.8 Where ejection seats are an integral part of the aircrew escape system, as specified in the relevant Pilots Notes, Flight or Aircrew Manuals, it is recommended that they be fully serviceable for all flights. Approval should be sought from the CAA (Application and Approvals) at the earliest opportunity if it is intended to operate with inert ejection seats (or other escape systems). It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept-wing aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully operational.
5.9 Ejection seat cartridge lives are typically 2 years installed, within a 6 year shelf life. To be fully serviceable the cartridges installed must be within their appropriate lives.
If you want the current blurb, see
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20...20Aircraft.pdf
Ejection seats
5.8 Where ejection seats are an integral part of the aircrew escape system, as specified in the relevant Pilots Notes, Flight or Aircrew Manuals, it is recommended that they be fully serviceable for all flights. Approval should be sought from the CAA (Application and Approvals) at the earliest opportunity if it is intended to operate with inert ejection seats (or other escape systems). It is unlikely that the CAA will allow swept-wing aircraft fitted with ejection seats to be flown unless the equipment is fully operational.
5.9 Ejection seat cartridge lives are typically 2 years installed, within a 6 year shelf life. To be fully serviceable the cartridges installed must be within their appropriate lives.
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: oxnard, ca
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
live seats?
I was a controller at CMA ATCT and observed that the canopy on the accident aircraft had the breakout lines sometimes associated with ejection. James flew a cub, a hughes 500, a marchetti f260, and the tucano, although in the tucano, frequently with an instructor aboard. He also came up to the tower sometimes and was fun to visit with. I dont recall for sure whether he ever said anything about the seats.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Try reading the thread, not simply the last post, we were talking about over here as well. 
I was going to say something flippant like, call it experimental and you can do what you like, but I didn't want to start any us and them banter or drift this even more off topic. 
Looking at some of these pics (not necessarily the same as the mishap aircraft) it looks like they have dummy seats. I was wondering whether they even had chutes but this looks like a chute in the rear cockpit(?):
More pics here: (and some gucci kit up front too)
Warbird Depot - Trainers > Lee Leet's Short Tucano T Mk1
Looking at some of these pics (not necessarily the same as the mishap aircraft) it looks like they have dummy seats. I was wondering whether they even had chutes but this looks like a chute in the rear cockpit(?):
More pics here: (and some gucci kit up front too)
Warbird Depot - Trainers > Lee Leet's Short Tucano T Mk1
Unless the canopy has been modified from the RAF standard, it is non-jettisonable. Also, the miniature detonating cord (MDC) is not cleared for manual activation in flight because there is a high risk of injury to the crew (although, obviously, it is fine for ejection because the seat has travelled upwards before the canopy pieces return towards the cockpit). Because of this, in UK service it is flown with the MDC handle safety pin fitted. In the picture, the seat head boxes shown are not representative of the ones fitted to the ejection seats used in the UK in-service aircraft. Therefore, I am curious to know how a manual bail-out from this aircraft could be effected.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucano on Experimental Category in US - Ejection Seats
As I understand, the US company which purchased c.20 Tucanos from the MOD in 2007 for sale under the Experimental Category in the US offers them with the option of live seats or de-activated seats. In the latter case the detonation cord remains live as, you're right, the canopy cannot be jettisoned. The theory is that if you need to abandon the aircraft, you detonate the canopy and bailout conventionally.
However, the front cockpit canopy has a "splitter" det cord rather than a full "shatter" det cord. In the case of live seats, the front seat horns on the head box crack open the canopy during the ejection sequence once it has been initially split by the det cord. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult it would be force your way through the front cockpit canopy without the aid of a live seat. Furthermore, the prospect of det cord going off within inches of your face without the proper safety equipment does not bear contemplating. Hands up who had their Mk3/4 helmets modified in service to prevent det cord "splatter" burning your face in the event of an ejection?
The majority of Tucanos sold in the US have de-activated seats. However, you will note that you can get a very nice new paint job, chrome-plated turbine exhausts and a Garmin flat panel display if you so choose. Go figure as our US cousins would say.
However, the front cockpit canopy has a "splitter" det cord rather than a full "shatter" det cord. In the case of live seats, the front seat horns on the head box crack open the canopy during the ejection sequence once it has been initially split by the det cord. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult it would be force your way through the front cockpit canopy without the aid of a live seat. Furthermore, the prospect of det cord going off within inches of your face without the proper safety equipment does not bear contemplating. Hands up who had their Mk3/4 helmets modified in service to prevent det cord "splatter" burning your face in the event of an ejection?
The majority of Tucanos sold in the US have de-activated seats. However, you will note that you can get a very nice new paint job, chrome-plated turbine exhausts and a Garmin flat panel display if you so choose. Go figure as our US cousins would say.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Same the world over in aviation, many lost their lives in Sea Furies having removed the anti roll bars from the cockpits on the grounds of aesthetics.
I had this problem 20 years ago with the bang seats in the JP5A. The local FAA (Arizona) would have preferred the bang seats deactivated. I had to tell them that the Aircrew Manual's "Manual bailout may require considerable physical effort" had been explained on BFTS Groundschool as "You're gonna die".
Fortunately there was an ex-Brit in the office who could explain British understatement.
In the end, I refused to fly it without live bang seats, and permission to do so changed 7 times in 6 months - no, yes, no, yes, no, YES, NO! I got 5 flights in during the yes bits, then gave up.
The thinking at the time (with some evidence) was that non ex-mil pilots were banging out with the slightest excuse, leaving the jets to hit people's houses.
In general, the FAA were perfectly happy to let ex-mil pilots do what they like, but very nervous about civvies, and couldn't legally put this distinction in the permits. Thus with this JP5A permission was removed about the point the owner would be allowed to start flying it on his own.
Fortunately there was an ex-Brit in the office who could explain British understatement.
In the end, I refused to fly it without live bang seats, and permission to do so changed 7 times in 6 months - no, yes, no, yes, no, YES, NO! I got 5 flights in during the yes bits, then gave up.
The thinking at the time (with some evidence) was that non ex-mil pilots were banging out with the slightest excuse, leaving the jets to hit people's houses.
In general, the FAA were perfectly happy to let ex-mil pilots do what they like, but very nervous about civvies, and couldn't legally put this distinction in the permits. Thus with this JP5A permission was removed about the point the owner would be allowed to start flying it on his own.
