Originally Posted by
Two's in
Unfortunately, it's not a rare event. It is often related to cognitive dissonance, where as humans we attempt to resolve mental and physical conflicting scenarios by utilizing denial, rationalization and other unproductive defense mechanisms to try and reach a state of psychological comfort. When pilots haven't accepted the loss of the aircraft is likely, they will often fixate on other actions that don't change the outcome. In a military trainer, not using the ejection system in time is an obvious example of cognitive dissonance.
We obviously don't- know what happened here, but that's what cognitive dissonance is.
I hear what you're saying, but these guys (one of them anyway) was a Naval Aviator. They weren't two rich guys fooling around in a Beach Bonanza. We Naval Aviators are specifically trained to avoid cognitive dissonance. We're also trained to keep in mind that an Aviator is more valuable than even the most expensive aircraft and when it's time to toss the airplane aside, then you don't worry about the consequences. Still, highly trained professional pilots don't like the idea of giving up on an airplane which might be safely recovered. We may never know exactly what happened here, but I think it's safe to say plenty of people would expect an engine failure (if that's what really happened) to have a better outcome than the death of two young men.
The entire south end of Baldwin County is covered with airports. Since my day, many of the Navy OLF's are no longer in use, but the runways are still there. Plus the area is literally covered in huge sod fields, even more so than when I learned to fly here back in the days of the T-34B. My options if the engine decided to shoot craps (I thought about it ALL the time) were to jump out or make a forced landing. With nothing wrong other than an engine stoppage, making an emergency landing either on an airport or in a field was considered a good option and we practiced exactly that down to pretty low altitude. It's actually pretty difficult to find a place in this area where you are not in gliding range of either an airport or a suitable field unless things go wrong at very low altitude.
Of course, the T-34 and T-6 are not the same and I have NOT flown the T-6. Plus I am ignorant of the SOP when it comes to a high altitude engine stoppage. I also don't know about the capability of the ejection seat. However, the T-6 is a relatively simple airplane and I suspect an engine-out emergency landing is well within the capabilities of the aircraft. Perhaps a Naval Aviator with experience in the T-6 can chime in here because I have some questions.
Is it reasonable to think that the instructor would elect to make an emergency, engine out landing? Single engine front-line fighters or attack airplanes mandate an ejection when the engine quits. Forced landings in those rare cases when the ejection fails to function have sad endings in nearly every case. Is the T-6 the same?
Does the seat have sufficient performance so that if he misjudged his glide and it became apparent that a safe landing could not be made, they could safely eject at a few hundred feet? I would assume so, but I don't know.
I suspect there is more to this story because a simple engine failure leading to the death of two guys just doesn't make sense to me.