2LP,
I don't want to get personal. You've been there and done it, while I've only been an interested observer. That alone makes you a better man than I! But you do seem remarkably risk averse for a former steely eyed Fast Jet man. Did you do a tour with the DLO before leaving, or as a TP?
Less flippantly (and I hope less offensively) I'd ask you whether you'd agree with the following:
More of the inherently 'more dangerous' Canberra fleet flying is undertaken on the T4 (more of the take offs, landings and circuits, and more of the emergency procedures) than on the PR9. Therefore you'd expect it to have a higher accident rate. Other in service types don't have similar dedicated trainer versions, so any comparison should be between type X and the Canberra Force and not just between it and the T4.
That's not that I don't hear what you say about the suitability of the T4 to prepare blokes for and simulate the PR9 - what a pity that they didn't put T4 noses on those redundant PR7s. Presumably the resulting aircraft (and I believe it was seriously considered) would have been a much more useful trainer for the PR9. And that's not to say that I don't agree with you that there should be clever use of sims and a more considered use of what should and shouldn't be undertaken during 'live' flying. I wouldn't pretend to know enough to judge whether another T4 should be brought out of storage, though I suspect that it should, even if the decision is that the aircraft should no longer fly practise asymmetric circuits and landings, or even if the decision is that an engine failure should be followed by ejection.
But what would you say if it transpires (as I think it will) that the Cat 5 accident rate per 100,000 FH for the Canberra 4/9 is lower than for the Tornado GR4, Jaguar or Harrier, or at broadly the same level? Would you still be quite so unwilling to let your son go and fly with No.39?
You are obviously rather out of touch with what the Canberra does today, with its EO LOROP and datalinks, and clearly are unaware that the PR9 was the only UK asset specifically requested by the Spams for use in Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. You say that "it's not just the age of the PR9s, so much as how useful they are for the lives at risk." The answer is that the damned things are of pivotal importance, and offer a unique capability. Useful they most assuredly are.
I think, like Pindi, that you have a disproportionate idea of how dangerous the Canberra is. My Dad flew them (almost certainly well before you were even born), and even at 81 would be first in the queue to strap one on again. Most of his generation viewed aircraft like the Meteor and Venom, the Lincoln and the Hastings as being more dangerous than the Canberra. And in recent years (the last 20, I mean) I'd wager that the accident rate was lower than it was for the Bucc or the Tornado. And while I haven't flown one or flown in one since I was a cool young UAS blade on vac attachment with No.7 Squadron, I'd happily squeeze myself through the hatch and sit on that bloody uncomfortable 'swinging' seat in a T.Mk 4 - or even on the Rumbold seat in a TT.Mk 18, while someone more current shot a few circuits.
Beeaye8,
If the Captain said 'eject, eject, eject' and the crew snatched for the handles there'd be no need to separately jettison the canopy or the nav's hatch, though they might do so (especially the latter) if there was more time available. But the view of the aircraft would be the same once it came to rest, surely? I don't think that it indicates there was much time to "evaluate and decide', then blow the nav's hatch, canopy and then eject." I believe that many have attempted to eject asymmetric emergencies, but that most have been defeated by bank angle or rate of descent. Many aircraft seem to have come to rest 'rightway up', too, though seldom in quite such a complete and apparently 'undamaged' state. It really does look as if it was abandoned during a gear-up landing, doesn't it.