NOD
Correct on the seat issue. F16 has full rocket assisted seat, whereas the Tucano has a true "bang" seat. This results in a more restricted "safe" envelope, for example the UK Tucano has a 0/90 seat (IIRC) - 0 ft, 90 kts, the 90 kts required to inflate the chute for a safe landing due to less height on ejection, as opposed to a rocket seat that gives you a higher height on ejection (static example) so chute has more time to deploy. I seem to remember the 1/10 ROD rule for safe ejection in the Tincan - the solution during PFLs was to arrest the rate of descent to zero just before pulling the handle.
A similiar accident happened in Bratislava in '99 in a Hawk. The problem, IMHO, comes that the pilot has the stick fully back to try to fly it out and to get to the handle you need to let go of the stick to get your hand in. This might seem an unusual action in the circumstances. I stand to be corrected, and I'm not implying that this is the reason for the fatality in Brazil or Bratislava (pilot of Hawk was experienced TP).
The F16 event quoted was as a result of a missed gate height at the top of a manoeuvre. The US fly on QNH so need to factor airfield elevation into their maths. Result was safety man in the tower, pilot calls his top height, safety man does the maths and confirms or denys fit to go! I used to wonder why QFIs used to bang on about gate heights and how important they are.....seems obvious now.
Either way a sad event.
RIP.