V Bomber Ejector seat scandal

[racedo]

BBC - h2g2 - The V-Bomber Ejector Seat Scandal (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A49097307)

Not sure if its been posted before or whether someone here wrote it but interesting.

Amazing how politicians were acting even then.

[BEagle]

Some very obvious errors in that narrative!

The giant delta-winged aircraft eased out of its graceful turn into the final approach to the airport that lay five miles ahead. The aircraft, painted a brilliant white with contrasting red, white and blue cockades, glinted in the sunlight as it straightened up from the turn. The pilot deployed the wing flaps to reduce speed and brought the aircraft into its characteristic nose-up attitude.

'..brilliant white with contrasting red, white and blue cockades'? '..deployed the wing flaps'?

Typical BBC lack of attention to detail.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

If I might also add, XA897 was certainly not white. She was finished in "high speed" silver.

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/other_photographers/897_christschurch.jpg

In view of the Court ruling yesterday, I really can't guess where this is heading. :hmm:

[peppermint_jam]

"the last of the V-Bombers was taken out of service in 1984"

Thought Victors went out of service in 1993?

Interesting reading though. I'd imagine that bang seats for rear crews could potentially have saved the lives of many Aircrew. IIRC Martin Baker Designed a system, but it was never bought.

[Wensleydale]

Don't know if its true, or just a good crewroom/Mess bar story....

Many years ago, the Vulcan ejections seat packs contained water in a 250ml drinking sachet. A signal was sent out to replace each 250ml container with 5 individual 50ml sachets. After these had been replaced, a second signal was sent from the safety people advising Stn that a potential problem had been found with the 50ml sachets of drinking water and these should be removed and the 250ml replaced.

Unfortunately, the Squippers had thrown away the old 250ml water containers, and therefore a deficiency chit was put back into the seat rather than water. It was in such a state that several sorties were flown before the situation was discovered at routine servicing.

I was told that heads rolled......

Can't beat a good Duty of Care story, although this was well before the Human Rights Act etc.

[Gainesy]

glinted in the sunlight as it
Was it not pissing down and IMC right down to the deck, hence the PAR?:

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Aunty Beeb may have got that bit right.

The undercarriage locked down with a satisfying clunk as it began its descent into cloud that pervaded down to ground leve

There was probably not much rain above the cloud.

There again, wheels down and air brakes out that far from the threshold?

[Wader2]

There again, wheels down and air brakes out that far from the threshold?

Later I would have expected that as far out as 10 miles. I can't recall why but it was SOP, once the wheels were down and air brakes out to leave them down during circuit bashing although they would probably be raised for instrument circuits.

It could have been to do with powere settings and engine response times. The higher power settings needed with the wheels down would lead to quicker response times if power was applied.

[MichaelJP59]

Just a note on the source, h2g2 on the BBC website is a bit like the wikipedia, i.e. members of the public submit articles, and it's largely self-edited. You can also contact the author with corrections but you have to register.

Did seem an interesting article though, but centres mainly on parliamentary questions about the ejection seat issue - were there a lot of complaints from the rear crews themselves?

[Wader2]

about the ejection seat issue - were there a lot of complaints from the rear crews themselves?

Yes.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/48124-1-gp-dining-night-waddington.html

[Tankertrashnav]

were there a lot of complaints from the rear crews themselves?
Ejector seats can quite literally be a pain in the backside, so in one respect I was grateful not to have to spend over 1700 hours of my life strapped into one. That said, I am speaking with the luxury of never having had to attempt to abandon the Victor, and obviously many rear crew members on all three types lost their lives because of this decision. No doubt many pilots also delayed their decision to eject far later than was wise in a vain attempt to give their crews time to abandon. But then, as now, money talked, and I dont remember giving the disparity between the pointy end and us down the back much thought at the time.

[Pontius Navigator]

Ejector seats can quite literally be a pain in the backside, . . .

And so were the earlier seats with the Mk 20 parachute. They also contrived to pack one of the rat packs corner UP :(. I think this started my back problem for which a grateful government now pays me lavish compensation.

I dont remember giving the disparity between the pointy end and us down the back much thought at the time.

This was true of much of what we did. I think we just subconsciously shut our minds to the horrors of nuclear war and the hazards of flying backwards at stupidly low heights.

[endplay]

With insufficient time or height to get to the exit hatch, the other four members of the crew who did not have the benefit of ejection seats, died where they sat as the whole careering Panjandrum turned into a fireball.

Collins dictionary defines a Panjandrum as "A pompous self important official or person of rank."??? Is this a rather weird crticism of the aircraft or journalistic ineptitude?

[ian16th]

This gets a whole chapter entitled 'The Scandal of the V-Force' in Doddy Hay's book 'The Man In The Hot Seat'. 1st Published in 1969.

'The Man In The Hot Seat' is one of 3 books re-published in 'Three Great Air Stories' in 1970, along with 'Reach For The Sky' by Paul Brickhill and 'Skymen' by Larry Forrester. This is the version that I picked up for R1 = £0.08 :)

[er340790]

Reminiscent of the Titanic-design approach to emergency equipment provision.

"Well the pilot and co-pilot are highly-trained officers who are worthy of saving. The three oiks down behind them will just have to take their chances." Or words to that effect.

Can just imagine how they'd feel seeing the two pilots suddenly blast out of the cockpit above them. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[STANDTO]

the Vulcan Story Tim Laming. ISBN 1 85605 701 1

story of that fateful flight, and all the ejector seat debate. An excellent book

Standto

[Pontius Navigator]

Collins dictionary defines a Panjandrum as "A pompous self important official or person of rank."??? Is this a rather weird crticism of the aircraft or journalistic ineptitude?

I think the origin of the phrase may had been to do with the Grand Panjandrum only 14 years previous. Panjandrum (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2693475) This is but one link.

[Suu]

Panjandrum was a D-Day 'Special' rocket propelled remotely controlled device, 2 oversized wheels joined by the explosive charge as an axle, consider a maxi sized Catherine wheel, an apt description for a cartwheeling burning aircraft

[barnstormer1968]

I find it odd how the RAF was happy (or had to accept-you choose) to use non ejection seats. Not only V bombers, but Canberra's too.
I have a DVD showing Farnborough studies on crew escape methods, in which mock up cabin simulations in the centrifuge are shown, with some crew members totally unable to escape in straight and level flight!

I found the video fascinating, if not a little disconcerting to watch.

Details:
Air crash investigation & escape
Part of the F.A.S.T. collection (Farnborough Air Sciences trust)
DD catalogue number. DD21748

[Pontius Navigator]

Son't forget, we had had lots of experience in trying, and failing, to escape from burning and crashing aircraft. The idea of assisted escape was quite novel as indeed were the technical solutions with downward ejection being the main one that continues to this day I believe.

[BEagle]

In the July 1953 edition of Royal Air Force Flying Review (price 1/-), there is an article entitled 'Atom Bomber' all about the Vulcan. It quotes David Anderton, writing in Aviation Week as follows:

"....there doesn't seem to be any jettisonable portion of the hood. There is a line of demarcation which is about one foot away from the intersection of cockpit and fuselage lines. That clue, plus the similarity of the nose section on the Valiant and the Vulcan, hint the use of standardised jettisonable capsule for escape, rather than individual seats."

I wonder what he'd have written if he knew that, for the following 40 years, no V-bomber (apart from a trial installation) would ever have rear crew ejection seats......

Of course, there wasn't a Human Rights Act back then.....:hmm:

[Blacksheep]

The article also illustrates the futility of guessing as a means of describing the attributes of new aircraft or other technocological conbobulations.

Monty Orangeballs.

[Pontius Navigator]

I am not sure but I was certainly aware of a rumour that the cockpit was jettisonable in its original concept. Maybe that was the origin of that rumour.

Looking at the trainer at Finningley, the nose was a very neat, stand-alone- section and it could have had a parachute. Not sure how big or how many, nor its attitude on landing.

The Vulcan had several little bells and whistles that we either got rid of or never really knew about. One was the destructor with the firing device near the radome. Rumour had it that explosive charges would be set off in the fuel tanks. - Light blue touch paper and run - about 5 miles.

Before swivell seats were fitted we also had leak stoppers. About one foot square chain mail, with a neoprene sheet and steel bracers. The idea was to patch any holes cause by SAM or AAM. Apart from the explosive decompression most of the cabin walls were inaccessible from inside as they were lined with fuses boxes and switch panels.

[Brewster Buffalo]

I find it odd how the RAF was happy (or had to accept-you choose) to use non ejection seats. Not only V bombers, but Canberra's too.

Surprised to hear that about the Canberra. I suppose the B-57 did have them and they were installed in the Arado 234, the first jet bomber, but only to the prototypes...

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

The Vulcan nose assembly was, indeed, a complete pressure cell unit. It had to be as a complete fuselage was too long for the road journey from Chadderton to Woodford. The Lancaster (and just about every big AVRO) was made the same way).

The complication to the nose assembly being jettisonable would have been the forest of electrical connections to the centre section. That and the unreliability of explosive bolts of the day.

[Blacksheep]

Whether or not the chaps who accompanied the pilot in the Canberra had an ejection seat depended upon the Mark. The right hand pilot's seat in the T4 was best described as a contraption, but there certainly were instances where instructors were able to escape.

As to unreliable explosive bolts, I well remember testing the explosive bolt wiring at the complicated junction box for the B2 Canberra navigator's exit panel. As far as I remember the navigator's ejection system worked perfectly well when required. Wg Cdr Brown who was my O/C No 1(A) Wing at Halton was one Canberra navigator who left his aircraft via the roof panel and lived to tell the tale, albeit with a damaged right hand.

[Wader2]

The complication to the nose assembly being jettisonable would have been the forest of electrical connections to the centre section. That and the unreliability of explosive bolts of the day.

But not impossible. I am sure that there were many ideas on the drawing board in the 50s and 60s for modular escape systems. It was driven, I would guess, by the hazards of supersonic flight at extreme altitudes. The B58 opted for individual capsules. The F111 had a jettisonable crew module.

Googling "aircraft capsule escape systems" presents a wealth of sci-fi designs :) here's one:

An ejection escape system for passenger airplane that there is a locking mechanism at the connection of the left top cabin cover, the right top cabin cover with the airplane body, there is also a locking mechanism at the connection of the left top cabin cover and the right top cabin cover, the passenger seat is an ejection escape seat, the switches for the locking mechanism and the ejection escape seat are installed in the cockpit, where the pilot can turn on the locking mechanism switch to open the left and right top cabin covers and turn on the ejection escape switch to eject the seat out of the airplane through the opening of the left and right top cabin covers.

[tornadoken]

In 1947 it was weight that caused escape to be omitted. After AM Broadhurst's ejection at LHR...'The Air Minister asked the Air Staff to set out their policy on ejection seats...DCAS replied 15/10/56...when originally conceived..."it was the intention..to have a jettisonable pressure cabin...it became clear this...could not be provided...The layout made it impossible for structural reasons to provide ejection...other than for the pilots" '. H.Wynn,RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces, HMSO,1994,P.142.

[Blacksheep]

I think you'll find the majority of fatal V Bomber accidents occurred close to the ground. Ejecting the flight compartment would have merely initiated the aircraft break up, with the cabin hitting the ground long before the huge parachute needed to support it could open and decelerate the capsule.

[sooms]

I worked with a few ex-V Force aircrew when I first joined up and being a bit of a V Bomber enthusiast I would often try (usually sucessfully) to get them talking about their experiences. I always got the impression that although the escape system was obviously unsatisfactory it was generally accepted because that was the way it was. One Ex Nav Radar said he was more worried about escape from a Vulcan when the gear was down than anything else.

I suppose they were men of their time and knew nothing different. Indeed, if you consider that many rear crew would probably have come from the Washington and Lincoln which had similar, if not worse, escape arrangements, albeit without the same performance. We should also bear in mind that attitudes to flight safety were different then to what they are now. In it's day all the V's were considered 'safe' aircraft. I hestitate to use the phrase 'life was cheaper then' but just think how many aircraft we were losing every year in the fifties compared to now.

Going slightly off thread.. I never understood how they got away with designing the Canberra BI8 without a ejection seat for the Nav when all the other variants had them.

[goudie]

One point I've not seen mentioned, so far in this debate, is that, even had the 3 rear crew members had the facility of an ejection seat that still would have left the crew chief. He was often required to fly in the aircraft on 'lone rangers' etc.

[Airborne Aircrew]

'life was cheaper then'

While I don't believe it was cheaper then what worries me is the fast approaching time where we make it so expensive that we can no longer afford to defend ourselves...

[er340790]

One of my first instructors, then in his late 70s(!) was a pilot on the first (non-ejection) Dutch airforce Canberras, though I might stand corrected - it could have been the Meteor.

A few weeks after one pilot had been killed while attempting to parachute out of such an aircraft, he too suffered total engine failure returning from a sortie over the North Sea, so elected to put it down in the Polders and take his chance.

He survived to tell the tale. Though I later heard that the 'engine failure' was in fact due to there being zero fuel on board. :uhoh:

[EyesFront]

'Rupert Red Two' by Jack Broughton (who also wrote Thud Ridge) tells the depressing story of his battle to get working ejector seats installed in his squadron's F106s after losing many of his pilots on routine training missions. They just continued to fly the aircraft as ordered, despite the seat's 100% fatality rate. Chilling.

Superb book by the way, thoroughly recommmended!

[Gainesy]

Seconded, fantastic read.

ER340, I don't think there were any Cloggy Canberras except maybe one at their RAE equivalent?

[bluesilk]

Again, slightly off thread but in the Canberra the B8 only had one bang seat, the nav sat on a piece of wood and the B16 which was my main mark had 2 bang seats and 3 crew. The bomb aimer sat on a piece of wood next to the driver. Funnily enough I never heard any navs complain about them not having a bang seat but there were a few who argued against a posting to the Vs for that very reason. Not sure why, maybe because they didn't want face the back of the thing.

[Crashed&Burned]

The story of the Vulcan crash at Heathrow is offered in the book 'Survival in the Sky' by Ralph Barker ISBN 0 7183 0354 7.

It makes harrowing reading and emphasises the moral dilemma faced by those with ejector seats and those without.

It also highlights the Air Ministry decision not to put ejector seats in the Vulcan for the other crew based upon the need for the V force to be put in service quickly.

[Tankertrashnav]

even had the 3 rear crew members had the facility of an ejection seat that still would have left the crew chief. He was often required to fly in the aircraft on 'lone rangers' etc.

Thats a very good point, goudie. We not only carried crew chiefs on lone-rangers, but the 6th seat was often required for trappers doing crew checks, and sundry pax such as ATC cadets etc. We once had a rather nice WRAF officer come along for the ride and I still maintain that her misunderstanding of my invitation for her to come and have a play with my joystick (I was the nav radar) was entirely unjustified;).

[XV277]

I don't have access to any figures, but I wonder how the losses from V bombers accidents compare with those for the Meteor.

The nightfighters didn't have seats, and the T7 served for a long time in the training role without ejection seats.

[EyesFront]

I was a cadet on Germany camp at RAF Geilenkirchen, when 92 Sqn were QRA with Lightnings and 3 Sqn had a low level nuclear role with Canberras. Naturally we crawled all over the aircraft chatting to the crews, and I clearly remember the Canberra Nav explaining his exit strategy - grab the parachute on the wall, clip it onto his harness, open the door and jump out - hardly practical when most of the mission was low level. He didn't seem unduly concerned, explaining that the real mission didn't come with a return ticket...

[Wader2]

The nightfighters didn't have bang seats, and the T7 served for a long time in the training role without ejection seats. As did the NF14.

In discussing ejection seats we must also separate the philosophy of the ejections seats for the 1950s from that of the 21st century.

Early seats had very restricted flight envelopes and the philosophy was more towards assisted escape in the combat environment - high and fast - or in the event of engine failure which again was expected to be at height. This was the rationale for downward ejector seats - F104A, B52, Blinder etc.

For other aircraft manual bailout, where collision with the aircraft structure was not an issue, would suffice - KC135, Valiant and Victor with their windscreen door or the Vulcan where the door was both slide and windshield. It was not envisaged that bailout would happen when the undercarriage was down.

In practice premeditated 'high' level bailouts generally worked in the Vulcan. The Mk 1 "Five out over Valley" or the one in Durham. I know there were also failures, I think one in Chicago and the Boscombe one.

Once the V-force started low level training there were instances of controlled flight into terrain but of course the V-force was not alone in that.

The other regime where ejector seats might have been considered was in uncontrolled flight into terrain. The Heathron and Malta Vulcan crashes were such but of course the 6th seat would not have had a seat. Similarly the Cottesmore crash with the control restriction or the Coninsgby one where the aircraft span in from an asymetric approach.

In theory ejection seats would have saved lives but, unlike in a single or 2-seat aircraft, the problem would have been when to eject. Certainly voting with your bang seat could have led to premature ejections. In the Coningsby case would the captain have ordered ejection but instead perished as he was trying to prevent the crash?

I know there was a Valiant crash as well but can't recall the details. I think that potentially survivable but ultimately fatal crashes were very low in number.

Meteor crashes, I suspect, were either fuel shortage or asymetric issues where bang seats were necessary. I believe a number of fatalities occurred from ejection outside the envelope.

[Tim00]

Hope it's OK to ask a question here, but what would a seat firing do to the airframe or remaining occupants? In general would an aircraft remain structurally intact, and in the case of the V-force, would the explosive force of the ejection be survivable for the remaining crew?

[Wader2]

The act of ejection should not materially effect the aircraft. There have many instances where one or more crew members have ejected and the aircraft has landed safely, with or without the pilot. It was through such an event that the USSR got its first pulse doppler aircraft radar.

Similarly there is a number of aircraft with side-by side seating where the ejection of one has had little effect on the other. The Jet Provost is the most recent British example but Lightning, Hunter, Canberra, Vampire all had side-by-side seating.

One can deduce that it would not have been an issue with the V's. I think one problem would have been with sequencing. I think the plan was for the Vulcan nav plotter to bang first with the outboard seats, nav radar and AEO, tipping inwards so one would fire left and the other right. Hopefullythe plotter would miss the tail, equally it was hoped that the aircraft would remain flyable as the seats banged out in sequence.

[Tankertrashnav]

Wader2 refers to the "5 out" over Durham and the Malta crash (actually 7 on board on that one). In both these incidents the captain was the same man, Bob Alcock, and I think I am right in saying he is the only man to have succesfully ejected twice from any of the three V Bombers. A couple of points arise from these two incidents.

In the case of the high level incident, Bob had the aircraft approaching the coast and heading out to sea before he and his co-pilot ejected. The aircraft then spiralled after they ejected and in fact crashed into open countryside. However as the a/c was well on fire it is not possible to say if the twin ejections caused the change of direction, or the fact that it was effectively breaking up, so I guess that doesn't really answer Tim00's question.

With regard to the Luqa crash the Board of Enquiry found that the exit door was blocked by the crew's luggage, which added to the difficulty they would have had in vacating the a/c. However as the a/c was extensively damaged in the initial impact there would have been no guarantee of a successful abandonment even if this had not been the case.

Basically down the back we had the attitude that if it all went wrong at high level we had a sporting chance, but at low level we were buggered.

[The Oberon]

Sorry TTN but Sqn. Ldr " Neddy " Handscombe twice ejected from a Victor.

[VictorPilot]

I may stand corrected, but I think he crash landed with Doug Bryan at Gaydon, and then ejected - or fell out of another Victor over the North Sea.

[mtoroshanga]

What Canberra did not have rear ejection seats (PR 9s excepted), I flew in B2s and T4s and both had seats for the back crew?

[pontifex]

Neddy's aircraft had its tailplane removed by a buccaneer which caused it to bunt and break up in a fireball. Neddy got thrown out after the seat top latch broke; fortunately the top hatch had gone by this time. The seat, therefore, thought it had actually fired and the automatic sequencing worked as advertised. Fortunately for Neddy as he was non compos mentis at the time. That was just the start of a chain of events which saved his life but they are not relevant to this thread.

More relevant is an ocurrence when I had an engine blow on rotate on a max weight Valiant (recce version so extra heavy). At about 500ft the adjacent one began to fail due to collateral damage. Things got quite tense as we got fuel out of the underwings and I seem to remember getting quite low. At the critical phase my WO AEO said very clearly "Captain I would like to remind you that I removed your seat pins before take off" That may put the issue into some perspective.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n131/Golf_Bravo_Zulu/698Image2.jpg

If it adds to the Thread and if it's of interest, I'll scan the rest of the relevant part of the document. It's applicable to the MK 1.

[Pontius Navigator]

GBZ, fascinating. We were taught that but as it was Pilot's Notes we rear crew trash did not have a copy.

[Gainesy]

250ft seems a tad optimistic.:uhoh:

[Jig Peter]

The B-15s which were my main Canberra types had bang-seats for all 3 crew-members - one thing sensible Observers got very good at was hurtling rapidly back from the prone position in the nose into their Martin-Baker ... I remember a bird strike at low level over the Malaysian jungle and seeing, out of the corner of my eye, tall young lad shooting past me, still prone, and unfurling into the sitting position when there was headroom. He was on intercomm and "ready to go" almost before I'd got "up a bit and a bit slower" (note precise aircrew terminology).
No harm except to the outer skin of the canopy and blud 'n fevvers all over the nose, but a distinct congratulatory moment to "me lad", who a bit later moved forward onto the canvas seat beside me, so he could get a good look at the countryside as we flew gently homewards ...
:ok:

[Fareastdriver]

When the V bombers were first designed rear crew escape by ejector seats was not even considered. The Victor was conceived with a jettisonable cockpit, the Vulcan with a seat for the one pilot, the Sperrin with one seat between the two pilots and the Valiant, the last of the design phases, a seat for each pilot.

The designs for the V bombers were the first time that the British aircraft industry had to design military aircraft for prolonged operation above 30,000 ft and the Comet disasters proved how much they knew about it. When the V force cockpits were stressed to 8.5 lbs/in pressure differential that was almost a step into the unknown. It follows that any alteration like cutting extra exit holes for the rear crew was structurally impossible. The only way you could do it was to have a small hole with enough room for ONE seat to exit. This was done with a Valiant as a one off in the early sixties. This proved it was possible to eject from the cabin of a Valiant though I believe the primary research was to study the effects of rear facing ejection.

To have any chance at all you would have to sequence the ejection. You could not eject simultaneously as the seats would all meet at a point above the cockpit. All those who fly with a rocket seat attached to their backsides would think that is easy. Not with a Mark 3A Ejector seat that was necessary to clear the tail of a V bomber. That had a three cartridge, eight foot telescopic gun that ensured the occupant left the end at 80 ft/sec. With a seat like that you have to be fully prepared to eject. Should you not be fully prepared you would be crippled, if unprepared, fatally crippled.

Three scenarios were considered.

Inclined ejector guns for the outer crew members. This would involve them accelerating from Zero to 80ft/sec eight feet vertically and three feet laterally. The sideways forces would be more than sufficient to break their necks.

Tilted Ejector seats. This would require the seat to flop from the vertical to about 25 degrees to aim at the hole in the roof. Put you hand against a convenient object, tilt you seat to twenty-five degrees laterally and consider whether you are in a suitable body configuration to be punched out through the ceiling at 80 ft/sec. No, I thought not.

Shuffle Ejection. The centre occupant would eject and then one of the others would move his seat to the centre position, eject and so on. What do you do with the first ejectee’s gun which is still going to be in the way? What happens if the primary ejectee is killed or wounded? It’s a combat aircraft, remember.

I never knew of a rear crew member who complained about it in a serious way. The history of multiple abandonment of V aircraft suggest that in the time available in most cases only one or two would have survived, ejection seats or not.

It never worried me. As a co-pilot I was required to eject first so as to tell the Board of Inquiry what went wrong.

[Pontius Navigator]

As a co-pilot I was required to eject first so as to tell the Board of Inquiry what went wrong.

Concur, and this was what happened at Cottesmore. The Captain stayed well beyond the seat capability and only luck, when he got entangled with power cables, saved him.

[Old Hairy]

As for rear crew members not complaining.

I flew with a crew on 57 Sqdn. where the AEO added a rider to the pre takeoff checks.

"Seat pins out and stowed. Padlocks in.Keys kept at the back":eek:

[Pontius Navigator]

As for rear crew members not complaining.

I flew with a crew on 57 Sqdn. where the AEO added a rider to the pre takeoff checks.

"Seat pins out and stowed. Padlocks in.Keys kept at the back":eek:

True, we often joked that we would disconnect the cable.

One sorite the crew chief, without thinking, safed the canopy after I had made it live. Normally the sear pin is removed and the latch pin inserted. As I had done the switch he boarded and simply switched them back.

True it was normally his job. Equally true it was my job also to safe them in the case of a crash landing or a landaway, therefore I practised it as a routine. Instead of ensureing the chief was properly briefed to think what he was doing, I was told to stop practising. Ugh!

[Romeo Oscar Golf]

What Canberra did not have rear ejection seats (PR 9s excepted), I flew in B2s and T4s and both had seats for the back crew?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v150/roghead/scan0019.jpg[/IMG]

B(i)8.

[bluesilk]

Talking of aircraft remaining flyable after a bang seat went.
I remember being in the circuit at Wittering in a T4 Canberra when the aircraft in front ,also from 231 OCU, fired out the stude. I seem to remember it was a top latch problem but the QFI once he got over the bang etc landed the aircraft safely and intact.(apart from where the bang seat went through the roof). I think the stude was ok as well .