Martin Baker seat record
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin Baker seat record
Talking to John Martin yesterday he mentioned that they "had a good day" recently with eight succesful ejections. He said that brought their total to a number that was 7300 and something. (sorry I don't recall the last two digits) What an achievement. I believe about 10% of all their seats have been used.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full Agreement
Being about to celebrate the 55th anniversary of my own Martin Baker Letdown I'd like to concur heartily! Few people can claim to have, through their own technical skills and business acumen, saved so many lives.
Once again, may I express my thanks and admiration, doubly so as I can celebrate an additional "birthday" each year.
(If my ankle plays up on occasions, I blame my own lack of parachute landing skills, but there again, the time spent in a sun-soaked seaside hospital wasn't lost either ...)
Once again, may I express my thanks and admiration, doubly so as I can celebrate an additional "birthday" each year.
(If my ankle plays up on occasions, I blame my own lack of parachute landing skills, but there again, the time spent in a sun-soaked seaside hospital wasn't lost either ...)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazing company but so is the stat that 10% of seats have been used!!
That seems a high number to me. Is that a reflection on poor aircraft design, poor maintenance, poor piloting or simply a reflection upon the role these aircraft fulfill? Although I can't believe that 10% of all MB equipped aircraft have been lost in combat..?
That seems a high number to me. Is that a reflection on poor aircraft design, poor maintenance, poor piloting or simply a reflection upon the role these aircraft fulfill? Although I can't believe that 10% of all MB equipped aircraft have been lost in combat..?
I think it's a reflection of how long the technology has been around, and the sheer numbers and unreliability of combat and advanced training aeroplanes between about 1950 and 1980, when both numbers and accidents started to tail off.
I doubt very much that it's anything like 10% for the most recent seat models.
G
I doubt very much that it's anything like 10% for the most recent seat models.
G
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprised that 10% of seats have been used.. Take the Lightning.. More than 10% of airframes were lost.. Cannot find actual numbers but it could have been as high as 25% plus.. RAF Jaguars.. 208 airframes brought and 65 lost in accidents.. Not all aircrew ejected but over half did.. The seats get used as its the last chance that Pilots have of escaping from machines that are unforgiving to errors in judgement and circumstance in the enviroment they operate in, especially low level..
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and another - and as I wrote to MB at the time, my thanks went to ALL who developed and worked on the concept and my seat (which I can still see from this window..... 
)
8 in a day??!!
)8 in a day??!!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8 in a day?!
But seriously if +30% of Jaguar's have been shunted with a large % of that by "pilot's escaping from machines that are unforgiving to errors in judgement and circumstance in the enviroment they operate in, especially low level." That is a pretty poor reflection on the process.
Either crew were poorly trained for the roles expected of them or the equipment wasn't fit for the roles it was expected to fulfill. Having said that what was the feedback of those testing Jaguar's?? Isn't it part of the role of the test pilot to discover aircraft characteristics before operational pilots do and get into trouble?
But seriously if +30% of Jaguar's have been shunted with a large % of that by "pilot's escaping from machines that are unforgiving to errors in judgement and circumstance in the enviroment they operate in, especially low level." That is a pretty poor reflection on the process.
Either crew were poorly trained for the roles expected of them or the equipment wasn't fit for the roles it was expected to fulfill. Having said that what was the feedback of those testing Jaguar's?? Isn't it part of the role of the test pilot to discover aircraft characteristics before operational pilots do and get into trouble?
may I express my thanks and admiration, doubly so as I can celebrate an additional "birthday" each year
Last month was my 30th anniversary - and it was a Jaguar.
Birdstrike.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@"Piece of cake"
In most ejection cases, the crews were properly trained - certainly those operating in the West Germany area, but also other "front line/cold war" areas (and even now); the aircraft were designed and tested for their operational function (during testing there could have been some ejections when things got hairy at the outer limits of various bits of the operating envelope). Some aircraft are a bit "edgier" than others (Lightning endurance, for example), but military pilots are trained to react appropriately, including ejecting ...
You seem to want a degree of safety that runs counter to the aircrew's business, which is ... to fight other aircraft, shoot off rockets at enemy tanks, drop bombs on enemy installations, and so on. Nasty, isn't it, but that's what combat aircraft are about ... And, to follow on LM's comment, bikrds are not uncommon on low-level operations - a hit from a biggish bird on your car's windscreen can cause the view to go all starry, and you're probably not doing more than 20% of an aircraft's speed . A bird that hits your car won't do more than dent it , but they makle biiig holes in aeroplanes, and strip the vital blading all through the engine.
Martin-Baker build lifesavers, remember.
Sorry poeple, Rant Mode OFF ...
You seem to want a degree of safety that runs counter to the aircrew's business, which is ... to fight other aircraft, shoot off rockets at enemy tanks, drop bombs on enemy installations, and so on. Nasty, isn't it, but that's what combat aircraft are about ... And, to follow on LM's comment, bikrds are not uncommon on low-level operations - a hit from a biggish bird on your car's windscreen can cause the view to go all starry, and you're probably not doing more than 20% of an aircraft's speed . A bird that hits your car won't do more than dent it , but they makle biiig holes in aeroplanes, and strip the vital blading all through the engine.
Martin-Baker build lifesavers, remember.
Sorry poeple, Rant Mode OFF ...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Surrey
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pieceofcake,
Birdstrike is Circumstance, one of many.
And however many hours a test pilot tests and an engineer fires chickens at structures and into engines, there is always one bird who pops up during operational flying and by being in exactly the right (wrong) spot manages to shatter a canopy and send shards of perspex down both engines...
Birdstrike is Circumstance, one of many.
And however many hours a test pilot tests and an engineer fires chickens at structures and into engines, there is always one bird who pops up during operational flying and by being in exactly the right (wrong) spot manages to shatter a canopy and send shards of perspex down both engines...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whoa easy all. First of all I'm in no way trying to make light of the situation, degrade the quality of aircrew or MB abilities to save lives. So relax.
That said if the stat is correct that the RAF (never mind the other air forces taking Jaguar) have lost over 30% of type then that is a terrible thing. Yes I hear you re: bird strikes but are we saying that most of the losses were birds being ingested?
I pretty confident that RAF Jaguar combat losses are pretty low so simply shunting 30% is terrible and actually given such a statistic one could argue that an effect defense to RAF air attack would be simply let them fly around long enough and they will crash on their own.
Faced with such losses surely its not unreasonable to suggest that either mission expectations were too high or the aircraft was lacking?
That said if the stat is correct that the RAF (never mind the other air forces taking Jaguar) have lost over 30% of type then that is a terrible thing. Yes I hear you re: bird strikes but are we saying that most of the losses were birds being ingested?
I pretty confident that RAF Jaguar combat losses are pretty low so simply shunting 30% is terrible and actually given such a statistic one could argue that an effect defense to RAF air attack would be simply let them fly around long enough and they will crash on their own.
Faced with such losses surely its not unreasonable to suggest that either mission expectations were too high or the aircraft was lacking?
@Lightning mate
I'm guessing you were in the back seat then? Otherwise according to an ejection history website you would have had another Martin Baker approach and landing the following month....
Concurred. Handle hangs in my hallway.
Last month was my 30th anniversary - and it was a Jaguar.
Birdstrike.
Last month was my 30th anniversary - and it was a Jaguar.
Birdstrike.
I'm guessing you were in the back seat then? Otherwise according to an ejection history website you would have had another Martin Baker approach and landing the following month....
Either crew were poorly trained for the roles expected of them or......
If not then please keep such derogatory comments to yourself. Go on then - ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Lightning mate. Bit aggressive but I'll answer politely.
I'm not a fast jet pilot but I don't think you need to be to suggest that a 30%+ loss rate of an aircraft type is a high number. Unless everything is flying into birds (which I'm not sure would explain why Jaguar's suffer higher % losses?) then its either the pilot or the aircraft.
I don't know the answer, hence why I asked the question. Maybe if you are / were a fast jet pilot you might have a view??
One thing I do know is this. In a one sided contest one's skill has very little to do with the outcome. Therefore if one is asked to do the impossible then only the arrogant / fool hardy believe that their ability will see them through. By talking about it doesn't make it derogatory.
Found this pretty interesting
I'm not a fast jet pilot but I don't think you need to be to suggest that a 30%+ loss rate of an aircraft type is a high number. Unless everything is flying into birds (which I'm not sure would explain why Jaguar's suffer higher % losses?) then its either the pilot or the aircraft.
I don't know the answer, hence why I asked the question. Maybe if you are / were a fast jet pilot you might have a view??
One thing I do know is this. In a one sided contest one's skill has very little to do with the outcome. Therefore if one is asked to do the impossible then only the arrogant / fool hardy believe that their ability will see them through. By talking about it doesn't make it derogatory.
Found this pretty interesting
pieceofcake
A 30% loss rate over an aircraft's life span is not that high. The USAF's F-100 rate was higher than that--2200 built only 400 retired to the boneyard over it's history. A couple percent per year adds up. I have lost 8 friends in USAF tactical aviation and that is not surprising over 20+ years. The squadrons I was in consistently had 2 or 3 guys that had ejected at one time in their career.
If you are not a low-level "fast jet" pilot you cannot conceive of the number of ways of ending up depending on Mr. Martin's product. My ejection was after a mid-air collision with another A-10, using McAir's ACES II seat. Martin-Baker was kind enough to send the tie when my brother sent them a report, not knowing it wasn't a M-B seat. He was USN, where the motto was, "If it says Grumman on the pedals, it better say Martin-Baker on the seat". The USN got real possessive about M-B seats, even going to Congress demanding them, "Buy American" Congressman be damned.
Martin-Baker
GF
A 30% loss rate over an aircraft's life span is not that high. The USAF's F-100 rate was higher than that--2200 built only 400 retired to the boneyard over it's history. A couple percent per year adds up. I have lost 8 friends in USAF tactical aviation and that is not surprising over 20+ years. The squadrons I was in consistently had 2 or 3 guys that had ejected at one time in their career.
If you are not a low-level "fast jet" pilot you cannot conceive of the number of ways of ending up depending on Mr. Martin's product. My ejection was after a mid-air collision with another A-10, using McAir's ACES II seat. Martin-Baker was kind enough to send the tie when my brother sent them a report, not knowing it wasn't a M-B seat. He was USN, where the motto was, "If it says Grumman on the pedals, it better say Martin-Baker on the seat". The USN got real possessive about M-B seats, even going to Congress demanding them, "Buy American" Congressman be damned.
Martin-Baker
GF
What aiplane with the Stencil seat? A good friend used one, out of a F-100, controlled ejection but still "feels" it years later. Shoulder and neck pains,
GF
GF
Many years ago (before I was a member of the tie club), Martin Baker threw a party, in London I think, for pilots who had used their chairs.
I wonder if they will ever do it again. Methinks it would be the P****p to end them all.
I wonder if they will ever do it again. Methinks it would be the P****p to end them all.