|
Curious accidental ejection Rafale
|
Looks like the rear seater was a 64 year old non-military personnel on a jolly.
|
But it should still be a zero-zero seat and he should have had non-threatening injuries
|
Does the Rafale have a seat-box survival kit? Does it lower automatically? If yes and no, landing on the box/box landing on the ejectee might be painful.
CG |
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 10425539)
But it should still be a zero-zero seat and he should have had non-threatening injuries
|
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 10425539)
But it should still be a zero-zero seat and he should have had non-threatening injuries
|
Did they check whether the pax grabbed the ejection handles to hold on during the takeoff?
|
Add the above that almost certainly a poor ejection posture (I doubt he was expecting it) and probably not ready for the landing... zero-zero doesn’t guarantee absence of injury... |
From all accounts, it's a violent enough event when you're braced and ready.
Imagine it happening when you weren't! |
Originally Posted by flighthappens
(Post 10426316)
Add the above that almost certainly a poor ejection posture (I doubt he was expecting it) and probably not ready for the landing... |
|
I hope he was a civilian research scientist and not the pilots dad. |
He was a journalist on a fam flight. Suffered a serious back injury but is OK. Pilot received cuts to his hands from pieces of broken canopy.
|
I wonder if they got a tie?
Mk16 Ejection Seat for Rafale - Martin-Baker Ejection Tie Club - Martin-Baker "life membership of the Ejection Tie Club is confined solely to those who have emergency ejected from an aircraft using a Martin-Baker ejection seat, which has thereby saved their life." It's wasn't an emergency, and then it was! |
Originally Posted by atakacs
(Post 10429101)
I believe he was from the UK. |
Would that not make it, 'ejexit', then?
CG |
Well that went well...
The report is out... Report (In French) The civilian passenger, identified by the report as a 64-year-old employee of a French defense manufacturer, was offered a discovery flight on a Dassault Rafale B fighter jet as a surprise by four of his colleagues, including a former pilot of the French Air Force that organized the gift. Journalists or elected officials are often invited to take part in “observation” flights approved by the Ministry of the Armed Forces, for information and communication purposes. They must follow a strict procedure that includes a medical visit to the Center for medical expertise of flight personnel (CEMPN), and the approval of the Ministry. However, this time, due to the “informal” setting of the flight, the usual protocol was not respected. Instead, the passenger was examined by a doctor four hours before the flight. He was declared apt to participate in the flight, under the condition that he would not be submitted to a negative load factor. That information was not communicated to the pilot. The civilian was already nervous when he entered the cockpit, with his heart rate recorded between 136 and 142 beats per minute. The investigation found that the safety checks of the passenger had been approximate at best. He carried out most of his installation into the cockpit by himself. As a consequence, his visor was up, his anti-g pants were not worn properly, his helmet and oxygen mask were both unattached, and his seat straps were not tight enough. Following orders of a regular training mission that involved two other Rafales, the pilot took off and climbed at 47°, generating a load factor of around +4G. Then, as he leveled off, he subjected his passenger to a negative load factor of about -0.6G. “Discovering the feeling of the negative load factor, the insufficiently strapped and totally surprised passenger held onto the ejector handle and activated it unintentionally,” states the report. During the ejection, the civilian lost his helmet and oxygen mask. Due to a technical flaw of the seat, the dinghy failed to inflate, but fortunately, the incident happened above land. The passenger sustained minor injuries. The BEA-E states that the absence of experience and the lack of preparation due to the surprise caused a lot of stress on the passenger, who had “never expressed a desire to carry out this type of flight, and in particular on Rafale”. The victim said he was given close to no possibility to refuse the flight from the moment it was announced to him. The social pressure of his colleagues also contributed to the stress. |
jeez - you'd hope we wouldn't be reading reports like that in these enlightened air safety minded days. So many places for someone to just go "wait a moment...".
25 years of mil aviation has repeatedly taught me "if it is in any way non-standard - watch out!" |
There seems to be rather a lot of issues thrown up by that report.
|
So does this mean the Rafale has an automatic command eject?
|
Originally Posted by Treble one
(Post 10744695)
So does this mean the Rafale has an automatic command eject?
|
Thank you sitigeltfel.
|
Yep, as sitigeltfel says the critical statement/conclusion in the report is the boxed:
"L’action involontaire du passager sur la poignée d’éjection est liée à un défaut de compréhension et de préparation à certains effets inhérents au vol en avion de chasse." Reflex action/startle due to the passenger not understanding WTH was going on... |
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel
(Post 10744708)
The report I read said that the command eject function did not work but didn't mention if it had been deactivated.
So the pilot got to land a cabriolet, having been subject to a power retract of his harness and with an explosively damaged seat underneath him. |
Thank you JTO.
Hence the reason he exited the cockpit 'a tout vitesse' after landing. Sitting on a semi activated bomb! |
Steve Trimble has a comprehensive report in AvWeek. It fills in some of the gaps.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...e6fea12f62e665 airsound |
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 10425539)
But it should still be a zero-zero seat and he should have had non-threatening injuries
Somewhat gash all round and both very lucky to get away with it. |
Originally Posted by airsound
(Post 10744763)
Steve Trimble has a comprehensive report in AvWeek. It fills in some of the gaps.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...e6fea12f62e665 airsound So command eject set to 'both' with a passenger on a jolly in the back. Presuming that was so the pilot could make the decision, if necessary, for both? OOPS. |
So, what questions were raised concerning the pilot’s seat? Martin-Baker Mk16F manufactured/maintained by SEMMB
”SEMMB (Société d'Exploitation des Matériels Martin Baker), a 50/50 joint company of Safran (France) and Martin-Baker Aircraft (UK), has produced its 250th MKF16F ejection seat for the Rafale multirole fighter. With about 50 employees, SEMMB designs, develops, produces and supports ejection seats for all French-designed combat aircraft,”....... |
I would very much like to think it could not happen in the modern RAF. Tell me it couldn't please.
There are cockups and cockups,, but this cockup was monumental, thoroughly gash all round. Can I say Third World at its worst but without the corruption? Breathtaking story, you couldn't make it up. |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 10744918)
I would very much like to think it could not happen in the modern RAF. Tell me it couldn't please.
There are cockups and cockups,, but this cockup was monumental, thoroughly gash all round. Can I say Third World at its worst but without the corruption? Breathtaking story, you couldn't make it up. [Coincidental or not, rather a lot of those killed or injured in that list were people to whom the RAF owed a special duty of care: air cadets, students and passengers.] |
Salute!
Scary to find a defect in the seat system, huh? One reason we liked the ACES II setup for our family model in the Viper was two of our options intentionally prevented the front seat from going if the "guest" pulled the loop. - most of us flew in "NORM" so the guest could eject by hisself, but I couldn't unless he had already departed. If I initiated the process, we both went with him first, then me. - the "SOLO" mode let each go on their own, and we mainly used that when back seat was empty, as you could cook the guest if you went first. It also cut time for your seat to go .... witness the infamous T-bird ejection at Mountain Home. - the third mode ejected both in sequence no matter who yanked on the handle. My hero deputy had engine failure after a speedy low altitude drop and he was in front seat. Confirmed backseater had the knob in that position so he would go if backseater pulled the handle. Both went out per the spec and flew a few days later. My position was I would take the risk if backseat went and my seat failed, as it would likely have failed anyway, so flew in "NORM". If he pulled and didn't go, then maybe the routing from my seat would get us both out. Oh well, all is better than it could have been. Lastly, even on our "zoom" departure for FCF we did not pull 4 + gees just as gear was retracting. I can not believe that is normal training takeoff. And then negative gees? Doesn't add up. And then the poor strap in for a guest. Sheeesh. Where was the personal equipment dude? Or another pilot to help the poor fellow? Make no mistake, I flew many guests such as VIP's, maintenance folks as incentive flights or x-country carrying parts. I even had a high speed taxi run down the rwy with my wife during one of the early year groundings. Extensive pre-flight instructions and such and constant banter from the front ( me ) kept the guest calm. Gums sends.... |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 10745003)
"Could not happen" is always going to be too ambitious a statement where people are involved. People are forever finding new and often convoluted ways to screw up despite the very best efforts of other people to design systems that stop them screwing up. So yes, it could happen in the modern RAF. Is it likely? I don't know. I'd say the Tutor midair (arthritic pilot allowed to fly aerobatic aircraft despite being unable to look out properly), Cunningham ejection (ill-advised seat maintenance regime, inappropriate time pressures leading to incorrect harness routing and moving seat pins at high speed during landing roll), Voyager negative-g incident (unsecured loose article), Catterick Puma crash (gross indiscipline), GR4 Moray Firth midair (not the direct cause, but still of concern: staff WSO afraid of medium level flight), Reds engineer killed at Valley (inadequate crew training or inappropriate designation of supernumerary crew, take your pick) - and those are just off the top of my head - all indicate that RAF people have shown themselves more than capable of making disastrous mistakes and misjudgements in recent memory.
[Coincidental or not, rather a lot of those killed or injured in that list were people to whom the RAF owed a special duty of care: air cadets, students and passengers.] Your list pinpoints single primary causes. |
This story is covered in today’s Times ( 10 April ) and makes for interesting reading, it appears he was poorly briefed and not properly strapped in. On some vigorous manoeuvring he panicked and pulled! Just fortunate no more serious injuries occurred 😖
|
Seems to be ambiguous as to whether he consciously pulled the handle or, finding himself lifting out of the seat, grabbed at it to hold himself in?
|
I don't think it is ambiguous.
The pax wasn't strapped in properly, his helmet was loose if not unfastened altogether and he had no way of communicating with the pilot with the mask not fitted. He was already severely nervous before the flight. He's then properly alarmed by an abrupt application of 4g and a rocket-like climb, and upon the -.6g pushover at the top left his seat due to the loose straps, probably felt the helmet coming off and in a panic grabbed whatever he could find to pull himself back into his seat. Lucky he wasn't injured more seriously as his ejection posture must have been awful. French swiss cheese must have much larger holes in it than we ever imagined. |
GR4 Moray Firth midair (not the direct cause, but still of concern: staff WSO afraid of medium level flight) DV |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 10745127)
Of course you are correct, but the sheer list of incompetences in the case in question suggests drink. drugs or deranged to me: ........ negligence, disobedience, idiocy, farce.
Your list pinpoints single primary causes. |
Originally Posted by Distant Voice
(Post 10745619)
Of course, this was a failure in a duty of care by the MoD, and not the WSO
DV To langleybaston’s comment that I had merely listed main causes, well that was not quite my intent with the examples chosen. In the Moray accident there were lots of other causes to choose from but I selected the WSO one to demonstrate British failings as basic or shocking as aspects of the French accident. |
If you want multiple causes then see the crash of Yak-52, G-YAKB.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.