Are the PC9s ejection system similar to the CT4Bs in that does one have to manually jump out of the aircraft?

Do the RAAF PC9s have zero-zero seats? or would that be too new and expensive (by RAAF standards)

Jieunni, the PC9 has a light weight Martin baker ejection seat, in the CT4 you can open the canopy and jump out.
As for the PC12, it is designed to be crash worthy were as the PC9 was designed with the intention to eject rather than force land. Once the decision to eject is made, if you have any control over the aircrafts flight path the impact point of the aircraft is always a consideration. Common sense and good airmanship really.
The other major advantage of a bang seat is it works after a mid air as the roulettes have proved. The risk of a mid air was always a major concern in congested training airspace.
Finally they may look a bit Nancy to you using respirators at the crash site but the RAAF is justifiably gun shy on OH&S. They broke a lot of people working on F111s without proper PPE. If people aren't cautious were you work that doesn't make it right.

Crash footage on ABC looks... survivable... just. Pretty good for uncontrolled!

Wal, guaranteed 15G ejection or a worst possible 15G crash...

0-60 seats in the PC-9, ie ground level with at least 60 kt.

Here I was thinking that the solo Roulette routine over Albert Park a few weeks ago down to around 300 ft looked pretty cool..... I now realise how badly it could have gone wrong!

For the record, far more entertaining than the full Roulette formation, including stall turns.

Hmmmm... I'm not sure if I agree about the survivability of this one!

Photos from 7 News.

Interesting the ejection pole things sticking up for the purposes of punching out the canopy, with the canopy frame still present.

Can barely even tell which part is the engine!


http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-1.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-2.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-3.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-4.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-5.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-6.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-7.JPG

those 'ejection poles' that you mentioned are not there to break the canopy. The top of seat itself has two canopy breakers that makes the hole for the rest of the seat to follow (it's only perspex that the seat/occupant goes through).

The canopy stays on the aircraft and the top of the seat makes the hole for everything else to follow.

On hawks or other aircraft, the canopy itself has explosive chord in it to make the hole which is part of the ejection sequence when pulling the handle.

Just to clarify havicks post, the poles are rails upon which the seat rides up till clear of the airframe.

I was going to ask that but had made that assumption.

The "poles" are actually the ejection "gun" the rails are part of the aircraft structure, the "gun" has progressive cartridges as it estends so the acceleration of the seat is positive but moderated to protect the spine of the pilot as much as possible.

Ahhhh....got to love the media. Channel 7 news update!
"Two pilots miraculously walked away when their Roulette crash landed...":ugh:

looks like this thing has landed in straight and level trim in a pretty clear looking paddock and got taken out by the fence. Maybe if they put the gear down before banging out it would be in one piece. Does the RAAF still have a gliding club? Shheeesh what a waste.
FH

Anything but, I would say!

There is supposed to be an engine on the front there somewhere but it's twisted off to the right.

It would be interesting to know the speed of impact.

The rear occupant would have walked away :} I didn't see those picies.

Still for a glider which would no doubt have stability issues after the canopy popped, without the gear and flaps oh, and NO PILOT its a pretty tidy mess! Not far off the van that over/undershot Beagle bay (which was a walk away). I know it goes against SOP but would have been interesting to see the result had they had gear, flaps structurally sound and a pilot.

Have a good look at it. The overhead shot from the rear show the wings main damage caused by the fence posts. no tip damage no twists. They are still attached to the airframe, just ripped open by the fence posts. The rear empanage is straight not twisted to one side so no sudden stop, very little 'canning' or bent up or down so no heavy bounce. All the main damage is caused by the engine tucking under and the airframe going over the top of it. So if it was up on it's wheels and someone driving good chance there would be bugger all damage. This landed it did not "crash" all the main damage seems to be caused during the slide not the initial impact.

Seems we have plenty of armchair "experts" here....

Fencehopper, you seem to be suggesting the guys did the wrong thing by punching out. The aircraft is fitted with an ejection seat for this very reason so why not use it.

Hats off the to guys for making the correct call and departing from an aircraft which had given up it's right to exist.

http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Ebc_j400/pc9-6.JPG

I reckon that will buff right out! :E

Dr :8

Who goes first?

Being a tandem, I would guess that the rear pilot goes first so as not to throw debris on the other guy if it was the other way round - with the front pilot going first...?

Or is the sequence managed by the ejection system - that if one person punches out, both are ejected???