ex-mil jet down? Crew reported safe
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: North Wales / Ontario
Rules are rules but in an emergency they become guidelines at best and the pilots is the ultimate arbiter in what happens.
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor
Time to spare, go by air
Hen Ddraig
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor
Time to spare, go by air
Hen Ddraig
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 747
Likes: 22
From: (LFA 7a)
One of the great debates in the in the civilian ex military jet market is what exactly is the legislation regarding use and operation of ejection seats. It would seem that there are no hard and fast rules, and once the aircraft has a certificate announcing its airworthiness the owner can make modifications to the seats to render them non functioning.
One of the biggest fears of not having functioning seats is thet in a jet aircraft you have a ton or so of heavy metal behind you anfd if you stop v suddenly in a forced landing the engine could keep going and punch through the bulkhead!
Ejection seats kept live are a must in my humble opinion.
Further reading-
Civil legislation
ok
One of the biggest fears of not having functioning seats is thet in a jet aircraft you have a ton or so of heavy metal behind you anfd if you stop v suddenly in a forced landing the engine could keep going and punch through the bulkhead!
Ejection seats kept live are a must in my humble opinion.
Further reading-
Civil legislation
ok
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
From: U.K.
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor
Lets hope its just a precaution
SW
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
who, according to my second hand info, is now being treated in a specialist spinal unit....
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
SW - they force-landed the a/c, and now one is in a spinal unit, which I hope is precautionary. However, it's pretty common for those who have ejected to end up in a spinal unit, and some ejectees have spinal problems for life, though clearly that is far better than the alternatives.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
One of the great debates in the in the civilian ex military jet market is what exactly is the legislation regarding use and operation of ejection seats. It would seem that there are no hard and fast rules, and once the aircraft has a certificate announcing its airworthiness the owner can make modifications to the seats to render them non functioning.
There is no "debate" with those who actually fly and operate the aircraft, nor need it be for anyone who does not - just read CAP 632 
Ejection seats kept live are a must in my humble opinion
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat)
Nobody "ejects" as and when the engine fails except in critical periods of flight - generally immediately after takeoff / prior landing. Inverted @ 2000' seems to me plenty of energy to fly the aircraft (roll upright, glide speed, IAs), diagnose the emergency, and look after yourself. It is, IMHO, not the time to always determine whether to eject or force land - that decision should have been made "in principle" before takeoff, and in many ways when the decision was made to fit live or disabled seats.Just my 2ps worth...
NoD
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
Rules are rules but in an emergency they become guidelines at best and the pilots is the ultimate arbiter in what happens.
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor
Time to spare, go by air
Hen Ddraig
The second hand info I have is that the aircraft was inverted when the engine stopped (not a good time to use a bang seat) and that the P1 is an experienced, current, fast jet driver/instructor
Time to spare, go by air
Hen Ddraig
G
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 9
From: Blighty
Quote: "Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhat".
The Mk4 seat in the JP/Strikemaster is a zero/90 seat. In other words the seat has been designed to work at ground level at a minimum forward speed of 90 knots. This is in level flight. For descending flight, one tenth of the rate of descent is the minimum ejection altitude. A 2000fpm descent makes the minimum altitude 200'.
The above statement is true of you are descending at 5000fpm.
The Mk4 seat in the JP/Strikemaster is a zero/90 seat. In other words the seat has been designed to work at ground level at a minimum forward speed of 90 knots. This is in level flight. For descending flight, one tenth of the rate of descent is the minimum ejection altitude. A 2000fpm descent makes the minimum altitude 200'.
The above statement is true of you are descending at 5000fpm.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 500
Likes: 1
From: London
It would seem that there are no hard and fast rules, and once the aircraft has a certificate announcing its airworthiness the owner can make modifications to the seats to render them non functioning.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: west sussex
if you disable the seat on a Gnat or Hunter, you won't get CAA approval.
re the seats in JPs, they are more "relaxed" - as much as the CAA can be relaxed when matters concern ex-mil jets in civi hands.
not sure about other types like vampires........
one thing to bear in mind re ejection seats - stats show that military pilots have a far better rate of successful ejection than civi pilots. To the extent I believe that if you are a civi pilot, the seat is equally likely to kill you as save your life.
when i was flying a JP5 - with live seats - it would have had to be a situation which pretty much guaranteed death or serious injury before i would have used the seat. so serious structural failure? fire coming from the engine into the cockpit? loss of control from a spin and less than 5000 ft on the altimeter? ok - pull the handle.
but say you have an engine failure and you can recover to an airfield but wont land squarely on the runway? and the surface looks otherwise smooth?
the "not black and white"....and the price of fish question becomes real when you can't recover to an airfield. but you can see the mother of all open fields .....and it is mid summer...no rain for a few weeks...and the ground is hard. we know what the CAA advise....we know what the instructors advise (and in these days of litigation...they are not going to go against the advice of the CAA unless they want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.....), but if you fly these things, it comes down to pilot choice at the end of the day.
re the seats in JPs, they are more "relaxed" - as much as the CAA can be relaxed when matters concern ex-mil jets in civi hands.
not sure about other types like vampires........
one thing to bear in mind re ejection seats - stats show that military pilots have a far better rate of successful ejection than civi pilots. To the extent I believe that if you are a civi pilot, the seat is equally likely to kill you as save your life.
when i was flying a JP5 - with live seats - it would have had to be a situation which pretty much guaranteed death or serious injury before i would have used the seat. so serious structural failure? fire coming from the engine into the cockpit? loss of control from a spin and less than 5000 ft on the altimeter? ok - pull the handle.
but say you have an engine failure and you can recover to an airfield but wont land squarely on the runway? and the surface looks otherwise smooth?
the "not black and white"....and the price of fish question becomes real when you can't recover to an airfield. but you can see the mother of all open fields .....and it is mid summer...no rain for a few weeks...and the ground is hard. we know what the CAA advise....we know what the instructors advise (and in these days of litigation...they are not going to go against the advice of the CAA unless they want to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.....), but if you fly these things, it comes down to pilot choice at the end of the day.
Intelligent Idiot
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: Cleethorpes, UK
Some emotive comments from the public as usual.
Looks like the majority of us are flying death traps then.
And this from one Jeremy Prune.....hmmm
someone we know maybe
These planes should be banned. What is the point of flying them. Waste of fuel and not very green. either. They fly around making annoying noise all day long, just so some rich-kid can have a jolly taking pics of his house. Waste of time, they serve no purpose other than to annoy everyone on a pleasant summer day out.
There could have been a family in that field having a picnic or a nice walk could have been ruined by this plane. Any plane over ten years old are death traps and shouldn't be allowed to fly. Time and time again we read of 'engine failure' it's never pilot error is it, no, a plane runs out of fuel on it's own, the driver should look to see if there is fuel in it before going out and annoying everyone and putting lives at risk everytime they fly their old Cessnas or Pipers.
Ban them all. No point in taking off from an airport, flying around for an hour then returning (if your lucky) for what purpose? A waste of valuable resourses, EG fuel that we need to preserve for the future.
There could have been a family in that field having a picnic or a nice walk could have been ruined by this plane. Any plane over ten years old are death traps and shouldn't be allowed to fly. Time and time again we read of 'engine failure' it's never pilot error is it, no, a plane runs out of fuel on it's own, the driver should look to see if there is fuel in it before going out and annoying everyone and putting lives at risk everytime they fly their old Cessnas or Pipers.
Ban them all. No point in taking off from an airport, flying around for an hour then returning (if your lucky) for what purpose? A waste of valuable resourses, EG fuel that we need to preserve for the future.
And this from one Jeremy Prune.....hmmm
someone we know maybe
The following has been issued by the AIB to ensure the newspaper reporting of this crash is up to the usual standard: The pilot was on a routine flight when he felt a loss of power. He observed that the propeller was barely turning. Whilst he selected a suitable landing site he opened the canopy and got his passenger to handswing the propeller to attempt a restart. Unfortunately the passenger was not tall enough. Therefore the pilot landed the aircraft in the first available field after the hospital, school and retirement home.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
one thing to bear in mind re ejection seats - stats show that military pilots have a far better rate of successful ejection than civi pilots. To the extent I believe that if you are a civi pilot, the seat is equally likely to kill you as save your life
I am unaware of any 'unsuccessful' ejection by 'civi pilots' in the CAP632 type arena that should have been successful i.e. made in seat limits. I am aware of fatalities, but either outside seat limits (which tended to kill military pilots as well), but the quoter of the above phrase also seemed to include inadequate flying clothing e.g. no LSJ/immersion suit into water in December and drowning / hypothermia, and called that a "failed ejection". In fact, in one fatal accident, 1 occupant survived despite ejecting outside limits, the other di not survive but was even further outside the limits, IIRC.
when i was flying a JP5 - with live seats - it would have had to be a situation which pretty much guaranteed death or serious injury before i would have used the seat. so serious structural failure? fire coming from the engine into the cockpit? loss of control from a spin and less than 5000 ft on the altimeter? ok - pull the handle.
but if you fly these things, it comes down to pilot choice at the end of the day
NoD
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
From: west sussex
Nigel
I guess Jimgriff could probably come up with the stats.
In terms of survivability, I agree with you the seats become "less lethal" if used within limits, and also if you are dressed properly to survive an ejection and its aftermath if we are also putting such deaths down to the incorrect use of the ejection seat. The difference between the average military and the average civi pilot, is that the military pilot will be less likely (due to aptitude, discipline and training) to operate a seat outside limits. Consider the L39 ejection at Duxford for example.
But back to the "do I bang out or not?" question. If you add a Pax to the equation, then this adds to the price of fish equation. I was speaking for myself in situations where I would have been solo, or where I was alongside another member of the syndicate - and you either decide for yourself when solo, or you look at / talk with the other shareholder, and you both agree to carry out a landing if the circumstances warrant it. if you can't communicate, and you want to stay with it, then the other syndicate member can leave by himself. Agree 100% with you that these things are better thought through on the ground rather than in the air.
The position you don't want to be in, as you see the bottom of his seat disappearing over your head, is to be thinking "I wonder what he meant by that....."
I guess Jimgriff could probably come up with the stats.
In terms of survivability, I agree with you the seats become "less lethal" if used within limits, and also if you are dressed properly to survive an ejection and its aftermath if we are also putting such deaths down to the incorrect use of the ejection seat. The difference between the average military and the average civi pilot, is that the military pilot will be less likely (due to aptitude, discipline and training) to operate a seat outside limits. Consider the L39 ejection at Duxford for example.
But back to the "do I bang out or not?" question. If you add a Pax to the equation, then this adds to the price of fish equation. I was speaking for myself in situations where I would have been solo, or where I was alongside another member of the syndicate - and you either decide for yourself when solo, or you look at / talk with the other shareholder, and you both agree to carry out a landing if the circumstances warrant it. if you can't communicate, and you want to stay with it, then the other syndicate member can leave by himself. Agree 100% with you that these things are better thought through on the ground rather than in the air.
The position you don't want to be in, as you see the bottom of his seat disappearing over your head, is to be thinking "I wonder what he meant by that....."
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Swansea UK.
Eject?
The pilot has been released from the spinal unit and gone home. He is "sore"
The fact he chose to ride it in, was mostly because areas of population were in the immediate vicinity. One field was available. He took it.
A personal choice that was taken by a very experienced current fast jet driver. And, they are around to tell the tale.
It's all very simple to argue "the book says", but when it's you there, it's your call.
Similar to the Gnat forced landing near North Weald a few years back.
Conurbation was also a big factor there.
The fact he chose to ride it in, was mostly because areas of population were in the immediate vicinity. One field was available. He took it.
A personal choice that was taken by a very experienced current fast jet driver. And, they are around to tell the tale.
It's all very simple to argue "the book says", but when it's you there, it's your call.
Similar to the Gnat forced landing near North Weald a few years back.
Conurbation was also a big factor there.
