ex-mil jet down? Crew reported safe
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
Likes: 1
From: Germany
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 207
Likes: 4
From: Hampshire, UK
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 480
Likes: 3
From: Retford, UK
I guess a JP/Strikemaster has a reasonably low stall speed giving them a good chance of a successful forced landing?
Also I understand ejecting from these early jets is not to be taken lightly with the rocket bang seats often causing back injuries, not to mention the consequences of the uncontrolled crash of the pilotless jet.
Well done to the crew and hope to hear more on the story...
Also I understand ejecting from these early jets is not to be taken lightly with the rocket bang seats often causing back injuries, not to mention the consequences of the uncontrolled crash of the pilotless jet.
Well done to the crew and hope to hear more on the story...
Last edited by MichaelJP59; 27th April 2009 at 11:14.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 776
Likes: 10
From: East Anglia
No rockets on the chair I sat on in the JP! (the seats still caused a 'loss of stature' ... about 0.75"!) We were told NOT to stay with the steed in the case of a crash landing wheels up/ditching as the nose-wheel door would give way and the ensuing damage would crush our legs!
Glad that everyone got out OK
Glad that everyone got out OK
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
As a current JP Instructor, both with/without bang seats, my views...
Without Bang Seats you are commited to a forced landing, or a high level, awkward manual bailout, leaving the Jet to go where??? It is tough as old boots, and as this shows, good chance to walk away.
With Bang Seats you can eject at a lower level, so less problem where the aircraft goes, and covered better immediately after takeoff. However, I would not force land one, since the slightest fuselage disruption on landing could see the seat go off out of limits and kill you.
Essentially, need to be treated as 2 different aircraft in this area
NoD
Without Bang Seats you are commited to a forced landing, or a high level, awkward manual bailout, leaving the Jet to go where??? It is tough as old boots, and as this shows, good chance to walk away.
With Bang Seats you can eject at a lower level, so less problem where the aircraft goes, and covered better immediately after takeoff. However, I would not force land one, since the slightest fuselage disruption on landing could see the seat go off out of limits and kill you.
Essentially, need to be treated as 2 different aircraft in this area
NoD
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Swansea UK.
Strikemaster forced landing
Hello Nigelondraft,
I have to disagree with your comment.
I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection.
Ejection was an option, but look at where the jet was put down and you will see numourous villages and dwellings in the close vicinity.
Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhat. (yes we know it's a zero-90)
The pilot made a call to protect those on the ground and was skillfull and current enough to do a great job.
Hats off!
I have to disagree with your comment.
I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection.
Ejection was an option, but look at where the jet was put down and you will see numourous villages and dwellings in the close vicinity.
Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhat. (yes we know it's a zero-90)
The pilot made a call to protect those on the ground and was skillfull and current enough to do a great job.
Hats off!
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
yakhunter
I beg to differ From an AAIB report:
and
Of course, you may choose to disagree with the clear CAA and AAIB regulations / advice On the day, I might also not comply with the above, but as an instructor, I must teach what is written down, and in fact, intend to comply with the above.
I do disagree with your
I will follow the advice / teaching from my training, and if the engine quits at 120K / 200' after takeoff, I am "out of there" 
I am unaware of any unsuccessful, but in limits, Mk4 ejections where 500' would have made the difference, nor any factor why 500' has any applicability?
Of course, in no way am I criticising the crew of this aircraft. They did what they had to do, it worked, and I have no idea of the factors that applied on the day.
NoD
I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection.
From an AAIB report:
Also, paragraph 5.2 of Chapter 7 of CAP 632, Operation of 'Permit-to-Fly' ex-military aircraft on the UK Register, issued by the CAA, states:
'Forced landings should only be carried out in jet aircraft as a last resort, unless they can be made onto a suitable airfield. If ejection or abandonment is inevitable, every effort must be made to ensure that the aircraft falls into an unpopulated area. ……..'
'Forced landings should only be carried out in jet aircraft as a last resort, unless they can be made onto a suitable airfield. If ejection or abandonment is inevitable, every effort must be made to ensure that the aircraft falls into an unpopulated area. ……..'
In this event, a successful off-airfield forced landing was carried out at relatively high speed into a partially ploughed field, and the crew exited the aircraft uninjured. Welcome as that was, the prevailing advice indicates that ejecting would have been the preferred option and, in the circumstances, the crew were fortunate to avoid a much more serious outcome.
On the day, I might also not comply with the above, but as an instructor, I must teach what is written down, and in fact, intend to comply with the above.I do disagree with your
Leave it too late (below 500 feet) in this mk of seat and you gamble somewhat
I am unaware of any unsuccessful, but in limits, Mk4 ejections where 500' would have made the difference, nor any factor why 500' has any applicability?Of course, in no way am I criticising the crew of this aircraft. They did what they had to do, it worked, and I have no idea of the factors that applied on the day.
NoD
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
From: Kent, UK
Although it was a few years ago, the JP I was lucky enough to have a go in had live seats, and we were fully briefed on the use of them with the exception of the decision to eject was made by the commander of the aircraft (not me!) and then I just had to "follow through".
Great plane, I had a great day - it is sad that one should be lost yesterday but good that the crew survived.
Great plane, I had a great day - it is sad that one should be lost yesterday but good that the crew survived.
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
From: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
anotherthing. Read the thread.
Also, paragraph 5.2 of Chapter 7 of CAP 632, Operation of 'Permit-to-Fly' ex-military aircraft on the UK Register, issued by the CAA, states:
'Forced landings should only be carried out in jet aircraft as a last resort, unless they can be made onto a suitable airfield. If ejection or abandonment is inevitable, every effort must be made to ensure that the aircraft falls into an unpopulated area. ……..
'Forced landings should only be carried out in jet aircraft as a last resort, unless they can be made onto a suitable airfield. If ejection or abandonment is inevitable, every effort must be made to ensure that the aircraft falls into an unpopulated area. ……..
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 2,201
Likes: 0
From: Chichester West Sussex UK
NigelOnDraft
While I do not disagree with the basic thrust of your argument about following regulations - especially in teaching - I don't see flying as a totally black and white exercise. The JP will fly very slowly and ejection is not without risks so to rule out an off airfield forced landing in that type by rote is I feel a little dodgy.
Don't you feel pilot experience, currency and field size could affect the price of fish?
JF
While I do not disagree with the basic thrust of your argument about following regulations - especially in teaching - I don't see flying as a totally black and white exercise. The JP will fly very slowly and ejection is not without risks so to rule out an off airfield forced landing in that type by rote is I feel a little dodgy.
Don't you feel pilot experience, currency and field size could affect the price of fish?
JF
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
From: UK
JF....
I'd agree, but my input was from the comment
- all I was replying is that there is pretty strong advice from both the CAA and AAIB I did add
The hardest thing to do in teaching civil/PPL converts to the JP is when to use the seat. It cannot be considered optional IMHO - if you've got the things, they are there for a purpose, and it can require a very quick decision to use them. In the RAF the teaching went to the bottom handle alone for partly this reason.
Don't know about the Strikey... but JP3/4/5 the "standard" fit is live seats. It is an acceptable (formal) modifcation to disable them... CAP632 expands.
NoD
I don't see flying as a totally black and white exercise.
I do not believe there is a hard and fast rule about forced landing v ejection
I did add
On the day, I might also not comply with the above....
I'm sure that I was told ejection seats HAVE to be made live in the Strikemaster and JP Mk.5 in private ownership. The Mk.4 (and possibly the Mk.3) were optional, but that may have changed
NoD