Harvard II ejection Moosejaw, Jan 24/14

[trampbike]

You're too young to remember, but google Ford's thinking
about the cost of a recall to the Pinto to fix the fire hazard
cause by the rear shock aborbers.

Don't worry, I've seen Fight Club, I know what you're talking about.

My point is: when it comes to decide if it's worth it to save someone life, it's not only about the arithmetic calculations.

[Colonel Sanders]

Over time you may become acquainted with
some remarkably pragmatic people.

[esp803]

I once had an employer lecture me on the cost of one of their airplanes. Something about "It's a multi-million dollar piece of equipment". I politely told them I don't care about the cost of the airplane, I care about my ass, and that is it. It doesn't matter if I'm flying a $20k 150 or a $3M King Air, all that matters to me is getting my ass back on the ground (preferably in one piece). Kudos to these guys, they did just that.

E

[trampbike]

Over time you may become acquainted with
some remarkably pragmatic people.

Reminds me of quote from a great book:
"I do not care if you kill yourselves, but the company will care very much if you kill any of our passengers. We need their business."

[2R]

What is the landing speed of the Harvard 2 ?

[TheStig]

You're too young to remember, but google Ford's thinking
about the cost of a recall to the Pinto to fix the fire hazard
cause by the rear shock aborbers.

Don't worry, I've seen Fight Club, I know what you're talking about.

My point is: when it comes to decide if it's worth it to save someone life, it's not only about the arithmetic calculations.

However, remember in this situation, it's not the taxpayers doing the math, it's the pilots...I say job well done guys, I know how I'd have done the same, and I'd suspect the Colonel would hand his airplane over to the insurance company if faced with a similar situation, but I certainly enjoyed the commentary

[trampbike]

What is the landing speed of the Harvard 2 ?

Touchdown will happen at about 90KIAS, final is flown at around 15 on the AOA, so 120KIAS approximately.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'd suspect the Colonel would hand his airplane over to the insurance company if faced with a similar situation

No. The L39's have cold ejection seats,
and if you tried to climb over the side
the tail would slice you in two. You're
riding it in, regardless.

I have spent thousands of hours sitting
on parachutes in the Pitts, but without
ejection seats, frankly they are worthless
during surface acro, except perhaps for
macho ramp appeal

One airplane I would like ejection seats
for is the C421. Not so much for landing
(I've landed it without 3 greens, didn't climb
out of it) but for EFATO. Pax might not
think it was funny, though.

[2R]

Never mind the gold silkworm tie clips and fancy belt buckles, i would want some elevator shoes after the spine shortening rocket ride

How much shorter are pilots after a Mk-16 ride ? The original ejection seats compressed the spine at least one inch and Pilots were limited to three ejections or face being denied rides at Disneyland as you have to be a certain height to get on the roller coaster.

I do hope the pilots are getting good physiotherapy and back massages or the back pain could be permanent.

[Richard_K_Spyte]

My point is: when it comes to decide if it's worth it to save someone life, it's not only about the arithmetic calculations

It depends more on who's doing the calculations.

Now, more to the topic at hand; Glad the guys are safe.

[CD]

My point is: when it comes to decide if it's worth it to save someone life, it's not only about the arithmetic calculations

It depends more on who's doing the calculations.

Too true... below is the guidance used in rule-making in the U.S.:

Revised Departmental Guidance:
Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses

This guidance raises to $5.8 million the value of a statistical life to be used by analysts in the Department of Transportation when assessing the benefit of preventing fatalities.

Full text of U.S. DoT guidance document here...

Glad the crew is safe.

[iflyforpie]

If it were me in the airplane with one leg jammed out, you bet I am taking a ride on the bang seat.

The airplane is already written off; it was the moment the gear jammed. Why risk lives by trying to save what is already lost?

Good decision making > fancy flying.

[kev994]

Too true... below is the guidance used in rule-making in the U.S.:

Revised Departmental Guidance:
Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses

This guidance raises to $5.8 million the value of a statistical life to be used by analysts in the Department of Transportation when assessing the benefit of preventing fatalities.

Full text of U.S. DoT guidance document here...

Glad the crew is safe.

Do we need to take into account the current exchange rate when deciding whether or not to hammer in with the aircraft?

[Colonel Sanders]

Now you're being silly.

Let's say you have an airplane worth a TRILLION dollars -
one thousand billion, or one million million dollars. Given
the current rate of inflation and a simple extrapolation of
military aircraft procurement costs, this will occur within
our lifetimes.

I think we can all agree that an aircraft worth ONE TRILLION
dollars is worth more than any pilot on the planet. Given that,
I think it would be prudent to strap him in with a five-inch wide
piece of aluminum, to motivate him to bring it back.

PS Beware of the tall women with prominent adam's apples
on Duval St.

[GyvAir]

Beware of the tall women with prominent adam's apples
on Duval St.

Why, what's the value of bringing back a Key West drag queen in today's dollars?

[Colonel Sanders]

I never thought about that - do tell about your experience

[GyvAir]

Haha.. never gone there, never going. And I'm not talking about Key West!

[Redneck_pilot86]

Now you're being silly.

Pot, meet kettle.

Let's say you have an airplane worth a TRILLION dollars -
one thousand billion, or one million million dollars. Given
the current rate of inflation and a simple extrapolation of
military aircraft procurement costs, this will occur within
our lifetimes.

I think we can all agree that an aircraft worth ONE TRILLION
dollars is worth more than any pilot on the planet. Given that,
I think it would be prudent to strap him in with a five-inch wide
piece of aluminum, to motivate him to bring it back.

It is irrelevant what you value the plane at, with unsafe gear it is going to crash. Why add to that by killing the pilot as well? I find it pretty hard to believe that you would be stupid enough to kill yourself in an airplane, given an almost guaranteed way around it. Why would you expect others to? Especially with a student pilot driving, or an instructor that is likely not as current as he ought to be.

[Gannet167]

The gear was damaged in such a way that it not only couldn't be retracted but also would certainly fold in a landing. A single main gear landing on this plane in particular is a bad scenario, it's tricky enough to keep it straight on a normal day. There's a great chance that it would cartwheel and end up upside down. The only way to exit the aircraft is through it's upward opening canopy. Ending up upside down ensures you're sealed in the plane for the post crash fire, no longer an option to eject. This has happened before and the hindsight police deemed that "they'd have been better off to eject."

The ejection seat is there so that people can walk away, and that's what it did in this case. The pilots are well regarded and accomplished aviators. The ejection was a good decision that was backed up by basically all the experts in the know who were involved.

Flying an aircraft with an ejection seat changes the decision making process dramatically in an emergency. Having the option to leave the aircraft affords a route to almost certain safety when it's doubtful if a landing can be performed. Sure, possibly the aircraft could have been recovered on one main gear, potentially with minimal damage, fixed and all that. It's also pretty likely it would still be a write off. Flying an aircraft without an ejection seat leads one to think how you'd land in that scenario - as it's the only option. But when you have an ejection seat, it becomes awfully hard to justify the risk of attempting a landing.

[av8ts]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -flaw.html

[PilotDAR]

The following is me trying to learn more, not be challenging...

Presuming a scenario where controlled flight is possible for some time to come, would simply bailing out at altitude, without using ejection seats, be even more safe? Though I have zero experience with ejection seat equipped aircraft, those I have known who have, have told me that the last thing they wanted to do was to eject, because others they had known who had, had been quite injured doing so. Two of my former jet fighter friends both told me stories of flying home and landing damaged aircraft (one having had a mid air, and losing its vertical tail) because they were so afraid to eject. Perhaps current ejection seat give a safer exit....

[kev994]

Presuming a scenario where controlled flight is possible for some time to come, would simply bailing out at altitude, without using ejection seats, be even more safe?

Among other issues such as unstrapping and getting the canopy open, the parachute is in the seat (I believe the headrest but it's been almost 8 years since I've flown this aircraft) so there is no way of accomplishing this. Cheers.

[Colonel Sanders]

Ejections seats have gotten better over the years, but ...

My father had a short-igniter F-86 flame out over a
very thick cloud layer in Europe, 1 Wing. He did a
deadstick instrument approach to an airport he'd
never landed at before. Timer was ticking because
hydraulic controls are battery powered without the
turbine. Perhaps wiser heads would have ejected.




Fast forward to CEPE at Cold Lake. F-104 had all
sorts of systems failures after takeoff. Dad wanted
to burn off some fuel before landing, but the people
on the ground said land it now or get out. So he
did a very fast, heavy approach and landing with
no BLC, etc. Touched down faster than the tires
and drag chute were rated for. Kept it on the runway,
no violent back-crushing ride and the airplane was
saved.

The experts here would have surely ejected under
similar circumstances, but I might remind you that
none other than . Yeager was badly injured
when he ejected out of an F-104.

simply bailing out at altitude, without using ejection seats

You could do that in the L39 - pop the canopy, and
manually separate the chute from the seat, and step
out over the side. But the tail would surely kill you.
Not a good choice, either, at least in that airframe.

Hell, even in the Pitts, Sean Tucker (who has climbed
out of at least 3 Pitts that I know of) claimed he was
hit in the head by the canopy bow after he popped it
before he climbed out.

Not without it's risks.

[trampbike]

Though I have zero experience with ejection seat equipped aircraft, those I have known who have, have told me that the last thing they wanted to do was to eject, because others they had known who had, had been quite injured doing so.

The ejection seat on the Harvard II is quite safe. Hawk and Tutor pilots wished they had the same seat.

He did a
deadstick instrument approach to an airport he'd
never landed at before.

What kind of approach did he do?

[bizjets101]

Click Here Martin-Baker US16LA T-6 Ejection Seat.