Ejection -v- Forced Landing

[Cockpit Colin]

I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
benefits out weigh the considerable risks.

In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which in
my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.

I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?

My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built but
capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) - and
the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
course committed to landing at a higher speed.

In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
first choice always be ejection?

Thanks for your thoughts.

CC

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:41:14 +1200, "Cockpit Colin" >
wrote:

>I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
>all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
>repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
>benefits out weigh the considerable risks.
>
>In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
>an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which in
>my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.
>
>I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
>event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
>the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?
>
>My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built but
>capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
>fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) - and
>the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
>his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
>course committed to landing at a higher speed.
>
>In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
>first choice always be ejection?
>
>Thanks for your thoughts.
>
>CC
>

Early in my fast-jet career I considered the force landing option as
viable. Then, upon further examination I considered the situation of
an automobile leaving the paved roadway and entering a plowed field.
Do it at 140-160 MPH. What will the results be? How about if your
"car" doesn't have a steel frame but is simply monocoque duraluminum
on a bulkhead and stringer frame? What if directly behind you when you
come to the sudden stop is a four or five ton engine?

Nahh, not a good plan at all.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Reminds me of a squadron mate who successfully ditched a North American FJ-3
Fury. Since the FJ-3 engine inlet was in the nose we had been told a water
landing would result in water ramming through that nose intake splitting the
fuselage (and pilot) apart. However he managed it because he was in the
carrier landing pattern when he stalled the plane. Fortunately it dropped in
tail first. It went completely under and popped up. He stood up and jumped
as the plane went out from under him. The plane guard helo plucked him from
Neptune's arms.

His squadron mate was not so lucky. He went off the cat with the wings
spread but not fully locked. With possibly no aileron control (we never
knew) he rolled over and made his "final landing" one day before Christmas
1956. Hopefully his wife and two kids were not informed until after they had
enjoyed Christmas.

WDA

end

"Cockpit Colin" <spam@n ospam.com> wrote in message
...
> I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
> all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
> repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
> benefits out weigh the considerable risks.
>
> In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
> an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which
> in
> my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.
>
> I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
> event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
> the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?
>
> My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built
> but
> capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
> fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) -
> and
> the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
> his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
> course committed to landing at a higher speed.
>
> In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
> first choice always be ejection?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> CC
>
>

[Tiger]

Cockpit Colin wrote:

>I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
>all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
>repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
>benefits out weigh the considerable risks.
>
>In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
>an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which in
>my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.
>
>I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
>event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
>the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?
>
>My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built but
>capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
>fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) - and
>the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
>his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
>course committed to landing at a higher speed.
>
>In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
>first choice always be ejection?
>
>Thanks for your thoughts.
>
>CC
>
>
>
>
Don't they have a parachute system for small plane's now? After market
deal where if in trouble you pop the chute and land the plane.

[Cockpit Colin]

> Don't they have a parachute system for small plane's now? After market
> deal where if in trouble you pop the chute and land the plane.

Yes - it comes standard with the Cirrus SR22 (http://brsparachutes.com/)
and is available as an after market kit for some aircraft. From what I've
read there are a few examples where it's saved the occupants - but also a
few where they've deployed the chute but occupants have still died - in that
respect, similar to ejection seats.

Does anyone know if "percentage surviveability" is increasing with modern
ejection seats? and what figures we're currently at?

CC

[vincent p. norris]

>I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
>event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
>the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?

Fellow I know, Jim Walbridge, flew 105s in VN. He deadsticked one
onto a runway, not a farmer's paddock, but still not a highly
recommended procedure. It's been some years since I heard the story,
but IIRC, he hit the 180 at 10,000 agl and made the runway.

vince norris

[William Hughes]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:41:14 +1200, in rec.aviation.military.naval "Cockpit
Colin" > wrote:

> In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
> first choice always be ejection?

I'm ex-USAF Life Support tech and Aircrew Survival Instructor. Occasionally,
flight crew would ask me a similar question - my answer was always the same: "We
can build a new aircraft in six months. It takes 20-25 years to build a new you.
Bail."

[Tex Houston]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Don't they have a parachute system for small plane's now? After market
> deal where if in trouble you pop the chute and land the plane.
>

Yes they do. The fine print tells you about not being able to use the
airplane again. A gentle landing, it is not.

Tex

[[email protected]]

Used to discuss GA forced landings in a class I taught. Like the
previous message, if you get to use the airplane again you're twice
lucky.
a) Tell someone what you're doing and where.
b) Stow all loose gear or heave it out the door.
c) Unlock the doors and leave them ajar.
d) Land into the wind. Not all cows' butts are upwind so check other
indications.
e) Keep best glide speed until the last few feet.
f) If you see two big trees close together put the nose right between
then. Taking off the wings will definitely slow you down.
g) if all you have under you is rocks or water i'm sorry . . .for,
rocks, see 'tees' above. for water, be advsed the airplane is very
likely to end up upside down. Be prepared to unstrap and exit
immediately after impact. I don't recommend unstrapping before impact -
I know one guy who did (GA) and ended up crammed under the instrument
panel. He had a hard time getting out before the bird sank. Flotation
- if you have anything at all take it with you. Remember/learn how to
make waterwings out of your trousers.
h) Farms/Pastures - a nice fresh plowed field is usually so soft you'll
flip over. be prepared.
i) Flat range land may rpt may be as good as a sod field in that you'll
come to a stop upright and in good shape. Don't bet on it.
j. Find out (manufacturer?) if it's better with your rpt your airplane
to put it in gear down or gear up. For example, on Boeing aircraft the
gear is a 'mechanical fuse' designed to shear off before the structure
it's attached to fails. If your bird has fixed gear that question is
already answered.
k. Lock harness and tighten safety belt while still well above ground -
say 1000 feet if possible.
l. Just before touchdown switches off, fuel off.
m. Full flaps and flare to touchdown at stalling speed; every knot shed
here means less inertial/kinetic forces on touchdown. be cool; don't do
this twenty feet in the air.
n. Lots of luck . . .
Walt BJ
PS the Martin-Baker seat is a sudden but smooth ride and beats the
alternative.

[Cockpit Colin]

> Yes they do. The fine print tells you about not being able to use the
> airplane again. A gentle landing, it is not.

It's been pointed out that at that precise moment, you usually only own
about $1000 of the aircraft - the insurance company owns the rest!

[Cockpit Colin]

> I'm ex-USAF Life Support tech and Aircrew Survival Instructor.
Occasionally,
> flight crew would ask me a similar question - my answer was always the
same: "We
> can build a new aircraft in six months. It takes 20-25 years to build a
new you.
> Bail."

I take your point completely. Perhaps what I should have asked was "which is
safer". I'm not a whizz on ejection seats (all I can lay claim to fame with
them is sitting in a live one on a couple of occasions) - from what I've
read they certainly have saved a lot of lives - but also many cases of
pilots being killed by them. I'm quite curious to know what the chances of
survival (and without major injuries) would be for a pilot ejecting from a
modern aircraft under "ideal" conditions (eg 200 - 300 knots, not Mach 1.8)
etc.

Have they got to the point where a "pilot in need" flying with one things
thinks "thank god I've got an ejection seat" or is it a case of "do I feel
lucky today" - if you get what I mean.

Off memory I think the survival rate from Escapac seats from our Air Force
was only something like 50%

CC

[Tex Houston]

"Cockpit Colin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I take your point completely. Perhaps what I should have asked was "which
> is
> safer". I'm not a whizz on ejection seats (all I can lay claim to fame
> with
> them is sitting in a live one on a couple of occasions) - from what I've
> read they certainly have saved a lot of lives - but also many cases of
> pilots being killed by them. I'm quite curious to know what the chances of
> survival (and without major injuries) would be for a pilot ejecting from a
> modern aircraft under "ideal" conditions (eg 200 - 300 knots, not Mach
> 1.8)
> etc.
>
> Have they got to the point where a "pilot in need" flying with one things
> thinks "thank god I've got an ejection seat" or is it a case of "do I feel
> lucky today" - if you get what I mean.
>
> Off memory I think the survival rate from Escapac seats from our Air Force
> was only something like 50%
>
> CC
>
>

Check out this site... http://www.martin-baker.com/ .

Tex

[J.A.M.]

At that point I just don't care a da**n about the aircraft. If I have to
bail out, or crash land it, my main concern is getting the irreplacable
piece of gear intact on the ground... me.

"Cockpit Colin" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> > Yes they do. The fine print tells you about not being able to use the
> > airplane again. A gentle landing, it is not.
>
> It's been pointed out that at that precise moment, you usually only own
> about $1000 of the aircraft - the insurance company owns the rest!
>
>

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 3/30/05 10:44 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" > wrote:

>
> I take your point completely. Perhaps what I should have asked was "which is
> safer". I'm not a whizz on ejection seats (all I can lay claim to fame with
> them is sitting in a live one on a couple of occasions) - from what I've
> read they certainly have saved a lot of lives - but also many cases of
> pilots being killed by them. I'm quite curious to know what the chances of
> survival (and without major injuries) would be for a pilot ejecting from a
> modern aircraft under "ideal" conditions (eg 200 - 300 knots, not Mach 1.8)
> etc.
>
> Have they got to the point where a "pilot in need" flying with one things
> thinks "thank god I've got an ejection seat" or is it a case of "do I feel
> lucky today" - if you get what I mean.
>

I don't know a single pilot in the Hornet community who thinks that an
ejection seat is the "Get Out of Jail Free" card for risky behavior--if that
was your question.

The seat is strictly a save your life mechanism, and in the Hornet, you WILL
get hurt. If the G's and wind don't mangle you on the way up, then the
chute will pummel you on the way down--17 foot conical parachute. The rate
of descent is akin to jumping off the roof of a two-story home.

--Woody

[nafod40]

wrote:
> Used to discuss GA forced landings in a class I taught. Like the
> previous message, if you get to use the airplane again you're twice
> lucky.

Obviously a *completely* different thing from plunking down a jet into a
cow pasture, but I've "landed out" a number of times in gliders now
(slow land speed, excellent glidepath control), and there's lots of
gamesmanship in picking your field with regards to winds, smoothness,
etc. We had one of our pilots land out in what looked to be a reasonable
spot, but ended up doing "strike damage" to the plane from small
boulders in the field. Pilot OK.

I used to end all of my OCF flights (in Beeville) with a simulated
engine out from whatever altitude we entered the last spin. A long glide
from SPIN 1 (20-30 miles away?) into high key and down. Got to the point
where if I could take an early initial, I could skip high key and carry
knots into the break and fly a regular pattern. With the right runway
and the right parking spot, I could coast into the chocks from 20K'
without touching the power. Amazing the games bored pilots play to make
things harder.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Cockpit Colin wrote:
> I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
> all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
> repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
> benefits out weigh the considerable risks.
>
> In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
> an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which in
> my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.
>
> I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
> event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
> the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?
>
> My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built but
> capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
> fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) - and
> the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
> his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
> course committed to landing at a higher speed.
>
> In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
> first choice always be ejection?
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> CC
>
>

I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

[Charlie Wolf]

Check here:

http://showcase.netins.net/web/herker/ejection/escapac.html
www.ejectionsite.com/escapacfr.htm

In the S-3 community (I was a "backseater") we were always trained
that ejection is the best option. In the portion of NATOPS that
discusses ditching at sea, the recommendation from Lockheed was
"Don't". As for the choice between ejecting and piling into a plowed
field somewhere, I wouldn't relish the thought of sliding a 43,000 lb.
aircraft across soft dirt/grass/etc. at speeds in excess of 110 mph,
which would be the absolute minimum that you could touch down at.

Now - that changes just a little bit if you're talking about a
contolled, deadstick, flat, level approach to a 14,000 ft runway
that's been foamed. But with an ejection seat that works, I'd rather
take my chances on a controlled ejection.

On a final note, VRC-50 landed a C-1A on the runway at Da Nang - gear
up (intentionally). The aircraft eventually was flown to NARF in
Atsugi a few weeks later after 2 engine changes and some minor "body
work" on the belly.

Oh yea - and they repaired the shrink-link strut that failed on the
main gear during the original flight. It broke just as the gear was
retracted into the wheel well, and the Main mount extended inside the
wheel well, resulting in "2 down and locked".
Regards,

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:41:14 +1200, "Cockpit Colin" >
wrote:

>I've read about the experiences of a few pilots who have had to eject - by
>all accounts it's an extremely violent process which none would care to
>repeat. Obviously it's done as a last alternative when the potential
>benefits out weigh the considerable risks.
>
>In the GA world it's not an option that we have - so in the event of, say,
>an engine failure, our only option is to go for a forced landing - which in
>my case is almost certainly going to mean a flat farmers paddock.
>
>I'd be curious to know how many "military fast jet" pilots would, in the
>event of a total engine failure contemplate/attempt a forced landing into
>the likes of a farmers paddock versus ejection?
>
>My thinking is that on one hand a GA plane is relatively flimsily built but
>capable of landing at a much lower speed - on the other hand a "military
>fast jet" is built to withstand many g's (so very strong construction) - and
>the pilot is secured to the aircraft with a very effective harness - with
>his head protected by a helmet (all advantages over a GA pilot) - but of
>course committed to landing at a higher speed.
>
>In the above scenario would a forced landing ever be an option - or would
>first choice always be ejection?
>
>Thanks for your thoughts.
>
>CC
>

[John Carrier]

> I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway that
> looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
> landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may have
> happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just punching
> out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside. It just
> doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

Agreed. Interestingly we had a fairly recent incident where the crew rode a
flamed out T-45A into a farmer's field. Walked away and the jet had "C"
damage. The tale of how they got there is long and privileged.

I've never flown a jet whose performance made a flame out approach a viable
option ... well, maybe the A-4. But the T-45 glides so well and has such a
nice precautionary approach profile, doing it flamed out (to a runway of
course) is no big deal. I've done a couple dozen in the simulator and do a
talk-through demo for the IUT's. Piece of cake.

Of course, this violates OpNav instructions and you're certainly going to
lose your wings if you attempt one given the opportunity. So the choice
(unless the seat doesn't work) is to join the pedestrians and thumb a ride
home.

R / John

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:30:13 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
> wrote:

>I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
>that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
>landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
>have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
>punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
>It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.

Generally concur. But the famous "dead stick" sequence in the
"Bridges at Toko Ri" is something to see. Of course, the old F-9
"Lead Sled" might one of the few jets, ever, where such an event was
even reasonable to consider.

I guess we should also consider the "And Then There Was One" saga of
the Reserve F-9s. At least one in that group did a highway landing.

In the S-2/P-3 community the ditch vs. bailout question was often
considered. I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two
successful P-3 ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian
Gulf). I don't know of any bailouts in either type (but that just
means I don't know about them).

Bailout from the Stoof (particularly the G model) was probematical if
the cockpit crew were wearing wet suit, SV2, and parachute harness.
One day we set up some mattresses out side an aircraft and decided to
hold some drills. Each crew had to man up in full survival gear and
the, at the command, follow the NATOPS proceedure. To our surprise,
everybody was able to do it in the time alloted (if just barely). The
major difficulty was that the entry from the cockpit to cabin was kind
of narrow and the SV2 over the wet suit made even the slimmest crewman
"wide."

The consensus, even after the drills, remained that ditching was
probably a better option than bailout. One major consideration was
that the crew would stay together and would have access to the 4-man
raft. It was generally agreed that each crewman would take his
parachute out with him because the seat pack contained the individual
survival kits and at least one canopy could be fashioned into a sun
shade.

As I remember, the P-3 world also favored ditch over bailout, and for
the same reasons (greater availability of survival gear AND keeping
the crew together).

I don't recall the P-3 ditching speed (and I don't have a NATOPS
handy). The S-2 went in full flaps at 90 kts. day and 1/3 flaps and
105 kts. night/IMC.

From the Quonset crew we learned that the NATOPS proceedure worked "as
advertised" and a wings-level attitude to stop was MANDATORY. Impact
was firm, but not severe; a couple of bounces and it was over. The
nose settled rapidly but not precipitously. There was ample time to
exit. They were able to clear the overhead hatches even with the SV2
vests on (another concern). They were in the water less than 5
minutes before they were picked up by a fishing boat.

Bill Kambic

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

>I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two successful P-3
>ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian Gulf).

ISTR - in the course of the discussion re the EP-3 forced landing in China -
some comment to the effect that there has never been a P-3 airframe ditching
that did not involve at least some loss of life. Does a "successful" P-3
airframe ditching mean that at least one soul survived?

Another comment I encountered was that the EP-3 community did not carry
parachutes for some years, reason being that all them antennae protruding
from the fuselage would pretty much shred the first soul out the hatch. I
think this changed some time before the VQ-1 crew painted that Chinese F-8
silhouette on their replacement bird.

Others with better-quality info please comment.

---
Mike Kanze

"All men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for
example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is a vegetable. We have no idea
what mauve is."

- Rules From Guys


> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:30:13 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
> > wrote:
>
>>I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
>>that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
>>landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
>>have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
>>punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
>>It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.
>
> Generally concur. But the famous "dead stick" sequence in the
> "Bridges at Toko Ri" is something to see. Of course, the old F-9
> "Lead Sled" might one of the few jets, ever, where such an event was
> even reasonable to consider.
>
> I guess we should also consider the "And Then There Was One" saga of
> the Reserve F-9s. At least one in that group did a highway landing.
>
> In the S-2/P-3 community the ditch vs. bailout question was often
> considered. I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two
> successful P-3 ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian
> Gulf). I don't know of any bailouts in either type (but that just
> means I don't know about them).
>
> Bailout from the Stoof (particularly the G model) was probematical if
> the cockpit crew were wearing wet suit, SV2, and parachute harness.
> One day we set up some mattresses out side an aircraft and decided to
> hold some drills. Each crew had to man up in full survival gear and
> the, at the command, follow the NATOPS proceedure. To our surprise,
> everybody was able to do it in the time alloted (if just barely). The
> major difficulty was that the entry from the cockpit to cabin was kind
> of narrow and the SV2 over the wet suit made even the slimmest crewman
> "wide."
>
> The consensus, even after the drills, remained that ditching was
> probably a better option than bailout. One major consideration was
> that the crew would stay together and would have access to the 4-man
> raft. It was generally agreed that each crewman would take his
> parachute out with him because the seat pack contained the individual
> survival kits and at least one canopy could be fashioned into a sun
> shade.
>
> As I remember, the P-3 world also favored ditch over bailout, and for
> the same reasons (greater availability of survival gear AND keeping
> the crew together).
>
> I don't recall the P-3 ditching speed (and I don't have a NATOPS
> handy). The S-2 went in full flaps at 90 kts. day and 1/3 flaps and
> 105 kts. night/IMC.
>
> From the Quonset crew we learned that the NATOPS proceedure worked "as
> advertised" and a wings-level attitude to stop was MANDATORY. Impact
> was firm, but not severe; a couple of bounces and it was over. The
> nose settled rapidly but not precipitously. There was ample time to
> exit. They were able to clear the overhead hatches even with the SV2
> vests on (another concern). They were in the water less than 5
> minutes before they were picked up by a fishing boat.
>
> Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:44:17 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>ISTR - in the course of the discussion re the EP-3 forced landing in China -
>some comment to the effect that there has never been a P-3 airframe ditching
>that did not involve at least some loss of life. Does a "successful" P-3
>airframe ditching mean that at least one soul survived?

In the North Pacific ditch one person was killed on impact (Tank 5
came up through the deck and pinned him to the overhead). I don't
know of casualties in the Persian Gulf incident.

Perhaps we could quibbe over "successful" but if all but one got out
then that would be "successful" (at least as opposed to only one got
out)

>Another comment I encountered was that the EP-3 community did not carry
>parachutes for some years, reason being that all them antennae protruding
>from the fuselage would pretty much shred the first soul out the hatch. I
>think this changed some time before the VQ-1 crew painted that Chinese F-8
>silhouette on their replacement bird.

Not being familiar with the EP-3 I can't comment.

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

Flying the F104A with the aging J79-3b engine we practiced
'precautionary patterns' a lot because we still had problems with the
oil system. On a nice VFR day with winds not a problem, you started
over the 'numbers' at the end of a long runway at 15000 AGL at 260
KIAS, gear up, T/O flaps set, sink rate about 4500fpm. One turn and you
were on final, aiming for a 'window' (envision a volleyball net) right
over the approach end of the runway. As you gently flared through the
middle of this window about 20-30 feet up you slipped below 250 KIAS
and pulled the emergency gear extension handle all the way out freeing
the uplocks. All three gear fell out and back (like an A4) and locked
down in about 3 seconds or so. Once on the ground you lowered the nose
and pulled the drag chute (same size as an F4's but about one-third of
the weight to stop so it worked very well at slowing the Ziper down.)
Made a bunch of these with oil failure light, oil quantity gauge
failure, or zero pressure showing on the gauge. My own patent routine
was as I said, to be able to go off the far end as I began the descent,
move the touchdown point to halfway down the runway at the 180, keep
moving it back to the 500 foot marker as you approached the end of the
runway. They were a lot of fun when you were practicing, somewhat more
serious when you'd been sweating engine failure on the way back over
the field and on down the slide, waiting for that tell-tale engine
vibration that would tell you the bearings were starting to fail. Walt
BJ

[Gord Beaman]

wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:30:13 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo
> wrote:
>
>>I would never try to land a jet anywhere but on a runway or a highway
>>that looked like a runway...with at least one engine running. Deadstick
>>landings in a jet are the things of myth and lore and altho they may
>>have happened, the chance of killing yerself is much higher than just
>>punching out. Samo for ditching, experience in the Dilbert dunker aside.
>>It just doesn't happen with the pilot surviving.
>
>Generally concur. But the famous "dead stick" sequence in the
>"Bridges at Toko Ri" is something to see. Of course, the old F-9
>"Lead Sled" might one of the few jets, ever, where such an event was
>even reasonable to consider.
>
>I guess we should also consider the "And Then There Was One" saga of
>the Reserve F-9s. At least one in that group did a highway landing.
>
>In the S-2/P-3 community the ditch vs. bailout question was often
>considered. I know of one successful S-2 ditching at Quonset and two
>successful P-3 ditchings over the years (North Pacific and Persian
>Gulf). I don't know of any bailouts in either type (but that just
>means I don't know about them).
>
>Bailout from the Stoof (particularly the G model) was probematical if
>the cockpit crew were wearing wet suit, SV2, and parachute harness.
>One day we set up some mattresses out side an aircraft and decided to
>hold some drills. Each crew had to man up in full survival gear and
>the, at the command, follow the NATOPS proceedure. To our surprise,
>everybody was able to do it in the time alloted (if just barely). The
>major difficulty was that the entry from the cockpit to cabin was kind
>of narrow and the SV2 over the wet suit made even the slimmest crewman
>"wide."
>
>The consensus, even after the drills, remained that ditching was
>probably a better option than bailout. One major consideration was
>that the crew would stay together and would have access to the 4-man
>raft. It was generally agreed that each crewman would take his
>parachute out with him because the seat pack contained the individual
>survival kits and at least one canopy could be fashioned into a sun
>shade.
>
>As I remember, the P-3 world also favored ditch over bailout, and for
>the same reasons (greater availability of survival gear AND keeping
>the crew together).
>
>I don't recall the P-3 ditching speed (and I don't have a NATOPS
>handy). The S-2 went in full flaps at 90 kts. day and 1/3 flaps and
>105 kts. night/IMC.
>
>From the Quonset crew we learned that the NATOPS proceedure worked "as
>advertised" and a wings-level attitude to stop was MANDATORY. Impact
>was firm, but not severe; a couple of bounces and it was over. The
>nose settled rapidly but not precipitously. There was ample time to
>exit. They were able to clear the overhead hatches even with the SV2
>vests on (another concern). They were in the water less than 5
>minutes before they were picked up by a fishing boat.
>
>Bill Kambic

We never had the opportunity of doing a real ditching or bailout
in an Argus (thankfully) but we were always advised to ditch
rather than bail, for the reasons mentioned here...we used to do
ditching drills once a month in the hangar with mattresses all
over the floor behind and in front of the wings. Quite a drop
from there to the floor (likely 10/12 feet I suppose). I know it
was hard to get everyone of a normal 16 man crew into exposure
suits and Mae Wests, then out on the wings etc with the
designated equipment in the time allowed.

We were lucky with that a/c, we had 36 of them and flew them for
around 25 years. only lost two...one 'dipped a wing' (we think)
off Puerto Rico during a Subex and the other pranged here at
Summerside due to more pilot error.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Jim Carriere]

wrote:
> Flying the F104A with the aging J79-3b engine we practiced
> 'precautionary patterns' a lot because we still had problems with the
> oil system. On a nice VFR day with winds not a problem, you started
....
> runway. They were a lot of fun when you were practicing, somewhat more
> serious when you'd been sweating engine failure on the way back over
> the field and on down the slide, waiting for that tell-tale engine
> vibration that would tell you the bearings were starting to fail. Walt
> BJ

Wow, once you were on deck and started breathing again, I bet the
first beer tasted pretty damn good.

Were these the ones with the downward ejection seats?

Also, did the -1 have anything about engine life expectancy without
oil? Some NATOPS manuals will have a note about things like that, ie
a gearbox being designed to last x number of minutes with no oil. My
opinion is notes like that _should_ read something like "a brand
spanking new example of this piece of equipment was successfully run,
without oil, in a lab, for x number of minutes. Your mileage may vary."

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

>Perhaps we could quibbe over "successful" but if all but one got out then
>that would be "successful" (at least as opposed to only one got out)

True, unless you are the one who doesn't make it.

This is sorta like the stand-up routine from the 1930s that goes, "When
you're out of work, it's a recession; when I'm out of work, it's a
depression."

--
Mike Kanze

"All men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for
example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is a vegetable. We have no idea
what mauve is."

- Rules From Guys


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:44:17 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> > wrote:
>
>>ISTR - in the course of the discussion re the EP-3 forced landing in
>>China -
>>some comment to the effect that there has never been a P-3 airframe
>>ditching
>>that did not involve at least some loss of life. Does a "successful" P-3
>>airframe ditching mean that at least one soul survived?
>
> In the North Pacific ditch one person was killed on impact (Tank 5
> came up through the deck and pinned him to the overhead). I don't
> know of casualties in the Persian Gulf incident.
>
> Perhaps we could quibbe over "successful" but if all but one got out
> then that would be "successful" (at least as opposed to only one got
> out)
>
>>Another comment I encountered was that the EP-3 community did not carry
>>parachutes for some years, reason being that all them antennae protruding
>>from the fuselage would pretty much shred the first soul out the hatch. I
>>think this changed some time before the VQ-1 crew painted that Chinese F-8
>>silhouette on their replacement bird.
>
> Not being familiar with the EP-3 I can't comment.
>
> Bill Kambic

[John Carrier]

A very HIGH high key. Power set at idle? USN single engine jets had a
similar procedure but usually power set for whatever would sustain level
flight (never to be moved again until the flare).

T-45 is 5,000 AGL, 80% power, gear down, 1/2 flaps, speedbrake out, 175
KIAS. Flaps to full with runway made. Flare to touch down at about
125-135. You can do it at flight idle RPM by keeping the boards in and
holding the flaps until past the abeam. You can do it flamed out gear down
only. Works out to a 10 degree glideslope and we train to straight in,
overhead parallel, overhead perpendicular and abeam (3,000 low key). The
airplane is so forgiving, you can alter the parameters considerably and
still get to a safe landing (well, maybe not flamed out). I suspect the
Zipper was not particularly forgiving under these circumstances.

More fun. Stuck throttle approach with high RPM. Shut the engine down
prior to the flare. Interesting to watch the studs take this one on.

R / John


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Flying the F104A with the aging J79-3b engine we practiced
> 'precautionary patterns' a lot because we still had problems with the
> oil system. On a nice VFR day with winds not a problem, you started
> over the 'numbers' at the end of a long runway at 15000 AGL at 260
> KIAS, gear up, T/O flaps set, sink rate about 4500fpm. One turn and you
> were on final, aiming for a 'window' (envision a volleyball net) right
> over the approach end of the runway. As you gently flared through the
> middle of this window about 20-30 feet up you slipped below 250 KIAS
> and pulled the emergency gear extension handle all the way out freeing
> the uplocks. All three gear fell out and back (like an A4) and locked
> down in about 3 seconds or so. Once on the ground you lowered the nose
> and pulled the drag chute (same size as an F4's but about one-third of
> the weight to stop so it worked very well at slowing the Ziper down.)
> Made a bunch of these with oil failure light, oil quantity gauge
> failure, or zero pressure showing on the gauge. My own patent routine
> was as I said, to be able to go off the far end as I began the descent,
> move the touchdown point to halfway down the runway at the 180, keep
> moving it back to the 500 foot marker as you approached the end of the
> runway. They were a lot of fun when you were practicing, somewhat more
> serious when you'd been sweating engine failure on the way back over
> the field and on down the slide, waiting for that tell-tale engine
> vibration that would tell you the bearings were starting to fail. Walt
> BJ
>

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:33:04 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Bill,
>
>>Perhaps we could quibbe over "successful" but if all but one got out then
>>that would be "successful" (at least as opposed to only one got out)
>
>True, unless you are the one who doesn't make it.

Indeed.

>This is sorta like the stand-up routine from the 1930s that goes, "When
>you're out of work, it's a recession; when I'm out of work, it's a
>depression."

Ayup. ;-)

I don't know about others, but I always felt that if one modern
technology that I know very well had failed me (i.e., the aircraft)
why would I trust my very valuable butt to another modern technology
of which I know little (i.e., the parachute)? ;-)

In the Stoof about the worst emergency you could have was a
nacelle/wing fire. There are film records of several of these (all
from around the boat, IIRC). In all cases the wing burned off not
later than 90 seconds after the fire started. So the "word" was that
you had to be either in the water or in the silk not later than 60-75
seconds after the fire started. These are not NATOPS numbers (it only
says do something "immediately") but were "corporate wisdom" based
upon the films mentioned.

Since the Stoof was a low altitude aircraft ditching was almost
alsways a possibility. On a NATOPS check I was able to descend from
just over 4500' to ditching configuration at 100' in 65". That was a
"pass." Above that bailout would have been the preferred option.

As to the P-3, I just don't know. If there is an emergency with a
high probability of structural failure at high altitude then bailout
would likely be the preferred option. At lower altitudes a ditch
might be the way to go for the reason previously noted.

Bill Kambic

[Jim]

wrote:
> Flying the F104A with the aging J79-3b engine we practiced
> 'precautionary patterns' a lot because we still had problems with the
> oil system. On a nice VFR day with winds not a problem, you started
> over the 'numbers' at the end of a long runway at 15000 AGL at 260
> KIAS, gear up, T/O flaps set, sink rate about 4500fpm. One turn and you
> were on final, aiming for a 'window' (envision a volleyball net) right
> over the approach end of the runway. As you gently flared through the
> middle of this window about 20-30 feet up you slipped below 250 KIAS
> and pulled the emergency gear extension handle all the way out freeing
> the uplocks. All three gear fell out and back (like an A4) and locked
> down in about 3 seconds or so.

My first tour at NKX in the 60's I was a GCA controller. Was always
amazed at the skill of our tower controllers who could blend an F-8
doing a practice emergency engine out approach with an active pattern.

For that matter I could include their mixing of Mission Bay entries with
Atlas entries all with a dual hi-lo traffic pattern in progress. Those
sure were the days.