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