Ejection -v- Forced Landing

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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."

"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

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.

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!