Ejection -v- Forced Landing

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

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

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)

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."

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

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

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

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.