The Vulcan XH558 & General Aviation Thread

[quicksilver-wsr]

I know, but I wasn't referring to swept wings - I was referring to bang-seats.

Alain said that in his opinion, "all non-military craft should have ejector seats disabled". Whereas I think it's better to have active seats, because even JPs were fitted with them as standard for a very good reason.

'My' JP happened to be in civilian ownership, but its performance envelope was the same as it had been in military use. I think anyone who deactivates the seats in such a type out of choice needs his head examining.

Nigel

Unless you are doing something stupid why would you you need to bang out of a well maintained aircraft. Yes the aircraft has the same performance envelope but unless you are pushing the envelope you should need to eject.

I've not read the rest of this thread yet - there seem to have been some lengthy posts overnight - but to address this one point of Alain's ...

The problem is that fast jets don't just put their crews in life-threatening situations when they are "doing something stupid". There can be technical malfunctions on aircraft - particularly on the rather more complex aircraft that fast jets are - and these can occur at any time. They may very well be no fault of the crew that's aboard the plane that day. It can be something someone else has done wrong at some point beforehand that has gone undetected, or it can be a simple matter of bad luck that a vital component or system has fails in flight.

An on-board fire due to a fuel leak, a critical control-system failure, a windscreen bird-strike causing loss of visibility and even possibly partial pilot incapacitation. These are all examples - out of many - that can pose a direct threat to life, where you are probably going to die unless you can get away from the aircraft.

My point was simple - although you may not agree with it - that, given a choice on a fast-jet flight, I'd rather be in a live seat than an inert one. Because it gives you one extra option, and that can be the difference between life and death.

Nigel

[Piston Broke]

I've not read the rest of this thread yet - there seem to have been some lengthy posts overnight - but to address this one point of Alain's ...

The problem is that fast jets don't just put their crews in life-threatening situations when they are "doing something stupid". There can be technical malfunctions on aircraft, and these can occur at any time. They may very well be no fault of the crew that's aboard the plane that day. It can be something someone else has done wrong at some point beforehand that has gone undetected, or it can be a simple matter of bad luck that a vital component or system has failed.

An on-board fire due to fuel leak, a critical control-system failure, a windscreen bird-strike causing loss of visibility and even possibly partial pilot incapacitation. These are all examples - out of many - that can pose a direct threat to life, where you are probably going to die unless you can get away from the aircraft.

My point was simple - although you may not agree with it - that, given a choice on a fast-jet flight, I'd rather be in a live seat than an inert one, because it gives you one extra option, and that can be the difference between life and death.

Nigel

I understand what you are saying but all of the above could happen to any aircraft from a little Cessna to a Airbus 777

[quicksilver-wsr]

Yes, of course - but then it's just "tough titty". You have little other option.

The good thing about fast jets is you have the option of a bang-seat. It's there - so make sure it's in working condition, and be prepared to use it if you really have no other option.

Cessnas and Airbuses shouldn't be flying on the edge. Fast jets do, a lot of the time. They are more prone to accidents, on account of the way they are flown - even in training.

Nigel

[Piston Broke]

Cessnas and Airbuses shouldn't be flying on the edge. Fast jets do, a lot of the time. They are more prone to accidents, on account of the way they are flown - even in training.

Nigel

Why ? Just pilot bravado, going back to cars thats like saying a Ford Focus on the motorway isn't on the edge but a Supercar will be and more likely to crash. both should be adhearing to the same rules it is down to how the driver/pilot operates the vehicle. As I said previously "unless you are pushing the envelope you shouldn't need to eject." and as you said "They are more prone to accidents, on account of the way they are flown " don't fly it that way then

[quicksilver-wsr]

Alain, fast jets were designed to be flown to extremes. That's their role in life.

Even when not in combat, pilots have to train for combat situations by flying them on the edge.

Nigel

[Piston Broke]

Alain, fast jets were designed to be flown to extremes. That's their role in life.

Even when not in combat, pilots have to train for combat situations by flying them on the edge.

Nigel

When are civilian pilots in combat situations?

[quicksilver-wsr]

They aren't, Alain - but when fast jets are in civilian hands they are just as hard to escape from in emergency situations as they are, or were, in military use. So it's best - in my view - to make use of the ejector-seats that are already fitted to these planes from new. They are there for a reason.

Service them, arm them and be prepared to use them. It's better than losing your life if something goes badly awry.

These planes sometimes go wrong when the pilot has done nothing wrong at all. It makes sense to have the escape option.

Nigel

[Piston Broke]

Service them, arm them and be prepared to use them. It's better than losing your life if something goes badly awry.

Nigel

True but should be one way or the other either serviced with full proof of service and ready to go or disabled. I remember reading a accident report or Bill telling me about an accident when a ejector seat misfired on a commanded eject and only half the locks released and it was found afterward it was cobbled together with bits of copper pipe and plumbing fixings which had parted firing the pilot in to the locked canopy

[conistoncollie]

This is getting silly.

We don't want any of that.

I get all that 'vehicle is safe even if it doesn't have its 'bit of paper'' stuff.
I even get the bit about an operator doing something catastrophic/erroneous/misjudged with an otherwise 'safe' machine (be it car or aircraft or steam loco), with or without its 'bit of paper' (eg MoT, Permit to fly, boiler certificate etc).

My point - and forgive me if this is silly (with due doffing of cap to those with superior knowledge/understanding of aviation matters) - is:

Is compliance with terms of a permit to fly:
a) Mandatory ?
or
b) Discretionary ?

If (b), who has the authority to exercise such discretion, who decides which bits of the terms of the permit are applicable/superfluous to safety/risk assessed?

If there are bits of a permit to fly that are of no consequence to safety, why are they there?
I'm not trying to be silly, just trying to understand.

[Renegadenemo]

I remember reading a accident report or Bill telling me about an accident when a ejector seat misfired on a commanded eject and only half the locks released and it was found afterward it was cobbled together with bits of copper pipe and plumbing fixings which had parted firing the pilot in to the locked canopy

It was the South African Lighting accident. The seat wasn't cobbled but the gas cartridges were plumbed to their various destinations through copper pipes with compression fittings. The report concluded that when the ejection was commanded the pipe taking gas to the left hand side of the cockpit popped out of the ferrule. That cartridge was supposed to unlatch the canopy on both sides but only the right hand side was unlatched. Gas pressure from the first cartridge then fired the second, which was supposed to extend two jacks to lift the rim of the canopy into the airflow and ensure it was torn away. That would then release the interlocks to allow the seat to fire but all that happened is that one jack extended twisting the released, right hand side of the canopy whilst the left hand jack exploded. Now with the canopy twisted the manual release wouldn't work and with the interlocks still in place the seat wouldn't fire. And that was the end of that.
The cartridges are just bottles of black powder so as such they can't really run out of life but they are lifed anyway. They can be years out of date and therefore technically the aircraft shouldn't be flying for paperwork reasons but they'll still work.