Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Most accidents happen during takeoff and landing and often develop very quickly where there is not enough time to eject anyways.
Starlionblue wrote:In transport aircraft, landing or ditching are far more safe than trying to eject.
Fighter and strike aircraft have ejection seats but this is the last resort for vehicles which routinely operate at the edge of their envelopes. In transport aircraft, we endeavour to stay very much near the centre of the envelope.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Most accidents happen during takeoff and landing and often develop very quickly where there is not enough time to eject anyways.
Well, my one ejection took about 12 seconds from onset of the accident to being caught in a tree. A mere 300 milliseconds from being too late to pull the handles. The seats work wonderfully even from being on the ground. Just not in anyway suitable for transport aircraft.
GF
rjsampson wrote:Most of us know that, while not an airline transport aircraft, the Cirrus family of GA aircraft come equipped with that parachute. Presumably those aircraft also try to stay within limits, too. The company claims it has saved hundreds of lives (which of course implies an incident at altitude). The parachute, as mentioned above, wouldn't do anything on T/O or landing.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:An ejection seat is NOT an elevator to the ground—there’s a high probability of injuries to young healthy military pilots.
GF
ClipperYankee wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:Most accidents happen during takeoff and landing and often develop very quickly where there is not enough time to eject anyways.
Well, my one ejection took about 12 seconds from onset of the accident to being caught in a tree. A mere 300 milliseconds from being too late to pull the handles. The seats work wonderfully even from being on the ground. Just not in anyway suitable for transport aircraft.
GF
More details, please!!
GalaxyFlyer wrote:ClipperYankee wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Well, my one ejection took about 12 seconds from onset of the accident to being caught in a tree. A mere 300 milliseconds from being too late to pull the handles. The seats work wonderfully even from being on the ground. Just not in anyway suitable for transport aircraft.
GF
More details, please!!
Mid-air between two A-10s at about 500’ AGL. Flying one moment, in a fireball the next. I remember struggling to grab the handles, pulling the right handle, the canopy going away, the rocket firing, blacking out (not unconscious, just loss of vision under high G), the chute opening with a ruffling noise and chute opening. Check out a You Tube video to see how fast the sequence of an ACES II seat is, about a second until chute opens in the low altitude, low speed mode.
GF
GalaxyFlyer wrote:They don’t even put ejection seats in flight test articles of transport category aircraft. And stall tests, some of the minimum controllable airspeed tests aren’t exactly low risk.
GF
GalaxyFlyer wrote:They don’t even put ejection seats in flight test articles of transport category aircraft. And stall tests, some of the minimum controllable airspeed tests aren’t exactly low risk.
GF
Noshow wrote:The KC-135 has a cockpit escape hatch (entry door) that made it at least in theory possible to get out with a chute. Similar to the Antonow An-124 that was configured to fly in war zones. There is a cockpit floor door opening leading to some main deck jump door in the front. Not sure how likely a safe egress from a crashing airplane is and if one would clear those engines...
The B-52 has ejection seats for the pilots and MOST of the crew onboard. The Vulcan similar.
Woodreau wrote:I ride as a passenger on FedEx and UPS frequently.
I would be a little upset if the flight crew ejected leaving me and the other 3 passengers in the back with all of the cargo in a now pilotless aircraft.
ClipperYankee wrote:Flow2706 wrote:I think the Space Shuttle had some sort of ejection capability during the first flights, which was removed after a while, but was reintroduced after either the Challenger or Columbia disaster (I think it were not actual ejection seats but rather the astronauts had to slide down a bar and eject from the main deck). I think that the astronauts were rather sceptical of its usefulness - the shuttle had to be in controlled/level flight in a (for a space shuttle) relativity low altitude. There were only a few cases (mostly additional failures during abort cases) where they could have been used. I think the case would be similar for an airliner, but even worse considering that astronauts are highly trained highly fit individuals which may not be the case for airline/cargo pilots (obviously they have to pass the medical every year/every 6 month but this nothing compared to the physical and mental training received by astrounauts).
[quote=„galaxyflyer“]
I used to cover shuttle launches and I was told pretty much that about the shuttle escape pole.
There was also another system where if there was a major issue on the pad they could ride a type of trolley down a rather steep wire to a bunker near the launch tower, Once there they could take shelter and if need be the bunker had a former Army armored personnel carrier backed up to it and waiting so the crew could pile into it and drive away. There's pictures out there of some astronauts being trained to drive it and I got to see it once, painted white with NASA markings. Word was when the APC was requisitioned from military spares it was delivered with all the weapons still installed though I don't know how true that is. The idea was to escape the possibility of the orbiter exploding on the pad, something that could create a blast ring that would expand for a couple of miles.
Just adored the program, I miss it terribly.
ClipperYankee wrote:Flow2706 wrote:I think the Space Shuttle had some sort of ejection capability during the first flights, which was removed after a while, but was reintroduced after either the Challenger or Columbia disaster (I think it were not actual ejection seats but rather the astronauts had to slide down a bar and eject from the main deck). I think that the astronauts were rather sceptical of its usefulness - the shuttle had to be in controlled/level flight in a (for a space shuttle) relativity low altitude. There were only a few cases (mostly additional failures during abort cases) where they could have been used. I think the case would be similar for an airliner, but even worse considering that astronauts are highly trained highly fit individuals which may not be the case for airline/cargo pilots (obviously they have to pass the medical every year/every 6 month but this nothing compared to the physical and mental training received by astrounauts).
[quote=„galaxyflyer“]
I used to cover shuttle launches and I was told pretty much that about the shuttle escape pole.
There was also another system where if there was a major issue on the pad they could ride a type of trolley down a rather steep wire to a bunker near the launch tower, Once there they could take shelter and if need be the bunker had a former Army armored personnel carrier backed up to it and waiting so the crew could pile into it and drive away. There's pictures out there of some astronauts being trained to drive it and I got to see it once, painted white with NASA markings. Word was when the APC was requisitioned from military spares it was delivered with all the weapons still installed though I don't know how true that is. The idea was to escape the possibility of the orbiter exploding on the pad, something that could create a blast ring that would expand for a couple of miles.
Just adored the program, I miss it terribly.
ClipperYankee wrote:Not arguing the negatives of the shuttles at all, but when were at the media center watching a launch (I got to cover six launches and one return) it was a truly amazing thing. Very glad I got to do it.
rjsampson wrote:Off-topic: UA 232 is one of the most heroic, tragic, and absolutely most incredible examples of airmanship in the history of aviation, IMHO.
PanHAM wrote:Woodreau wrote:I ride as a passenger on FedEx and UPS frequently.
I would be a little upset if the flight crew ejected leaving me and the other 3 passengers in the back with all of the cargo in a now pilotless aircraft.
and the last one said "no worries mates, we are getting help".
sorry I could not resist
GalaxyFlyer wrote:ClipperYankee wrote:GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Well, my one ejection took about 12 seconds from onset of the accident to being caught in a tree. A mere 300 milliseconds from being too late to pull the handles. The seats work wonderfully even from being on the ground. Just not in anyway suitable for transport aircraft.
GF
More details, please!!
Mid-air between two A-10s at about 500’ AGL. Flying one moment, in a fireball the next. I remember struggling to grab the handles, pulling the right handle, the canopy going away, the rocket firing, blacking out (not unconscious, just loss of vision under high G), the chute opening with a ruffling noise and chute opening. Check out a You Tube video to see how fast the sequence of an ACES II seat is, about a second until chute opens in the low altitude, low speed mode.
GF
Starlionblue wrote:In transport aircraft, landing or ditching are far more safe than trying to eject.
rjsampson wrote:Most of us know that, while not an airline transport aircraft, the Cirrus family of GA aircraft come equipped with that parachute. Presumably those aircraft also try to stay within limits, too. The company claims it has saved hundreds of lives (which of course implies an incident at altitude)... This is not to refute Archer (Starlion) at all -- it's quite a false equivalency (121 aircraft have far more redundancy and, most importantly [in most cases] much more highly trained pilots than GA).
rjsampson wrote:The parachute, as mentioned above, wouldn't do anything on T/O or landing.
rjsampson wrote:Starlionblue wrote:Most of us know that, while not an airline transport aircraft, the Cirrus family of GA aircraft come equipped with that parachute. Presumably those aircraft also try to stay within limits, too. The company claims it has saved hundreds of lives (which of course implies an incident at altitude). The parachute, as mentioned above, wouldn't do anything on T/O or landing.
Cirrus makes a lot of assumptions for the sake of advertising, not the least of which is that every deployment of the CAPS system is a "save," when in fact that's untrue. Most of the CAPS deployments have been absolutely unnecessary.
Of particular note was a deployment in Colorado in which the aircraft had an onboard fire; the pilot could have made an expedited emergency descent and got out on the ground, safely. Instead, he deployed the parachute, and was captured on video burning to death as the aircraft was consumed by fire as it slowly descended under canopy.
An instructor for the Cirrus owners association had a deployment a few years ago. He posted online about his experience, saying he was in instrument conditions (in a single engine piston airplane), skirting thunderstorms using xm weather (10-15 minutes out of date weather). He perceived an instrument failure, which did not occur, declared an emergency because he perceived an autopilot failure (the emergency was that he might have to actually fly the airplane), and dove for the ground, well below the minimum enroute altitude, in the hopes of getting beneath the weather. Somewhere in there he deployed the parachute, which failed, and wrapped around the tail. He reports crying hysterically and screaming for God to save him. He broke out about 700' above the ground and continued to an airport where he landed, fortunate to have not killed himself. Every element of that flight was an error, starting with putting himself in conditions well beyond his capabilities...unnecessary, as he shouldn't have been there to start with.
The notion of applying an airframe parachute to a transport category aircraft is ridiculous.
In most all cases, we anticipate using the aircraft again, and we have systems redundancy to enable that. Additional engines, generators, fuel pumps, fuel sources, hydraulic pumps, bleed air, etc.rjsampson wrote:Starlionblue wrote:I suppose if a Cargo Crew, Deadheader, etc. were so inclined, I GUESS they could each carry their own parachutes, and bail out DB Cooper-style without having to worry about an aircraft full of souls going down.
fr8mech wrote:It’s interesting how the question was phrased and how everyone automatically accepted the premise that the decision NOT to have ejection seats on cargo aircraft should be defended, even from an ethical point-of-view.
I would like the OP to defend, from a practical, technical and ethical point-of-view why there should be ejection seats.
Phosphorus wrote:fr8mech wrote:It’s interesting how the question was phrased and how everyone automatically accepted the premise that the decision NOT to have ejection seats on cargo aircraft should be defended, even from an ethical point-of-view.
I would like the OP to defend, from a practical, technical and ethical point-of-view why there should be ejection seats.
Not an OP, but will try to counterpoint.
Is there any ethical defense to force cargo pilots to perish with a doomed machine, if it cannot be saved, and the only reason they are still in their seats -- is that there is no other option.
Case in point UPS flight 6.
Phosphorus wrote:fr8mech wrote:It’s interesting how the question was phrased and how everyone automatically accepted the premise that the decision NOT to have ejection seats on cargo aircraft should be defended, even from an ethical point-of-view.
I would like the OP to defend, from a practical, technical and ethical point-of-view why there should be ejection seats.
Not an OP, but will try to counterpoint.
Is there any ethical defense to force cargo pilots to perish with a doomed machine, if it cannot be saved, and the only reason they are still in their seats -- is that there is no other option.
Case in point UPS flight 6.
747Whale wrote:In any event, even if there were a door near the rear of the aircraft that could be opened in flight, how would one get to it? Especially past cargo on the main deck? A departure from a hot seat in the cockpit area would have to get past the rest of the aircraft.
747Whale wrote:Ejection seats require that those using them be equipped to exit the aircraft, including fire resistant clothing, something to handle the .54 degree temperature outside the aircraft, supplemental oxygen worn at all times preparatory to ejection, recurrent ejection training, and the crews would need to wear a helmet at all times.
In most transport category aircraft, considerable systems structure is located over the pilots, including circuit breaker panels, and system control panels. In order to have ejection capability, the cockpits would all need to be redesigned to allow only a frangible structure above each ejection seat, and that structure either easily jettisonable, or laced with explosives to allow the seat passage on firing.
Much more delicate handling would be required, and the ability to strap pilots in and have the seats armed by third parties. Additionally, pilots would be unable to get up to go the the restroom or perform other functions in flight, without securing the seat.
With the exception of short flights, airline aircraft do not contain adequate oxygen to use for entire flights, nor the necessary masks and set up, and these would restrict crew operation during the flight.
I'm curious about how many of those who are calling for the "ethical" installation of ejection seats in airline aircraft are actually pilots who fly these aircraft. I can't honestly say I've ever heard a single professional pilot flying an airline aircraft, cargo or otherwise, suggest or request an ejection seat.
Phosphorus wrote:You are trying to say that bomber aircraft (like B-52) crews (who do have escape systems) are unable to get up and use restrooms, once airborne?
747Whale wrote:Phosphorus wrote:You are trying to say that bomber aircraft (like B-52) crews (who do have escape systems) are unable to get up and use restrooms, once airborne?
You just said that.
I did not.
Speak for yourself.
747Whale wrote:Additionally, pilots would be unable to get up to go the the restroom or perform other functions in flight, without securing the seat.