If the original standards were wrong and they have revised them to reflect the actual measurements, fine. But if they are simply changing the restrictions because too many people were anthro'ed out of them, that is f'ed up. I know this job isn't the safest, but I still want to have a little bit of warm and fuzzy. Just my take on it all.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
EA-6B anthro restrictions
- Thread starter derakhshanb
- Start date
The Navy adjusts the requirements on all kinds of things like age, vision and other waiverables based on how many people they need at that point in time. This is no different, and a change of .3 inches in sitting height (or whatever it ends up being), is not going to be the difference between life and death any more than when they raised the old 20/20 uncorrected vision requirement to 20/40.
Brett
Good point. I agree, .3 inches will probably not make a difference. But there originally was a restriction for a reason. I would just like to know what the restriction was and how/why it was changed. Because enquiring minds want to know.
PS- The whole being anthro'ed out was a bunch of BS to begin with. I know a lot of TALL Prowler pilots/ECMOS.
There was originally a reason for the 20/20 requirement as well. It's just a tool to narrow the field of candidates. Obviously, the issue with sitting height is a function of your head being to high during an ejection, since you go through the glass and the top of the seat is supposed to break it, not your head. I don't know what kind of testing regime they used to establish the limits, but there's quite a bit of possible adjustment in the seat itself, so I can certainly understand a small change in the limits to ameliorate what is perceived to be a significant problem in the pipeline. I'm certain this wasn't done in a haphazard manner without a serious weighing of the benefits vs. the risks, if any.
Brett
Even in the T-45 I usually sit with my head high enough that I would have a pretty good shot at doing the MDC's job with my head.
Brett can probably give a beter heads up on this, but don't most prowler guys sit with their head up way high anyway to fly the ball?
Brett can probably give a beter heads up on this, but don't most prowler guys sit with their head up way high anyway to fly the ball?
The pilots seat is installed a few inches higher than ECMO 1, so I don't think seeing the ball is the issue, as I can see it just fine from my side. When I'm up front, I adjust my seat so that the upper handle hits a couple inches below the top of my helmet. It ends up just flexing and riding up the contour of the helmet if I were to put my head back, but that's just not a position you're going to be in in the Prowler.
Brett
You don't "Just lean your head back and enjoy it" in the Prowler very often?
I figured with the side by side seating and all....which brings us to another advantage the EA-6 community has.
I swear, I tried to resist....but forgive me, I am weak...
I figured with the side by side seating and all....which brings us to another advantage the EA-6 community has.
I swear, I tried to resist....but forgive me, I am weak...
Are you implying that one of the Pilot's duties is to fellate ECMO 1?
Contrary to popular myth, the ECMOs aren't just along for the ride to enjoy the view. ECMO 1 is probably the busiest guy in the jet.Brett
Are you implying that one of the Pilot's duties is to fellate ECMO 1?
Brett
I always thought that it was the duty of the front seat passenger to fellate the driver.
And I'm 5'11" and wasn't restricted from anything. Anectdotal evidence is cool!
I always thought that it was the duty of the front seat passenger to fellate the driver.
It's a function of all the radiation. It causes the space-time continuum to reverse back upon itself, hence the ECMO-centric nature of the Prowler.
Brett
Didn't realize the seat breaking the canopy was the primary means during an ejection in the Prowler. In that case, I will assume the standards were not changed haphazzardly.
@Brett- Is there a screen that comes out to cover your head if you pull the top handle?
There is a flimsy little face curtain, but like I've said previously, I'll never use the upper handle unless the lower doesn't work. In the jet, we brief jettisoning the canopy prior to ejection in case of a controlled ejection, but I don't think anyone has ever done that in a real world scenario. I've heard of guys getting scratched up a bit from the canopy, but for the most part then system works pretty well. The conventional wisdom in the community is that no one has ever been killed in an in-envelope ejection in the Prowler.
Brett