The "Cornfield Bomber"

[Gatordev]

I flew a delta wing (A-4s) my whole career. We practiced (simulated) flameout landings, at idle/speed brakes out ...180 kt. Resulted in an ROD of ~12K p/m, and that was in controlled flight. Even with modern "0-0" rocket seats, minimum safe ejection altitudes (AGL), increase in proportion to increases in ROD.

BzB

So at 180 knots, would a flare at the bottom give you enough energy to arrest the ROD? I would have guessed you would have needed more smack at the bottom.

 

[Bam Bam]

Step no. 6 in the NATOPS procedures for Out of Control Flight in the A-4 states:
"Check altitude, if out of control passing 10,000 feet AGL, EJECT.".

There’s not much wiggle room at the end of that statement!


I just looked up the NATOPS procedure for Out of Control Flight and the first one I saw was the T-6A/B. I’m sure there are many different procedures for jets / props but I really liked the excerpt below, especially the sentence I put in bold.

“Check the altimeter. If sufficient altitude is not available, EJECT. There is no reason to spend the rest of your life trying to recover the aircraft. Do not waste time when you have made your decision. If you have not recovered by 6,000’ AGL and you have not ejected, you are extremely time-limited, since the aircraft will impact the ground in less than 45 seconds”.

That’s pretty point blank! Good stuff.

 

[BusyBee604]

So at 180 knots, would a flare at the bottom give you enough energy to arrest the ROD? I would have guessed you would have needed more smack at the bottom.

Yeah Gator, I think you're right... the initial glide speed was probably closer to 220kt down to the transition starting at 3k AGL. Been 'bout 40 years since my last SFO approach (sim. flameout, not 'Frisco Intl.), a bit memory challenged.
BzB

 

[hlg6016]

Soo was this a "Class A" mishap?

 

[Flash]

Gentlemen, I'm just a ground pounder but it seems to me that 8,000 AGL seems a bit early to eject. Of course, I can Monday moring quarterback the situation from my lazy boy but it seems a little early.

Step no. 6 in the NATOPS procedures for Out of Control Flight in the A-4 states:
"Check altitude, if out of control passing 10,000 feet AGL, EJECT."

Same was true in the A-7.

Pretty sure 10k AGL is pretty standard for most TACAIR aircraft in the US.

One was a U-2 at 5,000 AGL or below and the other was a F-22A right after he rotated. I believe both had variants of the ACES II seat.

I would hazard a guess that in both ejections the aircraft were not an unusual altitude when they punched out. If an aircraft is out of control and at high speed starting the ejection sequence at less than 10k feet might not be enough to get out in time, especially in a multi-crewed aircraft. It takes a lot more altitude for your chute to deploy if you punch out upside down. And there are several instances, including at least one in a Prowler, where the folks who ejected earlier in the sequence got out but the folks who got out just a fraction of a second later didn't make it (in the Prowler there is a 0.4 second gap between the seats; ECMO 3 goes at 0.0, ECMO 2 at 0.4, ECMO 1 in the front right seat at 0.8 seconds and the pilot goes a full 1.2 seconds after the handle is pulled). The Prowler mishap I am thinking of happened in '96 or so and both backseaters made it out with injuries but the front seaters didn't get out in time.

So 10k might seem a bit high to some it really isn't.

 

[Bam Bam]

Pretty sure 10k AGL is pretty standard for most TACAIR aircraft in the US.



I would hazard a guess that in both ejections the aircraft were not an unusual altitude when they punched out. If an aircraft is out of control and at high speed starting the ejection sequence at less than 10k feet might not be enough to get out in time, especially in a multi-crewed aircraft. It takes a lot more altitude for your chute to deploy if you punch out upside down. And there are several instances, including at least one in a Prowler, where the folks who ejected earlier in the sequence got out but the folks who got out just a fraction of a second later didn't make it (in the Prowler there is a 0.4 second gap between the seats; ECMO 3 goes at 0.0, ECMO 2 at 0.4, ECMO 1 in the front right seat at 0.8 seconds and the pilot goes a full 1.2 seconds after the handle is pulled). The Prowler mishap I am thinking of happened in '96 or so and both backseaters made it out with injuries but the front seaters didn't get out in time.

So 10k might seem a bit high to some it really isn't.

Your prediction is correct. Neither of the aircraft were in an unusual attitude and both were single pilot aircraft. I didn’t think of the way multi-crew aircraft ejections seats are sequenced. I’ve only worked on single pilot fighter and recon aircraft that had ejection seats. I think I may have a little time on F-15D models but it was a very small amount of time. The C-130’s that took up most of my time have no option but to get creative and figure out a way to get wind back over the wings.

 

[Gatordev]

Yeah Gator, I think you're right... the initial glide speed was probably closer to 220kt down to the transition starting at 3k AGL. Been 'bout 40 years since my last SFO approach (sim. flameout, not 'Frisco Intl.), a bit memory challenged.
BzB

I guess we'll let it slide...

Still, even 220 is impressive considering the amount of energy. Interesting stuff.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Pretty sure 10k AGL is pretty standard for most TACAIR aircraft in the US.

Not always, 6K is the decision altitude for OCF ejection, at least in the T-45 and F-18 (and possibly others, those are just the only ejection seat equipped jets I have flown.)

 

[Flash]

Not always, 6K is the standard for OCF ejection, at least in the T-6, T-45, and F-18.

That is why I caveated it and said TACAIR, not sure you can really call a 'T' aircraft 'TACAIR'.

 

[wink]

S-3 was 10K AGL out of control flight. It was pretty hard to get a S-3 to be out of control for more than a few attention getting seconds too. Test pilots never did spin it.

 

[MIDNJAC]

That is why I caveated it and said TACAIR, not sure you can really call a 'T' aircraft 'TACAIR'.

So the majority of TACAIR is not Hornets?

 

[Flash]

So the majority of TACAIR is not Hornets?

Not when you include our brethren in light blue.........notice I said US, not USN.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Not when you include our brethren in light blue.........notice I said US, not USN.

Reality bomb. I just got served

 

[usmcecho4]

Your prediction is correct. Neither of the aircraft were in an unusual attitude and both were single pilot aircraft. I didn’t think of the way multi-crew aircraft ejections seats are sequenced. I’ve only worked on single pilot fighter and recon aircraft that had ejection seats. I think I may have a little time on F-15D models but it was a very small amount of time. The C-130’s that took up most of my time have no option but to get creative and figure out a way to get wind back over the wings.

When creativity fails time to get more creative:

Autopilot: ON (alternatively Copilot: Hold this)
Ramp and Door: Open
Parachute: Don
Out the Back: RUN!

S/F,
usmcecho4