Trainee Mistakenly Ejects On Ramp

MissedApproach · Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:59 am

A trainee pilot inadvertently ejected from a Raytheon CT-156 Harvard 2 Wednesday 4 April. The ejection occurred on the ramp while the aircraft was preparing to taxi, both student & instructor were treated for minor injuries.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Den Pascoe

The ejection seat used on this airplane is the Martin-Baker Mk.16L I would say ejection seat design is meant to prevent mistakes like this, but is there any way the seat could be fired by, say catching your sleeve on a lever? Could a defective seat be fired by BITE (Built In Test Equipment)?

Martin-Baker site: http://www.martin-baker.com/eject_mk16l.html
Ejection-history.org: http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/PROJECT/YEAR_Pages/2007.htm (scroll down to April)

KevinSmith · Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:30 am

All I can say is WOW!!!!!
Almost as good as the story I heard about a cadet who was going up for a ride in a T-37 and fired the ejection seat on the ground. When asked why she said that she wanted to test it to make sure it worked.

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
but is there any way the seat could be fired by, say catching your sleeve on a lever

To answer your question I don't think so. My class had our ejection seat training this week (same a/c and seat). If you look at the picture on the link you'll see a yellow and black banded cord right in the crotch of the occupant. That is the only ejection handle to my knowledge. It would be hard to catch you're sleeve on it. I have heard however of people in a panic grabbing it for something to hold onto.

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
The ejection seat used on this airplane is the Martin-Baker Mk.16L I would say ejection seat design is meant to prevent mistakes like this,

It totally is. You have to try very hard to activate the seat. The pull force on the lever is not what I would call considerable but it is definitely not so small that a little tug would activate the seat.

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
both student & instructor were treated for minor injuries.

This means that the selector switch was on both. Meaning that if one seat was activated the other will automatically be activated. That is one quick way to piss off an IP. Think the student hooked the ride?

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
Could a defective seat be fired by BITE (Built In Test Equipment)?

Could you give me an example of what you mean? It could be possible but I just want clarify what you are talking about.

[Edited 2007-04-05 23:33:43]

zanl188 · Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
This means that the selector switch was on both. Meaning that if one seat was activated the other will automatically be activated. That is one quick way to piss off an IP.

The IP was not ejected just injured, probably by debris..

Good thing it didn't happen to a T-6 student here at Moody -- all the T-6 parking spots here are covered by sunshades. Would have ruined the students day real quick...

Not taken at Moody but you get the idea...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Chambers

edit: add photo

[Edited 2007-04-05 23:56:14]

UH60FtRucker · Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:54 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
Could a defective seat be fired by BITE (Built In Test Equipment)?

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
Could you give me an example of what you mean? It could be possible but I just want clarify what you are talking about.

I guess the Air Force calls it something different. But a BITE is a lot like a self-diagnostic system. It will test the equipment in a test mode to determine whether or not it is working properly. But in many systems it will test the equipment like it was being utilized, but by not actually utilizing it. IE: Armament. In the UH-60DAP we'll test the Hellfires it ensure the firing mechanism is working, but the test will not actually fire the missile.

Since I don't have an ejection seat -- I fly my way out of emergencies Wink

- I don't know if AF ejection seats have BITES (or their equivalent). But what MissedApproach is asking is, could a self-test on the seat's firing mechanism accidentally cause the seat to fire, and eject?

-UH60

MissedApproach · Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:00 am

Well, actually the instructor stayed in the aircraft, but had minor cuts & scrapes from flying debris after the det cord destroyed the canopy. The student was the only one who took a ride.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
That is the only ejection handle to my knowledge.

That's all I saw on the M-B site, but I know some (older?) seats have an alternate means of actuation, with two rings on the headrest & handles on either side of the seat cushion. It was my impression that the ring/cord needs to be pulled out pretty far to trigger the seat.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
Could you give me an example of what you mean?

A lot of modern electronic circuits have a built in test they go through when power is first applied- for instance, home computers run a memory test on the RAM (which is really just a pin check IIRC), & in your car the ABS & airbag circuits run self-tests when the car is started. I was wondering, or maybe assuming, that ejection seats use something similar to test safety & firing circuits. Has there ever been a design flaw that would allow a seat to be fired by such a test system?

KevinSmith · Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:04 am

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 2):

The IP was not ejected just injured, probably by debris..

Or for minor burns as well. The seats are designed to angle away from each other in an ejection. Front seat move foward rear moves to the rear. I got told that I'm at a higher risk of hitting the tail upon ejection since I am the 5% outside the 95% of the population that the seat was designed for.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 3):
UH60FtRucker

Ah!! Thanks for the clarification. I do believe we have that as well. Whether or not it could cause and ejection I don't know. I can tell you that I hope that wasn't the cause. I'm flying in them for the next 8 months!!!!!!! Wow!

Us 5% guys don't do to well in ejections.

ulfinator · Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:38 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 5):
I got told that I'm at a higher risk of hitting the tail upon ejection since I am the 5% outside the 95% of the population that the seat was designed for.

Better that a chance of hitting the tail instead of a 100% chance of hitting the ground I suppose!

daveflys0509 · Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 5):
Ah!! Thanks for the clarification. I do believe we have that as well. Whether or not it could cause and ejection I don't know. I can tell you that I hope that wasn't the cause. I'm flying in them for the next 8 months!!!!!!! Wow! Us 5% guys don't do to well in ejections.

My roommate in (Navy) advanced was supposedly in that window when we were flying T-45's.. the T-45 has a martin baker ejection seat as well, he had to eject and he was fine, other than a broken ankle because he forgot to do a PLF. I think that really falls under the worse case scenario.

flipdewaf · Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:58 am

I met a man who was doing maintenance at an RAF base on a Tornado and the safety pin hadnt been put on the WSOs seat and he accidently knocked it and it took his leg with it. one of the guys at the RAF station said that the seat seemed to rattle around the HAS for ages.

how high would one of these seats go if you ejected from the ground?

Fred

MissedApproach · Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:33 am

RAF Sqn Ldr Ashley Stevenson had to eject from Harriers twice- engine failure in '90 & a bird strike in a T.4 in '91. I saw an interview years ago wherein he said he couldn't believe it was happening again! In the '91 ejection the other crewman (woman actually) descended into the wreckage & was badly injured- Stevenson yanked her out of the fire after he landed.
There's also a USAF F-15 driver who made a supersonic ejection & survived, I've got the article in a magazine here somewhere...

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 8):
how high would one of these seats go if you ejected from the ground?

According to http://science.howstuffworks.com/ejection-seat1.htm After the seat and crewmember have cleared the cockpit, this rocket will lift the crewmember another 100 to 200 feet. I've seen footage of some seats that deployed a small seat-mounted parachute after it separated from the pilot, maybe to slow it down enough for people on the ground to get clear. I suppose if they inspect the seat & repair any damage, there's no reason it can't be used again.
As a side note, your friend was pretty lucky. We had a guy in the Army who was killed by a pneumatic seat in an Light Armoured Vehicle, & it was travelling a lot slower than a typical ejection seat.

KevinSmith · Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:44 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 9):
There's also a USAF F-15 driver who made a supersonic ejection & survived, I've got the article in a magazine here somewhere...

Capt Brian Udell. F-15E pilot. WSO didn't make it. RIP

http://www.ejectionsite.com/insaddle/insaddle.htm

boeingfixer · Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:56 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
Almost as good as the story I heard about a cadet who was going up for a ride in a T-37 and fired the ejection seat on the ground. When asked why she said that she wanted to test it to make sure it worked.

An urban myth. The Weber T-37 Seat was not a 0-0 seat and had a limited survivable ejection envelope.

"The ejection seat for the T-37 is an individually activated ballistic seat rather than the rocket-powered seat of most other jet aircraft. It thus provides a rapid escape from the aircraft but with a limited escape envelope. The emergency minimum ejection altitudes for a T-37 with no sink rate, level bank, and pitch are: (l) With an Fl-B timer (l sec chute): 200 feet altitude and l20 knots indicated air speed (KIAS). (2) With an F-lB zero delay lanyard connected: l00 feet altitude and l20 KIAS. The seat should work at air speeds as high as 425 KIAS."

Cheers,

John

jben · Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:17 pm

Do you think he'll get the Martin-Baker tie and club membership?

http://www.martin-baker.co.uk/ejject_tie_club.html

unattendedbag · Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:01 pm

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
A trainee pilot inadvertently ejected from a Raytheon CT-156 Harvard 2

silly Canadians!

MissedApproach · Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:06 am

Quoting Jben (Reply 12):
Do you think he'll get the Martin-Baker tie and club membership?

I was kind of wondering that myself. It's not as if it saved his life, he would've been safe inside the airplane in this case! Nothing else in the news, we'll probably have to wait until the next quarter for the Flight Comment to come out before we know what actually happened.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/FC/fc_e.asp

PGNCS · Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:09 am

Quoting Boeingfixer (Reply 11):
Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
Almost as good as the story I heard about a cadet who was going up for a ride in a T-37 and fired the ejection seat on the ground. When asked why she said that she wanted to test it to make sure it worked.

An urban myth. The Weber T-37 Seat was not a 0-0 seat and had a limited survivable ejection envelope.

"The ejection seat for the T-37 is an individually activated ballistic seat rather than the rocket-powered seat of most other jet aircraft. It thus provides a rapid escape from the aircraft but with a limited escape envelope. The emergency minimum ejection altitudes for a T-37 with no sink rate, level bank, and pitch are: (l) With an Fl-B timer (l sec chute): 200 feet altitude and l20 knots indicated air speed (KIAS). (2) With an F-lB zero delay lanyard connected: l00 feet altitude and l20 KIAS. The seat should work at air speeds as high as 425 KIAS."

You beat me to it. I never wanted to take a ride on that seat to be sure. We did have one guy in the class in front of me get out of a T-37 in the area on a solo ride after a dual engine flameout due to cavitation following negative G maneuvering. Everything went by the book but the landing: he broke an ankle and was washed back several classes.

MissedApproach · Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:16 am

Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 13):
silly Canadians!

By the way, this occurred at the NFTC, the NATO Flight Training Center, so the trainee could be from any NATO nation.

KevinSmith · Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:34 am

Quoting Boeingfixer (Reply 11):

An urban myth.

I wondered about that.

I had a ride in the mighty tweet back in 04. I remember the egress instructors talking about how the ejection seat was a piece of crap.

bennett123 · Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:20 pm

I remember visiting Coningsby in about 1972, and being told about a trainee who tried to bail out a simulator which was in a spin.

Result 1 broken leg.

Clearly not a 0 0 simulator Wink

unattendedbag · Tue May 01, 2007 4:28 am

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 16):
By the way, this occurred at the NFTC, the NATO Flight Training Center, so the trainee could be from any NATO nation.

Did you bother to click on the second link in the original post?

I'll save you the hassle.

Quoting MissedApproach (Thread starter):
Ejection-history.org: http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/PROJECT/YEAR_Pages/2007.htm (scroll down to April)

MissedApproach · Tue May 01, 2007 6:28 am

Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 19):
Did you bother to click on the second link in the original post?

Uh...yeah, I posted it. As I said, Canadian airplane does not necessarily equal a Canadian trainee since this is the NFTC. Of course, neither does it exclude a Canadian.

From http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp
The NFTC initiative began in December 1994, as an unsolicited proposal from an industry team, led by Bombardier, to provide contractor-supported jet pilot training in Canada. A business-case analysis of the industry proposal, conducted by the Department of National Defence (DND), demonstrated that with a potentially achievable level of international participation, the Canadian Forces could train its pilots at a lower cost. Accordingly, a formal offer to host NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training beyond the year 2005 was submitted to NATO on May 1, 1995 under the title NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC).

The NFTC go-ahead depended on foreign participation to achieve cost-effectiveness through economies of scale, and the program launch was contingent on attracting sufficient participation on long-term commitments. In April 1997, the Canadian Government announced that it had received sufficient interest in the NFTC program by NATO nations such as the United Kingdom and Denmark to begin finalising negotiations with the Bombardier team.

[Edited 2007-04-30 23:29:31]

Rotorimage · Wed May 02, 2007 12:51 am

Just my two cents about the original question....regarding whether you could "accidentally" trigger the seat...

IMHO......you couldn't accidentally trigger it by "catching" it on something, especially after being strapped in. I have a couple hundred hours in the seat in question, and despite the fact that many movies, etc, show ejection handles that are huge loops of rope right in front of you, the handle on this seat is actually pretty small and hard to get to. You actually (depending on your size) have to reach up under your, um, "bits", and past your seat straps to get to the thing, and it takes quite a tug in the right direction to fire. Of course, student pilots have been known to do pretty strange things....

What I'd like to hear more of is where, exactly, the aircraft was sitting when the seat(s) fired. It's interesting that both seats actuated....In past experience the ISS switch in the rear cockpit (which controls whether or not both seats will fire) was only set to "both" as you were taxiing onto the runway, not anywhere before.

Open to comments...

boeingfixer · Wed May 02, 2007 6:14 am

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 21):
What I'd like to hear more of is where, exactly, the aircraft was sitting when the seat(s) fired. It's interesting that both seats actuated....In past experience the ISS switch in the rear cockpit (which controls whether or not both seats will fire) was only set to "both" as you were taxiing onto the runway, not anywhere before.

Open to comments...

Actually, the original post only said that both were treated for minor injuries, not that both had ejected. I would say that when the student ejected, the instructor received minor injuries from the canopy cutting cord and broken canopy.

Cheers,

John

Rotorimage · Fri May 04, 2007 3:14 am

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 22):
Actually, the original post only said that both were treated for minor injuries, not that both had ejected.

Ahhhh...roger that....I missed that detail. When I read "both were treated for minor injuries," I mistakenly assumed both had punched.

I wonder what grade the student got on his ride? Wink

10000MOH · Fri May 04, 2007 6:19 am

In its basic details, this story is very similar to one from a USAF training base a couple years back--'05, I think. In that case, it was the instructor who took a ride during taxi and landed without serious injury. Of course, the aircraft was the T-6 Texan II in that case.

I can confirm what Rotorimage wrote about the location of the ejection handle on this bird. It is really crammed right up in your crotch. Every once in a while, you reach down to adjust your straps, and suddenly you realize that in your absent-mindedness you almost fired the thing. The ejection loop and your harness straps are all mixed up together down there.

As I recall, the USAF incident happened because the instructor strapped himself in with the seat pin tag--"remove before flight"--entangled in the ejection loop. This strikes me as very easy to do given the cramped cockpit of the T-6. On taxi out, he went to remove it, felt pressure, gave it a tug to bring it loose, and rode the rails. After the investigation, I remember seeing photos comparing the seat size of the T-6 with those of the F-15, F-18, etc. The other aircraft provided a LOT more room between the crotch and the ejection handle. But I suppose there just isn't any room to spare in the T-6 cockpit. But it is--evidently!--a bit of a design hazard on the Texan II/Harvard II.

My real question for the T-6 purchasers at USAF: why no tacan?

KevinSmith · Fri May 04, 2007 9:17 am

Quoting 10000moh (Reply 24):
My real question for the T-6 purchasers at USAF: why no tacan?

The Air Force doesn't use tacans at its bases. I hear the Navy guys complain about the lack of the tacan every other day. Admittedly it would be a pain not have when that is what all your bases use.

According to the Lockheed contractors down here when the Navy and Air Force met to discuss the T-6 purchase the Air Force sent two bird colonels and the Navy sent two LTs. Henceforth the Air Force got more of what they wanted. Granted that is second hand scuttle butt.

Per chance you aren't a P-3 NFO are you?
That being case you probably know all of the above.

Quoting 10000moh (Reply 24):
The ejection loop and your harness straps are all mixed up together down there.

It does get messy. I rest a little easier knowing that it takes about 40lbs of pull to activate the seat.

10000MOH · Sun May 06, 2007 4:08 am

I hadn't considered that the navy might use the tacan more than the air force. My understanding is that tacans are military navaids. I suspect that most usaf bases are equipped with vortacs, in which case the tacan would be in use, at least for DME. IIRC, Randolph has a vortac and a straight tacan. In any case, I think it's a little silly to buy a military aircraft that lacks the ability to utilize the military system of navaids, and I'd be surprised if many other usaf aircraft go without tacans. But then I've only ever flown on the mighty T-43 Gator...

I hadn't heard the story about the meeting between usaf and usn to acquire the t-6...I could see it happening that way, though!

ZBBYLW · Sun May 06, 2007 4:48 am

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 21):
RotorImage

RotorImage it seems you have alot of time in the Texan, as someone who is aspiring to get into the CF as pilot I was just curious about how you fit inside the Texan, you mentioned there was not alot of room in the cockpit, how about for someone who is relatively tall? Is it hard to fit in, all my height is in my torso not my legs... I am currently 6'4 however I go hip to hip with alot of people in the 5'10 range. Thanks for any impute.

Rotorimage · Wed May 09, 2007 9:04 pm

ZBBYLW,

I'm 6'2, and the T-6 cockpit is snug (as it should be), but not uncomfortable. The seat and pedals all adjust...shouldn't be a problem for you.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 25):
The Air Force doesn't use tacans at its bases.

Untrue....Although TACAN-only NAVAIDs are somewhat uncommon, they do exist in addition to the more highly proliferated VORTACs. Why the AF didn't install a TACAN receiver on the T-6, I don't know. I think they probably just figured since it has an approach certified GPS that can fly overlay approaches, the thing didn't need a standalone TACAN receiver. However, IMHO, I would much rather have a TACAN than some of the other equipment ("baby TCAS" / NACWS - for example) that did get installed.

Also, just to add to the mix here, it should be noted that almost all air-capable Navy ships have a TACAN, and TACAN in air-to-air mode is oftentimes used for formation spacing and separation as well.

Open to comments...

MissedApproach · Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:24 am

The investigation is still underway, but it is suspected that the trainee's comm cord was routed through the ejection handle at some point when the instructor helped him strap in.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/Fti/CT156112_e.asp

KevinSmith · Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:48 am

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 28):
Untrue

Indeed. I must eat some crow on this one.
Infact just recently I talked to a friend of mine who is going through Nav school at Randolph. He said they use and shoot TACAN approaches.

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 28):
I'm 6'2, and the T-6 cockpit is snug (as it should be), but not uncomfortable

I'm about your size and I agree. Most of my time now has been in the backseat. I find more comfortable because it feels so much bigger. Whether it actually is bigger I doubt.

I will say though after about 2 hours I start to feel my harness more and more.

elmothehobo · Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:03 pm

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 1):
Almost as good as the story I heard about a cadet who was going up for a ride in a T-37 and fired the ejection seat on the ground. When asked why she said that she wanted to test it to make sure it worked.

A buddy of mine was on PDT with her and was next up to fly. Cadets didn't get incentive rides after that. I'm guessing she wasn't too popular after that. She not only destroyed the T-37's canopy but sprayed glass through the cockpit, the pilot couldn't fly for a month afterward.

Though, from what I was told (hersay... I know), she pulled the wrong lever.

SlamClick · Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:13 pm

Well we seem to have some question about this:

Quoting Boeingfixer (Reply 11):
An urban myth. The Weber T-37 Seat was not a 0-0 seat and had a limited survivable ejection envelope.

vs. this:

Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 31):
A buddy of mine was on PDT with her and was next up to fly. Cadets didn't get incentive rides after that. I'm guessing she wasn't too popular after that. She not only destroyed the T-37's canopy but sprayed glass through the cockpit, the pilot couldn't fly for a month afterward.

So, did it really happen?

I always assumed that it was a myth, an urban legend because it has the single most important ingredient - it attempts to make a woman or minority look stupid.

Is there a military version of Snopes?

* * *

Quoting Jben (Reply 12):
Do you think he'll get the Martin-Baker tie and club membership

Quoting MissedApproach (Reply 14):
I was kind of wondering that myself. It's not as if it saved his life, he would've been safe inside the airplane in this case!

Arguably eligble for the old "caterpillar club" however. Life was saved by the parachute, even though the life was endangered in the first place by misuse of the seat/chute system. Once the pilot was launched, the parachute did indeed become a lifesaving device.

elmothehobo · Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:42 pm

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 32):
So, did it really happen?

Yes, but no one ejected. The cadet pulled a lever that shot the canopy off. I'm not flyboy and didn't do PDT, so I'm not going to make anything up about how it works, but you have to remove the canopy before you eject from the cockpit, so, when the cadet in question pulled the lever, the canopy popped off and shattered. (I didn't know canopies could shatter like that).

We were told a watered down version of the story by our Cadre on why non-CAP incentive flights had been put on hold.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 32):
I always assumed that it was a myth, an urban legend because it has the single most important ingredient - it attempts to make a woman or minority look stupid.

I wouldn't look that far into it. There are pretty of dumb (or really unlucky) male cadets. Some PDTs from Army ROTC were closed because of cadets dying, and the obstacle courses at this year's field Air Force Field Training were closed because someone snuck onto the obstacle course at Moody AFB and died. The unfortunate soul in that case was male.

jhooper · Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:39 am

For some reason, accidently setting off the ejection seat was always my greatest fear in UPT, especially when manipulating the ejection seat safety pin. Chances of doing it are remote when following proper procedure, but humans do make mistakes.

Quoting RotorImage (Reply 23):
I wonder what grade the student got on his ride?

Let me guess...

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 25):
The Air Force doesn't use tacans at its bases.

Definitely not true. I fly into bases all the time that have TACANs on the field. As a matter of fact, on many ILS approaches, you have to turn up a separate TACAN not associated with the localizer for DME information.

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 2):
Good thing it didn't happen to a T-6 student here at Moody -- all the T-6 parking spots here are covered by sunshades. Would have ruined the students day real quick...

Indeed. So don't you always have the seats pinned when under the covered parking?

KevinSmith · Thu Aug 02, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 34):

Definitely not true.

Yep. I found that out recently

Cross757 · Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:35 pm

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 34):
For some reason, accidently setting off the ejection seat was always my greatest fear in UPT, especially when manipulating the ejection seat safety pin. Chances of doing it are remote when following proper procedure, but humans do make mistakes.

You are right...even the best-intentioned humans do make mistakes...and for this reason we are now prohibited from allowing anyone who has not received proper egress training from sitting in the cockpit of fighter aircraft, at airshows for example. Even to allow a VIP to sit in the seat, we have to get the egress specialists from maintenance to safe the seat completely (mechanically and electrically), above and beyond just putting the normal safety pins in.

The ACES II seat that I am familiar with comes in two varieties, one with dual ejection handles, one on each side of the front of the seat near your knees (for F-15's, A-10's, etc) and one with a single handle in the middle (for F-16's). There is a small lever on the left side of the seat that has to be lowered to arm the seat. As has been noted already, it takes a fair amount of "pull" to activate the handles (40 lbs. or so...but I have been told that when you have to pull them for real, there is enough adrenaline flowing through your body that they feel as light as a feather) to make an "accidental" ejection quite difficult.

The seat used in the T-37 I feel has received a bad rap...when used within the envelope I believe it was just as reliable as even the most modern seats. It is certainly not a zero-zero seat, and I remember that in pilot training most of us were spring loaded to make the decision that once we were "off the perch" (i.e. began the descending turn from downwind to final approach) we were going to stay with the aircraft no matter what happened, because the seat had limited capability with a sink rate, even from 1000' AGL. The performance of the seat in an ejection was also highly dependent upon pilot weight due to its ballistic design...the heavier the pilot, the greater chance for serious injury.

bucky707 · Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:22 am

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 36):
I remember that in pilot training most of us were spring loaded to make the decision that once we were "off the perch"

My personal mins in the tweet were if the airplane was not on fire or out of control, I was staying with it. I think the odds of surviving an engine out landing were much higher than surviving an ejection in the T-37.

rc135x · Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:40 pm

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 36):
The seat used in the T-37 I feel has received a bad rap...when used within the envelope I believe it was just as reliable as even the most modern seats. It is certainly not a zero-zero seat, and I remember that in pilot training most of us were spring loaded to make the decision that once we were "off the perch" (i.e. began the descending turn from downwind to final approach) we were going to stay with the aircraft no matter what happened, because the seat had limited capability with a sink rate, even from 1000' AGL.

During my time in the T-37 class two IPs went up during slots for spin training recurrency, as none of the studs were flying solo due to bad wx. They didn't recover from one spin prior to cloud deck entry, became disoriented, and punched out. Granted they ejected around 8,000AGL rather than at traffic pattern altitude, but they had a hefty sink rate. Both walked away from a perfectly good airplane. Incidentally, my table mate had flown the plane in the earlier "go" that day, so was the last person to land it.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net